text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: |
A Kerr black hole with mass parameter $m$ and angular momentum parameter $a$ acting as a gravitational lens gives rise to two images in the weak field limit. We study the corresponding magnification relations, namely the signed and absolute magnification sums and the centroid up to post-Newtonian order. We show that there are post-Newtonian corrections to the total absolute magnification and centroid proportional to $a/m$, which is in contrast to the spherically symmetric case where such corrections vanish. Hence we also propose a new set of lensing observables for the two images involving these corrections, which should allow measuring $a/m$ with gravitational lensing. In fact, the resolution capabilities needed to observe this for the Galactic black hole should in principle be accessible to current and near-future instrumentation. Since $a/m >1$ indicates a naked singularity, a most interesting application would be a test of the Cosmic Censorship conjecture. The technique used to derive the image properties is based on the degeneracy of the Kerr lens and a suitably displaced Schwarzschild lens at post-Newtonian order. A simple physical explanation for this degeneracy is also given.
*Version 2: to appear in Phys. Rev. D*, http://prd.aps.org/, *Copyright (2007) by the American Physical Society.*
author:
- 'M. C. Werner'
- 'A. O. Petters'
date: 1 August 2007
title: |
Magnification relations for Kerr lensing\
and testing Cosmic Censorship
---
Introduction
============
The theory of gravitational lensing in the weak field limit has three physical inputs, namely perturbation theory of general relativity, geometric optics and the thin lens approximation [@schneider; @petters]. Within this framework, a general formalism for lensing by spherically symmetric lenses up to post-post-Newtonian order in metric theories of gravity was recently developed by Keeton and Petters [@keeton1; @keeton2]. Their appoach was extended to Kerr black holes by Sereno and de Luca [@sereno1] to study the effect of the angular momentum parameter on lensing properties.
We elaborate on this work in the present paper and determine the signed and total magnification sums of the images as well as the centroid for lensing by Kerr black holes in the weak field limit to post-Newtonian order. The post-Newtonian limit for rotating lenses was studied by Epstein and Shapiro [@epstein] and in more detail by Sereno [@sereno2]. Correction terms for the Kerr black hole up to post-post-Newtonian order were derived by Sereno and de Luca [@sereno1], following earlier work by Bray [@bray], from the equations of motion for null geodesics in Kerr geometry. Since we are presently interested in the post-Newtonian limit only, a considerably simpler method to derive image positions and magnifications can be applied, based on the analysis by Asada, Kasai, and Yamamoto [@asada]. This utilizes the degeneracy of rotating lenses and displaced non-rotating lenses at this order, shown to hold generally by Asada and Kasai [@asada2]. We provide a simple physical explanation for this degeneracy in the case of Kerr black holes in the weak field limit in Sec. II, then use the degeneracy explicitly to rederive image properties and find the new magnification relations in Sec. III. Based on this, we find new lensing observables for the two images involving post-Newtonian terms with $a/m$ in Sec. IV.
This introduces a lensing technique to measure angular momentum parameters of rotating black holes, which could complement spectroscopic and photometric studies to this end. For instance, the supermassive black hole at the Galactic center (Sgr A\*) shows flares in X-ray, infrared and radio bands with polarization and quasi-periodic ($\geq \mathrm{13 \pm 2 \ mins}$) substructure. Now this timescale appears to be associated with the innermost stable circular orbit, setting a lower limit of $a/m \geq 0.70 \pm 0.11$ (cf. [@trippe] and the discussion therein). Measurements of $a/m$ are important, in particular, since they indicate whether Kerr black holes have naked singularities, which is the case if $a/m>1$. The absence of naked singularities in nature is stipulated by the Cosmic Censorship conjecture which is evoked in the singularity theorems (see Penrose [@penrose] and references therein).
Hence the main application we have in mind is a lensing test of the Cosmic Censorship conjecture. Lensing properties of spherically symmetric static naked singularities were investigated by Virbhadra and Ellis [@virbhadra1]. More recently, Keeton and Petters [@keeton1] explored how lensing by the spherically symmetric Reissner-Nordstrøm and Gibbons-Maeda-Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger black holes can be used to test the Cosmic Censorship conjecture. Here, however, we extend this work to the non-spherically symmetric but astrophysically more realistic Kerr black holes.
With regard to conventions, the metric signature $(-,+,+,+)$ is employed, and full units are used, where $G$ is the gravitational constant and $c$ is speed of light, to facilitate observational applications. The mass parameter $m = G M_\bullet/c^2$ is the gravitational radius, where $M_\bullet$ is the physical mass of the black hole, and the angular momentum parameter $a=J/(M_\bullet c)$ is the specific angular momentum. Greek indices denote spacetime coordinates and Latin indices spatial coordinates.
Lensing framework
=================
Post-Newtonian formalism
------------------------
We begin by reviewing the post-Newtonian formalism for a Schwarzschild lens with mass parameter $m$ in view of the later application to the Kerr black hole. Let $\boldsymbol{\t}=(\to,\tt), \ |\boldsymbol{\t}|=\t$ and $\boldsymbol{\b}=(\bo,\bt), \ |\boldsymbol{\b}|=\b$ be the Cartesian angular coordinates in the lens plane and source plane, respectively, whose coordinate axes are parallel and whose origins are on the optical axis. The deflection angle projected into the lens plane is denoted by $\boldsymbol{\hat{\alpha}}=(\hat{\alpha_1},\hat{\alpha_2}), \
|\boldsymbol{\hat{\alpha}}|=\hat{\alpha}$. Then straightforward plane geometry in the standard lensing framework yields the lens equation [@virbhadra2] $$\tan \b=\tan \t -\frac{d_{LS}}{d_S}\left(\tan \t + \tan(\hat{\alpha} -\t)\right),
\label{lens}$$ where $d_L,d_S,d_{LS}$ denotes the angular diameter distances from the observer to lens and source plane, and from the lens to the source plane, respectively. Up to the post-Newtonian limit, the angular coordinates can be expressed in terms of dimensionless coordinates $(\bo,\bt)=\theta_E(\zo,\zt),\ (\to,\tt)=\theta_E(\xo,\xt)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\b&=&\theta_E \z=\theta_E\left(\z_{(0)}+\z_{(1)}\epsilon+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)\right) \\
\t&=&\theta_E \x=\theta_E\left(\x_{(0)}+\x_{(1)}\epsilon
+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the angular radius of the Einstein ring and the expansion parameter are $$\theta^2_E=\frac{4md_{LS}}{d_Ld_S}, \ \ \epsilon=\frac{\theta_Ed_S}{4d_{LS}}.
\label{parameters}$$ The impact paramter in the lens plane is $b=d_L \sin \t$ and the Schwarzschild deflection angle is $$\hat{\alpha}=4\frac{m}{b}+\frac{15\pi}{4}\frac{m^2}{b^2}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{m^3}{b^3}\right).$$ Hence (\[lens\]) can be recast thus $$\z=\x-\frac{1}{\x}-\frac{15\pi}{16}\frac{\epsilon}{\x^2},
\label{lens2}$$ to obtain the lens equation for the Schwarzschild black hole up to post-Newtonian order.
Kerr lensing
------------
The line element of the Kerr metric $g^K_{\mu\nu}$ in the Boyer-Lindquist coordinates $\{t,r,\vartheta,\varphi\}$ denoted by $x^\mu_{BL}$ is [@chandra] $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2&=&g^K_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu_{BL} dx^\nu_{BL}=-\left(1-\frac{2mr}{\rho^2} \right)c^2dt^2-\frac{4amr\sin^2\vartheta}{\rho^2}cdtd\varphi \nonumber \\
&+&\frac{\rho^2}{\Delta}dr^2+\rho^2d\vartheta^2+\frac{(r^2+a^2)^2-\Delta a^2\sin^2\vartheta}{\rho^2}\sin^2\vartheta d\varphi^2,
\label{kerr}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho^2=r^2+a^2\cos^2\vartheta$ and $\Delta=r^2-2mr+a^2$, which reduces to the Schwarzschild case if $a=0$. As mentioned above, the condition for a naked singularity is $a/m>1$ because then $\Delta >0$ and so no hypersurface $r=\mathrm{const.}$ can be null which in turn means that no event horizon exists. For $a\neq 0$, the degeneracy of the central caustic point of the Schwarzschild lens is lifted to give rise to a central caustic domain bounded by a distorted astroid [@rauch]. We are interested in the weak deflection limit and hence in the outer caustic domain where two images occur as in the Schwarzschild solution, albeit with modified positions and magnifications. In the standard gravitational lensing scenario, the null geodesics cross the equatorial plane $\vartheta=\pi/2$ at least once. In terms of constants of motion in Kerr geometry, we therefore restrict this discussion to null geodesics with Carter constant $Q\geq 0$ [@oneill p. 205].
The lens plane coordinates introduced in the previous section can now be conveniently oriented so that the $\tt$-axis is along the projected angular momentum axis and forms a right-handed system together with $\to$-axis and the optical axis, with the observer at $d_L$, as the third one. Now up to post-Newtonian order, Kerr lensing is equivalent to lensing by a Schwarzschild lens of the same mass but shifted to the position [@rauch; @asada; @asada2; @sereno1] $$\delta\boldsymbol{\t}=\theta_E(\delta\xo,0)=\theta_E(\dx \ \epsilon,0), \ \dx=\frac{a \sin \vartheta_O}{m},
\label{shift}$$ where $\vartheta_O$ is the observer’s polar angle position.
We now show how this fact can be understood in a simple way in terms of the gravitomagnetic effect, and use it explicitly in the next section to find the corrected image positions and magnifications. For an extended discussion of the gravitomagnetic effect for the Kerr and more general rotating lenses, see Asada et al. [@asada; @asada2], Kopeikin et al. [@kopeikin] and Sereno [@sereno3]. In the weak field limit, the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ can be understood as a formal perturbation $h_{\mu\nu}$ about the Minkowski metric $\eta_{\mu\nu}$ such that $g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}, \ |h_{\mu\nu}|<<1$. Defining the trace-reversed perturbation $\overline{h}_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}-g_{\mu\nu}h_{\alpha\beta}\eta^{\alpha\beta}/2$, Einstein’s field equation may be written $\Box \overline{h}_{\mu\nu}
=-16\pi GT_{\mu\nu}/c^4$ in the de Donder gauge $\overline{h}^{\mu\nu}_{,\nu}=0$, where $T^{\mu\nu}$ is the energy momentum tensor. Now with a perfect, non-relativistic fluid, the components of its retarded solution give rise to a scalar field $U\equiv-\overline{h}_{00}c^2/4$, which is the Newtonian gravitational potential, and a vector potential with components $V^i\equiv\overline{h}_{0i}c^2$. Hence the perturbed metric line element is $$ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu=-\left(1+ \frac{2U}{c^2} \right) c^2dt^2+\frac{2}{c}\sum_i V^i dx^i dt +\left( 1-\frac{2U}{c^2} \right)\sum_i(dx^i)^2
\label{metric}$$ where we work with spatially isotropic coordinates $\mathbf{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3),|\mathbf{x}|=x$. Here $x_1$ is aligned with $\to$ and $x_3=0$ corresponds to the equatorial plane $\vartheta=\pi/2$. The gradient operator for this coordinate system is denoted by $\nabla$. Also, let $\mathbf{a}=a\mathbf{\hat{x}_3}$ where $\mathbf{\hat{x}_3}$ is the unit vector in the $x_3$ direction.
The equation of motion for null geodesics parametrized with $q$ and with unit ray 3-vector $\mathbf{k}$ can now be obtained from (\[metric\]) using Fermat’s principle, yielding a gravitoelectric and gravitomagnetic contribution (e.g., [@asada2]), $$c^2\frac{d\mathbf{k}}{dq}=-2\nabla_\perp U+\mathbf{k}\times(\nabla \times \mathbf{V}),
\label{motion}$$ where the operator $\nabla_\perp$ selects the component of the gradient perpendicular to the unit vector $\mathbf{k}$ such that, for any scalar field $\phi(\mathbf{x})$, $\nabla_\perp\phi\equiv\nabla\phi-(\nabla\phi\cdot\mathbf{k})\mathbf{k}=\mathbf{k}\times(\nabla\phi\times\mathbf{k})$. The forefactor of the gravitoelectric term is the well-known general relativistic correction of Newtonian light deflection. In this limit, the Kerr metric (\[kerr\]) becomes $$ds^2=-\left(1-\frac{2m}{x}\right)c^2dt^2-\frac{4am}{x^3}cdt(x_1dx_2-x_2dx_1)+\left(1+\frac{2m}{x}\right)\sum_i(dx^i)^2
\label{kerr2}$$ whence one can read off $\mathbf{V}=-2GM_\bullet\mathbf{a}\times \mathbf{x}/x^3$ by comparison with (\[metric\]).
We can now see that lensing due to a Kerr black hole at $\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{0}$ to post-Newtonian order is equivalent to a Schwarzschild lens displaced according to (\[shift\]), that is, at $\delta \mathbf{x}=d_L\delta \boldsymbol{\t}$. Since this Schwarzschild lens has zero vector potential and $U=-GM_\bullet/|\mathbf{x}-\delta\mathbf{x}|$, the right-hand side of (\[motion\]) becomes, by Taylor expansion to post-Newtonian order, $$-2\nabla_\perp U(\mathbf{x}-\delta \mathbf{x})
= -2\nabla_\perp U(\mathbf{x})+2\nabla_\perp
(\nabla U \cdot \delta \mathbf{x})$$ because $\delta\mathbf{x}=\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$ from (\[shift\]), and the dot product is with respect to the Euclidean metric on the spatially isotropic coordinates. Furthermore, in the thin lens approximation, one may take $\mathbf{k}$ to be constant and perpendicular to the lens plane $L$ until $\mathbf{k}$ is changed by some $\delta\mathbf{k}$ upon crossing $L$. Since we consider the weak field limit, $|\delta\mathbf{k}|<<|\mathbf{k}|$ so the leading post-Newtonian term is $$2\nabla_\perp (\nabla U \cdot \delta \mathbf{x})=
2\mathbf{k}\times(\nabla(\nabla U \cdot \delta \mathbf{x})\times \mathbf{k})
= \mathbf{k}\times (\nabla \times (2\nabla U \cdot \delta \mathbf{x})\mathbf{k}),$$ which is indeed a gravitomagnetic term of the form occuring in (\[motion\]). Hence the displaced Schwarzschild lens is equivalent to a point lens of mass $M_\bullet$ at $\mathbf{x}=\mathbf{0}$ with vector potential $2GM_\bullet a\sin \vartheta_O x_1\mathbf{k}/x^3$, using (\[shift\]) and (\[parameters\]). But $\mathbf{k}=(0,-\sin\vartheta_O,\cos\vartheta_O)$ by setup, so using the expression for $\mathbf{V}$ above we find that this vector potential component is precisely provided by a Kerr black hole situated at the origin with angular momentum parameter $a$, as required.
Magnification relations
=======================
Image properties
----------------
Following the discussion in the previous section, one can use the Schwarzschild lens equation to generate image properties of Kerr lensing up to post-Newtonian order in the weak field limit, where source and observer are in the asymptotically flat region with the source behind the lens plane and close to the optical axis. Given the shift (\[shift\]), we need to let $\xo\mapsto\xo-\delta\xo$ in the last two terms of (\[lens2\]), which stem from the deflection angle of the lens model. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\zo&=&\xo-\frac{\xo-\delta\xo}{(\xo-\delta\xo)^2+\xt^2}-\frac{15\pi}{16}\frac{\xo-\delta\xo}{((\xo-\delta\xo)^2+\xt^2)^{3/2}}\ \epsilon+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)\nonumber \\
\zt&=&\xt-\frac{\xt}{(\xo-\delta\xo)^2+\xt^2}-\frac{15\pi}{16}\frac{\xt}{((\xo-\delta\xo)^2+\xt^2)^{3/2}}\ \epsilon+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
\label{lens3}\end{aligned}$$ is our ansatz for the Kerr lens equation. Notice that, at Newtonian order, (\[lens3\]) reduces to the Schwarzschild lens equation (\[lens2\]) for $\epsilon=0$ as expected, since $\delta\xo=\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$ according to (\[shift\]). The expansion of the image positions is $$\begin{aligned}
\xo&=&\xon+\xoo \epsilon +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2) \nonumber \\
\xt&=&\xtn+\xto \epsilon +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
\label{position}\end{aligned}$$ where $\xon,\xtn$ solve the lens equation at Newtonian order. This yields the two images of the well-known Schwarzschild case, one of positive and one of negative parity, $$\begin{aligned}
\xon^\pm&=&\frac{\zo}{2}\left(1\pm\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{\z^2}}\right) \nonumber \\
\xtn^\pm&=&\frac{\zt}{2}\left(1\pm\sqrt{1+\frac{4}{\z^2}}\right)
\label{position1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\xon^2+\xtn^2=\xn^2$. Now at post-Newtonian order, the lens equation (\[lens3\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
0&=&\xoo+\xon\left(\frac{A}{\xn^4}-\frac{15\pi}{16\xn^3}\right)-\frac{\xoo-\dx}{\xn^2}\\
0&=&\xto+\xtn\left(\frac{A}{\xn^4}-\frac{15\pi}{16\xn^3}\right)-\frac{\xto}{\xn^2}\end{aligned}$$ where $A=2(\xoo-\dx)\xon+2\xto\xtn$, and we recover the correction terms expected for rotating lenses [@sereno1], $$\begin{aligned}
\xoo&=&\frac{15\pi\xon}{16(1+\xn^2)\xn}+\frac{(1-\xon^2+\xtn^2)\dx}{1-\xn^4}\nonumber\\
\xto&=&\frac{15\pi\xtn}{16(1+\xn^2)\xn}-\frac{2\xon\xtn\dx}{1-\xn^4}.
\label{position2}\end{aligned}$$ Accordingly, the individual post-Newtonian corrections for the positive and the negative parity image are found by substituting $\xon^\pm, \xtn^\pm$ from (\[position1\]) into (\[position2\]). For a discussion and visualization of this shift, see Sereno [@sereno2], especially his Figure 5.
Since light rays are conserved in geometric optics, the signed image magnification $\mu$ is related to the Jacobian of the lens map [@schneider; @petters], $$\frac{1}{\mu}=\det\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\partial \zo}{\partial \xo}&\frac{\partial \zo}{\partial \xt}\\
\frac{\partial \zt}{\partial \xo}&\frac{\partial \zt}{\partial \xt}
\end{array}\right).$$ Recall also that the observable image flux $F_O$ and the flux of the unlensed source $F_S$ are related by $F_O=|\mu|F_S$. Now evaluating the magnification yields $$\mu=\frac{\xn^4}{\xn^4-1}-\left(\frac{15\pi\xn^3}{16(1+\xn^2)^3}
-\frac{4\xn^4\xon\dx}{(1-\xn^2)^2(1+\xn^2)^3}\right)\epsilon
+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
\label{mag}$$ which, up to a sign, coincides with the findings in [@sereno1]. Again, this expression holds for both images.
Magnification sums
------------------
The magnification formula (\[mag\]) can now be used together with (\[position1\]) and (\[position2\]) to write down a new expression for the individual magnifications of the positive and negative parity image, respectively, to post-Newtonian order, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu^+ & = & \frac{(\z+\sqrt{4+\z^2})^4}{(\z+\sqrt{4+\z^2})^4-16}
- \frac{(2+\z^2+\z\sqrt{4+\z^2})(15\pi\z^3-64\zo\dx)}{8\z^3(\z+\sqrt{4+\z^2})^2(4+\z^2)^{3/2}}
\epsilon + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2) \nonumber \\
\mu^- & = & \frac{(\z-\sqrt{4+\z^2})^4}{(\z-\sqrt{4+\z^2})^4-16}
- \frac{(2+\z^2-\z\sqrt{4+\z^2})(15\pi\z^3+64\zo\dx)}{8\z^3(\z-\sqrt{4+\z^2})^2(4+\z^2)^{3/2}}
\epsilon +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2).
\label{mag2}\end{aligned}$$ Hence the sum of the signed magnifications can be evaluated and is of the simple form $$\mu^+ +\mu^-=1-\frac{15\pi}{8(4+\z^2)^{3/2}}\epsilon+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2).
\label{mag3}$$ The Schwarzschild lens obeys a well-known magnification invariant (e.g., [@petters p. 191]) in the standard lensing framework, that is, at lowest order. Since the signed magnification sum (\[mag3\]) for the Kerr lens does not depend on the specific angular momentum $a$, it is identical to the Schwarzschild lens result to post-Newtonian order (cf. Eq. (54) of [@keeton2]). The Kerr lens has thus the same deviation from the magnification invariant as the Schwarzschild lens at $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$.
Now taking into account the image parities, the absolute magnifications are $|\mu^+|=\mu^+$ and $|\mu^-|=-\mu^-$. Hence, the total absolute magnification is $$\mu_{\rm tot} =
|\mu^+|+|\mu^-|=\frac{2+\z^2}{\z\sqrt{4+\z^2}}+\frac{8\zo}{\z^3(4+\z^2)^{3/2}}\frac{a\sin\vartheta_O}{m}\epsilon+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
\label{mag4}$$ using (\[parameters\]). The term $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$ vanishes for $a=0$ or an observer on the rotational axis of the Kerr black hole, that is $\vartheta_O=0$, as expected for circularly symmetric lenses [@keeton1].
Centroid
--------
We can also define the centroid of the magnification thus, $$\mathbf{\Theta^{\rm Cent}}
=\theta_E\frac{\boldsymbol{\x}^+|\mu^+|+\boldsymbol{\x}^-|\mu^-|}{|\mu^+|+|\mu^-|}.$$ Given (\[position1\]), (\[position2\]) and (\[mag2\]), a new expression for the centroid vector of Kerr images to post-Newtonian order can now be obtained, and its components turn out to be $$\begin{aligned}
\Theta^{\rm Cent}_1 &=&\theta_E\left[\frac{(3+\z^2)\zo}{2+\z^2}
+\frac{(\zo^2-\zt^2-2)}{(2+\z^2)^2}\frac{a\sin\vartheta_O}{m}\epsilon
+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)\right] \nonumber \\
\Theta^{\rm Cent}_2 &=&\theta_E\left[\frac{(3+\z^2)\zt}{2+\z^2}
+\frac{2\zo\zt}{(2+\z^2)^2}\frac{a\sin\vartheta_O}{m}\epsilon
+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)\right].
\label{centroid}\end{aligned}$$ Again, in the circularly symmetric case $a=0$ or $\vartheta_O=0$ we can take $\zt=0$ without loss of generality, to recover the result by Keeton and Petters [@keeton1].
Applications
============
Breaking the degeneracy
-----------------------
Asada and Kasai [@asada] found that, at post-Newtonian order, rotating and non-rotating dark lenses cannot be distinguished on account of the degeneracy discussed in Sec. II, that is, by observing the images alone. This problem can be circumvented if the location of the black hole is established independently, for instance by observing the center of the accretion disk surrounding the Kerr black hole. To see this, recall from Sec. II that the Kerr lens $K$ is equivalent to a displaced Schwarzschild lens up to post-Newtonian order in the weak field limit where observer and source are assumed to be in the asymptotically flat region of the Kerr black hole. Hence a plane $P$ containing the observer, the source and the notional shifted Schwarzschild lens will also contain the two images of the Kerr lens as for a standard Schwarzschild lens. Projected into the plane of the sky, the source, the notional shifted Schwarzschild lens and the two images will be collinear but not typically with $K$ since $K\notin P$ in general. Hence, if the position of $K$ can be found independently, the projected distance of $K$ from the line joining the two images is observable and the degeneracy is broken in the generic case. However, note for completeness that there are very special cases in which the degeneracy cannot be broken in this way: consider a source such that $\bt=0$ exactly, so $\xtn=0$ and hence $\xto=0$ from (\[position2\]). In this case, $K \in P$ and so the projected source, shifted Schwarzschild lens position, and the two images will all be collinear with $K$ at the origin. Therefore, the degeneracy is not broken.
But assuming the Kerr/Schwarzschild degeneracy is broken successfully, we still need to be able to measure image positions in the $(\to,\tt)$ coordinate system in order to apply the formalism. Hence the direction of the Kerr black hole’s spin axis projected into the lens plane must also be known and, moreover, the observer’s $\vartheta_O$ coordinate. In principle, this could be inferred from observations of the jet associated with the black hole accretion disk because of the frame-dragging effect on the magnetohydrodynamics of the jet (e.g., [@narayan]). Furthermore, time-dependent measurements of the polarization of black hole flare emission could constrain the direction of the spin axis. In the case of Sgr A\*, for instance, this seems to indicate that the black hole spin axis is essentially aligned with the Galaxy’s [@trippe].
Measuring the angular momentum parameter
----------------------------------------
In order to determine whether Kerr lensing could be used to measure $a/m$ and test the Cosmic Censorship conjecture, we first of all need to assemble a suitable set of observables. This set is in turn dependent on resolution capability: If the two Kerr images can in fact be resolved, then image positions and fluxes will be observable individually. If, however, they cannot be resolved, the total flux and the magnification centroid may be taken as observables. We shall discuss the former case first.
If the two images can be resolved, two vectorial image positions and two fluxes are available, giving six equations altogether. Using (\[position\]-\[position2\]) and (\[mag3\]-\[mag4\]), we propose the following combinations as convenient observables, $$\begin{aligned}
\to^+ +\to^-&=&\frac{\bo}{\sqrt{4\theta_E^2+\b^2}}\left(\sqrt{4\theta_E^2+\b^2}
-\frac{15\pi\theta_E}{16}\epsilon\right)
+\frac{a\sin\vartheta_O\theta_E}{m}\epsilon +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
\label{eq:newobservables-eqs1}\\
\tt^+ +\tt^-&=&\frac{\bt}{\sqrt{4\theta_E^2+\b^2}}\left(\sqrt{4\theta_E^2+\b^2}
-\frac{15\pi\theta_E}{16}\epsilon\right)+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)\\
\to^+ -\to^-&=&\frac{\bo}{\b}\left(\sqrt{4\theta_E^2
+\b^2}+\frac{15\pi\theta_E}{16}\epsilon\right)
-\frac{\b^4\theta_E+4\bt^2\theta_E^3}{\b^3\sqrt{4\theta_E^2+\b^2}}\frac{a\sin\vartheta_O}{m}
\epsilon +\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2) \\
\tt^+ -\tt^-&=&\frac{\bt}{\b}\left(\sqrt{4\theta_E^2+\b^2}+\frac{15\pi\theta_E}{16}
\epsilon\right)
+\frac{4\bo\bt\theta_E^3}{\b^3\sqrt{4\theta_E^2+\b^2}}\frac{a\sin\vartheta_O}{m}\epsilon
+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2) \\
F_O^+ + F_O^-&=&F_S\left(\frac{2\theta_E^2+\b^2}{\b\sqrt{4\theta_E^2+\b^2}}+\frac{8\bo\theta_E^5}{\b^3(4\theta_E^2+\b^2)^{3/2}}\frac{a\sin\vartheta_O}{m}\epsilon\right)+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)\\
F_O^+ - F_O^-&=&F_S\left(1-\frac{15\pi\theta_E^3}{8(4\theta_E^2+\b^2)^{3/2}}\epsilon\right)
+\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2)
\label{eq:newobservables-eqs6}\end{aligned}$$ which reduce to the formulae of Keeton and Petters [@keeton2] for $a=0$ or $\sin \vartheta_O=0$, as required. These six equations could then be solved for the six occuring variables $\bo,\bt,F_S,\theta_E,\epsilon,a\sin\vartheta_O/m$. Assuming that the lensed source orbits the black hole such that $d_{LS}<<d_L$ and that an independent estimate for $m$ is available, then $d_{LS}$ and $d_L \approx d_S$ can also be found from $\theta_E$ and $\epsilon$ using (\[parameters\]).
It would therefore be possible to infer $a/m$ from the post-Newtonian lensing corrections. Moreover, these corrections should in principle be observable with near-future instrumentation as discussed by Keeton and Petters [@keeton2]. In the case of Sgr A\*, they found an estimate for the angular Einstein radius to be of order $\theta_E = 0.022 (d_{LS}/ 1 {\rm pc})^{1/2}\ \mathrm{arcsec}$ and perturbation parameter to be of order $\epsilon=2.1 \times 10^{-4} \times (d_{LS}/ 1 {\rm pc})^{1/2}$. Since the image separations will be of order $\theta_E$, these images can in principle be resolved with current technology (e.g., the CHARA interferometer and radio interferometry can resolve $10^{-3} \ \mathrm{arcsec}$ separations [@brumm]). Furthermore, currently known positional uncertainties in observed radio images are of order $10^{-6} \ \mathrm{arcsec}$ (e.g., [@trotter]). These are indeed much smaller than the current resolution capabilities. In addition, the statistical prospects for observing lensed stars around Sgr A\* are discussed in a forthcoming paper by Congdon et al. [@congdon] who conclude that the disk component of the Milky Way contributes more than the bulge, and find that the expected number of lenses reaches unity for a detection limit of $K\sim \mathrm{18.5 \ mag}$.
In the case when the two images cannot be resolved, then only the total flux (22) and the centroid (\[centroid\]) are available. In the forseeable future, this situation applies to lensing by extragalactic supermassive black holes, and Congdon et al. [@congdon] estimate that typically $\sim 100$ lensed stars can be expected. But given that we only have three equations for six variables in this case, a determination of $a/m$ does not seem possible. However, this situation may improve if additional information, for instance on $m$, $d_L$ and $F_S$, becomes available.
Finally, we should stress again that the success of this method is conditional, in both cases, upon breaking the Kerr/Schwarzschild degeneracy and establishing the $\to,\tt,\vartheta_O$ coordinates, as discussed in the previous section. Further data, for example the time delay between images of a variable source (cf. [@keeton2]) or images of multiple sources, may also be helpful for breaking degeneracies. Since equations (\[eq:newobservables-eqs1\] - \[eq:newobservables-eqs6\]) fully determine the six occurring variables, we have not considered these ramifications here. Nonetheless, our analysis shows that lensing measurements of $a/m$ for supermassive black holes, and hence lensing tests of Cosmic Censorship, have potential.
conclusion
==========
We considered gravitational lensing in the weak field limit of a Kerr black hole of mass parameter $m$ and angular momentum parameter $a$ and derived the magnification relations for the two ensuing images up to post-Newtonian order. The image properties used were rederived with a simple perturbation analysis based on the degeneracy of a Kerr lens and a Schwarzschild lens shifted by (\[shift\]). Whereas the signed magnification sum (\[mag3\]) turned out to be identical to the Schwarzschild case, the absolute magnification sum (\[mag4\]) and centroid (\[centroid\]) show a term proportional to $a/m$ at post-Newtonian order. This is in contrast to circularly symmetric lenses where these terms have been shown to vanish precisely. In discussing observational implications, we provided a new set of six lensing observables (\[eq:newobservables-eqs1\] - \[eq:newobservables-eqs6\]) for the case that the two images can be resolved. These are matched with six lensing variables including $a\sin\vartheta_O/m$. In the case of lensing by the Galactic black hole, the two images should be resolvable by current and near-future instrumentation, so that measurements of the angular momentum parameter should be feasible. Since $a/m>1$ for naked singularities, this provides a possible test of the Cosmic Censorship conjecture using gravitational lensing. Additional study of this issue is definitely warranted.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
MCW would like to thank the Department of Mathematics, Duke University, for their hospitality and gratefully acknowledges funding by the STFC (formerly PPARC), United Kingdom. AOP strongly acknowledges the research funding support of NSF Grants DMS-0302812, AST-0434277, and AST-0433809.
[99]{}
P. Schneider, J. Ehlers and E. E. Falco, *Gravitational lenses* (Springer, Berlin, 1992) A. O. Petters, H. Levine, and J. Wambsganss, *Singularity theory and gravitational lensing* (Birkhäuser, Boston, 2001) C. R. Keeton and A. O. Petters, Phys. Rev. D **72**, 104006 (2005) C. R. Keeton and A. O. Petters, Phys. Rev. D **73**, 044024 (2006) M. Sereno and F. De Luca, Phys. Rev. D **74**, 123009 (2006) R. Epstein and I. I. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D **22**, 2947 (1980) M. Sereno, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. **344**, 942 (2003) I. Bray, Phys. Rev. D **34**, 367 (1986) H. Asada, M. Kasai and T. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D **67**, 043006 (2003) H. Asada and M. Kasai, Prog. Theor. Phys. **104**, 95 (2000) S. Trippe, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. **375**, 764 (2007) R. Penrose, J. Astrophys. Astr. **20**, 233 (1999) K. S. Virbhadra and G. F. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D **65**, 103004 (2002) K. S. Virbhadra and G. F. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D **62**, 084003 (2000) S. Chandrasekhar, *The mathematical theory of black holes* (Clarendon, Oxford, 1983) K. P. Rauch and R. D. Blandford, Astrophys. J. **421**, 46 (1994) B. O’Neill, *The geometry of Kerr black holes* (Peters, Wellesley MA, 1995) S. Kopeikin and B. Mashhoon, Phys. Rev. D **65**, 064025 (2002) M. Sereno, Phys. Lett. A **305**, 7 (2002) R. Narayan and E. Quataert, Science **307**, 77 (2005) T. A. ten Brummelaar, et al., Astrophys. J. [**628**]{}, 453 (2005) C. S. Trotter, J. N. Winn and J. N. Hewitt, Astrophys. J. **535**, 671 (2000) A. B. Congdon, C. R. Keeton and C. E. Nordgren, Phys. Rev. D, submitted
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'J. Woillez[^1]'
- 'J.A. Abad'
- 'R. Abuter'
- 'E. Aller Carpentier'
- 'J. Alonso'
- 'L. Andolfato'
- 'P. Barriga'
- 'J.-P. Berger'
- 'J.-L. Beuzit'
- 'H. Bonnet'
- 'G. Bourdarot'
- 'P. Bourget'
- 'R. Brast'
- 'L. Caniguante'
- 'E. Cottalorda'
- 'P. Darré'
- 'B. Delabre'
- 'A. Delboulbé'
- 'F. Delplancke-Ströbele'
- 'R. Dembet'
- 'R. Donaldson'
- 'R. Dorn'
- 'J. Dupeyron'
- 'C. Dupuy'
- 'S. Egner'
- 'F. Eisenhauer'
- 'G. Fischer'
- 'C. Frank'
- 'E. Fuenteseca'
- 'P. Gitton'
- 'F. Gonté'
- 'T. Guerlet'
- 'S. Guieu'
- 'P. Gutierrez'
- 'P. Haguenauer'
- 'A. Haimerl'
- 'X. Haubois'
- 'C. Heritier'
- 'S. Huber'
- 'N. Hubin'
- 'P. Jolley'
- 'L. Jocou'
- 'J.-P. Kirchbauer'
- 'J. Kolb'
- 'J. Kosmalski'
- 'P. Krempl'
- 'J.-B. Le Bouquin'
- 'M. Le Louarn'
- 'P. Lilley'
- 'B. Lopez'
- 'Y. Magnard'
- 'S. Mclay'
- 'A. Meilland'
- 'A. Meister'
- 'A. Merand'
- 'T. Moulin'
- 'L. Pasquini'
- 'J. Paufique'
- 'I. Percheron'
- 'L. Pettazzi'
- 'O. Pfuhl'
- 'D. Phan'
- 'W. Pirani'
- 'J. Quentin'
- 'A. Rakich'
- 'R. Ridings'
- 'M. Riedel'
- 'J. Reyes'
- 'S. Rochat'
- 'G. Santos Tomás'
- 'C. Schmid'
- 'N. Schuhler'
- 'P. Shchekaturov'
- 'M. Seidel'
- 'C. Soenke'
- 'E. Stadler'
- 'C. Stephan'
- 'M. Suárez'
- 'M. Todorovic'
- 'G. Valdes'
- 'C. Verinaud'
- 'G. Zins'
- 'S. Zúñiga-Fernández'
bibliography:
- 'naomi.bib'
date: 'Received: 15 May 2019 / Accepted: 02 July 2019'
title: |
NAOMI: the adaptive optics system\
of the Auxiliary Telescopes of the VLTI
---
[The tip-tilt stabilisation system of the Auxiliary Telescopes of the Very Large Telescope Interferometer was never dimensioned for robust fringe tracking, except when atmospheric seeing conditions are excellent.]{} [Increasing the level of wavefront correction at the telescopes is expected to improve the coupling into the single-mode fibres of the instruments, and enable robust fringe tracking even in degraded conditions.]{} [We deployed a new adaptive optics module for interferometry (NAOMI) on the Auxiliary Telescopes.]{} [We present its design, performance, and effect on the observations that are carried out with the interferometric instruments.]{}
Introduction
============
The Auxiliary Telescopes [ATs, @Koehler+2002] of the Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLTI) achieved first fringes in 2005 [@Koehler+2005] and started operation in $2006$. Since the beginning, the telescopes have been equipped with a fast tip-tilt correction system: a STRAP tip-tilt sensor [@Bonaccini+1997] at the coudé focus paired with a fast tip-tilt mirror at the M6 location in the coudé train, even though the original intent was to equip them with a higher order adaptive optics (AO) system [@Beckers1990].
For a median seeing of at the level of the ATs[^2], a tip-tilt correction on an telescope is somewhat cost-optimal, in terms of the $V^2$ signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), at L band, where $D{\approx}3r_0$ [@Keen+2001; @Haniff2007]. This $D/r_0\le3$ criteria for a tip-tilt-corrected telescope is however not adequate to co-phase the array. For a fringe tracker to work properly, it must be capable of continuously measuring the fringe phase with a $\mathrm{S/N}_\phi > 1$. Even at $D{\approx}r_0$, a single-mode fringe tracker suffers from significant flux dropouts. Consequently, significantly brighter objects must be observed, which affects the co-phasing limiting magnitude of the interferometer. Theoretical studies of the single-mode flux in partial AO correction [@Tatulli+2010] confirm that this behaviour is observed on the VLTI. They explain in part why AMBER under-performed with its H-band FINITO fringe tracker [@Bonnet+2006; @Merand+2012].
The tip-tilt correction system also made all near-infrared VLTI observations with the ATs very sensitive to degraded seeing conditions. Even more frustrating, excellent seeing episodes on Paranal are usually accompanied by low wind speed conditions. Then, slow and strong turbulence develops inside the domes of the ATs, to a point where the delivered beams become multi-speckle in the near-infrared. The excellent seeing nights therefore become unusable [@Woillez+2018] by a single-mode instrument like PIONIER [@LeBouquin+2011], and even more by GRAVITY [@GravityCollaboration+2017] and its fringe tracker [@Lacour+2019].
To remedy this situation, the AO project NAOMI for the ATs was officially launched in 2008 inside ESO. In competition with the second-generation VLTI instruments GRAVITY, MATISSE [@Lopez+2014], and especially PRIMA [@Delplancke2008], the project only acquired momentum in 2016. After the upgrade of the interferometer for the second-generation instruments was completed [@Woillez+2015], the GRAVITY instrument was installed, and IPAG became a partner in the project. A final design review was passed in early 2017. Construction and extensive laboratory tests continued at ESO Headquarters, until shipment to Chile in mid-2018. The installation on all four ATs started at the beginning of September 2018, and the upgraded AT array was successfully returned to operations ${{\oldsim}}2.5$ months later.
In this paper, we give an overview of the NAOMI design (Sect. \[Sec:DesignOverview\]). We present the on-sky performance of the AO system (Sect. \[Sec:Performance\]) and analyse its effect on the VLTI and its instruments (Sect. \[Sec:ImpactOnVlti\]).
Design overview {#Sec:DesignOverview}
===============
In this section, we present an overview of the NAOMI design. The first three parts present the following three main components: the deformable mirror (\[SSec:DeformableMirror\]), the wavefront sensor (\[SSec:WavefrontSensor\]), and the real-time controller (\[SSec:RealTimeController\]). The last three parts cover additional capability and performance aspects: the acquisition procedure (\[SSec:AcquisitionProcedure\]), pupil registration (\[SSec:PupilRegistration\]), and chopping (\[SSec:Chopping\]). A summary of the key parameters of the NAOMI system are given in Table \[Tab:KeyParameters\].
[rl]{}\
Tip-tilt stroke & $>$ (PtV WF)\
3x3 actuators stroke & (PtV WF)\
Pupil size &\
Actuator counts & 241 total, ${{\oldsim}}145$ effective\
Actuator per sub-aperture & ${{\oldsim}}4$\
Number of controlled modes & 14 Zernikes (after piston)\
Settling time & <\
\
Type & Shack-Hartmann\
Sub-apertures & Square - 4x4 array\
Nb of valid sub-apertures & 12\
Pixel scale &\
Sub-aperture acquisition & $16\times16$ or $\times$\
Sub-aperture closed loop & $6\times6$ or $\times$\
Lenslet array pupil diameter &\
Lenslet array focal length &\
Readout noise & (sensitive mode)\
Clock-induced charges &\
Pixel size & ($2\times2$ binned)\
Shortest integration time &\
Pixel count & $64\times64$\
Wavelength &\
\
Loop Frequency &\
Controller latency & <\
Full loop delay &\
Reconstructor update & <\
Slope measurement & Weighted Centre of Gravity\
Wavefront reconstruction & Modal MVM\
Additional capabilities & Chopping, vibration control\
[![3D view of an AT; the NAOMI components are highlighted. **A**: Deformable mirror at the right Nasmyth. **B**: Wavefront sensor in the relay optics structure under the telescope.[]{data-label="Fig:ViewAuxiliaryTelescope"}](Fig-ViewAuxiliaryTelescope.png "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}]{} [[(0.2135,0.666) rectangle (0.3749,0.856);at (0.2135,0.856) \[fill=white,thick,shape=circle,draw=black,inner sep=2pt,font=,text=black\] [**A**]{};]{}]{} [[(0.3703,0.1089) rectangle (0.5427,0.346);at (0.3703,0.1089) \[fill=white,thick,shape=circle,draw=black,inner sep=2pt,font=,text=black\] [**B**]{};]{}]{}
Deformable mirror {#SSec:DeformableMirror}
-----------------
NAOMI uses an ALPAO DM241 deformable mirror (DM) with 241 actuators over a clear aperture. It is installed in a pupil plane at the position of M6 in the coudé train. As shown in Fig. \[Fig:WfsDmGeometry\], the pupil size is smaller than the DM clear aperture, which makes the effective actuator count closer to ${{\oldsim}}145$. This size mismatch is the result of our choice of an off-the-shelf DM and our decision to keep the coudé train of the telescope unchanged. Its datasheet tip-tilt stroke of wavefront, equivalent to on sky, is well adapted to chopping directly with the DM, provided that the chopping stroke is optimised (see Sect. \[SSec:Chopping\]). To maximise the stroke further, the DM is mounted inside a large stroke gimbal tip-tilt mount, the so-called quasi-static mount (QSM). Used for the alignment of the DM, the QSM absorbs known temperature-induced tip-tilt flexures of the coudé train. The control electronics for the DM and the QSM are installed inside a cabinet that is mounted next to the M6 location (see Fig. \[Fig:ViewRightNasmyth\]).
Because the relative orientation of the DM and WFS changes with the azimuth and derotator angles, a rotation-stable Zernike basis is chosen as the control space, and derotation is performed in software by rotating the control matrix. Based on the chosen wavefront sensor geometry, performance measurements show an optimum at 14 controlled Zernikes. The mode-to-DM (M2DM) matrix that converts the -normalised Zernikes into DM commands is derived from the measured DM influence functions. Because of the high actuator count inside the pupil, the Zernike modes can be reproduced with high fidelity, keeping aliasing effects to a minimum as the DM rotates with respect to the WFS.
A settling time of makes this DM fast to a point where strong resonances must be attenuated by smoothing the command sent by the RTC (see \[SSec:RealTimeController\]). While exploring further the dynamical properties of the DM, it was discovered that the NAOMI modes, even though specified piston-free over the NAOMI pupil, were exciting a global piston resonance of the membrane at . This effect was efficiently mitigated by making the modes piston-free over both the NAOMI pupil and the full DM aperture. Even though only ${{\oldsim}}145$ actuators contribute to the wavefront in the pupil, all 241 are used to control the piston. An illustration of the resulting defocus mode is shown in Fig. \[Fig:DoublePistonFreeModes\].
The number of controlled modes (14 Zernikes) is significantly lower than the actuator count, even when compared to the ${{\oldsim}}145$ inside the pupil. This makes it impossible for NAOMI itself to directly measure and control the high-order flatness of the DM. With limited knowledge of the long-term and temperature-dependent evolution of the high-order flat, tools were specifically developed to help with the maintenance of the system. A re-calibration bench was developed to regularly re-measure the influence functions and flat at various temperatures; and to help with this process, the DM and QSM assemblies were designed to be easily removable from the AT. In addition, a technique was developed to measure up to 120 Zernikes by shifting the WFS relative to the DM with the pupil control unit [@Oberti+2019]. This allows monitoring, in day-time, on the telescope Nasmyth light source, most of the high-order flat (${{\oldsim}}80\%$ of the intra-pupil actuator count) without moving the DM from the telescope to the re-calibration bench.
The version of ALPAO’s DM241 used for NAOMI is subject to a creep effect: probably a slow relaxation of the material used for the actuator springs. The creep appears as an additional command, increasing with time, and proportional to the initial command. To keep the impact of creep to a minimum, the temporal average of the DM position should stay close to zero, which is the case when the chopping stroke is optimised, as explained in section \[SSec:Chopping\].
The response of the DM was known to depend on the temperature, therefore a temperature sensor was initially installed on the DM housing, with the intent to re-scale the M2DM matrix to compensate for the variable DM gain. After it was deployed on the telescope in an environment where the ambient temperature fluctuates significantly, the DM gain appeared rather decorrelated from the housing temperature, as shown by unexpected transfer functions and interaction matrix measurements. The temperature of the spring element inside the DM would probably have been a better proxy for the DM gain but remained inaccessible. Therefore, the acquisition procedure (see Sec. \[SSec:AcquisitionProcedure\]) was modified to include an on-sky estimation of the DM gain. A modulation is injected on the two coma modes (Z7 and Z8) while the AO loop is closed on all other modes. The coma response on the wavefront sensor yields the DM gain.
With a properly scaled M2DM, the DM behaves like a piston-free modal actuator (see \[SSec:RealTimeController\]). More details on the properties and characterisation of these DMs can be found in @LeBouquin+2018 and @Haguenauer+2019.
[![3D view of the right Nasmyth of the AT showing the deformable mirror and drive electronics at the M6 location. **A**: Deformable mirror mounted inside the large stroke quasi-static tip-tilt mount. **B**: M6 cabinet containing the deformable mirror and quasi-static mount drive electronics.[]{data-label="Fig:ViewRightNasmyth"}](Fig-ViewRightNasmyth.png "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}]{} [[(0.44,0.28) rectangle (0.60,0.45);at (0.44,0.28) \[fill=white,thick,shape=circle,draw=black,inner sep=2pt,font=,text=black\] [**A**]{};]{}]{} [[(0.28,0.46) rectangle (0.55,0.84);at (0.28,0.84) \[fill=white,thick,shape=circle,draw=black,inner sep=2pt,font=,text=black\] [**B**]{};]{}]{}
![3D view of the corrective optics. The ALPAO DM241 is mounted in a large stroke gimbal tip-tilt mount. The assembly, installed inside the right Nasmyth assembly, can easily be removed when/if a re-calibration of the DM is needed.[]{data-label="Fig:ViewCorrectiveOptics"}](Fig-ViewCorrectiveOptics.png){width="0.6\linewidth"}
![Radial modes are designed piston-free inside the pupil, and over the full clear aperture. Left: Profile of the defocus mode. Right: When the defocus mode is also piston-free over the full clear aperture, the resonance is not excited as much.[]{data-label="Fig:DoublePistonFreeModes"}](Fig-DoublePistonFreeModes.png){width="\linewidth"}
![**Left (WFS)**: Geometry of the 12 wavefront sensor sub-apertures inside the pupil (red circle). Each sub-aperture (grey) is $16\times16$ pixels. Only the central $6\times6$ pixels (dark grey) are processed by the real-time controller. **Right (DM)**: Geometry of the deformable mirror at the M6 location. The diameter pupil (red circle) is smaller than the DM clear aperture (black circle). Out of the 241 available actuators (grey), ${{\oldsim}}145$ actuators participate in the wavefront correction (dark grey).[]{data-label="Fig:WfsDmGeometry"}](Fig-WfsDmGeometry.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Wavefront sensor {#SSec:WavefrontSensor}
----------------
The wavefront sensor of NAOMI is located at the coudé focus of the AT, inside the so-called relay optics structure (ROS) that serves as an interface between the coudé train of the telescope and the light duct to the delay-line tunnel. The upper part of the ROS contains a K-mirror-based field derotator and the star separator (STS) with the M9 dichroic; the lower part hosts an attenuation filter wheel and the wavefront sensor assembly mounted on a field-patrolling XY table. Installed next to existing electronics for the STS, in a compartment of the lower ROS, a cooled electronics module drives both the pupil control unit (PCU) translation stage and the filter wheel, and serves as an interface between the WFS camera and the fibre to the SPARTA real-time controller. An illustration of the ROS with the WFS inside is shown in Fig. \[Fig:ViewRelayOpticsStructure\].
[![3D view of the dual feed ROS containing the NAOMI wavefront sensor located below the star separator. **A**: Field-patrolling XY table. **B**: Wavefront sensor camera. **C**: Pupil control unit. **D**: Relay lens and filter wheel. **E**: Wavefront sensor and motion control drive electronics. **F**: Star separator. **G**: De-rotator of the star separator.[]{data-label="Fig:ViewRelayOpticsStructure"}](Fig-ViewRelayOpticsStructure.png "fig:"){width="1.0\linewidth"}]{} [[(0.44,0.15) rectangle (0.64,0.21);at (0.64,0.18) \[fill=white,thick,shape=circle,draw=black,inner sep=2pt,font=,text=black\] [**A**]{};]{}]{} [[(0.44,0.21) rectangle (0.64,0.31);at (0.64,0.26) \[fill=white,thick,shape=circle,draw=black,inner sep=2pt,font=,text=black\] [**B**]{};]{}]{} [[(0.44,0.31) rectangle (0.64,0.37);at (0.64,0.34) \[fill=white,thick,shape=circle,draw=black,inner sep=2pt,font=,text=black\] [**C**]{};]{}]{} [[(0.44,0.37) rectangle (0.64,0.42);at (0.64,0.395) \[fill=white,thick,shape=circle,draw=black,inner sep=2pt,font=,text=black\] [**D**]{};]{}]{} [[(0.248,0.122) rectangle (0.36,0.358);at (0.248,0.122) \[fill=white,thick,shape=circle,draw=black,inner sep=2pt,font=,text=black\] [**E**]{};]{}]{} [[(0.252,0.428) rectangle (0.759,0.636);at (0.252,0.636) \[fill=white,thick,shape=circle,draw=black,inner sep=2pt,font=,text=black\] [**F**]{};]{}]{} [[(0.425,0.654) rectangle (0.625,0.774);at (0.425,0.774) \[fill=white,thick,shape=circle,draw=black,inner sep=2pt,font=,text=black\] [**G**]{};]{}]{}
The wavefront sensor is a Shack-Hartman sensor (SHS). It is based on an off-the-shelf ANDOR iXon Ultra 897 electron-multiplying CCD (EMCCD) camera paired with a $4\times4$ lenslet array with a sub-aperture pitch. The camera is operated at a effective pixel size[^3], which gives $16\times16$ pixels per sub-aperture. The camera plate scale of is close to the diffraction limit of at R band (), and therefore introduces only a limited amount of non-linearities when it is operated with the diffraction-limited calibration source at the Nasmyth focus of the telescope. The wavefront sensor geometry is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:WfsDmGeometry\].
The SHS is paired with a relay optic that scales the incoming pupil to the expected on the lenslet array. A tele-centric lens, located after the M9 dichroic, makes the position of the pupil on the lenslet independent of the position of the sensor within the coudé field. Because the pupil motion as a function of the derotator and azimuth angles can be as large as $17\%$ of the pupil ($68\%$ of a sub-aperture), the relay optic is mounted on a transverse translation stage to form the PCU, which can adjust the registration between DM and WFS.
The camera settings are adapted to the incoming flux level, as shown in Table \[Tbl:ModesTable\]. As the incoming flux level decreases, the EM gain is first increased to reduce the effective readout noise, then the frequency is decreased. In the most sensitive configuration, the latency-optimised “crop mode” is disabled to reduce the clock-induced charges [CIC, @Hirsch+2013] by a factor of $\times4$. To sustain this frequency, the horizontal shift (HS) speed needs to be increased again, which increases the readout noise, which in turn is finally compensated for by a further increase of the EM gain to $\times200$. The vertical clock speed was set to , the second fastest setting, to minimise both the frame transfer duration and the CIC. To preserve charge transfer efficiency, an even faster setting of would have required an increase of the vertical clock amplitude to a level that generates too much CIC.
The level of CIC shown in Table \[Tbl:ModesTable\] is more than an order of magnitude higher than the advertised specification of the camera. This is explained by two effects. First, the binning increases the CIC by a factor of $\times4$. Then, the crop mode collects a full detector width worth of CIC inside the width of the readout window, which amounts to another $\times3$ factor in our configuration. Retrospectively, low-flux performance could have been improved further with an optical design that did not require a $2\times2$ binning.
----------- ------------- ------ ---------- ------- -------
Frequency EM Gain Crop HS Speed RON CIC
500 $\times 1$ Y 10 64.8 0.036
500 $\times 10$ Y 10 6.48 0.036
500 $\times100$ Y 10 0.648 0.036
100 $\times100$ Y 5 0.383 0.036
50 $\times200$ N 10 0.324 0.012
----------- ------------- ------ ---------- ------- -------
: WFS camera operation parameters listed in increasing sensitivity order. They include the frequency, the electron multiplication (EM) gain and the horizontal shift (HS) speed. Based on these parameters, the readout noise (RON) and clock-induced charges (CIC) performance improves, at the expense of saturation level first, as the EM gain increases, and latency then, as the frequency decreases.[]{data-label="Tbl:ModesTable"}
Real-time controller {#SSec:RealTimeController}
--------------------
NAOMI employs the same SPARTA-light [@Suarez+2012] real-time controller as CIAO [@Scheithauer+2016], the VLTI infrared wavefront sensor of the UTs. SPARTA-light is a scaled-down version of the SPARTA platform [@Fedrigo+2006] deployed for the high-actuator-counts AO systems of Paranal. The NAOMI RTC is based on four pipeline processing stages: a wavefront processing unit, a wavefront reconstruction unit, a control unit, and a DM conversion unit. The wavefront processing unit receives pixels from the camera, extracts $64\times64$ images, removes a background, removes a threshold level, computes the intensity per sub-aperture, applies a weighting map, and computes a weighted centre of gravity for each of the 12 sub-apertures. To keep the latency at a minimum, only the central $6\times6$ pixels are processed by the RTC. The calculated intensity per sub-aperture, and its average over the sub-apertures, are used for acquisition (see Sect. \[SSec:AcquisitionProcedure\]) and target magnitude estimation. From the slopes of the 12 sub-apertures, the wavefront reconstruction is performed by matrix vector multiplication (MVM) with the “slope-to-mode” (S2M) control matrix, delivering a result in a modal space of 14 first -normalised Zernikes excluding piston. The control is based on two pipelines running in parallel: an infinite impulse response (IIR) and an anti-vibration control (AVC). The conversion from Zernike-space to actuator-space is performed by MVM with a mode-to-DM (M2DM) matrix, which is the result of the calibrated influence functions and scaled by the DM gain measured on sky (see Sec. \[SSec:DeformableMirror\]). The newly calculated DM commands are finally converted into a series of eight commands, interpolated from the previous commands, in order to reduce the excitation of the DM resonance. The commands are finally converted into the 14 bits unsigned integer format accepted by the DM. The control loop is summarised in the flowchart of Fig. \[Fig:BlockDiagram\].
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
Acquisition procedure {#SSec:AcquisitionProcedure}
---------------------
The acquisition procedure for the ATs with NAOMI can be decomposed into three individual steps before closing the AO loop. These steps are identical to those of the former STRAP system, and of the MACAO and CIAO systems on the UTs.
First, a new preset is sent from one of the instruments, through the Interferometer Supervisory Software, to the AT. Relevant to NAOMI, the preset contains the on-axis coordinates of the telescope, the coordinates, and the R magnitude of the AO guide star. The difference between the two coordinates drives the position of the XY table and therefore the off-axis offset of the wavefront sensor at the coudé focus. The R magnitude sets an optimised rate for the WFS camera operating without EMCCD amplification, and possibly triggers the insertion of a filter to reduce the flux on very bright objects. This so-called detection configuration is chosen to optimally detect the target without saturating, in a field of view of the WFS, within a long accumulation of camera frames.
Second, when the telescope follows a blind trajectory, the target is detected in order to align the field and the photometric pupil on the WFS. To do so, a long accumulation of background-corrected WFS frames is measured to increase the S/N. This dataset is processed in two different ways. The 12 sub-apertures are averaged and stacked into a single $\times$ image of the field in order to measure the target offset from the centre, converted into a telescope offset. Then, the averaged fluxes in the four corner sub-apertures are used to measure the photometric pupil alignment, and correct it with the PCU. The flux of the target is also used to correct possible mistakes in the user-provided R magnitude. If the star cannot be detected within that field of view (due to an error in the pointing model of the telescope or in the coordinates of the guide star), a disco-ball-looking shape can be applied on the DM to point each sub-aperture to a different region of the sky, in a mosaic fashion, which turns the SHS into a imager.
Third, this measured target flux is used to optimise the full parameters of the AO system. The neutral density filter, camera rate, EMCCD gain, loop gain, and number of controlled modes are adjusted based on a performance-optimal prescription that we illustrate in Fig. \[Fig:PerformanceVsFlux\]. The flux of the acquired target is checked against the optimisation prescription once more, to guarantee the best operation configuration for the flux incident on the WFS, as measured by the AO system itself. The AO loop is briefly closed to measure the amount of defocus present on the DM. To maximise the DM stroke, this defocus is compensated for by adjusting the longitudinal position of the secondary mirror of the telescope. As long as the target flux is high enough, the gain of the DM is also measured on sky as part of this step, with the coma modulation technique described in Sec. \[SSec:DeformableMirror\].
When these three steps are completed, the AO loop is ready to be closed. This entire acquisition sequence has been fully automated to reduce the workload on the operators and keep the acquisition duration to a minimum (see Fig. \[Fig:AcquisitionTiming\]). The automatic acquisition works well when there are no other bright targets around the guide star. For more complex fields, the operator has the possibility to manually execute the acquisition sequence and specifically select the correct guide star. For narrow equal-brightness binaries, the operator may even have to adjust the FoV over which the AO loop operates (from $6\times6$ to $16\times16$ pixels per sub-aperture), in order for the SHS to measure reliable slopes from either one or both targets, depending on the separation.
![Histogram of the slew and acquisition durations of the auxiliary telescopes with NAOMI. The slew duration is dominated by the short long switches between targets and calibrators. The acquisition duration is below in $90\%$ of the time.[]{data-label="Fig:AcquisitionTiming"}](Fig-AcquisitionTimingAvg.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Pupil registration {#SSec:PupilRegistration}
------------------
When the AO loop is closed, the pupil registration loop is started. The pupil misregistration error signal is calculated from the flux imbalance between the side sub-apertures. In contrast to the direct method, which correlates the DM increments to the wavefront residuals [e.g. @Bechet+2012], this method assumes that the photometric pupil is a good proxy for the DM. This is the case on the ATs, where most of the misalignment errors are introduced between the DM and the WFS, by the azimuth axis and the field derotator. A control loop sends corrections once every 10 seconds, not only to the PCU to re-align the DM to the WFS, but also to the XY table to compensate for the tip-tilt that a PCU motion alone would introduce. Due to this effect on the tip-tilt, and because that PCU and XY table motions are not synchronised, the correction commands are clipped to induce no more than a tenth of a K-band PSF equivalent per pupil registration loop cycle. The control bandwidth being very slow, it relies on the pre-alignment that is carried out as part of the acquisition procedure, to rapidly reach an alignment state better than $10\%$ of a sub-aperture size.
Chopping {#SSec:Chopping}
--------
Even though not ideal in terms of instrumental thermal background rejection, chopping is performed directly with the deformable mirror of NAOMI. This is unchanged from when STRAP was installed and the M6 tip-tilt mirror was the chopping element. The DM241 is a deformable mirror with a comparably large tip-tilt stroke, but still not sufficient to chop with an amplitude many times the telescope lobe size in the thermal infrared (). To increase the chopping amplitude, the telescope is tilted towards the mid-point between the on-target and on-sky positions. This lets the DM chop from two extreme tilt positions, increasing the stroke by a factor ${{\oldsim}}2$. This balanced chopping on the DM has the additional benefit of keeping the temporal average DM position tip-tilt-free, which mitigates the creep effect described in Sec. \[SSec:DeformableMirror\]. Like all other chopping elements of VLTI, the timing of the chopping sequence is derived from the absolute observatory time, which allows precise synchronisation with the VLTI tip-tilt sensor IRIS, and the mid-infrared MATISSE instrument. Once the chopping sequence is activated, the AO loop alternates between loop closed for the on-target phase, and loop opened with a flat DM chopped away for the on-sky phase. To prevent DM saturations even further, the temporally averaged tip-tilt content of the DM, without the chopping offsets, is offloaded to the main axes of the telescope.
Adaptive optics performance {#Sec:Performance}
===========================
Before shipment to Paranal, the functionality and performance of the NAOMI system were verified and optimised on a test bench that was developed in Garching for the occasion. A horizontal optical bench, containing the DM assembly in the same attitude as on the AT and a calibration source, was mounted on top of a replica of the ROS containing the K-mirror, the M9 dichroic feeding the actual WFS assembly, and a so-called Strehl J-band camera. In this section we present the stand-alone performance achieved by the NAOMI system as measured on the Garching test bench and as verified on sky in Paranal.
Transfer function {#SSec:TransferFunction}
-----------------
The wavefront transfer function of the system was measured on the test-bench to verify its behaviour. The results are shown in Fig. \[Fig:TransferFunction\] and compared to a model illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:ControlLoop\]. At the , , and settings, the bandwidth is measured at , , and respectively.
The transfer function model also verifies the total delay $T$ introduced in the control loop. It is the sum of half the integration time $T_\mathrm{i}/2$ from the detector sliding average, a pure delay $T_\mathrm{d}$, and half the cycle period $T_\mathrm{c}/2$ from the DM digital-to-analog converter zero-order hold. The pure delay $T_\mathrm{d}$ includes the camera frame transfer time $T_\mathrm{FT}$ and readout time $T_\mathrm{RO}$, the controller computation time $T_\mathrm{RTC}$, and the DM response delay $T_\mathrm{DM}$. The readout time $T_\mathrm{RO}$ depends on the camera HS speed and crop mode, which affects the readout noise. Taking into account the relationship $T_\mathrm{c}=T_\mathrm{i}+T_\mathrm{FT}$ between the cycle, integration, and readout times, the total delay reads $$\arraycolsep=1.4pt
\begin{array}[t]{cccccccccccl}
\underbrace{T_{}}
&=& \underbrace{T_\mathrm{c}}
&+& \underbrace{T_\mathrm{FT}/2}
&+& \underbrace{T_\mathrm{RO}}
&+& \underbrace{T_\mathrm{RTC}}
&+& \underbrace{T_\mathrm{DM}},
& \\
\scriptstyle\SI{4.6}{\milli\second}
&& \scriptstyle\SI{2}{\milli\second}
&&
&& \scriptstyle\SI{1.54}{\milli\second}
&&
&&
& \scriptstyle\ @\SI{500}{\hertz} \\
\scriptstyle\SI{14.0}{\milli\second}
&& \scriptstyle\SI{10}{\milli\second}
&& \scriptstyle\frac{\SI{0.27}{\milli\second}}{2}
&& \scriptstyle\SI{2.93}{\milli\second}
&& \scriptstyle\SI{0.35}{\milli\second}
&& \scriptstyle\SI{0.6}{\milli\second}
& \scriptstyle\ @\SI{100}{\hertz} \\
\scriptstyle\SI{25.5}{\milli\second}
&& \scriptstyle\SI{20}{\milli\second}
&&
&& \scriptstyle\SI{4.38}{\milli\second}
&&
&&
& \scriptstyle\ @\SI{50}{\hertz}\\
\end{array}
,$$ which is annotated with the independently measured delay contributions at the three loop frequency settings. The agreement between transfer function measurements and models, illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:TransferFunction\], confirms that the delay and scaling of the control loop are properly accounted for.
![Measurements (dots) and models (lines) for the wavefront transfer function for the three loop frequency and gain settings adopted for the NAOMI system. The settings are defined by the loop frequency (f), the HS speed, the crop (crop=1) or region of interest (crop=0) mode, and the integrator gain (KI). The total delay (T) and the bandwidth (BW) of the models are also given. Measurements and models are in agreement, confirming that the delays and scaling of the control loop are properly accounted for. See Sect. \[SSec:TransferFunction\] for details.[]{data-label="Fig:TransferFunction"}](Fig-TransferFunction_py.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![NAOMI control loop model. The incident wavefront W is compensated for by the command C applied on the DM. The residual wavefront R is averaged over the integration time $T_\mathrm{i}$ by the WFS, delayed by $T_\mathrm{d}$, integrated by a controller with a gain $K_\mathrm{I}$, and converted into commands C by an digital-to-analog converter (DAC). The cycle time $T_\mathrm{c}$ is the inverse of the loop frequency. The pure delay $T_\mathrm{d}$ includes contributions from the camera frame transfer and readout time, the RTC computation time, and the DM response time. The Laplace transform of each idealised operation is shown above its respective block.[]{data-label="Fig:ControlLoop"}](Fig-ControlLoop.pdf){width="0.95\linewidth"}
Performance versus magnitude {#SSec:PerformanceVsMagnitude}
----------------------------
The H-band Strehl and residual tip-tilt as a function of the incident flux was initially characterised on the test bench. This was done by injecting a turbulent perturbation on the DM while closing the loop on the calibration source. Due to the high DM actuator count, the contribution of the DM fitting error[^4] could be properly simulated. Both Strehl and residual tip-tilt were estimated from the residual motion of the DM with the AO loop closed. The test bench results shown in Fig. \[Fig:PerformanceVsFlux\] are in agreement with the performance achieved on sky.
![Laboratory-measured Strehl (**top**) and residual tilt (**bottom**) performance of NAOMI versus WFS incident flux, at 80% seeing conditions, i.e. $\lambda/r_0=\SI{1.1}{\arcsec}$ and $\tau_0=\SI{2.5}{\milli\second}$ at $\lambda=\SI{500}{\nano\meter}$. The former performance level of STRAP is also indicated. The coloured lines correspond to the performance measurements for each loop frequency (f), EM gain (g), loop gain (KI), and controlled mode (modes) settings. The coloured areas are the optimal settings for a given flux range. The WFS incident flux is converted into an R magnitude assuming a transmission to the WFS of 10%. The specifications for the Strehl and residual tilt vs. R magnitude are shown as black dots. The transitions between modes at were chosen based on saturation limits. The transition between modes at lower frequencies were chosen at a flux level two times higher than the Strehl performance intersections, to help with the stability of the AO loop close these transitions.[]{data-label="Fig:PerformanceVsFlux"}](Fig-StrehlTiltVsFlux_py.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Piston control {#SSec:PistonControl}
--------------
The piston-free property of the controlled modes could only be verified on sky after deployment of the NAOMI systems on the interferometer. A single frequency modulation was injected on each mode of each AO system. The frequency was chosen to be high enough to avoid residual turbulence contamination, yet low enough to be properly sampled at the AO loop frequency. The amount of piston introduced was estimated with the GRAVITY fringe tracker. The results are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:PistonFree\]. The presence of piston on the radial-only modes, focus (Z4), and spherical (Z11) is compatible with a pupil apodisation by the GRAVITY fringe tracker single-mode fibre. The slightly larger piston on tip (Z2) and tilt (Z3) is compatible with a small ${{\oldsim}}2.5\%$ shift of the effective photometric pupil on the DM. Technically, it should be possible to change the piston-free definition of the NAOMI modes to include the apodisation effect, but the modes would then have to adapt to the instrument in use (GRAVITY and PIONIER apodise, but MATISSE does not). This observation of apodisation-induced piston should serve as a reminder that a good AO correction is a requirement to co-phasing two instruments with different interferometric lobes[^5].
![Piston conversion factor for each mode of each AO system, measured by injecting a modulation on the DM and detecting it with the GRAVITY fringe tracker. The conversion factor is the ratio between the piston measured in $\si{\micro\meter\rms}$ and the modal modulation in $\si{\micro\meter\rms}$. A model with optimal single-mode apodisation confirms the high conversion factors for radial-only focus and spherical modes; the amplitude mismatch arises because the DM gain (see Sec. \[SSec:DeformableMirror\]) was not yet corrected at the time of the measurement. The small conversion factor for tip-tilt is compatible with a small $2.5\%$ photometric pupil shift. All other modes show little conversion factor, probably within the noise of the measurement.[]{data-label="Fig:PistonFree"}](Fig-PistonFreeAll.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Non-common path aberrations {#SSec:NCPA}
---------------------------
Non-common path aberrations (NCPA) were measured all the way to the IRIS tip-tilt sensor of VLTI [@Gitton+2004], using the telescope Nasmyth beacon in day time. Sequentially on each controlled mode starting with defocus, a modulation is injected into the closed AO loop at the level of the WFS slope measurements. The flux of the brightest pixel is recorded on IRIS in closed loop. The modulation on each mode contains a high frequency and two periods of a low frequency. The amplitude of the detected on IRIS reaches a minimum when the slow period crosses the NCPA offset. Two periods give at least three consecutive minima and an easy measurement mechanism from their temporal spacing. As illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:NCPA\], differential aberrations are below ${{\oldsim}}\SI{100}{\nano\meter}$, confirming the quality of the WFS and the VLTI beam train.
![Non-common path aberrations measured between NAOMI and the IRIS tip-tilt sensor of the VLTI.[]{data-label="Fig:NCPA"}](Fig-NcpaResults.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Impact on the VLTI {#Sec:ImpactOnVlti}
==================
This section explores the impact of NAOMI on the VLTI instruments. It makes extensive use of the QC1 database, which is publicly available on the ESO website at <http://www.eso.org/qc>, and contains the output of the data reduction pipelines of the instruments. The dataset for the former STRAP tip-tilt system covers the period 2018 January 1 to 2018 September 6, before the VLTI shutdown. The dataset for NAOMI starts at the end of the first commissioning on 2018 November 17, and avoids the second commissioning between 2019 February 24 and 2019 March 5 where the NAOMI systems may have been used, part of the time, in non-standard configurations for dedicated tests.
Strehl stability and fringe tracking {#SSec:StrehlStability}
------------------------------------
The effect of adaptive optics correction order on the instantaneous single-mode coupling was predicted by @Tatulli+2010 [see Fig. 6 therein], including a specific application to the ATs of the VLTI. Fig. \[Fig:FluxHistogram\] finds a median seeing condition instantaneous Strehl measured by the GRAVITY fringe tracker in qualitative agreement with these predictions. Tip-tilt only correction is not optimal for fringe tracking because of significant flux dropouts.
![Typical instantaneous injected flux histograms for the GRAVITY fringe tracker for STRAP and NAOMI, in median seeing conditions. The $P_{5\%}/P_{95\%}$ metric, ratio of the injected fluxes at $5\%$ and $95\%$, is derived from these histograms. STRAP at $P_{5\%}/P_{95\%}=0.22$ has significantly more events at low flux than NAOMI at $P_{5\%}/P_{95\%}=0.58$.[]{data-label="Fig:FluxHistogram"}](Fig-FluxHistogram.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
To explore the statistics of this improvement, we designed a dedicated metric noted $P_{5\%}/P_{95\%}$. It represents the ratio of the flux at low $5\%$ injection to the flux at high $95\%$ injection. This ratio tends to zero in presence of flux dropouts, and tends to one when the injection is perfectly stable. Fig. \[Fig:P05P95\_GRAVITY\] shows a comparison of the GRAVITY fringe tracker injection stability between the former tip-tilt system and the new AO. It confirms a significant reduction in flux dropouts. As a consequence, Fig. \[Fig:FringeTrackingResiduals\] shows the support role that AO plays in reducing fringe tracking residuals. With STRAP, the metric would very often drop below $0.2$ and the fringe tracking residuals increase. When the $P_{5\%}/P_{95\%}$ metric is above $0.5$, as is the case most of the time with NAOMI, fringe tracking residuals tend to stay within the range.
![Comparison between STRAP tip-tilt and NAOMI AO of the $P_{5\%}/P_{95\%}$ injection metric histograms for the GRAVITY fringe tracker. The flux dropouts, represented by $P_{5\%}/P_{95\%}$ values close to zero, are significantly reduced by NAOMI.[]{data-label="Fig:P05P95_GRAVITY"}](Fig-p05p95_GRAVITY.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![Correlation between the GRAVITY fringe tracker residuals and the $P_{5\%}/P_{95\%}$ injection stability metric, comparing STRAP and NAOMI. With NAOMI, the fringe tracking residuals tend to stay in the range because the $P_{5\%}/P_{95\%}>0.5$ injection stability is high. This figure does not include $20\%$ of the open-dome nights with wind speeds higher than $\SI{9}{\meter\per\second}$, where telescope vibrations affect fringe tracking residuals [@Woillez+2016].[]{data-label="Fig:FringeTrackingResiduals"}](Fig-GravityResidualsVsP05P95.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Transmission {#SSec:Transmission}
------------
The deployment of NAOMI also improves the average injection efficiency into the single-mode instruments GRAVITY (K band) and PIONIER (H band) by $+60\%$ and $+130\%,$ respectively, as demonstrated in Fig. \[Fig:TransmissionGravity\], on the condition that the R-band magnitude remains in the high Strehl regime ($R<\SI{12}{\mag}$). This is a direct consequence of the higher Strehl ratio delivered by the AO system, and the resulting higher single-mode coupling efficiency. The improvement level, however, is lower than the predictions given in Fig. \[Fig:PerformanceVsFlux\] for an effective seeing of : +70% in K band and +190% in H band. This may be explained by a better-than-expected median effective seeing of . The transmission improvement is larger at shorter wavelengths, and invites an extension of the VLTI instrument suite to the J band. We also investigated the effect of the improved Strehl ratio on the interferometric observable stability and error bars, but did not observe any second-order improvement beyond what the improved transmission brings.
![Comparison of GRAVITY and PIONIER transmission between STRAP and NAOMI. NAOMI shows a transmission improvement of $+60\%$ for GRAVITY and $+130\%$ for PIONIER.[]{data-label="Fig:TransmissionGravity"}](Fig-TransmissionGravity.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"} ![Comparison of GRAVITY and PIONIER transmission between STRAP and NAOMI. NAOMI shows a transmission improvement of $+60\%$ for GRAVITY and $+130\%$ for PIONIER.[]{data-label="Fig:TransmissionGravity"}](Fig-TransmissionPionier.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The limiting magnitudes of the PIONIER and GRAVITY instruments are increased by $+\SI{1}{\mag}$ under the high Strehl regime requirement of $R<\SI{12}{\mag}$, to $K=\SI{9}{\mag}$ for GRAVITY on-axis and $H=\SI{9}{\mag}$ for PIONIER without dispersion. For PIONIER, we see a direct consequence of the improved transmission. For GRAVITY, half of the improvement is related to transmission, and the other half is due to the Strehl stabilisation. With a more stable Strehl ratio, the GRAVITY fringe tracker is capable of operating closer to $\mathrm{S/N}_\phi = 1$, the phase tracking S/N limit [@Colavita+1999; @Colavita+2010; @Woillez+2012; @Lacour+2019].
Even though the updated GRAVITY on-axis fringe tracker limiting magnitude, at $\mathrm{K} = \SI{8}{\mag}$ on the ATs, is only one magnitude shy of the UT limit, the performance on the UT is still ten times better[^6] than on the ATs in terms of collected photons and the associated effect on interferometric observables. This observation only illustrates an issue with the UTs, probably resulting from a lower median Strehl ratio and stronger telescope vibrations.
Resilience to degraded seeing conditions {#SSec:Resilience}
----------------------------------------
One last objective of the NAOMI project was to make the AT array more resilient to degraded seeing conditions. This includes larger-than-median free atmosphere and ground-layer seeing degradations, as well as low wind ($<\SI{2}{\meter\per\second}$) nights with severe dome seeing. We therefore explored correlations between the injection stability metric $P_{5\%}/P_{95\%}$ and seeing or wind speed. As illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:SeeingWindSpeed\] for the GRAVITY fringe tracker, NAOMI fulfils its objectives. At wind speeds below , the severely degraded injection with STRAP ($P_{5\%}/P_{95\%} < 0.2$) is replaced by a stable wind-speed-independent injection ($P_{5\%}/P_{95\%} {{\oldsim}}0.5$). In ${{\oldsim}}\SI{1.25}{\arcsecond}$ seeing conditions, NAOMI delivers the same performance level as was previously achieved at ${{\oldsim}}\SI{0.5}{\arcsecond}$ seeing by STRAP.
![Comparison of GRAVITY fringe tracker injection stability between STRAP and NAOMI. **Top**: Injection stability vs. effective seeing for wind speeds in the range. **Bottom**: Injection stability vs. wind speed for a better-than-median effective seeing. NAOMI obtains in seeing the same performance as STRAP in seeing. NAOMI does not exhibit performance loss when the wind speed is below .[]{data-label="Fig:SeeingWindSpeed"}](Fig-InjectionVersusSeeingWindSpeed.pdf){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Conclusions
===========
The deployment of the NAOMI adaptive optics system on the VLTI is a perfect illustration of the benefit of high and stable Strehl ratio for ground-based optical interferometry in general and fringe tracking in particular. Beyond the transmission improvement, the VLTI can now operate with the ATs in degraded seeing conditions, which increases the amount of scientifically exploitable time on the interferometer: a previously unusable AT-level seeing threshold of would correspond to a $+15\%$ increase in usable time, based on Paranal seeing statistics. The fringe tracking performance of GRAVITY has improved as well: a high Strehl ratio allows continuous measurements of the phase without fringe jumps. This will become even more evident when the K-band GRAVITY fringe tracker is used to co-phase the L/M/N-band MATISSE instrument. The improved Strehl ratio also supports extending the VLTI toward shorter wavelengths. In the J band and in median seeing conditions, the Strehl ratio should have increased from ${{\oldsim}}8\%$ to ${{\oldsim}}40\%$, which is the level previously obtained with STRAP in the K band. Beyond the new scientific window, a J-band extension also represents an increase in angular resolution by $+25\%$. In addition, the availability of AO-corrected telescopes allows non-spatially filtered instrument concepts to be studied, which might enable significantly higher throughputs.
However, this improved performance is only available for objects that meet the bright regime requirement of $R < \SI{12}{\mag}$. For the current level of performance of the near-infrared VLTI instruments on the ATs, this is not a problem most of the time. The colours that bring both the AO and the instruments to their respective limits are already red at $R-H|K = +\SI{3}{\mag}$. The adaptive optics is therefore never the limiting factor for surface temperatures down to ${{\oldsim}}\SI{3750}{\kelvin}$ ($\mathrm{M}0$ spectral type). The situation is very different on the UTs. An AO system operating at the same sub-aperture size as NAOMI, that is, at higher order than the current MACAO, would have a colour limit at $R-H|K = +\SI{0}{\mag}$, which is equivalent to a surface temperature of ${{\oldsim}}\SI{9790}{\kelvin}$ ($\mathrm{A}0$ spectral type). This is a quantitative way of expressing the feeling that the AO system is always the first thing to fail on the UTs. This shows that reproducing the same kind of improvement on the telescopes will certainly require laser guide-star adaptive optics [@Beckers1990].
This research made use of Astropy,[^7] a community-developed core Python package for Astronomy [@astropy+2013; @astropy+2018]. S.Z-F. acknowledges support from Iniciativa Científica Milenio via Núcleo Milenio de Formación Planetaria. S.Z-F acknowledges financial support from [CONICYT]{} via PFCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2018-21181044 and the European Southern Observatory via its studentship program.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: The median free-atmosphere seeing of Paranal is [@Sarazin+2008]. At the level of the ATs, an additional ground-layer seeing must be taken into account, resulting in an median seeing.
[^3]: The physical pixel size of the camera is . Being operated with a binning of 2, the effective pixel size is . Unless otherwise stated, effective pixels are always assumed herein.
[^4]: In median seeing conditions, the DM fitting error in H band is a negligible $\sigma^2_\mathrm{DM} = \SI{0.05}{\radian^2}$.
[^5]: See @Mege2002 or for a definition of the single-mode interferometric lobe; a similar definition exists for non-single-mode instruments but depends on the beam combination geometry.
[^6]: The UT transmission is twice as low as the AT’s, but the collecting power is 20 times as high.
[^7]: http://www.astropy.org
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
$^1$ IXA Group, HiTZ Centre, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain\
$^2$ Intercom Strategys, Madrid, Spain\
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: 'Multilingual Stance Detection: The Catalonia Independence Corpus'
---
Introduction
============
The rise of social media has given rise to the “fake news” phenomenon. According to the Fake News Challenge, “Fake news, defined by the New York Times as “a made-up story with an intention to deceive”[^1], often for a secondary gain, is arguably one of the most serious challenges facing the news industry today.”[^2]
Determining the veracity of a given document or story, namely, whether it is fake or legitimate, is a very complex task, even for expert fact-checkers. Thus, previous work breaks down the fake news detection task in different stages, the first of which is establishing what other news sources are saying about the given document or story (whether they agree, disagree, etc. with the news story), namely, determining their stance with respect to that document or news story. Following this, the first stage of the Fake News Challenge was *Stance Detection*. This decision was supported by two main ideas: (i) a stance detection system should allow a human fact checker to enter a document (headline, message, claim, etc.) and retrieve the top documents from other news sources that agree, disagree or discuss the given document and, (ii) based on the previous step, it would be possible to build a “truth-labeling” system based on the weighted credibility of the various news organizations from which the stance has been retrieved.
Automatic stance detection has been defined as the task of classifying the attitude expressed in a text towards a given target or claim. Most of the work on stance detection has been undertaken in English using the data provided by the Detecting Stance in Tweets shared task organized at SemEval 2016 [@mohammad-etal-2016-semeval], RumourEval 2017 [@derczynski-etal-2017-semeval] and the Fake News Challenge. The SemEval 2016 task was formulated as follows: given a tweet text and a target entity or topic, automatic natural language systems must determine whether the tweet expresses a stance in **favor** of the given target, **against** the given target, or whether **none** of those inferences are likely. For example, consider the following target$-$tweet pairs:
> **Tweet:** *I still remember the days when I prayed God for strength.. then suddenly God gave me difficulties to make me strong. Thank you God! \#SemST*
>
> **Target:** Atheism
>
> **Stance:** AGAINST
>
> **Tweet:** *@PH4NT4M @MarcusChoOo @CheyenneWYN women. The term is women. Misogynist! \#SemST*
>
> **Target:** Feminist Movement
>
> **Stance:** FAVOR
These examples illustrate the nature of the task, in which tweets are very short, full of specific vocabulary, non-standard spelling grammar, emojis, hashtags, and high on irony and sarcasm. The task aimed to detect stance from single tweets, without taking into account the conversational structure of tweet threads or any information about authors.
Following the model of the SemEval 2016 initiative, two shared tasks were organized as part of IberEval workshop [@taule17; @taule18]. They provided tweets annotated for Stance in Catalan and Spanish. The target of the 2017 edition was the “Catalan Independence” whereas the 2018 edition (TW-10 dataset) focused on the “Catalan referendum on the 1st of October”. In both editions the classes distribution was hugely skewed, which makes it difficult to explore and compare stance detection methods in multilingual and cross-lingual settings.
In this context, we propose the new Catalan Independence Corpus (CIC) for stance detection in Catalan and Spanish. By doing so, we aim to promote research in other languages different to English. Furthermore, the corpus presents a balanced distribution between classes so that researchers can explore multilingual and cross-lingual methods.
The contributions of this paper are the following: (i) we present a new dataset in Catalan and Spanish to work on multilingual and cross-lingual stance detection; (ii) we propose a semi-automatic method to collect and annotate a corpus of tweets based on a categorization of Twitter users. This method partially alleviates the huge effort of manually annotating the corpus tweet by tweet; (iii) we report new state-of-the-art results on the TW-10 dataset of IberEval 2018 [@taule18]; (iv) comparison between results using our new corpus and the TW-10 dataset shows the benefits of providing a balanced multilingual corpus, and (v) both the datasets and code are made public to facilitate future research and reproducibility of results[^3].
Related Work {#sec_related_work}
============
The state of the art is divided into two main approaches. First, those that rely on *traditional* machine learning models combined with hand-engineered features [@Mohammad:2017:SST:3106680.3003433] or vector-based word representations (word embeddings) [@bohler-etal-2016-idi]. In particular, [@Mohammad:2017:SST:3106680.3003433] obtained the best results for the supervised setting of the SemEval 2016 task using a SVM classifier to learn word n-grams (1-, 2-, and 3-gram) and character n-grams (2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-gram) features, outperforming deep learning approaches [@zarrella-marsh-2016-mitre; @wei-etal-2016-pkudblab].
Among the deep learning systems published, the pkudblab system [@wei-etal-2016-pkudblab] proposed a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architecture combined with a voting scheme to guide the predictions instead of generating them based on the accuracy obtained in the validation set. The MITRE team [@zarrella-marsh-2016-mitre] employed two recurrent RNN classifiers: the first was trained to predict task-relevant hashtags on a large unlabeled Twitter corpus which was then used to initialize a second RNN to be trained on the SemEval 2016 training set. [@du2017stance] proposed a neural network-based model to incorporate target-specific information by means of an attention mechanism. Finally, [@sun-etal-2018-stance] proposed a hierarchical attention network to weigh the importance of various linguistic information, and learn the mutual attention between the document and the linguistic information.
It should be said that neural network approaches have been more successful so far for the SemeEval 2016 Task B (weakly-supervised setting). Apart from the previously mentioned systems [@wei-etal-2016-pkudblab], [@augenstein-etal-2016-stance] proposed a bidirectional Long-Short Term Memory (LSTM) encoding model. First, the target is encoded by a LSTM network and then a second LSTM is used to encode the tweet using the encoding of the target as its initial state.
Another interesting work is that of [@DBLP:journals/corr/RajadesinganL14] who tried to determine stance at user level. Their assumption was that if many users retweeted a particular pair of tweets in a short time, then it is likely that this pair of tweets had something in common and share the same opinion on the topic.
As far as we know, most approaches to stance detection are developed for English, with the few exceptions that use the Catalan and Spanish data from IberEval 2017 and 2018 [@taule17; @taule18] or the work of [@mohtarami-etal-2019-contrastive] using the Arabic corpus provided by [@baly-etal-2018-integrating].
With respect to the “MultiModal Stance Detection in tweets on Catalan \#1Oct Referendum” task at IberEval 2018 (MultiStanceCat), the best results for Spanish were obtained by the uc3m team [@Segura-Bedmar18]. They presented a system based on bag-of-words with TF-IDF vectorization. They evaluated several of the most commonly used classifiers, obtaining a final 28.02 F1 macro score in the Spanish test data. The best result in Catalan subset was obtained by the [CriCa]{} team [@Cuquerella2018CriCaTM]. Their approach consisted of combining the Spanish and Catalan subsets to create a larger and more balanced corpus. They experimented with stemming of various lengths (three, four and five characters) and removing character suffixes from the word. Since Spanish and Catalan share many words, stemming helped to generalize. Additionally, it is quite common to encounter tweets containing words and expressions in both languages. Their final F1 macro was 30.68.
Experimental Setup {#sec:experiment}
==================
The development of the Catalonia Independence Corpus was motivated by the experiments performed on the IberEval TW-10 data. The result of those experiments showed that, due to the highly imbalanced nature of the TW-10 corpus, any comparison of systems across languages were not particularly meaningful. In this section we will summarize the setup for the experiments performed on both datasets, TW-10 and our new Catalonia Independence Corpus.
Apart from the data pre-processing described in Section \[sec:data-pre-processing\], we experimented with four different system architectures: (i) TF-IDF vectorization with a SVM classifier; (ii) a SVM trained with fastText word embeddings [@Grave18] for the representation of tweets; (iii) the fastText text classification system [@joulin-etal-2017-bag] with fastText word embeddings and, finally (iv) the Flair system [@akbik-etal-2018-contextual], which implements a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) for text classification that can be combined with static and context-based string embeddings. In the following, we describe the pre-processing and each of the architectures tested in both the TW-10 and the Catalonia Independence Corpus (CIC).
Data Pre-processing {#sec:data-pre-processing}
-------------------
Since each tweet in the TW-1O dataset is given in context, with the previous and the next tweet, we use them to obtain longer and richer texts for classification.
**Normalization**: We believe that normalization helps to reduce the number of features for TF-IDF feature representation and to maximize the number of words that correspond with the vocabulary of pre-trained word vector models. First, we remove all punctuation and any expression starting with “@”, “RT”, URLs and numbers. The next step is lowercasing and normalization of spelling: we remove repeated characters with one and replacing common shortened words to their normal form. For example, *holaaaaaaa* is converted to *hola*. However, we leave untouched consonants composed of two characters (*tt, ll, rr*). Finally, diacritics are systematically removed.
**Lemmatization**: Next, we apply a simplified version of lemmatization consisting of replacing the word form with its lemma via dictionary look-up [^4]. If a word is not found we leave it in its original form. Note that this method is not capable of resolving ambiguities. For example, the Spanish preposition *para* (“for”) and the verb *para* (“stop”) will be mapped to the same lemma, namely, *parar* (the infinitive “to stop” in Spanish). Furthermore, named entities are sometimes wrongly lemmatized. To reduce the error rate, we manually edited the list of lemmas, and deleted the less frequent ambiguous words. In any case, our experiments showed that this type of lemmatization reduces dramatically the number of features helping to improve results for every experimental setting. In addition, it allows to deal with unseen words. For example, if the Spanish word *andando* (walking) does not appear in the training corpus but another form of its lemma does, then both words will be recognized as having the same lemma, namely, the Spanish verb *andar* (to walk).
**Tokenization**: We perform whitespace tokenization, also removing stopwords (auxiliary verbs, prepositions, articles, pronouns and the most frequent words) and words shorter than three characters.
SVM+TF-IDF {#sec:tf-idf+svm}
----------
**TF-IDF** (Term Frequency times Inverse Document Frequency) [@Jones72astatistical] is a weighting scheme broadly used in many tasks. Its goal is to reduce the impact of words that occur too frequently in a given corpus. TF-IDF is the product of two metrics, the term frequency and the inverse document frequency. We calculate the TF-IDF scores for all pre-processed unigrams in the training corpus. The number of features equals the size of the vocabulary of the dataset and represents the dimensionality of the document vector.
**Information Gain** is used for feature selection [@Cover:2006:EIT:1146355]. Information Gain provides a method to calculate the mutual information between the features and the classification labels. According to [@Aggarwal12], mutual information is defined on the basis of the level of co-occurrence between the label and word. In other words, it represents the predictive power of each feature, and measures the number of bits of information obtained for prediction of a class in terms of the presence or absence of a feature in a document. The Information Gain scores show how common a specific feature is in a target class. For example, those words that occur mainly in tweets labelled as FAVOR will be highly ranked. All the weights are normalized and the features ranked from one to zero. We then select those features that are larger than zero.
**Grid Search** is performed for hyper-parameter optimisation. The grid-search results are measured by 5-fold cross-validation on the training set. To reduce the cost of the grid-search process, we select two of the SVM (RBF kernel) parameters, namely, C and gamma.
SVM+fastText Embeddings {#sec:svm+f-embedd}
-----------------------
Word embeddings encode words as continuous real-valued representations in a low dimensional space. Word embeddings are trained over large corpora and are able to capture semantic and syntactic similarities based on co-ocurrences. Word embeddings allow to build rich representations of text and have enabled improvements across most NLP tasks.
To the best of our knowledge, the only publicly available pre-trained models for both Catalan and Spanish are those distributed by fastText [@Grave18]. Initial experimentation showed that the Common Crawl[^5] models performed better for our particular task. The Common Crawl models are trained using a Continuous Bag-of-Words (CBOW) architecture with position-weights and 300 dimensions on a vocabulary of 2M words. In order to produce vectors for out-of-vocabulary words, fastText word embeddings are trained with character n-grams of length 5, and a window of size 5 and 10 negatives [@Grave18]. We represent the tweet as the average of its word vectors [@DBLP:journals/corr/KenterBR16], which is calculated as follows:
$$V(t)=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}W_{i}$$
where *V(t)* is the vector representing a tweet, *n* is the number of words and *W* the vector for each word. In order to facilitate the look-up into the pre-trained word embedding model, the pre-processing described in the previous section is modified, leaving untouched the diacritics and the stopwords.
FastText System {#sec:fasttext-system}
---------------
Apart from the pre-trained word embedding models, fastText also refers to a text classification system [@joulin-etal-2017-bag]. The fastText system consists of a linear model with rank constraint. A first weight matrix A is build via a look-up table over the words. Then the word representations are averaged to construct the tweet representation, which is then fed into a linear classifier. This is similar to the previous approach, but in the fastText system the textual representation of the tweet is a hidden variable which can be reused. The CBOW model proposed by [@mikolov2013b] is similar to this architecture, with the difference that the middle word is replaced by the stance label. Finally, fastText uses a softmax function to calculate the probability distribution over the predefined classes.
We use the fastText system in its default parameters, with the following exceptions: (i) instead of training the word embeddings online, we provide as input the pre-trained fastText word embedding models for Catalan and Spanish described in the previous section and, (ii) we use bag of bi-grams and trigrams as additional features with the aim of capturing word order information.
Neural Architecture {#sec:neural-architecture}
-------------------
Flair refers to both a deep learning system and to a specific type of character-based contextual word embeddings. While fastText generates static word embeddings, generating a unique vector-based representation for a given word independently of the context, contextual word embeddings aimed to generate different word representations depending on the context in which the word occurs. Examples of such contextual representations are ELMo [@Peters:2018] and Flair [@akbik-etal-2018-contextual], which are built upon LSTM-based architectures and trained as language models.
The Flair toolkit [@akbik-etal-2019-flair] allows to train sequence labelling and text classification models based on neural networks. Flair provides a common interface to use and combine different word embeddings, including both Flair and fastText embeddings. For text classification the computed word embeddings are fed into a BiLSTM to produce a document level embedding which is then used in a linear layer to make the class prediction. For best results, we follow their advice of combining in a stack the contextual Flair embeddings for Spanish with the fastText embeddings [@akbik-etal-2018-contextual]. Every result reported with Flair is the average five training runs initialized at random.
Evaluation {#sec:evaluation}
----------
The models are tuned via cross-validation for the TW-10 dataset. The Catalonia Independence Corpus provides a development set which is used for tuning the models during training. The metric used by the organizers of SemEval 2016 [@mohammad-etal-2016-semeval] and IberEval 2018 [@taule18] reported the F1 macro-average score of two classes: FAVOR and AGAINST, although the NONE class is also represented in the test data. We use the provided evaluation script [^6] that calculates the final F1 macro score:
$$F1_{macro} = \frac{F1_{favor} + F1_{against}}{2}$$
TW-1O Referendum Dataset {#sec:tw1o_dataset}
========================
The TW-10 for IberEval 2018 dataset was collected using the hashtags \#1oct, \#1O, \#1oct2017 and \#1octl6 to obtain the tweets from Twitter [@taule18]. These hashtags were widely used in the debate on the right to hold a referendum on Catalan independence on the 1st of October 2017. A total of 87,449 tweets in Catalan and 132,699 tweets in Spanish were collected between the 20th and 30th of September. The final dataset consists of 11,398 tweets: 5,853 written in Catalan (the TW-1O-CA corpus) and 5,545 in Spanish (the TW-1O-ES corpus). The dataset was annotated manually by three experts. Also, each tweet is given together with its previous and next tweets as context. Table \[tab:length\_tw\_dataset\] shows the average length of tweets after concatenating the tweet with its context.
TW-10 corpus Catalan Spanish
------------------------------- --------- ---------
Average tweet length (tokens) 37.69 38.86
: Average length of tweets plus their context in the TW-1O corpus.[]{data-label="tab:length_tw_dataset"}
Table \[tab:twdatasetdistr\] illustrates the imbalanced nature of the Catalan subset, which makes it difficult to built and compare models for Catalan and across languages. Thus, while for Spanish the distribution of classes is quite similar, in Catalan the FAVOR class occurs 35 times more than AGAINST, and 8 times more than NONE.
Label Catalan Spanish
--------- --------- ---------
Against 120 1785
Favor 4085 1680
None 479 972
Total 4684 4437
: Distribution of classes in the TW-1O trainset.[]{data-label="tab:twdatasetdistr"}
Tables \[tab:result\_tw1o\_ca\] and \[tab:result\_tw1o\_es\] reports our results for Catalan and Spanish respectively. It is clear that the Catalan subset makes it very difficult to perform any meaningful experiments given its class distribution. While the best approach for Catalan is SVM+TDF-IDF, it is clear that the results are heavily influenced by the under-represented AGAINST class.
**System** F1$_{against}$ F1$_{favor}$ F1$_{macro}$
---------------- ---------------- -------------- --------------
SVM+TF-IDF 22.86 94.68 **58.77**
SVM+FTEmb 0.00 93.88 46.94
fastText+FTEmb 12.90 94.60 53.78
Flair+FTEmb 14.79 94.40 54.59
**Baseline**
- - 30.68
: Results on the TW-1O Catalan testset.[]{data-label="tab:result_tw1o_ca"}
**System** F1$_{against}$ F1$_{favor}$ F1$_{macro}$
-------------------- ---------------- -------------- --------------
SVM+TF-IDF 68.50 64.53 66.52
SVM+FTEmb 63.65 58.85 61.25
fastText+FTEmb 69.58 65.37 **67.48**
Flair+FTEmb 60.23 52.44 56.34
**Baseline**
[@Segura-Bedmar18] - - 28.02
: Results on the TW-10 Spanish testset.[]{data-label="tab:result_tw1o_es"}
The results for Spanish are a little bit more interesting. First, we can see that the fastText linear classifier combined with fastText embeddings (fastText+FTEmb) obtains much better results than SVM+FTEmb. As the document representation is the same, that means that the fastText classifier [@joulin-etal-2017-bag] improves over the performance of SVM. Finally, our results provide a significant improvement over previous state-of-the-art in this dataset for both languages.
Nonetheless, motivated by the results obtained for Catalan, we decided to propose a new multilingual corpus for stance detection with a better distribution of classes.
Catalonia Independence Corpus 2019 {#sec:independence}
==================================
During the process of developing the Catalonia Independence Corpus (CIC) we tried to address the main shortcomings of the TW-10 dataset, as it has been described in Section \[sec:tw1o\_dataset\].
We had at our disposal a collection of tweets from 12 days during February and March of 2019 posted in Barcelona and during September 2018 posted in the town of Terrassa, Catalonia, prepared for commercial research in stance detection and political ideology (left-right) prediction. The collection process was performed by crawling with full access to the Twitter API, obtaining messages of up to the official limit of 240 characters. We decided to use it to create a new dataset for academic research. In order to do so, first we separated them by language[^7] and obtained 680000 tweets in Catalan and 2 million tweets in Spanish. We then processed each set separately. We discarded tweets with identical messages and tweets containing less than three words.
**Annotation** was performed using the same three labels and guidelines as the previously described datasets (SemEval 2016 and TW-10). Thus, FAVOR will state a positive stance towards the independence of Catalonia, AGAINST the opposite, and NONE will express neither a negative nor a positive stance, or simply that it is not possible to reach a conclusion.
User Categorization {#sec:categ-at-user}
-------------------
Unlike previous approaches, we do not annotate manually each tweet. Instead, the annotation process is based on classifying users. We first compiled a list of Twitter accounts from media, political parties and political activists that clearly and explicitly express their stance with respect to the independence of Catalonia. Secondly, we extracted the most retweeted tweets and categorized their authors manually by checking their Twitter accounts. The assumption was that for a person it is easier to annotate a whole Twitter account rather than the text of a single tweet without context. The decision about their stance was also made taking into account other aspects from the users’ accounts, such as the use of special emojis and symbols that may state clearly the stance towards the target (e.g., displaying a yellow ribbon or a Spanish or Republican Catalan flag, etc.), or by the Bio section. We follow this process to assign a FAVOR, AGAINST or NEUTRAL stance to each user.
Furthermore, we extracted the relations between users based on their retweets [@SNA2002]. Assuming that all those who make a retweet share the author’s opinion, we categorized these users with the same label as the author of the retweeted message. While this method may introduce some noise, it allowed us to quickly obtain a large amount of annotated data quite cheaply.
In total, 25,510 users were categorized. We do not distinguish between Catalan and Spanish tweets because most of the active users in Catalonia are bilingual and can write in both languages. Table \[table:users\] reports the distribution of the categorized users. The final set contains 131022 unique tweets in Catalan and 202645 unique tweets in Spanish.
Label Count
--------- -------
Favor 22247
Against 3091
Neutral 176
: Distribution of the categorized users.[]{data-label="table:users"}
### Topic Detection {#sec:topic-detection}
We annotated the corpus assigning the stance classes to usernames. However, this does mean that we can use every tweet from the users, given that many messages may not be related to the independence of Catalonia. In order to address this issue we performed the following steps:
**Hashtags and keywords**: We extracted all the hashtags from the corpus and selected manually those that were related to the independence of Catalonia, such as *\#CataluñaesEspaña, \#CatalanRepublic, \#Tabarnia, \#GolpeDeEstado, \#independéncia, \#judicifarsa, \#CatalanReferendum* etc., totalling 450 hashtags. We also added keywords in both languages, 25 in total. We marked each tweet as being on topic if it contained one of the relevant hashtags or keywords. Table \[tab:relevanttweets\] displays the distribution of tweets after applying the hashtags and keywords filter.
Label Catalan Spanish
--------- --------- ---------
Against 1476 8267
Favor 23030 11843
Neutral 986 497
: Distribution of tweets obtained by hashtags and keywords related to “independence”.[]{data-label="tab:relevanttweets"}
**Topic modelling**: We can see in Table \[tab:relevanttweets\] that the vast majority of the tweets are labelled as FAVOR. In order to obtain a balanced dataset, we needed to add more tweets to the under-represented classes. We use the MALLET [@McCallumMALLET] implementation of Latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) [@Blei:2003:LDA:944919.944937] as a kind of basic target detection algorithm to the corpus of categorized users described in Table \[table:users\]. The objective was to obtain more relevant tweets for our under-populated classes (AGAINST and NEUTRAL in Catalan and NEUTRAL in Spanish). We manually revised the obtained topics and selected only those tweets which were clustered within the “independence” topic.
CIC Corpus Catalan Spanish
------------------------------- --------- ---------
Average tweet length (tokens) 27.17 30.31
: Average tweet length in the Catalonia Independence Corpus.[]{data-label="tab:length_ind_dataset"}
Finally, we selected approximately 10,000 tweets (excluding those shorter than 4 words) per language keeping the proportion of users from the initial pool of crawled tweets. We split them keeping 60% for training, and 20% each for development and test. The average length of a tweet in the Catalan Independence Corpus (in Table \[tab:length\_ind\_dataset\]) is slightly shorter than the average in the TW-1O dataset (see Table \[tab:length\_tw\_dataset\]) given that our corpus does not include the previous and next tweets as context. However, our corpus is larger than previous works [@mohammad-etal-2016-semeval; @taule18] and presents a more balanced distribution of classes, as shown by Table \[tab:distr\_dataset\].
Label Catalan Spanish
--------- --------- ---------
Against 3988 4105
Favor 3902 4104
Neutral 2158 1868
Total 10048 10077
: Distribution of classes in the Catalonia Independence Corpus.[]{data-label="tab:distr_dataset"}
Finally, here we can see an example from the Catalonia Independence Corpus.
> **Tweet:** *Puigdemont visitarà el dia 13 de febrer la Universitat de Groningen dels Països Baixos i presentará La crisi catalana, una oportunitat per Europa. És un goig veure com ens reben els països democràtics https://t.co/O38mDKwwn3*
>
> **Stance:** FAVOR
>
> **Language**: Catalan
>
> **Translation**: *Puigdemont will visit on February 13th the University of Groningen, Netherlands, and present The Catalan Crisis, An Opportunity For Europe. It’s a pleasure to see how democratic countries are receiving us https://t.co/O38mDKwwn3*
Results {#sec:results}
-------
This section reports on the results obtained by the systems presented in Section \[sec:experiment\].
**System** F1$_{against}$ F1$_{favor}$ F1$_{macro}$
---------------- ---------------- -------------- --------------
SVM+TF-IDF 68.89 72.91 70.90
SVM+FTEmb 59.43 64.46 61.95
fastText+FTEmb 70.73 72.21 **71.47**
Flair+FTEmb 59.08 58.08 58.96
: Results on the Catalan testset of the Catalonia Independence Corpus (CIC-CA).[]{data-label="tab:result_indep_ca"}
**System** F1$_{against}$ F1$_{favor}$ F1$_{macro}$
---------------- ---------------- -------------- --------------
SVM+TF-IDF 70.67 71.50 71.09
SVM+FTEmb 64.24 62.51 63.38
fastText+FTEmb 73.20 71.13 **72.43**
Flair+FTEmb 61.76 54.84 58.29
: Results on the Spanish testset of the Catalonia Independence Corpus (CIC-ES).[]{data-label="tab:result_indep_es"}
It is clear that the results for both Catalan (Table \[tab:result\_indep\_ca\]) and Spanish (Table \[tab:result\_indep\_es\]) are higher across languages and systems than those obtained on the TW-10 dataset. This means that the semi-automatic method for the annotation of tweets presented in this paper is quite effective and provides good quality annotated data. Furthermore, there is a consistency in the behaviour of the systems across both languages, which allows to compare their performance in multilingual settings. These results are also consistent with the TW-1O Spanish subset, where the fastText+FTEmb system also obtained the best scores. Finally, the deep learning approach from Flair seems to lag behind linear classifiers. While a bit surprising, this is also coherent with the results obtained in English with the SemEval 2016 dataset, as explained in the Related Work section. Our hypothesis is that the short length of the tweets make it more difficult to generate good contextual-based word representations. However, further experimentation is required to clarify this issue.
Error Analysis {#sec:error}
==============
In order to perform an analysis of the quality of the annotations obtained by our semi-automatic method (as described in Section \[sec:independence\]), we took a sample of 100 tweets per language from the training sets. This sample was manually revised by three human annotators. We found out that the error rate in the Spanish sample was around 5%, whereas for the Catalan sample was slightly higher, around 15%. It should be noted that those error rates are approximate because the three human annotators found it very difficult to agree on their correct annotation. This was due to several reasons. First, the meaning of the tweets is usually underspecified. Second, many tweets use figurative language such as sarcasm and irony. Finally other tweets referred to the topic in a indirect manner. Below it can be found a couple of examples of contentious tweets in which it is not really clear which of the annotations are the correct one, namely, the one provided by our method (semi-automatic user-based) or the manual one. In Tweet 1, we can see a seemingly neutral message, but the author uses anti-independence slogan. In Tweet 2, although it seems to be neutral, the interpretation depends on the context of the message, where the annotator should know the details of the case.
> **Tweet 1:** *Arrimadas irá a Waterloo este domingo para recordar a Puigdemont que la república no existe https://t.co/6luAEAj2UD*
>
> **Our method:** NEUTRAL
>
> **Manual annotation:** AGAINST/NEUTRAL
>
> **Language:** Spanish
>
> **Translation:** *Arrimadas will go to Waterloo this Sunday to remind Puigdemont that the republic does not exist https://t.co/6luAEAj2UD*
> **Tweet 2:** *@unprecisionman @jordisalvia Quan l’advocat preguntava sobre certes contradiccions d’un incident concret q havia explicat el Millo, el jutge ha dit q això no era rellevant per la causa*
>
> **Our method:** AGAINST
>
> **Manual annotation:** FAVOR/NEUTRAL
>
> **Language:** Catalan
>
> **Translation:** *When the lawyer asked him about certain contradictions with respect to a specific incident which Millo had explained, the judge said that it was not relevant.*
Manual annotation of stance in tweets is a difficult task for humans, partly because it depends greatly on the annotator’s background knowledge and intuition. Furthermore, annotating tweets one by one, as opposed to user-based annotation, albeit automatic, suffers from a lack of context.
Concluding Remarks {#sec:concluding-remarks}
==================
In this paper we provide a new dataset for stance detection in Catalan and Spanish. The objective is two-fold: (i) to promote research on stance detection in other languages different to English and, (ii) to facilitate experimentation in multilingual and cross-lingual settings. We show that the methodology used to build the Catalonia Independence Corpus generates good quality annotated data without having to manually annotate tweet by tweet. Most importantly, it also helps to alleviate the imbalance in the classes distribution. Our experimental results confirm these considerations as the tested systems exhibit consistent behaviour across languages. We believe that our methodology can help to obtain larger annotated datasets from limited resources while making the annotation process cheaper and faster.
Additionally, we establish new state-of-the-art results on the TW-1O dataset for both Catalan and Spanish. Our hypothesis to explain the large difference with previous work is the more exhaustive pre-processing performed, apart from the use of the fastText word embeddings to obtain the tweets representation. The results also show the superior performance of the fastText linear classifier over SVM or RNN approaches on both datasets. These results are somewhat similar to those obtain for English with the SemEval 2016 data, where linear classifiers still are competitive or outperform newer deep learning approaches.
We publicly distribute the datasets and code to facilitate further multilingual and cross-lingual research on stance detection[^8].
Acknowledgements {#sec:acknoledgements}
================
This work has been funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities under the project DeepReading (RTI2018-096846-B-C21) (MCIU/AEI/FEDER, UE) and by the BBVA Big Data 2018 “BigKnowledge for Text Mining (BigKnowledge)” project. The second author is funded by the Ramon y Cajal Fellowship RYC-2017-23647. We also acknowledge the support of the Nvidia Corporation with the donation of a Titan V GPU used for this research.
Bibliographical References {#main:ref}
==========================
[^1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/fake-news-partisan-republican-democrat.html
[^2]: http://www.fakenewschallenge.org/
[^3]: https://github.com/ixa-ehu/catalonia-independence-corpus
[^4]: https://github.com/michmech/lemmatization-lists
[^5]: http://commoncrawl.org/
[^6]: http://alt.qcri.org/semeval2016/task6/
[^7]: https://code.google.com/archive/p/language-detection/
[^8]: https://github.com/ixa-ehu/catalonia-independence-corpus
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Parinya Chalermsook[^1]'
- 'Marek Cygan[^2]'
- 'Guy Kortsarz[^3]'
- 'Bundit Laekhanukit[^4]'
- 'Pasin Manurangsi[^5]'
- 'Danupon Nanongkai[^6]'
- 'Luca Trevisan[^7]'
bibliography:
- 'citations.bib'
- 'citations.bib'
title: |
From Gap-ETH to FPT-Inapproximability:\
Clique, Dominating Set, and More
---
[^1]: Aalto University, Finland. Email: `[email protected]`.
[^2]: Institute of Informatics, University of Warsaw, Poland. Email: `[email protected]`.
[^3]: Rutgers University-Camden, New Jersey, USA. Email:`[email protected]`.
[^4]: Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel & Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. Email: `[email protected]`
[^5]: University of California, Berkeley, USA. Email: `[email protected]`.
[^6]: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. Email: `[email protected]`
[^7]: University of California, Berkeley, USA. Email: `[email protected]`.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This work concludes a series of four papers on the foundational theory of orbifolds and stacks. We apply the abstract theory, developed in its predecessors, to orbifolds derived from manifolds. Specifically, we show how the very concrete topological base spaces associated to such orbifolds can be described and manipulated in our universal language. At the same time, we interpret our many categorical axioms in several explicit contexts.'
address: |
University Of Texas at Permian Basin\
Odessa, Texas\
79762
author:
- Paul Feit
title: |
Existence of Orbifolds IV:\
Examples
---
\[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Conjecture]{}
[^1]
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
In a series of works, the author has developed a Existence Criterion for categories of orbifolds. In this concluding paper, we offer applications of the abstract machinery. We begin with topological spaces relevant to orbifolds, and develop enough point-set theory to prove that the hypotheses of our universal propositions apply. We also give explicit meaning to their conclusions.
This paper owes much of its subject matter to Ms. Dorette Pronk, who, as of this writing, is preparing for her doctorate. The author’s original motivation arose from algebraic geometry. Specifically, our hope was to simplify and complete formulations for algebraic spaces and stacks. This starting point essentially forced a categorical perspective upon us. Ms. Pronk pointed out that there are many more accessible, geometric theories of orbifolds. She challenged us to explain certain empirical observations and practical questions in the context of our theory. This paper is, primarily, a series of answers to her questions. Some comments are complete, some are partial.
The contents are roughly as follows. We introduce a subcategory of the category of topological spaces. To avoid problems with the axioms of set theory, we limit it as follows: for each set $S$, we let ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ be the subcategory of objects which have a cover by open subsets of cardinality less than or equal to the cardinality of $S$. (When $S={\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}$, the subcategory includes most standard objects of study.) This category is then examined from several perspectives.
We assign to a [*pseudogeometric*]{} topology, and verify many abstract conditions discussed in previous papers. Actually, the majority of our universal constraints are translations of classical point-set ideas to the categorical level. Each individual identity is simple to check.
A universal theorem from [@O3] now assigns to a pseudoétale topology. That is, we assign to it a topology from which our plus construction creates orbifold-type objects. For technical reasons, it is convenient to restrict the topology to ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$. (There are formal questions about which we conjecture to be resolvable.) The category ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]^{+}$ will contain our first explicit, non-trivial orbifolds. These include objects with mirrored boundaries and cone points, as discussed in [@WT].
Although members of ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ have no differentiable or analytic structure, the explicit construction here has obvious analogues for a category of manifolds of any kind ($S={\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}$). Consequently, our work shows to define pseudoétale topologies for differential or analytic manifolds.
Inside ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$, we give examples of a group action $G$ on an object $M$ such that non-trivial members of $G$ have fixed points but, in the categorical sense of [@O1], the quotient map $q:M\longrightarrow G\backslash M$ is Galois (ie., discrete, overlays absolutely and uniformly, etc.).
Many classical orbifolds are regarded as some sort of a topological base space plus extra information. Our theory does not use sheaves of structure to model objects. We have an alternative perspective which allows for base spaces in contexts where they exist. In our language, to say that each object in a category has a topological aspect is to assign to it a continuous functor $\Gamma :{\mbox{$\cal C$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ which is [*faithful.*]{} If $f$ and $g$ are distinct -morphisms between two objects, then $\Gamma (f)$ and $\Gamma (g)$ are continuous functions between “underlying” base spaces; moreover, if $\Gamma (f)$ and $\Gamma (g)$ agree as functions, then $f=g$ in . We prove that, under an elementary hypothesis, every lift of $\Gamma$ (ie., $\Gamma ^{+}$ , $(\Gamma ^{+})^{+}$ ,...) is also faithful.
Let be a category which is being used to generate orbifolds (such as a category of manifolds of some type). Let $M,N\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$, and let $G$ and $H$ be groups with actions on $M$ and $N$, respectively. Then $G\backslash M$ and $H\backslash N$ exist in . What is a morphism $G\backslash M\longrightarrow H\backslash N$? We consider a question of pathologies from [@GS].
Throughout the paper, we use the notation, terminology and theorems of earlier works. We must assume that the reader is familiar with, or has access to these papers.
Section \[topol\] defines the topological context . (We emphasize certain subcategories, which will not be discussed in this introduction.) As hinted in previous works, a vital concept is that a theory of orbifold-type objects should begin with a topological category in which the class of morphisms is restricted. The definition of [*diffuse*]{} continuous function requires some point-set topology.
We need topologies for . Each object in has a topology in the point-set sense. Our universal framework discusses topology, but in a categorical sense. Section \[geometric\] defines a [*pseudogeometric*]{} topology for . This amounts to (1) rewriting point-set concepts, like subsets and connectedness, in the abstract language and (2) verifying many categorical restrictions. Although numerous, each individual condition of our universal axiom set translates to an easy statement in the concrete situation.
The pseudogeometric topology is too elementary to generate orbifolds. In [@O3], a method for deriving a pseudoétale topology from a pseudogeometric topology was introduced. It is the latter construct which, in unison with the plus functor, generates orbifold-type objects. It is the pseudoétale topology that occupies the our attention for the rest of the paper.
Definition of the derived pseudoétale is forbiddingly formal. However, we have developed an infrastructure of theory for the concept. Section \[pseudo\] reviews what is known about pseudotale morphisms, and where there are gaps. We conjecture that some of the omissions can be resolved by further work. Other difficulties, such as the fact that is not closed under descent, are part of the theory.
We seek a context in which there is a finite group $G$ acting on a manifold $M$ such that non-trivial members of $G$ have fixed points and yet the quotient map $q:M\longrightarrow G\backslash M$ has many of the properties usually exhibited only by quotients for discrete actions. Those properties were discussed, at the level of categories, in [@O1]. We characterized particularly good quotients as being [*Galois.*]{} Inside , we can actually exhibit such group actions for the first time. In this context, the challenge is to find $G$ and $M$ for which the morphism $q$ is pseudoétale. Theorem \[xtheo2\] gives an explicit hypothesis under which this occurs. It requires some effort to prove that theorem. Section \[prod\] starts the proof with a study of fibered products in . Then, Section \[fullquot\] brings in several universal lemmas established in earlier papers to complete the argument.
Section \[faith\] changes topics. It focuses on the following issue:
\[wff\]
Suppose $f$ and $g$ are morphisms between two differentiable or analytic orbifolds of some kind. Assume that the underlying functions of $f$ and $g$ (that is, the continuous maps they determine between base spaces) agree. Show that $f=g$.
We interpret (\[wff\]) to state that the functor which sends an orbifold to its underlying topological space is faithful. We offer a hypothesis under which faithfulness of a topological model is preserved by the plus construction.
Section \[whatis\] interprets the abstract definition in an explicit context. Suppose $G$ and $H$ are groups which act, respectively, on affine objects $M$ and $N$ such that $G\backslash M$ and $H\backslash N$ exist as orbifold-type objects. There is a definition of morphism from $G\backslash M\longrightarrow H\backslash N$ in our theory. If $M$ and $N$ are both some type of manifold, then there exist topological quotients $G\backslash M$ and $H\backslash N$ which are quite explicit. This leads to a deceptive principle: an orbifold morphism $F:M\longrightarrow N$ factors to an orbifold morphism $f:G\backslash M\longrightarrow H\backslash N$ if and only if the underlying continuous function of $F$ factors through the topological quotients. Mathematicians have discovered that this idea leads to contradictions. We illustrate the falsity of the principle by considering a pathology based on an example in Schwarz’s thesis [@GS].
The author is especially grateful to MSRI in Berkeley. Virtually all of this paper, and much of its predecessor, were drafted during visits to MSRI in the summers of 1993 and 1994. The staff helped to arrange a synchronous stay by Dorette Pronk, whose concerns motivate most of this paper.
Topological Terminology {#topol}
=======================
Let be the category of topological spaces (in which the morphism class consists of all continuous functions). In the present paper, we define a space $X\in {\mbox{\bf Top}}$ to be [*locally connected*]{} if each point has a basis consisting of connected neighborhoods. We do [*not*]{} require that a locally connected space be Hausdorff. Let denote the class of locally connected topological spaces. Connected components are always closed; if $X\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$, then its connected components are open as well. Denote the closure of a subset $C\subseteq X$ by $\overline{C}$.
Let $X\in {\mbox{\bf Top}}$. We say $X$ is [*locally Hausdorff*]{} if it has a cover by open subsets, each of which is Hausdorff in the subset topology. A class of locally Hausdorff objects will appear later.
Let $X\in {\mbox{\bf Top}}$. By a [*subset element*]{} of $X$, we mean a pair $(U,I)$ where $U$ is an open subset of $X$ and $I$ is a subset of $U$. We call an element $(U,I)$ [*closed*]{} if $I$ is closed in $U$. Suppose $f:X\longrightarrow Y$ is a continuous function between topological spaces. For $(U,I)$ a subset element of $Y$, define the subset element [*$f^{-1}$(U,I),*]{} or [*pullback of $(U,I)$ along $f$*]{}, of $X$ to be $(f^{-1}U,f^{-1}I)$.
Now, we introduce some non-standard terminology.
Let $X\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$. An open subset $U$ of $X$ is called [*Z-dense*]{} (in $X$) if, for every non-empty open connected subset $C$ of $X$, $U\cap C$ is non-empty and connected. (One may regard these as a generalization of sets which are dense in a Zariski topology, as used in algebraic geometry.) A subset $I\subseteq X$ is called [*negligible*]{} (in $X$) if its complement is Z-dense.
The following comments are tautological consequences of the definition.
Let $X\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$.
\(A) A Z-dense subset is dense and open.
\(B) The intersection of a finite family of Z-dense open subsets is a Z-dense open subset.
\(C) Let $U,V\subseteq X$ be open subsets such that $U\subseteq V$. If $U$ is Z-dense, then $V$ is Z-dense.
\(D) Let $U,V\subseteq X$ be open subsets such that $U\subseteq V$. If $V$ is Z-dense in $X$ and $U$ is Z-dense in $V$, then $U$ is Z-dense in $X$.
\(E) Let $U,V\subseteq X$ be open subsets. If $U$ is Z-dense in $X$, then $U\cap V$ is a Z-dense open subset of $V$.
\[lcor1\] Let $X\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$.
\(A) A negligible subset of $X$ is closed and nowhere dense.
\(B) The union of a finite family of negligible subsets of $X$ is negligible.
\(C) A closed subset of a negligible set is negligible.
\(D) Let $I$ be a negligible subset of $X$ and let $J$ be a negligible subset of $X-I$. Then $I\cup J$ is negligible in $X$.
\(E) Let $I,V\subseteq X$ be subsets. If $V$ is open and $I$ is negligible in $X$, then $I\cap V$ is a negligible subset of $V$.
Part (C) of the Lemma requires the elementary fact that if $D$ is a connected subset of $X\in {\mbox{\bf Top}}$, and if $D\subseteq E\subseteq \overline{D}$, then $E$ is connected. All other claims are tautological.
It is easy to find a local characterization of the property of being negligible.
\[ylem2\] Let $X\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$, and let $I\subseteq X$ be a closed subset. Then the following two conditions are equivalent.
\[zlist1\]
For each $x\in I$, there is a basis of neighborhoods ${\cal V}_{x}$ at $x$ such that, for each $V\in {\cal V}_{x}$, both $V$ and $V-I$ are connected and non-empty.
$I$ is negligible in $X$.
Obviously the problem is to prove (\[zlist1\].b) from (\[zlist1\].a). Hereafter, assume (\[zlist1\].a).
As a first step, observe that, trivially, $I$ has no interior. We finish the proof by contradiction.
Let $C$ be a connected, non-empty open subset of $X$ for which $C-I$ is not both connected and non-empty. By our first step, $C-I$ must be a non-empty, disconnected set. Then there are two non-empty closed subsets $A$ and $B$ of $C-I$ such that $A\cap B=\emptyset$ and $A\cup B=C-I$. Let $A^{\ast}$ and $B^{\ast}$ be the respective closures of $A$ and $B$ [*with respect to $C$.*]{} Then $A^{\ast} \cup B^{\ast} =C$, because $I$ is nowhere dense. Since $C$ is connected, there must be $x\in A^{\ast} \cap B^{\ast} $. Clearly, $x\in I$. Let $V\in {\cal V}_{x}$ such that $V\subseteq C$. Then $V-I$ is connected. and non-empty. Consequently, $V-I$ intersects only one of the sets $A,B$. Without loss of generality, assume $(V-I)\cap A=\emptyset$. Now $V\cap A=(V-I)\cap A=\emptyset$. But, since $x$ is in the closure of $A$, the latter statement is impossible.
Let $X\in {\mbox{\bf Top}}$. A subset element $(U,I)$ is called [*negligible*]{} if, in the subset topology, $U\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$ and $I$ is a negligible subset of $U$.
Let $f:X\longrightarrow Y$ be a continuous function between two locally connected spaces. We say $f$ is [*diffuse*]{} if $f$ pulls back each negligible subset element of $Y$ to a negligible subset elements of $X$.
\[zcor1\] Let $X\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$. Let $\cal V$ be an open cover of $X$. Let $(U,I)$ be a subset element of $X$. If $(V\cap U,V\cap I)$ is negligible for each $V\in \cal V$, then $(U,I)$ is negligible.
\[ycor1\] Let $X,Y\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$, and let $f:X\longrightarrow Y$ be a function. Let $\cal V$ be an open cover of $X$. If, for each $V\in \cal V$, the restriction of $f$ to $V$ is a diffuse function $V\longrightarrow Y$, then $f$ is a diffuse function.
Trivial.
We are ready to define the [*categories*]{} to which we will apply the machinery of this paper’s predecessors. Trivially, -isomorphisms are diffuse and composition of diffuse continuous functions are diffuse.
Let denote the subcategory of whose object class is and whose morphism class consists of all diffuse continuous functions between such objects. Define the subcategory [**HGen**]{} (respectively, [**HGen**]{}$^{+}$) of to have the class of all Hausdorff (respectively, locally Hausdorff) locally connected spaces for objects, and the class of all -morphisms between such objects for morphisms.
The category has more than mere objects and morphisms. Each object supports a canonical Grothendieck topology. It is not hard to lift this topology—perhaps system of topologies is a better phrase—to , [**HGen**]{} and [**HGen**]{}$^{+}$.
Pseudogeometric Topologies {#geometric}
==========================
For this section,
\[ycond1\]
let be , [**HGen**]{} or [**HGen**]{}$^{+}$.
We shall define on a “canonical” topology, which we shall call the [*pseudogeometric topology*]{}. This topology has many special properties, as abstracted in [@LG], [@O1] and [@O2]. The formulations in these papers are non-standard. As the reader may not be familiar with the language, we go through verification carefully. Each individual step is rather simple. Difficult points have been addressed in earlier papers, in general form. Hopefully, work with the explicit categories of this paper will illustrate the ethereal machinery of its predecessors.
Definition of a categorical topology, in the sense of [@LG], begins with a selection of a class of special morphisms. Let $Sub$ denote the class of open embeddings (that is, open injections in ) whose domain and codomain are in . Note that if $u:U\longrightarrow X$ is an open embedding and $X\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$, then $U\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ and $u$ is a -morphism. We claim that, in the language of [@LG (2.1)], $Sub$ is a [*universe of formal subsets.*]{} This amounts to three conditions:
\[ylist1\]
$Sub$ contains all -isomorphisms,
composition of members of $Sub$ are in $Sub$,
each member of $Sub$ is a pullback base, and every pullback of a member belongs to $Sub$.
The first two conditions are self-evident. The third involves a subtle point.
Let $f:X\longrightarrow Y$ be a -morphism and let $u:U\longrightarrow Y$ be an open embedding. Choose $V$ to be the inverse image, under $f$, of the image of $u$. Let $v:V\longrightarrow X$ be subset injection, and let $g:V\longrightarrow U$ be the unique function such that $u\circ g=f\circ v$. Assign to $V$ the subset topology. Then $(V;v,g)$ is a pullback of $u$ along $f$ with respect to the category ! More importantly, $U,V\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ and each of $u$, $v$ and $g$ is diffuse. This suggests that the triple might also be a pullback with respect to . Indeed, $(V;v,g)$ is a pullback $f^{-1}u$ in . Proof relies on the following
Assume (\[ycond1\]). Let $f:X\longrightarrow V$ be a continuous function between members of [**LC**]{}. Let $v:V\longrightarrow Y$ be an open embedding into another member of [**LC**]{}. Then $v\circ f$ is diffuse if and only if $f$ is diffuse.
Trivial.
Categorical pullbacks along open embeddings now have an explicit characterization. Condition (\[ylist1\].c) follows immediately.
It is unusual for a pullback of a -morphism, as defined in , to serve as a pullback in . We shall see later that is not closed under arbitrary fibered product. We shall struggle with morphisms which are pullback bases but whose pullbacks in disagree with their pullbacks in .
Having chosen a suitable $Sub$, we need a notion of cover. We say that a non-empty cone $S$ of open embeddings into an object $X\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ [*covers*]{} if $X=\bigcup _{s\in S}~$Im$(s)$. Formally, we choose $Cov$ to be the class of all non-empty cones of open embeddings with this property, and must verify that $Cov$ satisfies the conditions of [@LG (2.9)]. Most are obviously true.
\[ylist2\]
Each $S\in Cov$ is a non-empty cone.
If $S\in Cov$ and $T$ is a cone of open embeddings which contains $S$, then $T\in Cov$.
If $b$ is a -isomorphism, then $\{ b\} \in Cov$.
If $S\in Cov$, and if $\theta (s)\in Cov$ is a cover of for each $s\in S$, then $$\{ s\circ u~:~ s\in S, u\in \theta (s)\} \in Cov.$$
If $S\in Cov$ is a cover of $Y\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ and if $f:X\longrightarrow Y$ is a -morphism, then, for any choice of pullbacks, the set $\{ f^{-1}s~:~s\in S\}$ belongs to $Cov$.
If $f\in Sub$ and $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{2}$ are the canonical projections $f\times _{cod~f}f\longrightarrow {\mbox{dom\kern 2pt{$f$}}}$, then $\{ \pi _{1}\} ,\{ \pi _{2}\} \in Cov$.
Condition (\[ylist2\].e) relies on the explicit description of pullbacks. Condition (\[ylist2\].f) is less subtle; since each $f\in Sub$ is monomorphic, the two projections are isomorphisms!
We refer to $(Sub,Cov)$ as the [*(canonical) pseudogeometric topology.*]{} Let us consider terminology and properties.
In earlier works, the author refers to members of $Sub$ as [*formal subsets.*]{} A formal subset $b$ for which $\{ b\} \in Cov$ is called a [*covering morphism.*]{} In the present, explicit, context, we continue to refer to these key morphisms as open embeddings. In this topology, a morphism is a covering morphism if and only if it is a -isomorphism.
The topology meets the [*smallness condition*]{} [@LG (2.11)]. This is the categorical name for the observation that, for each $X\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$,
every open embedding into $X$ is ${\mbox{$\cal C$}}/X$-isomorphic to a member of the set of subset injections of open subsets of $X$,
given a family of open subsets of $X$, the issue of whether the family covers is set-theoretic.
Now suppose $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are two cones of open embeddings into an object $X\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$. Suppose that for each $j\in {\mbox{dom($\alpha$)}}$, there is an index $k\in {\mbox{dom($\beta$)}}$ such that $\alpha (j)$ factors through $\beta (k)$. In addition, suppose that $\alpha$ covers $X$. Clearly, $\beta$ must cover $X$. This property of the topology is called the [*flushness condition*]{} [@LG Definition 2.19].
Several categorical formulations rely on [*canopies.*]{} Let us first consider the canopy of a cover, as in [@LG (2.21)]. Let $X\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$, and let $\theta$ be a non-empty cone of open embeddings into $X$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that for each $j\in J={\mbox{dom($\theta$)}}$, $\theta (j):U(j)\longrightarrow X$ is subset injection. Consider a graph $A_{0}$, whose objects are indexed by $J\cup J^{2}$, in which $$\begin{array}{cl}
A_{0}[j]=U(j) & \mbox{for each }j\in J, \\
A_{0}[j,k]=U(j)\cap U(k) & \mbox{for }j,k\in J,
\end{array}$$ and in which the only morphisms are the injections $A_{0}[j,k]\longrightarrow A_{0}[j]$ and $A_{0}[j,k]\longrightarrow A_{0}[k]$ for all choices $j,k\in J$. Consider the cone $\alpha :A_{0}\longrightarrow X$ in which $\alpha (t)$ is subset injection for each index $t$. Then $A_{0}$ is a canopy of $\theta$, and $\alpha$ is its canonical cone into $X$.
We claim that if $\theta$ is a cover, then $\alpha$ is a colimit. Unwinding definitions, the colimit condition becomes:
Suppose that $Y\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ and $\{ f(j):U(j)\longrightarrow Y\}$ is a family of diffuse continuous functions such that, for any $j,k\in J$, $f(j)$ and $f(k)$ agree on $U(j)\cap U(k)$. Then there is a unique diffuse continuous function $f:X\longrightarrow Y$ such that, for each $j\in J$, $f(j)$ is the restriction of $f$ to $U(j)$.
This is Corollary \[ycor1\]. Note that if $\theta$ is a cover, the canonical cone of any canopy for any pullback of $\theta$ (which is also a cover) is a colimit. In the language of [@LG Theorem 2.28], the topology is [*intrinsic.*]{}
Two of our categories are [*global structures.*]{} For that reason, we add some comments on abstract canopies.
Let $A_{0}$ be an abstract canopy, in the sense of [@LG Definition 3.4], with respect to the pseudogeometric topology on . Put $J=\Lambda (A_{0})$. For each $j\in J$, we have a -object $A_{0}[j]$; for each pair $(j,k)\in J^{2}$, we have an object $A_{0}[j,k]$ and canonical open embeddings $\rho _{1}:A_{0}[j,k]\longrightarrow A_{0}[j]$ and $\rho _{2}:A_{0}[j,k]\longrightarrow A_{0}[k]$. We are interested in the issue of whether $A_{0}$ has an [*affinization.*]{} That is, whether there is an object $X\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ and a family of open embeddings $\alpha (j):A_{0}[j]\longrightarrow X$, one for each $j\in J$, such that,
\[zlist2\]
$\{ \alpha (j)\} _{j\in J}$ is a cover of $X$, and
for $j,k\in J$, $(A_{0}[j,k];\rho _{1},\rho _{2})$ is a fibered product $\alpha (j)\times _{X}\alpha (k)$.
In fact, there is an easy construction for $X$.
Let $$X_{1} = \{ (x,j)~:~ j\in J,~x\in A_{0}[j]\} ,$$ and $$R = \{ ((x,j),(y,k))~:~\exists z\in A_{0}[j,k]
\mbox{~for which~} x=\rho _{1}(z)
\mbox{~and~} y=\rho _{2}(z)\} .$$ For each $j\in J$, let $\beta (j)$ be the function $x\mapsto (x,j)$ from $A_{0}[j]\longrightarrow X_{1}$. With respect to a unique choice of topology on $X_{1}$, $X_{1}$ paired with the morphisms $\beta (j)$ becomes a disjoint union of the family $\{ A_{0}[j]\} _{j\in J}$.
The first remark is that $R$ is an equivalence relation on $X_{1}$. Reflexivity for $R$ relies on axiom [@LG (3.5.c)] that $A_{0}$ be a canopy. The latter requires that, for each $j\in J$, there is a function $\delta :A_{0}[j,j]\longrightarrow A_{0}[j]$ such that, for each $x\in A_{0}[j]$, $\rho _{1}(\delta (x))=x=\rho _{2}(\delta (x))$. Similarly, the symmetry property is a consequence of another axiom [@LG (3.5.d)] phrased in terms of existence of a morphism. The transitivity property comes from [@LG (3.5.e)], although here we need to know about pullbacks as well. That conditions states that, for $i,j,k\in J$, there is a function $$\omega : (A_{0}[i,j],\rho _{2})\times _{A_{0}[j]}(A_{0}[j,k],\rho _{1})
~\longrightarrow A_{0}[i,k]$$ with good properties. The relevance is as follows: suppose $((x,i),(y,j))$ and $((y,j),(z,k))$ belong to $R$. Take $r\in A_{0}[i,j]$ and $s\in A_{0}[j,k]$ for which $$\rho _{1}(r)=x, \rho _{2}(r)=y=\rho _{1}(s)
\mbox{~~and~~} \rho _{2}(s)=z.$$ Then $(r,s)$ represents a member of $A_{0}[i,j]\times _{A_{0}[j]}A_{0}[j,k]$, and $$\rho _{1}(\omega (r,s))=\rho _{1}(r)=x
\mbox{~~and~~} \rho _{2}(\omega (r,s))=\rho _{2}(s)=z
\Rightarrow ~~((x,i),(z,k))\in R.$$ Three of our categorical formulations are no more than the axioms of an equivalence relation!
We can now define a quotient space (with canonical projection) $q:X_{1}\longrightarrow X(=X_{1}/R)$ and define $\alpha (j)=q\circ \beta (j)$ for each $j\in J$. It remains to check (\[zlist2\].a,b).
Once we show that each $\alpha (j)$ is an open injection, then (\[zlist2\].a) is a tautology. First, fix $j\in J$. Each projection $A_{0}[j,j]\longrightarrow A_{0}[j]$ is injective, and composes with the diagonal $\delta$ to get the identity function. Consequently, each projection, and $\delta$, is an isomorphism. It follows that distinct members of $A_{0}[j]$ are not equivalent mod$(R)$. In other words, $\alpha (j)$ is injective. Next, the assumption that every projection $A_{0}[j,k]\longrightarrow A_{0}[j]$ and $A_{0}[j,k]\longrightarrow A_{0}[k]$ is open directly implies that, for $U\subseteq X_{1}$ an open subset, the set of all $x\in X_{1}$ which are equivalent to a member of $U$ is also open. Consequently, $\alpha (j)$ is an open embedding for every $j\in J$.
We know explicitly how to take a fibered product of open embeddings in . In particular, any construction of a fibered product in suffices. Thus, we may characterize $\alpha (j)\times _{X}\alpha (k)$ as the set $\{ (r,s)~:~\alpha (j)(r)=\alpha (k)(s)\}$ paired with a specific topology. That the latter must be isomorphic to $A_{0}[j,k]$ is trivial. Condition (\[zlist2\].b) follows.
There is one problem: [*does $X$ belong to our category?*]{} If so, then we may conclude that our construction is an affinization. If is or [**HGen**]{}$^{+}$, it is clear that $X$ always will be an object. At this point, we may deduce
\[ycond2\]
The categories and [**HGen**]{}$^{+}$ are closed under affinization.
On the other hand, it is clear that there are choices for the canopy $A_{0}$ in [**HGen**]{} for which $X$ is [*not*]{} Hausdorff.
Next, we claim that meets the [*CLCS*]{} criterion. This criterion has several parts. Let $Cvm$ be the class of covering morphisms—in our cases, the class of all -isomorphisms. We require that $Cvm$ be a [*universe of layered morphisms.*]{} This means, firstly, that the analogues to (\[ylist1\].a,b,c) are true with $Cvm$ in place of $Sub$; obviously, this much is true. In addition, we require that if $b:B\longrightarrow A$ is a -morphism and if $S$ is a cover of $A$ such that $s^{-1}b\in Cvm$ for each $s\in S$, then $b\in Cvm$. This implication is a trivial consequence of the fact that the topology is intrinsic (which implies that $B$ and $A$ are colimits of the same canopy).
Suppose $b:B\longrightarrow A$ is a -morphism and $S$ is a cover of $B$ such that, for each $s\in S$,
\[ylist3\]
$b\circ s$ is an open embedding,
$b^{-1}(b\circ s)$ exists, and is an isomorphism.
The last part of the CLCS criterion demands that, under (\[ylist3\].a,b), $b$ must be an open embedding. The implication requires a short paragraph.
Let $b$ satisfy (\[ylist3\].a,b). We claim that $b$ is an open embedding. Given (\[ylist3\].a), it suffices to show that $b$ is injective. Without loss of generality, assume that $S$ consists of injections of members of a family of open subsets $\cal U$. Now suppose $x,y\in B$ such that $b(x)=b(y)$. Take $U\in {\cal U}$ such that $x\in U$. Condition (\[ylist3\].b) translates as $U=b^{-1}(b(U))$ for each $U\in {\cal U}$ . Thus, $y\in U$. But, by assumption, the restriction of $b$ to $U$ is an open embedding, which means $x=y$.
The last axiom discussed in [@LG Definition 14.1] is that be complete (or closed) under $Cvm$. The issue is as follows. Suppose $J$ is a set and $A_{0}$ and $Q_{0}$ are two canopies of type Int$(J)$ (that is, objects indexed by $J\cup J^{2}$, morphisms between appropriate members) and let $q\mapsto q[\alpha ]$ be a graph transformation $Q_{0}\longrightarrow A_{0}$. Assume that for $j,k\in J$, the triples $(Q_{0}[j,k];\rho _{1},q[j,k])$ and $(Q_{0}[j,k];\rho _{2},q[j,k])$ are fibered products $(Q_{0}[j],q[j])\times _{A_{0}[j]}(A_{0}[j,k],\rho _{1})$ and $(Q_{0}[k],q[k])\times _{A_{0}[k]}(A_{0}[j,k],\rho _{2})$, respectively. We call $(Q_{0},q)$ a [*pullback system*]{} into $A_{0}$. If [**Aux**]{} is a universe of layered morphisms and $q[\alpha ]\in $[**Aux**]{} for each $\alpha \in J\cup J^{2}$, we call it a pullback system of [**Aux**]{}-morphisms. Our last condition is that if $(Q_{0},q)$ is a pullback system of $Cvm$-morphisms for $A_{0}$ and if $A_{0}$ has an affinization, then $Q_{0}$ has an affinization. Since $Cvm$ consists of isomorphisms, the implication is vacuous. We shall look at closure for more interesting notions of layered morphisms shortly.
We can summarize our work so far.
With respect to their respective pseudogeometric topologies, the categories and [**HGen**]{}$^{+}$ are global structures, and [**HGen**]{} is a local structure, in the sense of [@LG Definition 14.1].
The subcategory injection functor ${\bf HGen}\longrightarrow {\bf HGen}^{+}$ is, with respect to the pseudogeometric topologies, a [*globalization.*]{}
The key points in the proof of the Corollary are summarized in [@LG Remark 14.6].
Our three categories are linked intimately to the topological notion of connectedness. The next step is to show that the topological version implies the categorical notion of connectedness developed in [@O1 (16.a,b)] and [@O2 Definition 13]. We prove that each of our categories is [*topologically componentwise.*]{}
Let $\emptyset$ denote the empty space. Then
for each $B\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$, there is a unique -morphism $\emptyset \longrightarrow B$,
if $b:B\longrightarrow \emptyset$ is a -morphism, then it is an isomorphism.
That is, $\emptyset$ is an empty object in the sense of [@O1 (14.a,b)].
Let $B,C\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$, and let $A$, paired with canonical injections $b:B\longrightarrow A$ and $c:C\longrightarrow A$, be a disjoint union, in the topological sense. Trivially, $A\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ is a disjoint union in the categorical sense. That is, if $Y\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ and $f:B\longrightarrow Y$ and $g:C\longrightarrow Y$ are diffuse continuous function, then there is a unique diffuse continuous function $h:A\longrightarrow Y$ such that $f=h\circ b$ and $g=h\circ c$. The two morphisms $b$ and $c$ are open embeddings, and the pair $\{ b,c\}$ covers $A$. The fibered product $b\times _{A}c$ is empty. If $f:D\longrightarrow A$ is a -morphism, then pulling back $b$ and $c$ along $f$ determines a disjoint union structure on $D$.
The last paragraph has several tautological implications.
is componentwise,
a -object is connected in the categorical sense if and only if it is connected in the topological sense,
a -morphism is complemented in the categorical sense if and only if it is complemented in the topological sense,
the pseudogeometric topology meets the first and last conditions in [@O2 (18)].
Let $Comp$ denote the class of complemented morphisms.
We must show that $Comp$ is a universe of layered morphisms under which is closed. Conditions (\[ylist1\].a,b,c) are trivial. Now suppose $b:B\longrightarrow A$ is a -morphism and ${\cal U}$ is an open cover of $A$ such that, for each $U\in {\cal U}$ , the restriction of $b$ to $b^{-1}U$ is complemented. We leave it for the reader to check that $b$ must be complemented.
Finally, we claim that the category is closed with respect to complemented morphisms. In and [**HGen**]{}$^{+}$, every canopy has an affinization, so the claim is tautological. Now assume =[**HGen**]{}. Suppose $(Q_{0},q)$ is a pullback system of complemented morphisms to a canopy $A_{0}$, and $a\sharp :A_{0}\longrightarrow A$ is an affinization in [**HGen**]{}. Let $q\sharp :Q_{0}\longrightarrow Q$ be an affinization in , and let $f:Q\longrightarrow A$ be the unique morphism such that $f\circ q\sharp [\alpha ]=a\sharp [\alpha ]\circ q[\alpha ]$ for each $\alpha \in J\cup J^{2}$. General nonsense implies that $f$ is a complemented morphism [*with respect to*]{} . It follows that the domain of $f$ is in [**HGen**]{}, which means that $q\sharp$ is an affinization in [**HGen**]{}.
The pseudogeometric topologies of , [**HGen**]{} and [**HGen**]{}$^{+}$ are topologically componentwise. Moreover, in each category, every object has a cover by connected objects.
The Pseudoétale Topology {#pseudo}
========================
Let be a topologized category which is flush, intrinsic, closed under descent and such that every formal -subset is monomorphic. Then the definition of superopen from [@O3 Section 5] makes sense in . Moreover, if is topologically componentwise, and every -object has a cover by connected objects, then we can define the [*derived pseudoétale*]{} and [*torsorial*]{} topologies on as well. Thus, without further comment, it follows that and [**HGen**]{}$^{+}$ support topologies suitable for orbifolds.
Or rather, they almost do. Earlier papers developed the machinery necessary to generate topologies which, in turn, generate categories of formal quotients (and of formal quotients “pasted” together. We will not add to that theory. Instead, we raise several significant points about that construction. In these notes, we focus on the pseudoétale topology.
Terminology
-----------
We have provided categorical definitions for topological words like “discrete”, “open”, “finite”, etc. In , these phrases need not assume their standard meanings. Indeed, is created specifically as a context where a discrete morphism can have, in the traditional sense, a small set of ramification.
Discussion of terminology is hampered by the lack of a construction for a pullback of one -morphism along another. However, we will make some elementary points. When we are using a term in the general, categorical sense, we shall prefix it with “c-”; otherwise, words have the usual meaning in point-set topology. In what follows
\[xhyp2\]
Let be either or [**HGen**]{}$^{+}$.
Assume (\[xhyp2\]). Let $b:B\longrightarrow A$ be a -morphism which overlays absolutely. Then $b$ is surjective, in the usual sense.
Unfortunately, we do not have one argument that works in general. Instead, we offer a line of reasoning for each choice of .
First, suppose =[**HGen**]{}$^{+}$. Every pullback of $b$ along a formal subset also overlays absolutely. These pullbacks agree with the usual sense of pullback. Hence, without loss of generality, we may assume that $A$ is Hausdorff. We proceed by contradiction.
Assume $x\in A$ is not in the image of $b$. The subset $U=A-\{ x\}$ belongs to , and injection $\iota :U\longrightarrow A$ is a -morphism. Moreover, there is a -morphism $c:B\longrightarrow U$ such that $b=\iota \circ c$. Let $(P;p,q)$ be a self-product $b\times _{A}b$. Clearly $c\circ p=c\circ q$. Since $b$ is a colimit of the canopy of $\{ b\}$, the latter implies that $1_{A}$ factors through $\iota$, which is absurd.
Next, suppose that =[**Gen**]{}. Let $C$ denote the set $\{ 0,1\}$ with the indiscrete topology—that is, the only open subsets of $C$ are $\emptyset$ and $\{ 0,1\}$. Trivially, the point-set topological product $A\times C$ belongs to . Define two functions $f,g:A\longrightarrow A\times C$ by $f(x)=(x,0)$ and $$g(x)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
(x,0) & \mbox{if $x$ is in the image of $b$,} \\
(x,1) & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array} \right.$$ It is routinely verified that $f$ and $g$ are -morphisms. By inspection, $f\circ b=g\circ b$. However, $b$ is known to be epimorphic, and so $f=g$. This implies that $b$ is surjective.
Assume (\[xhyp2\]). Suppose that $f:B\longrightarrow W$ is a -morphism which overlays absolutely, and that $w:W\longrightarrow A$ is an open embedding. Then the image of $w$ is the same as the image of $w\circ f$.
\[xcol4\] Assume (\[xhyp2\]). Then a c-open -morphism is open in the usual sense.
\[wcover\] Assume (\[xhyp2\]). A cone of pseudoétale morphisms covers if and only if the union of the images of the members of the cone equals the common codomain.
In this order, the Corollaries have obvious proof.
\[xcol2\] Assume (\[xhyp2\]). Let $b:B\longrightarrow A$ be a c-open -morphism, and let $c:C\longrightarrow A$ be an arbitrary -morphism with the same codomain. Suppose $x\in C$ such that $c(x)$ is in the image of $b$. Then $x$ lies in the image of any choice of $c^{-1}b$.
Let $U$ be the image set of $b$, and let $V=c^{-1}U$. Let $u:U\longrightarrow A$ and $v:V\longrightarrow C$ be subset injection. Now $b$ is composition of $u$ with a morphism that overlays absolutely. Hence, the pullback of $b$ along $u$ overlays absolutely. Since $v$ is a pullback of $u$, it follows that the pullback of $c^{-1}b$ along $v$, which is a pullback of $u^{-1}b$, overlays absolutely. Consequently, the latter is surjective. The proposition follows now from the fact that pullback along open embeddings agrees with the usual sense of pullback.
\[xlem5\] Assume (\[xhyp2\]). Let $b:B\longrightarrow A$ be a c-discrete -morphism. If $x,y\in B$ such that $x\neq y$ and $b(x)=b(y)$, then there is a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ which does not contain $y$.
If $B\in $[**HGen**]{}$^{+}$, the conclusion is true for any two distinct points in $B$. Assume =[**Gen**]{}, and suppose that $y$ is contained in every neighborhood of $x$. Note that if $X$ is a subset of $B$ which contains $x$ and $y$, and if $I$ is a closed subset of $X$ which contains $y$, then $x\in I$.
Consider the function $f:B\longrightarrow B$ which is the identity on $B-\{ x\}$ but which maps $f(x)=y$. It follows that if $U\subseteq B$ is an open subset, then $U\subseteq f^{-1}U$. Thus, $f$ is continuous. If $T$ is a subset of $B$, the $f^{-1}T=T-\{ x\}$ or $T$.
A criterion for connectedness is needed. We claim that
\[xcond1\]
Let $C$ be an open subset of $B$. Then $C$ is connected if and only if $C-\{ x\}$ is connected.
Let $C$ be an open subset which contains $x$. Then $y\in C$, which implies that $C$ lies in the closure of $C-\{ x\}$. Implication (\[xcond1\]) follows.
We observe next that $f$ is diffuse. Suppose $(U,I)$ is a negligible subset-element of $B$. If $x\in U$, it follows that $f^{-1}(U,I)=(U,I)$ is negligible. If $y\notin U$, then $f^{-1}(U,I)=(U,I)$ is negligible. There remains the case where $x\notin U$ and $y\in U$. Put $U^{\ast} =U\cup \{ x\}$ and $I^{\ast} =I\cup \{ x\}$. Then $f^{-1}(U,I)$ is $(U^{\ast} ,I^{\ast} )$ or $(U^{\ast} ,I)$. Remark (\[xcond1\]) proves negligibility in either case.
Let $Y$ be the connected component of $x$ in $B$. Then $f_{1}$, the restriction of $f$ to $Y$, and $g_{1}=1_{Y}$, interpreted as diffuse maps into $B$, satisfy $$b\circ f_{1}=b\circ g_{1}
\mbox{~~and~~} f_{1}\neq g_{1}.$$ Consider $D=Y-\{ x\}$, and let $d:D\longrightarrow Y$ be subset injection. From (\[xcond1\]), it is easy to show that
$D\in {\mbox{\bf Gen}}$,
$d$ is diffuse.
Then $D\neq \emptyset$ and $f_{1}\circ d=g_{1}\circ d$. But this contradicts the discreteness of $b$.
\[xprop2\] Assume (\[xhyp2\]). Let $b:B\longrightarrow A$ be an c-open, c-discrete -morphism which is finite of order $n\in {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{N}$}}$. Then, for each $x\in A$, $b^{-1}\{ x\}$ has at most $n$ elements. Moreover, for each $x\in A$ for which $b^{-1}\{ x\} \neq \emptyset$, there is a connected, c-finite, c-open, c-discrete -morphism $c:C\longrightarrow A$ with a point $z\in C$ such that,
$c(z)=x$, and
for each $y\in b^{-1}\{ x\}$, there is at least one morphism $f:C\longrightarrow B$ for which $b\circ f=c$ and $f(z)=y$.
Fix $x\in A$ such that $b^{-1}\{ x\} \neq \emptyset$. Suppose $C$ is a non-empty connected -object, $c\in $Mor$_{C}(C,A)$, $z\in C$ and $f_{1},...,f_{k}$ is a finite list ${\mbox{$\cal C$}}/A$-morphisms $(C,c)\longrightarrow (B,b)$ such that $c(z)=x$ and $f_{i}\neq f_{j}$ for all pairs of distinct indices $i$ and $j$. Suppose $y\in b^{-1}\{ x\}$ such that $f_{j}(z)\neq x$ for every $j\in {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{N}$}}(k)$.
By the previous lemma, there is an open neighborhood $U$ of $y$ which does not contain $f_{j}(z)$ for any $j\in {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{N}$}}(k)$. Let $(D;d,p)$ be a pullback of the restriction of $b$ to $U$ along $c$. By Corollary \[xcol2\], there is a point $z^{\ast} \in d^{-1}\{ z\}$. Let $e:E\longrightarrow D$ be the identity map on the connected component of $z^{\ast}$ in $D$. Since $b$ is discrete, $f_{i}\circ d\circ e\neq f_{j}\circ d\circ e$ for any two distinct indices $i$ and $j$.
Let $u:U\longrightarrow B$ be subset injection. For each index $j$, $$b\circ f_{j}\circ d\circ e=
c\circ d\circ e=b\circ u\circ p\circ e,$$ Put $q=u\circ p\circ e$. By choice, $q(z)\neq \{ f_{j}\circ d\circ e\} (z^{\ast} )$. (We do not claim that $q(z)$ actually equals $y$, however.) Replacing $c:C\longrightarrow A$ and $z$ by $c\circ d\circ e:E\longrightarrow A$ and $z^{\ast}$, we can now receate the hypothesis of this construction but with an indexed list, of morphisms, of length $k+1$.
The properties of c-openness, c-finiteness and c-discreteness are preserved by pullback and composition with complemented morphisms. Proof of our proposition is now a trivial consequence of the above construction.
\[xcol3\] Assume (\[xhyp2\]). Let $b:B\longrightarrow A$ be a c-finite, c-discrete, c-open -morphism. Let $c:C\longrightarrow A$ be a -morphism with the same codomain, and let $(P;p,q)$ be a fibered product $c\times _{A}b$. Suppose $x\in B$ and $y\in C$ such that $b(x)=c(y)$. Then there is $z\in P$ such that $p(z)=y$ and $q(z)=x$.
Let $x$ and $y$ be as hypothesized. Let $w=b(x)=c(y)$. By Proposition \[xprop2\] and Lemma \[xlem5\], there is an open neighborhood $U$ of $x$ which contains no other members of $b^{-1}\{ w\}$. In a canonical sense, $q^{-1}U$ is a pullback of the restriction of $b$ to $U$ along $c$. Thus, there is $z\in q^{-1}U$ such that $p(z)=y$. The only possible value of $q(z)$ is $x$.
A particular self-product may illustrate the previous Corollary. Let $n\in {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{N}$}}$, let $G$ be the multiplicative group of complex $n$-th roots of unity, and let $b$ be the function $b(z)=z^{n}$ from ${\mbox{$I \kern -6pt{C}$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{$I \kern -6pt{C}$}}$. Let $X$ be the disjoint union of $n$ copies of , indexed by $G$. Define $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{2}$ on $X$ by, for each $\omega \in G$, letting $\pi _{1}$ be the identity map and $\pi _{2}$ be multiplication by $\omega$ on the $\omega$-th copy of in $X$. In , the self-product $b\times b$ derives from $(X;\pi _{1},\pi _{2})$ if we identify the 0’s of the copies of as one point. In , for each pair $(r,s)$ of complex numbers for which $r^{n}=s^{n}$, there is a unique member $w$ of the product such that $r=\pi _{1}(w)$ and $s=\pi _{2}(w)$. However, although the underlying object of the product in belongs to [**HGen**]{}, the two projections are not diffuse; the origin in , a negligible set, pulls back to a non-negligible set. With respect to [**HGen**]{}, $(X;\pi _{1},\pi _{2})$ is the self-product. To get a product in the context of diffuse functions, we must allow for points which [*cannot be distinguished*]{} by $\pi _{1}$ and $\pi _{2}$.
In our example, we can say that for a pair $(r,s)$ for which $r^{n}=s^{n}$, there is [*at least one*]{} point in the product whose first and second projection are $r$ and $s$, respectively. Corollary \[xcol3\] assures us that, at least for products with a c-finite, c-discrete, c-open morphism, any pair of points $(x,y)$ which are sent to the same image do arise as first and second projections of [*something*]{} in the product.
The Pseudoétale Topology is [*not*]{} closed under Descent {#nonquot}
----------------------------------------------------------
Corollary \[xcol3\] is more important than it may appear at first.
Suppose $A_{0}$ is a canopy in (with respect to the pseudoétale topology). Put $J=\Lambda (x)$. Let $X$ be the (topological) disjoint union of the sets $\{ A_{0}[j]\} _{j\in J}$; for each index $j$, let $\beta [j]$ be the canonical injection $A_{0}[j]\longrightarrow X$. Define a relation $R$ (signified by $\sim$) on $X$ by, for all appropriate choices of parameters, $\beta [j](x)\sim \beta [k](y)$ if and only if there is $z\in A_{0}[j,k]$ such that $\rho _{1}(z)=x$ and $\rho _{2}(z)=y$. Reflexivity and symmetry of $R$ follow trivially. However, transitivity requires Corollary \[xcol3\]. That is, given indices $i,j,k\in J$, $s\in A_{0}[i,j]$ and $t\in A_{0}[j,k]$ for which $\rho _{2}(s)=\rho _{1}(t)$, we need the existence of $$w\in (A_{0}[i,j],
\rho _{2})\times _{A_{0}[j]}(A_{0}[j,k],\rho _{1})$$ such that $s$ is the first projection of $w$, and $t$ is the second.
Since $R$ is an equivalence relation, we can define a quotient function $q:X\longrightarrow Q$ for it in . By Corollary \[xcol4\], all morphisms of the canopy are open in the traditional sense. It follows that $q$ is an open function. Consequently, $Q\in {\mbox{\bf Gen}}$.
We claim that [*if*]{} $A_0$ has an affinization, then the specific cone $j\mapsto q\circ \beta [j]$ is also an affinization. To see this, assume that $\alpha :A_{0}\longrightarrow A$ is an affinization. There is a unique continuous function $f:X\longrightarrow A$ such that $$\alpha [j]=f\circ \beta [j]
\mbox{~~~for each~}j\in J.$$ Recall that $\alpha [j]$ is known to be open. It follows that $f$ is an open function. Our conclusion amounts to two conditions:
\[wiso\]
$f$ is surjective, and
for $r,s\in X$, $f(r)=f(s)$ if and only if $r\sim s$.
Condition (\[wiso\].a) follows from Corollary \[wcover\] and the requirement that $j\mapsto \alpha [j]$ be a cover.
Let $j,k\in J$, $x\in A_{0}[j]$ and $y\in A_{0}[k]$. We must show that the condition $$\label{weq1}
\beta [j](x)\sim \beta [k](y)$$ is equivalent to $$\label{weq2}
f(\beta [j](x))=f(\beta [k](y))~~\Leftrightarrow
\alpha [j](x)=\alpha [k](y).$$ Since $\rho _{1}\circ \alpha [j]=\rho _{2}\circ \alpha [k]$ on $A_{0}[j,k]$, statement (\[weq1\]) implies (\[weq2\]). Conversely, assume (\[weq2\]). Another aspect of our affinization is that $(A_{0}[j,k],\rho _{1},\rho _{2})$ must serve as $\alpha [j]\times _{A}\alpha [k]$. In this context, Corollary \[xcol3\] implies (\[weq1\]).
It would be nice if the previous paragraphs were preparation for proof that the pseudoétale topology of is closed under descent. Alas, this is not the case. Problems with quotients are well-known; see, for example, [@GS] and [@WT]. What follows is our spin on some well-known observations.
Let $V$ be a real vector space, let $\sigma$ be a non-identity linear automorphism of $V$ such that $\sigma ^{2}=1_{V}$, and let $G$ be the 2-group $\{ 1_{V},\sigma \}$. Consider $V$ modulo $G$. Actually, we ask a more restrictive question. We want to know whether a quotient $G\backslash V$ exists which is pseudoétale. That is, the quotient must also have properties of finiteness and discreteness.
Let $V^{G}$ be the disjoint union of two copies of $V$, let $\pi _{1}:V^{G}\longrightarrow V$ be the identity map on each copy and let $\pi _{2}:V^{G}\longrightarrow V$ be the identity on one component and $\sigma$ on the other. Let $\Gamma$ be the graph consisting of $V^{G}$, $V$ and $\{ \pi _{1},\pi _{2}\}$. Existence of a good quotient is equivalent to two requirements:
$\Gamma$ is a canopy,
$\Gamma$ has an affinization.
Each point merits comment.
Let $W$ be the fixed point set of $\sigma$. It has been observed several times in previous papers (see [@O3 Section 8] that $\Gamma$ is a canopy provided that the equalizer of $\{ 1,\sigma \}$ is the empty object. The latter conditions means that there must [*not*]{} be a non-empty -morphism $d:D\longrightarrow V$ such that the image of $d$ lies in $W$. This requires verification.
Let us suppose that a troublesome morphism $d:D\longrightarrow V$ exists, and try to reach a contradition. We may assume that the domain $D$ is connected. If $W$ is of codimension 2 or more in $V$, then $W$ is negligible in $V$. Consequently, $D=d^{-1}W$ is negligible in $D$, an absurdity. Next, suppose $W$ has codimension 1 in $V$. Then every affine hyperplane of $W$ is negligible in $V$ but divides $W$ into two connected components. Now the inverse image of a hyperplane $H$ in $D$ must be negligible. It follows that $d$ maps into one of the two half-spaces of $W$ bounded by $H$. Consequently, the image of any three points in $D$ must lie on a(n affine) line. Hence, the entire image of $D$ lies on a line!
At this point, our argument hits a twist. Suppose that $V$ has dimension at least 2, so that a point in $V$ is a negligible set. Using points to divide the image of $D$, we deduce that the image of $D$ can not be bigger than a single point, which leads to a contradiction. However, if $V$ has dimension 1 and $W=\{ 0\}$, the subset inclusion $d:\{ 0\} \longrightarrow V$ is the unwanted equalizer! Indeed, in a one-dimensional real manifold, there are no non-empty negligible subsets. Therefore, every continuous function into a one-dimensional real manifold is diffuse!
\[wrem2\] The argument shows that a non-empty -morphism into a topological manifold of dimension $n>1$ can not map into any proper submanifold.
Hereafter, assume $V$ has dimension $\geq 2$. Consider the topological quotient $q:V\longrightarrow G\backslash V$. The initial remarks of this subsection tell us that if an affinization exists, then $q$ is one. In fact, the canopy is so simple that it suffices to show that $q$ is pseudoétale. Alas, verification that $q$ is pseudoétale is non-trivial. Later, we prove Theorem \[xtheo2\] which states that $q$ has the desired properties if $W$ has codimension $\geq 2$. However, in the other case, it is simple to see that $q$ can not be pseudoétale.
Suppose $W$ has codimension 1. By inspection, $q(W)$ is a negligible subset of $V/G$. Yet, $W=q^{-1}q(W)$ is not negligible in $V$. Hence, $q$ is not even diffuse!
Assume that $W$ has codimension 1. We have proved that a good quotient $G\backslash V$ does not exist in . However, sometimes the quotient can exist in some category.
When $V={\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}$, we encounter an intractable problem. The morphism $d:\{ 0\} \longrightarrow V$ has the property that $d=\sigma \circ d$. Enlarging the category can not change this equation, which rules out existence of a Galois morphism $q:V\longrightarrow Q$ with Galois group $G$.
Now assume that dim $V\geq 2$. Since $\Gamma$ is a canopy, a suitable $G\backslash V$ will exist in ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}^{+}$, as discussed in the next section. The topological quotient is inadequate. The problem will be studied in detail in Section \[whatis\], but we give a synopsis here.
It is possible to find -morphisms $f,g:D\longrightarrow V$ and $x_{0}\in D$ such that
$g(x)\in \{ f(x),\sigma (f(x))\}$ for each $x\in D$,
in any neighborhood of $x_{0}$, there exist $y,z$ such that $$\begin{array}{ll}
g(z)=f(z)\neq \sigma (f(z)) &\mbox{ and } \\
g(y)=\sigma (f(y))\neq f(y) &
\end{array}$$
Let $q:V\longrightarrow G\backslash V$ be a topological quotient. In the topological sense, $q\circ f=q\circ g$. If $q$ were an affinization, then there would be a product map $\delta :D\longrightarrow V^{G}=q\times q$ such that $f=\pi _{1}\circ \delta$ and $g=\pi _{2}\circ \delta$. Let $E$ be the connected component of $x_{0}$. Then, for all $x\in E$, we would have one of the identities $$f(x)=g(x) \mbox{~~or~~}f(x)=\sigma (g(x))$$ true for [*all*]{} $x\in E$. Yet, this is not the case.
We have assumed too much structure, and reached a contradiction. The reason is that, for $q\sharp :V\longrightarrow Q$ the actual quotient in an enlarged category, $q\sharp \circ f$ and $q\sharp \circ g$ are not the same.
Expansions
----------
Suppose is a category of orbifolds of active interest. Attaching a topological space to each object amounts to introducing a continuous functor $\Gamma :{\mbox{$\cal C$}}\longrightarrow $[**Gen**]{}. Extending the topological model to an enlargement of , via the plus functor, means lifting $\Gamma$ to a new continuous functor $\Gamma ^{+}$ on . Unfortunately, since is not closed under descent, there may not be an extension to ${\mbox{${\cal C}^+$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\bf Gen}}$.
It is necessary to have $\Gamma ^{+}$ defined on all members of , which means we need a codomain. The “obvious” choice is ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}^{+}$. Indeed, if ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}^{+}$ exists, the extension theorem follows from work in this series. The problem is that we can not yet prove that the plus construction applies to !
The problem is formal, not substantial. As observed in [@O3 Section 3], the only obstruction is to show that the class of global classes between two ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}^{p}$-objects is representable by a set. In fact, we make the
The pseudoétale topology for meets the smallness axiom for a categorical topology. The torsorial topology does not meet the smallness condition, but does satisfy [@O3 (11)].
After all, every pseudoétale morphisms into $X\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ is in the set of finite-to-one maps to $X$. Unfortunately, the conditions used to define the pseudoétale topology are not framed in set-theory.
It is not difficult to get around the immediate problem. Let $S$ be an infinite set, and let ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ be the subcategory of objects which admit a cover by open sets of cardinality less than or equal to the cardinality of $S$. Assign to ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ the obvious restriction of the topology. All of the arguments in in this paper apply equally well ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$. The difference is that ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ is the globalization of a [*small*]{} local structure—specifically, of the subcategory of objects entirely of cardinality less than or equal to the cardinality of $S$! In practical examples, $S={\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}$ generates a category containing the desired topological models.
Technically, the derived pseudoétale topology of restricted to ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ need not be the derived pseudoétale topology of ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$. That is, at its face, it is possible that a ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$-morphism $f$ might be pseudoétale in ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ but not in . This seems unlikely. However, until we have better control over pullbacks, we can only
Let $S$ be an infinite set, and let $f$ be a ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$-morphism.
$f$ is torsorial in the category ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ if and only if it is torsorial in .
$f$ is pseudoétale in ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ if and only if it is pseudoétale in .
Even without the conjecture, we have a context which allows for arbitrary repition of the plus construction.
Functors and Pseudoétale Topologies {#contrast}
-----------------------------------
Let $S$ be a set, let be a pseudogeometric topologized category and let $\Gamma :{\mbox{$\cal M$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ be a continuous functor with respect to the pseudogeometric topology on ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$. For example, $\Gamma$ might be the forgetful functor on a category of manifolds , which might be differentiable, Riemmanian, analytic, complex, etc. It is not necessarily true that $\Gamma$ is continuous with respect to the derived pseudoétale topologies.
In practice, it seems reasonable. However, the author suspects that proof of continuity in a specific case depends on the particulars of . An old example illustrates the problem. Let $n\in {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{N}$}}$, $n>1$, and let $g:{\mbox{$I \kern -6pt{C}$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{$I \kern -6pt{C}$}}$ be the function $g(z)=z^{n}$. We shall prove in Section \[fullquot\] that $g$ is pseudoétale in the context of . In the sense of real manifolds, $g$ does not even overlay absolutely. Yet, in the category of complex analytic manifolds with diffuse morphisms, $g$ appears again to be pseudoétale. What we expect to be true is that if $h$ is pseudoétale in the sense of real manifolds, or any other kind of structure, it must pseudoétale in [*and*]{} if $h$ is pulled back along another morphism $f$, then the underlying space of the pullback is the pullback $f^{-1}h$ in .
It may seem odd that the author introduce a notion whose compatibility with continuous functors is questionable. There is logic behind the formulation of pseudoétale morphisms. Our thesis has been that the parameters of formal objects are set at he categorical level. Even the study of $g$ in the above paragraph suggests that [*context*]{} rather than intrinsic nature determine whether singularities prevent good structure.
For all its formalism, the definition of being pseudoétale is negative. It is motivated by a question: Given a morphism $b$, how can one determine that, even in an enlarged category, $b$ will not obey the rules of manipulation that we need? Rather than turn the question on concrete issues, such as the shape of singular sets, the author started with a list of categorical manipulations to be allowed and tried to define a pseudoétale morphism as anything for which those manipulations did not lead to contradiction.
The advantage of such a definition is that a category like comes with an intrinsically defined notion of pseudoétale morphism, even before singular sets are studied. Of course, in order to show that a morphism with singularities actually meets the abstraction requires work. Only after Sections \[prod\] and \[fullquot\] will we have interesting examples.
It is not hard to modify the definition in the context of a model. Let $\Gamma :{\mbox{$\cal M$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ be as above. As usual, interpret it as assigning an underlying base space to each -object. If we want to enlarge in a manner that assures that $\Gamma$ lifts, a modified topology can be used. Define a morphism $b$ to be $\Gamma$-pseudoétale if and only if
$b$ is pseudoétale in ,
$\Gamma (b)$ is pseudoétale in ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$, and
$\Gamma$ preserves all pullbacks along $b$.
The $\Gamma$ will be continuous with respect to the corresponding topology on and the pseudoétale topology of ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$.
The author’s guess is that, in examples of interest, continuity will be true but very hard to prove. A situation in which a morphism can be pseudoétale but not $\Gamma$-pseudoétale would be exceptionally interesting.
One key reason for pseudoétale topologies is the need for a topology of finite-to-one morphisms to enable the plus construction to produce quotients. There is a very easy way to define such topologies. Let be a pseudogeometric topology (one in which formal subsets are monomorphic). A -morphism $b$ is called a [*local subset*]{} if there is a cover $S$ of such that $b\circ s$ is a formal subset for every $s\in S$. Let $FDL$ be the class of all local subsets which are finite and discrete. With an obvious notion of cover, $FDL$ becomes a topology which meets the axioms of a pseudoétale topology. We call it the [*elementary finite-to-one topology*]{}. It is not as rich as the [*derived*]{} pseudoétale topology.
For example, in the study of $G$ and $V$ from Subsection \[nonquot\], we would conclude that $G\backslash V$ [*never*]{} exists in , but does exist in ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}^{+}$ whenever dim $V\geq 2$. Because of the simplicity of the topology, the plus functor introduces so many new objects that even when $W$ has codimension $\geq 2$, the topological quotient $q:V\longrightarrow G\backslash V$ loses the quotient property in the enlarged category.
In the real case, it is the elementary finite-to-one topology that is in common usage. For that reason, we suspect the following to be true
Let be the subcategory of $C^{n}$-manifolds (where $n\in {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{N}$}}$ or $n=\infty$) consisting of all manifolds but only diffuse $C^{n}$-functions. Then the pseudoétale and elementary finite-to-one topologies agree.
Missing Things
--------------
There are two kinds of objects that our theory does not allow for. One is not of great technical concern, the other is more serious.
In limiting our categories’ version of morphism, we have effectively abolished any notion of sub-object. Closed subsets can not be translated into morphisms in our context. Products are rare, which means that an abstract form of the Rank Theorem can not be formulated.
More serious is the lack of group objects. Aside from (categorical analogues to) finite groups), there are virtually no abelian group object. This impacts on our ability to define cohomology for our very formal objects.
Each object supports a topology in the sense of Grothendieck. Consequently, cohomological theories arise naturally from any “sheaf” into the category of abelian groups. In our language, [*functors of sections*]{} are used in place of sheaves, and our theory includes existence and uniqueness of liftings for such functors.
In many theories, for $A$ an abelian group object, the functor Mor$(*,A)$ is a functor of sections and begats cohomology. Sometimes, one can adapt traditional group objects to the task. Suppose $A$ is an abelian topological group. Although $A$ may not exist in , we can define the functor $\Phi =$Mor$_{Top}(*,A)$. Because $A$ is outside , it does not follow immediately that $\Phi$ is a functor of sections. If, however, it is, then it will lift to all expansions of via the plus construction. Verification that $\Phi$ is a functor of sections can be simplified by using [@O3 Proposition 10]
What is the Hausdorff Condition?
--------------------------------
We have tracked Hausdorff objects because of precedent. Historically, objects of interest have some sort of separation property. Although the Zariski topology of a scheme is not Hausdorff, there is a weaker notion of “separated”. Unfortunately, the author is unaware of a separation property that can be characterized at the universal level.
It is well-known that a descent of separated (or Hausdorff) things can produce an unseparated object. However, it seems that global objects are of less interest unless they are separated (and, typically, every local object is separated.)
The author has ideas on this topic. Indeed, we have a notion of separation, framed in the context of a topologically componentwise category, with respect to which the following is true:
Let $b:B\longrightarrow A$ be a morphism and let $S$ be a cover of $B$ such that $b\circ s$ is discrete for each $s\in S$. If $B$ is “separated”, then $b$ is discrete.
However, before a definition can be made profitably, a more precise understanding of what separation should entail is needed.
We have no further results specific to [**HGen**]{} or [**HGen**]{}$^+$.
Representability of a Functor {#prod}
=============================
Let $X\in {\mbox{\bf Top}}$ and let be a family of closed subset elements of $X$. Define a contravariant functor $F$, denoted by [*Neg(X,),*]{} from to the category of sets as follows. For $B\in {\mbox{\bf Gen}}$, let $F(B)$ be the set of continuous functions $f:B\longrightarrow X$ such that $f^{-1}E$ is negligible for every $E\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}$. For $b:B\longrightarrow C$ a -morphism, define $F(b):F(C)\longrightarrow F(B)$ by $f\mapsto f\circ b$.
Various issues reduce to representability of a functor this kind. For example, let $A\in {\mbox{\bf Gen}}$ and let $\{ b_{j}:B_{j}\longrightarrow A\}_{j\in J}$ be a list of members of ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}/A$. Let $(P;\{ \pi _{j}\}_{j\in J})$ be a fibered product of the family in the topological sense (that is, in ${\mbox{\bf Top}}/A$). Let consist of all subset elements in $P$ which are a pullback of a negligible subset element by one of the projections $\pi _{j}$. In an obvious sense, a representative for Neg$(P,{\mbox{$\cal E$}})$ will be a product in the category ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}/A$.
The above interpretation enables us to find choices for which the functor can not be represented. Specifically, certain products do not exist in . Let $X$ be a real manifold, and consider the usual topological $X\times X$. It is easily verified that both projections $X\times X\longrightarrow X$ are diffuse. Suppose a product $P$ for $X$ with itself in exists. Then there is a canonical continuous function $P\longrightarrow X\times X$ and a canonical -morphism $X\times X\longrightarrow P$. By general nonsense, these functions are continuous bijections. Thus, $X\times X$ is a product in . Now there must be a diagonal -morphism $\delta :X\longrightarrow X\times X$ is whose composition with either projection is the identity. Tautologically, this must be the usual diagonal embedding. Alas, by Remark \[wrem2\], that function is not diffuse.
It is easy to build examples from fibered products instead of a self-product. In general, if $\Gamma$ is a graph of -objects and morphisms, and if $\alpha :A\longrightarrow \Gamma$ is an inverse limit for $\Gamma$ such that every morphism of $\alpha$ is diffuse, then an inverse limit in exists only if $\alpha$ is one. Unfortunately, diagonal maps imply that the candidate $\alpha$ will often fail. Indeed, it is difficult to see how a function can have even a self-product unless it is “generically” discrete in some sense.
We can not advance without some non-trivial pullback bases. In this section, we develop one gimmick, which will ultimately allow us to prove something about group quotients. From a pair $(X,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0})$, we shall construct a pair $(\Lambda ,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{1})$ and a continuous functor $\lambda :\Lambda \longrightarrow X$ such that $f\mapsto \lambda \circ f$ induces a natural isomorphism of functors Neg$(\Lambda ,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{1})\longrightarrow $Neg$(X,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0})$.
The construction requires several pages. Fix $X\in {\mbox{\bf Top}}$. In what follows, we introduce some temporary terminology, for use just in the construction. In the present context, for each $x\in X$, let $X(x)$ denote the set of open neighborhoods of $x$ in $X$.
Let $CSE(X)$ be the set of all closed subset elements of $X$. In the present context, call a subset ${\mbox{$\cal D$}}\subseteq CSE(X)$ [*closed*]{} if the following conditions are true:
\[zlist3\]
For $U$ an open subset of $X$, $(U,\emptyset )\in {\mbox{$\cal D$}}$.
If $(U,I)\in {\mbox{$\cal D$}}$ and $V$ is an open subset of $U$, then $(V,V\cap I)\in {\mbox{$\cal D$}}$.
If $(U,I)\in {\mbox{$\cal D$}}$ and $J$ is a subset of $U-I$ for which $(U-I,J)\in {\mbox{$\cal D$}}$, then $(U,I\cup J)\in {\mbox{$\cal D$}}$.
If $(U,I)\in CSE(X)$ and, for each $x\in I$ there exists an open subset $V$ of $U$ for which $(V,V\cap I)\in {\mbox{$\cal D$}}$, then $(U,I)\in {\mbox{$\cal D$}}$.
Obviously, an arbitrary intersection of closed subfamilies is closed. Thus, given a subset ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}\subseteq CSE(X)$, there is a smallest closed subfamily which contains . Refer to this as the [*closure of*]{} , and denote it by ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}^{\ast}$.
Let ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0}\subseteq CSE(X)$, and let $f:Y\longrightarrow X$ be a continuous function on a member of which pulls back each member of ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0}$ to a negligible subset element. By earlier lemmas, the family of all members of $CSE(X)$ whose pullback under $f$ is negligible is closed. In particular, $f$ pulls back each member of ${\cal C}_{0}^{\ast} $ to a negligible subset.
In what follows, assume a family ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0}\subseteq CSE(X)$ has been specified, and put ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}={\cal E}_{0}^{\ast} $. Then
has properties (\[zlist3\]).
In addition, partially order be the relation that $(U,I)\leq (V,J)$ if and only if $U\subseteq V$ and $U-I\subseteq V-J$.
Fix $x\in X$. Let ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}(x)$ denote the subset of $(U,I)\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}$ such that $x\in U$. Let $\Lambda (x)$ denote the set of function $f$ on ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}(x)$ such that
for each $(U,I)\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}(x)$, $f(U,I)$ is a connected component of $U-I$ whose closure contains $x$,
for $(U,I),(V,J)\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}(x)$, $f(U,I)\subseteq f(V,J)$ if $(U,I)\leq (V,J)$.
It is possible that $\Lambda (x)$ is empty.
Put $$\Lambda =\{ (x,f):~x\in X,~f\in \Lambda (x)\} .$$ Define $\lambda :\Lambda \longrightarrow X$ by $\lambda (x,f)=x$. Now we need a topology for $\Lambda$.
Let $U$ be an open subset of $X$. Define $${\mbox{$\cal E$}}[U]=\{ I\subseteq U~:~(U,I)\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}\} .$$ For $(x,f)\in \Lambda$ such that $x\in U$, define $$\begin{array}{l}
N(U,x,f)=N(U,(x,f)) \\
~~=\{ (y,g)~:~y\in U
\mbox{~and~} f(U,I)=g(U,I)
\mbox{~for all~} I\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}[U]\} .
\end{array}$$ We claim next that the family $$\label{yeq1}
\{ N(U,x,f)~:~x\in X,~U\in X(x),~f\in \Lambda (x)\}$$ is a basis for a topology on $\Lambda$.
Let $(x,f)\in \Lambda$ and $U\in X(x)$. Tautologically,
\[ylist5\]
$(x,f)\in N(U,x,f)$,
$\lambda (N(U,x,f))\subseteq U$,
for $(y,g)\in N(U,x,f)$, $N(U,y,g)=N(U,x,f)$.
In addition, if $V\in X(x)$, it is elementary to check that $$N(U\cap V,x,f)\subseteq N(U,x,f)\cap N(V,x,f),$$ by the nature of connected components. A first consequence of these observations is that (\[yeq1\]) is, indeed the basis of a topology on $\Lambda$. Hereafter, assign to $\Lambda$ this topology. With that definition in hand, we may also deduce that
$\lambda$ is continuous,
for each $x\in X$, $\{ N(U,x,f)~:~U\in X(x),~f\in \Lambda (x)\}$ is a basis of open neighborhoods at $x$.
Let $${\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{1}=\{ \lambda ^{-1}\alpha ~:~\alpha \in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}\} .$$ The next objective is verification that composition with the function $\lambda$ determines a natural isomorphism Neg$(\Lambda ,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{1})\longrightarrow $Neg$(X,{\mbox{$\cal E$}})$.
To begin with, let us expand on (\[ylist5\].b). Let $(x,f)\in \Lambda$, $U\in X(x)$ and $I\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}[U]$. Suppose $(z,h)\in N(U,x,f)$. Now $f(U,I)=h(U,I)$. By definition, $z$ lies in the closure of $h(U,I)$. Thus, $$\label{wclose}
z\in \overline{f(U,I)}~~~ \Rightarrow ~~~
z\in I \mbox{~or~} z\in f(U,I),$$ because $f(U,I)$ is closed in $U-I$. In other words, the image of $N(U,x,f)$ under $\lambda$ lies in $\overline{f(U,I)}\subseteq f(U,I)\cup I$ for each $I\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}[U]$.
Now suppose $Y\in {\mbox{\bf Gen}}$ and $\alpha ,\beta :Y\longrightarrow \Lambda$ are continuous function such that $\lambda \circ \alpha$ and $\lambda \circ \beta$ pull back each member of to negligible elements. Suppose $\alpha \neq \beta$. We claim $$\label{xeq2}
\lambda \circ \alpha \neq \lambda \circ \beta .$$ Fix $y\in Y$ for which $\alpha (y)\neq \beta (y)$.
If $\lambda (\alpha (y))\neq \lambda (\beta (y))$, we are done. Assume $x\in X$ such that $$\alpha (y)=(x,f) \mbox{~~and~~} \beta (y)=(x,g)$$ where $f\neq g$. Take $(U,I)\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}(x)$ such that $f(U,I)\neq g(U,I)$. Let $W$ be the connected component of $y$ in $$\label{yeq2}
\alpha ^{-1}N(U,x,f)~\cap ~\beta ^{-1}N(U,x,g).$$ The set $$J=(\{ \lambda \circ \alpha \} ^{-1}I \cup
\{ \lambda \circ \beta \} ^{-1}I)\cap W$$ is negligible in $W$. The set $W-J$ is non-empty and connected. Let $w\in W$. By choice, and by (\[wclose\]), $\lambda (\alpha (w))\in f(U,I)$ and $\lambda (\beta (w))\in g(U,I)$. But $f(U,I)$ and $g(U,I)$ are distinct connected components. Thus, $\lambda (\alpha (w))\neq \lambda (\beta (w))$. We have (\[xeq2\]).
Next, suppose that $Y\in {\mbox{\bf Gen}}$ and $\gamma :Y\longrightarrow X$ is a continuous function which pulls back members of to negligible elements. For $y\in Y$, define $f^{y}$ on ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}(x)$, for $x=\gamma (y)$, as follows. Suppose $(U,I)\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}(x)$. Let $W$ be the connected component of $y$ in $\gamma ^{-1}U$, and let $J=\gamma ^{-1}I$. Then $W-J$ is a non-empty, connected open set. Let $f^{y}(U,I)$ be the connected component of $U-I$ which contains $\gamma (W-J)$. Now $$\overline{W}\subseteq \gamma ^{-1}(\overline{f^{y}(U,I)})
~~\Rightarrow ~~\gamma (y)\in \overline{f^{y}(U,I)}.$$ Trivially, the function $f^{y}$ belongs to $\Lambda (x)$.
Define $F:Y\longrightarrow \Lambda$ by $F(y)=(\gamma (y),f^{y})$. Then $\lambda \circ F=\gamma$. Now suppose $y\in Y$, $(x,f)\in \Lambda$, $U\in X(x)$ and $F(y)\in N(U,x,f)$. By (\[ylist5\].c), $N(U,x,f)=N(U,\gamma (y),f^{y})$. Let $W$ be the connected component of $y$ in $\gamma ^{-1}U$. Now suppose $w\in W$ and $I\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}[U]$. Let $J=\gamma ^{-1}I$, and then $W-J$ is a non-empty, connected subset. By definition, $f^{y}(U,I)$ and $f^{w}(U,I)$ are exactly the same! Thus, $F(w)\in N(U,x,f)$. It follows that $F$ is continuous.
\[xprop1\] Let $X\in {\mbox{\bf Top}}$ and let ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0}$ be a family of closed subset elements of $X$. We denote the triple $(\Lambda ,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{1},\lambda )$ constructed above by $(X,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0})\sharp$. Now $\lambda$ induces a natural transformation from Neg$(X,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0})\longrightarrow $Neg$(\Lambda ,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{1})$, and this is an isomorphism of functors.
We now study $\Lambda$ in certain cases.
\[ylem1\] Let $Y\in {\mbox{\bf Gen}}$, let $(U,I)$ be a negligible subset element of $Y$, and let $y\in U$. Then there is a unique connected component of $U-I$ whose closure contains $y$.
Let $W$ be the connected component of $y$ in $U$. Then $y$ is in the closure of the connected, open and closed subset $W-I$ in $U-I$. Since $I$ is negligible, $W-I$ is connected.
\[ycor2\] In the context of Proposition \[xprop1\], suppose that $V\subseteq X$ is an open subset such that,
\[ylist6\]
in the subset topology, $V\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$,
for each $(U,I)\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0}$, $(V\cap U,V\cap I)$ is a negligible subset element.
Then the restriction of $\lambda$ to $\lambda ^{-1}V$ is a bijection onto $V$ whose inverse is continuous.
Clearly, the set of all elements $(U,I)$ such that $(V\cap U,V\cap I)$ is negligible is closed in $CSE(X)$. Specifically, every member of ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}={\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0}^{\ast}$ has this property. Let $\iota :V\longrightarrow X$ be the subset injection function. Then there is a unique continuous function $F:V\longrightarrow \Lambda$ such that $\lambda \circ F=\iota$. To finish, it suffices to show that $\lambda$ is injective on $\lambda ^{-1}V$. That is, given $x\in V$, there is a unique $f\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}(x)$. But this is immediate by Lemma \[ylem1\].
In the context of Proposition \[xprop1\], if $X$ is Hausdorff, then $\Lambda$ is Hausdorff.
Let $p$ and $q$ be distinct points in $\Lambda$. We must show that $p$ and $q$ can be separated by open neighborhoods. If $\lambda (p)\neq \lambda (q)$, this is trivial. Assume $x\in X$, $p=(x,f)$ and $q=(x,g)$ for $f\neq g$.
Assume that $(U,I)\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}$ such that $f(U,I)\neq g(U,I)$. Suppose $(z,h)\in N(U,x,f)\cap N(U,x,g)$. Then $$f(U,I)=h(U,I)=g(U,I)$$ which would contradict choice of $(U,I)$.
In the context of Proposition \[xprop1\], assume that $K$ is a closed subset of $X$ and that $V=X-K$ satisfies (\[ylist6\].a,b). Assume also that $(X,K)\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0}$. Then $\Lambda$ is locally connected and $\lambda ^{-1}K$ is a negligible subset. Moreover, if contains all negligible subset elements $(U,I)$ in which $U\subseteq V$, then, with respect to $\lambda$, $\Lambda$ represents Neg$(X,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0})$.
For each $x\in X-K$, let $x^{\ast}$ denote the unique member of $\lambda ^{-1}\{ x\}$.
Let $(x,f)\in \Lambda$ and $U\in X(x)$. Put $W=f(U,U\cap K)$. For each $I\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}[U]$, $W-I$ is connected. Since $(U,(U\cap K)\cup I)\leq (U,U\cap K)$, we get that $$f(U,(U\cap K)\cup I) = W-I.$$ The same reasoning applies to $(U,(U\cap K)\cup I)\leq (U,I)$. The set $f(U,I)$ is uniquely characterized as the only connected component of $U-I$ which intersects $W-I$. Now let $w\in W$. Working directly from the definition, we get that $w^{\ast }\in N(U,x,f)$. It follows easily that $$\{ w^{\ast }~:~w\in f(U,U\cap K)\} =
N(U,x,f)~\cap \lambda ^{-1}(X-K)\} .$$ Recall that $f(U,U\cap K)$ is non-empty.
We draw several conclusions. First, $\lambda ^{-1}(X-K)$ must be dense in $\Lambda$. Second, suppose $(x,f)\in \Lambda$ and $U\in X(x)$. Then $N(U,x,f)\cap \lambda ^{-1}(X-K)$ is a dense, connected subset of $N(U,x,f)$. Thus, $N(U,x,f)$ is connected.
We have proved that $\Lambda$ is locally connected and that $\lambda ^{-1}K$ is nowhere dense. In addition, for each $r\in \lambda ^{-1}K$, we have found that, for each $U\in X(\lambda (r))$, $N(U,r)$ is an open, connected neighborhood such that $N(U,r)-\lambda ^{-1}K$ is also connected. By Lemma \[ylem2\], the set $\lambda ^{-1}K$ is negligible. Consequently, ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{1}$ contains only negligible subset elements.
Finally, suppose that contains all negligible subset elements $(U,I)$ in which $U\subseteq X-K$. If $(U,I)$ is a negligible subset element of $\Lambda$, it is elementary to check that $(U,I)$ belongs to ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{1}^{\ast}$. It follows that $\Lambda$, as a -object, represents Neg$(X,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0})$.
\[xcol1\] Let $b:B\longrightarrow A$ be a -morphism. Let $I\subseteq B$ be a negligible subset, and assume that the restriction of $b$ to $B-I$ is, in the usual sense, an open local homeomorphism. Then $b$ is a pullback base in .
In fact, we can give a construction for pullbacks. Let $c:C\longrightarrow A$ be a -morphism. Let $(X;\pi _{C},\pi _{B})$ be a pullback $c^{-1}(B,b)$ with respect to the category . Let $K=\pi _{B}^{-1}I$. Let be the set of all negligible subset elements of $X-K$, and let ${\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0}={\mbox{$\cal D$}}\cup \{ (X,K)\}$. Let $(\Lambda ,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{1},\lambda )=(X,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{0})\sharp$. Then $(\Lambda ;\pi _{C}\circ \lambda ,\pi _{B}\circ \lambda )$ is a pullback $c^{-1}(B,b)$, with respect to .
Let us justify the construction of $c^{-1}(B,b)$. First, observe that the restriction of $\pi _{C}$ to $X-K$ is an open local homeomorphism. Thus, $X-K\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$.
Let $\cal N$ be the class of negligible subset elements of $C$. Since negligibility is a local property, it follows that for $(U,I)\in {\cal N}$, $((\pi _{C}^{-1}U)-K,I-K)$ is negligible. In other words, every subset element of $X-K$ which belongs to $(\pi _{C}^{-1}{\cal N})^{\ast }$ is negligible. Just as importantly, the fact that $\pi _{C}$ is a local homeomorphism implies that $(\pi _{C}^{-1}{\cal N})^{\ast }$ contains [*every*]{} negligible subset element of $X-K$.
We can find an open cover for $B-I$ such that, on each member, $b$ restricts to an open embedding. Consequently, there is an open cover of $X-K$ such that $\pi _{B}$, restricted to each, identifies with a restriction of $c$ to a subset of $C$. By Corollary \[ycor1\] the restriction of $\pi _{B}$ to $X-K$ is diffuse.
Verification that $\Lambda$ has the fibered product property is now trivial.
Quotients and the Pseudoétale Property {#fullquot}
======================================
We are ready to use the material of [@O3 Section 8]. We assume the notational conventions and theorems of that work, with one caveat. In that paper, the words “open”, “discrete”, “finite” and several others have categorical definitions. In the topological context, these terms have more standard, concrete meaning. In general, when using a term, we mean it in the topological sense. To indicate when an ambiguous term is intended in the universal sense, we prefix it with “c-”.
Let [**Aux**]{} be the class of tuples $(G,\rho ,B,b,A)$ in which
$B\in {\mbox{\bf Top}}$,
$(G,\rho )$ is a finite group action on $B$, with respect to ,
$b:B\longrightarrow A$ is an open, continuous surjection, and
for $x,y\in B$, $b(x)=b(y)$ if and only if $x$ is in the $G$-orbit of $y$.
Note that given a group action $(G,\rho )$ on a topological space $B$, then the standard topological quotient construction produces such a function $b$. In the present context, for $g\in G$ and $x\in B$, we write $g\cdot x$ for $\rho (g)(x)$.
Let $(G,\rho ,B,b,A)\in $[**Aux**]{}. Let $U$ be the set of $x\in B$ which have a neighborhood $V$ such that $g\cdot V\cap V=\emptyset$ for every $g\in G-\{ e\}$. Obviously, $U$ is open and $G$-invariant. In the present Section, refer to the complement of $U$ as the [*upper ramification set,*]{} and refer to the image of the complement under $b$ as the [*lower ramification set.*]{} Clearly, both ramification sets are closed in their respective spaces. Note that the restriction of $b$ to $U$ is a local homeomorphism.
The remainder of the section is dedicated to proof of the following
\[xtheo2\] Let $(G,\rho ,B,b,A)\in $[**Aux**]{}. Suppose that $B\in {\mbox{\bf Gen}}$ and that the upper ramification set is negligible. Also, suppose that if $x\in B$ and $g\in G$, then either $g\cdot x=x$ or $x$ and $g\cdot x$ can be separated by open sets. Then $b$ is a pseudoétale -morphism.
Proof will require several lemmas.
Let us begin with some point-set topology. Let $(G,\rho ,B,b,A)\in $[**Aux**]{}. Let $K$ be the upper ramification set, and assume that $B-K\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$. Put $I=b(K)$. Suppose $V$ is an open connected subset of $A-I$, and let $W$ be a connected component of $b^{-1}V$. By elementary methods, it follows that
$b(W)=V$, and
$b^{-1}V=\bigcup _{g\in G} g\cdot W$.
We shall use this observation repeated.
Let $(G,\rho ,B,b,A)\in $[**Aux**]{}. Suppose that $B\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$ and that the upper ramification set $K$ is negligible in $B$. Since $b$ is open, $A\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$. Put $I=b(K)$. Let $V$ be an open, conected, non-empty subset of $A$, and let $W$ be a connected component of $b^{-1}V$. Then $W-K$ is a (non-empty) connected component of $(b^{-1}V)-K=b^{-1}(V-I)$, and all other components are images of $W-K$ under action by $G$. Consequently, $V-I$ is connected and non-empty. Thus, $I$ is negligible in $A$.
Let us continue under the hypothesis of the above paragraph. First, we may deduce that $b$ is diffuse. In fact, a subset element of $A$ is negligible if and only if its inverse under $b$ is negligible in $B$. Thus, if $f:A\longrightarrow X$ is a continuous function such that $f\circ b$ is diffuse, then $f$ must be diffuse as well. In other words, $b$ has the quotient property with respect to the category as well as to the category !
Suppose $(G,\rho ,X,b,Y)\in $[**Aux**]{} such that, for $x\in X$ and $g\in G$ such that $g\cdot x\neq x$, it is possible to separate $x$ and $g\cdot x$ by open sets. We adopt some notation. Let $x\in X$. We denote the $G$-stabilizer of $x$ by $G(x)$. By a symmetric neighborhood of $x$, we mean an open, connected neighborhood $U$ such that $$g\cdot U=U \mbox{~for~}g\in G(x)
\mbox{~~ and~~}h\cdot U\cap U=\emptyset
\mbox{~for~}h\in G-G(x).$$ Clearly, the hypothesis that points in $x$’s orbit can be separated implies that there is a basis at $x$ consisting of symmetric neighborhoods. For $x\in X$, let $X(x)$ denote the set of symmetric neighborhoods of $x$.
Let [**Test**]{} be the class of members of [**Aux**]{} whose upper ramification set is negligible and in which the orbit of any point can be separated by open subsets. To proceed, we must show that [**Test**]{} satisfies [@O3 (59)]. We have verified that each member has the basic quotient property. Next, we consider pullbacks.
Let $(G,\rho ,B,b,A)\in$[**Test**]{}, and let $c:C\longrightarrow A$ be a -morphism. Let $(X;\pi _{C},\pi _{B})$ be pullback $c^{-1}(B,b)$ in the category , and let $(\Lambda ,{\mbox{$\cal E$}}_{1},\lambda )$ be the construction in Corollary \[xcol1\]. As a pullback in , $X$ supports a canonical action by $G$; as a pullback in , $\Lambda$ supports a canonical action. The action by $g\in G$ on $\Lambda$ can be characterized as the unique -morphism $f$ such that $\lambda (f(x))=g\cdot \lambda (x)$ for all $x\in \Lambda$. Tautologically, the upper ramification set of $\Lambda$ will be a closed subset of the pullback of the upper ramification set of $B$. Hence, the former is negligible. To proceed, we need one more fact: that $\pi _{C}\circ \lambda$ is a quotient map for the action on $\Lambda$.
Let $K$ be the upper ramification set for the action of $G$ on $X$. Let $d=\pi _{C}$, and let $J=d(K)$. It is known that $X-K\in {\mbox{\bf LC}}$ and that $J$ is closed. By inspection, $d$ is a quotient for action of $G$ on $X$. Moreover, the lower ramification set for $d$ lies in the pullback of the lower ramification set for $b$; therefore, both are negligible. In addition, by inspection, members of a $G$-orbit in $X$ can be separated by open sets.
The behavior of $\lambda$ away from $K$ is trivial. To finish the present step, we must show
\[xlist1\]
the function $d\circ \lambda$ is locally open at each $y\in \lambda ^{-1}K$, and
for each $x\in K$, $\lambda ^{-1}\{ x\}$ is a non-empty set of elements in the same $G$-orbit.
First, we describe the action by $G$ on $\Lambda$ explicitly. For $g\in G$ and $(x,f)\in \Lambda$, define $g\cdot (x,f)$ to be $(g\cdot x,h)$ where $h$ is defined by $h(U,I)=g\cdot f(U,I)$. By inspection, for a fixed $g\in G$, $(x,f)\mapsto g\cdot (x,f)$ is a continuous function which satisfies the necessary commutation.
For the moment, fix $x\in X$. Suppose $U\in X(x)$. Now $d(U)$ is connected and open, as must be $d(U)-J$. Let $M$ be a connected component of $d^{-1}(d(U)-J)$. All components are $G$-conjugates of $M$. The union of elements $g\cdot \overline{M}$ over $G$ is a $G$-invariant closed set, and so its image is a closed set. That image contains all of $d(U)$. Consequently, for any $y\in U$, there is a component whose closure contains $y$. Use $y=x$, and, without loss of generality, we may assume $x\in \overline{M}$. Let $\Omega (U)$ be the set of connected components of $d^{-1}(d(U)-J)$ whose closures contain $x$.
Since $U$ is symmetric, we know that $U$ itself is a connected component of $d^{-1}d(U)$. Consequently, every member of $\Omega (U)$ is contained in $U$. Now for $g\in G$, we see that either $g\in G(x)$, in which case $g$ permutes the members of $\Omega (U)$, or $g\notin G(x)$, in which case $g\cdot M$ is disjoint from $U$. It follows that $U-K$ is exactly the disjoint union of the members of $\Omega (U)$.
For each $U\in X(x)$, the size of $|\Omega (U)|$ is bounded above by $G(x)$. Therefore, we may choose $U_{0}\in X(x)$ for which $|\Omega (U_{0})|$ is maximal. That is, $$|\Omega (U_{0})|=\mbox{max}\{ |\Omega (U)|~:~U\in X(x)\}$$ Then, for each $V\in X(x)$ such that $V\subseteq U_{0}$, it is easily checked that
The rule $M\mapsto M\cap V$ defines a bijection $\Omega (U_{0})\longrightarrow \Omega (V)$.
Once this claim is accepted, it is easily argued that
For each $M\in \Omega(U_{0})$, there is a unique member $f_{M}\in \Lambda (x)$ with the property that $f_{M}(U_{0},U_{0}\cap K)=M$.
An immediate corollary is that the function $M\mapsto (x,f_{M})$ is $G(x)$-equivariant. Condition (\[xlist1\].b) follows.
Let us draw one more conclusion.
\[wexcomp\]
For $x\in X$, $U\in X(x)$, and for $M$ a connected component of $U-K$, there is some $f\in \Lambda (x)$ such that $f(U,U\cap K)=M$.
Proof is left to the reader.
It remains to show that $d\circ \lambda$ is locally open. Let $(x,f)\in \Lambda$, and let $U\in X(x)$. It suffices to show that $d\circ \lambda (N(U,x,f))$ is open in $C$. The image $d(U)$ is known to be open. Thus, it suffices to show that $d\circ \lambda (N(U,x,f))=d(U)$. That is, for each $y\in U$, we must find an $h\in \Lambda (y)$ and $g\in G$ such that $g\cdot (y,h)\in N(U,x,f)$.
Suppose $y\in U$. We have already observed that every member of $U$ lies in the closure of a $G(x)$-conjugate of $M=f(U,U\cap K)$. We are free to replace $y$ by any $G$-conjugate; hence, assume that $y$ lies in the closure of $M$.
Let $V\in X(y)$ be a symmetric neighborhood such that $V\subseteq U$. By (\[wexcomp\]), there is $h\in \Lambda (y)$ such that $h(U,U\cap K)=M$. It is clear that $h(U,I)=f(U,I)$ for every $I\in {\mbox{$\cal E$}}[U]$. Thus, $(y,h)\in N(U,x,f)$.
At this point, we may legitimately state that
The class [**Test**]{} satisfies [@O3 (59.A,B,C)].
Let us turn to condition (D).
Let $(G,\rho ,B,b,A)\in$[**Test**]{}. Let $Y\in {\mbox{\bf Gen}}$ be non-empty and connected, and let $\alpha ,\beta :Y\longrightarrow B$ be two -morphisms such that $b\circ \alpha =b\circ \beta$. Let $K$ be the upper ramification set of $B$. Then the subset $Y_{1}=Y-(\alpha ^{-1}K)-(\beta ^{-1}K)$ is non-empty, connected, and dense in $Y$. Choose and $y\in Y_{1}$. Then there is a unique $g\in G$ such that $g\cdot \alpha (y)=\beta (y)$. As the restriction of $b$ to $B-K$ is a local homeomorphism, and since $Y_{1}$ is connected, it follows that $g\cdot \alpha (y)=\beta (y)$ for all $y\in Y_{1}$. Now, for $y\notin Y_{1}$, the hypothesis that two distinct members of $\alpha (y)$’s orbit can be separated by open sets will rule out the possibility that $g\cdot \alpha (y)\neq \beta (y)$. (This elementary step uses the fact that $Y_{1}$ is dense.) This finishs [@O3 (59.D)]. We now have a family of quotients which satisfies the hypothesis of [@O3 Lemma 46]. Let $(G,\rho ,B,b,A)\in$[**Test**]{}. Let $u:U\longrightarrow B$ be an open embedding. Corollary \[xcol4\] states that $b$ is open in the traditional sense. Let $w:W\longrightarrow A$ be an open embedding whose image, in the usual sense, is the image of $b\circ u$. Then a pullback of this $w$ will be an open embedding whose image is the set of all $x\in B$ which are $G$-conjugate to something in the image of $u$. Consequently, this choice of $w$ meets condition [@O3 (60)]. Therefore, by [@O3 Corollary 47], every member of [**Test**]{} is a perfect quotient.
At this point, Theorem \[xtheo2\] is a special case of [@O3 Theorem 51].
Lifting Faithful Functors {#faith}
=========================
Let be a category of orbifolds which comes with a topological model. In our language, this means there is a chosen continuous functor $\Gamma :{\mbox{$\cal M$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ for some set $S$. The functor $\Gamma$ is rarely full. That is, if $X,Y$ are topological spaces identified with orbifolds, then one does not expect that every continuous $f:X\longrightarrow Y$ will lift to a morphism of orbifolds. However, in many situations, $\Gamma$ is expected to be faithful. That is, if $f,g:M\longrightarrow N$ are two morphisms of orbifolds such that $\Gamma (f)=\Gamma (g)$, then $f=g$. Informally, we say $f$ and $g$ are equal if their “underlying” functions agree.
In our present program, a useful category appears as the expansion of an intial category —that is, is , ${\cal C}^{++}$, or some higher iterate of the plus construction. On the initial , it should be clear, by inspection, that $\Gamma$ is faithful. In this section, we prove that all the lifts of $\Gamma$ are faithful, under a reasonable hypothesis.
Our standing hypothesis is
\[xhyp3\]
Let be a topologized category which satisfies [@O3 (11)]. Let $+:{\mbox{$\cal C$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{${\cal C}^+$}}$ be a plus construction, and let $p$ and $s$ denote the component pasting and smoothing functors, respectively. Regard ${\mbox{$\cal C$}}^{p}$ as topologized in the usual way.
Let us begin with an elementary reduction.
\[xlem6\] Assume (\[xhyp3\]). Let be a topologized category and let $\Gamma :{\mbox{${\cal C}^+$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{$\cal E$}}$ be a covariant functor. Assume that is quasi-intrinsic, in the sense of [@LG Definition 12.5], and that $\Gamma \circ s$ is continuous. Then $\Gamma$ is faithful if and only if for each $B\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$ and each $A_{0}\in {\mbox{${\cal C}^p$}}$, the function $${\mbox{Mor$_{{\cal C}^{p}}(B^p,A_0)$}}\longrightarrow
\mbox{Mor}_{\cal E}(\Gamma (B^{+}),\Gamma (A_{0}))$$ defined by $\Gamma$, is injective.
Let $A_{0},B_{0}\in $Obj()=Obj(). Let $f_{1},g_{1}:B_{0}\longrightarrow A_{0}$ be -morphisms. Then there exist -morphisms $$\begin{array}{rrr}
x_{0}:X_{0}\longrightarrow B_{0}, &&
f_{0}:X_{0}\longrightarrow A_{0}, \\
y_{0}:Y_{0}\longrightarrow B_{0}~ &
\mbox{and} & g_{0}:Y_{0}\longrightarrow A_{0},
\end{array}$$ such that $x_{0}$ and $y_{0}$ are pseudoisomorphisms and $$f_{0}^{s}=f_{1}\circ x_{0}^{s}
\mbox{~~and~~} g_{0}=g_{1}\circ y_{0}^{s}.$$ Let $((P,p_{0});r_{0},t_{0})$ be a fibered product $(X_{0},x_{0})\times _{B_{0}}(Y_{0},y_{0})$ in ${\mbox{$\cal C$}}^{p}$. Then $p_{0}$, $r_{0}$ and $t_{0}$ are all pseudoisomorphisms and $$\{ f_{0}\circ r_{0}\} ^{s}=f_{1}\circ p_{0}^{s}
\mbox{~~ and~~}
\{ g_{0}\circ t_{0}\} ^{s}=g_{1}\circ p_{0}^{s}.$$ Smoothing takes $p_{0}$, $r_{0}$ and $t_{0}$ to isomorphisms. Thus, $\Gamma (f_{1})=\Gamma (g_{1})$ if and only if $\{ \Gamma \circ s\} (f_{0}\circ r_{0})=
\{ \Gamma \circ s\} (g_{0}\circ t_{0})$.
(90,100)(-4,-36) (-2,0)[$P_{0}$]{} (34,32)[$X_{0}$]{} (34,0)[$B_{0}$]{} (70,0)[$A_{0}$]{} (34,-32)[$Y_{0}$]{}
(5,10)[(1,1)[26]{}]{} (6,-3)[(1,-1)[25]{}]{} (10,4)[(1,0)[22]{}]{} (48,1)[(1,0)[20]{}]{} (48,5)[(1,0)[20]{}]{} (38,30)[(0,-1)[20]{}]{} (40,-22)[(0,1)[20]{}]{} (47,36)[(1,-1)[26]{}]{} (47,-28)[(1,1)[26]{}]{}
It follows that $\Gamma$ is faithful if and only if $\Gamma \circ s$ is faithful.
Let $A_{0},B_{0}\in {\mbox{${\cal C}^p$}}$ and let $f_{0},g_{0}\in $Mor$_{C^{p}}(B_{0},A_{0})$. If $f_{0}\circ \iota _{j}=g_{0}\circ \iota _{j}$ for each $j\in \Lambda (B_{0})$, then $f_{0}=g_{0}$. Now $\Gamma \circ s$ is continuous, so it sends the assigned cover to $B_{0}$ to an -cover. Since the topology of is quasi-intrinsic, it is also true that if $\Gamma (f_{0})\circ \Gamma (\iota _{j})=
\Gamma (f_{0}\circ \iota _{j})$ and $\Gamma (g_{0})\circ \Gamma (\iota _{j})=
\Gamma (g_{0}\circ \iota _{j})$ agree for every $j$, then $\Gamma (f_{0})=\Gamma (g_{0})$. The desired conclusion follows.
For convenience, we introduce a term for use in this section only. Let be a topologized category. We say meets the [*m-hypothesis*]{} if the following two conditions are true.
\[xlist2\]
Every formal -subset $b$ can be decomposed as $b=w\circ f$ where $w$ is a monomorphic formal subset and $f$ overlays absolutely. (Recall that, in this situation, $f$ is a pullback for $b$.)
Let $\theta$ be an indexed cone of formal -subsets into an object $X$. Then the canopy of $\theta$ admits an affinization.
Condition (\[xlist2\].b) is [@O3 (9.c)], albeit in a more general context.
\[xprop3\] Assume (\[xhyp3\]).
\(A) The category , with the e.l.-topology, meets the m-hypothesis.
\(B) Suppose that meets the m-hypothesis. Let $A\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$, and let $b_{1}:B_{0}\longrightarrow A^{+}$ be a monomorphic e.l.-subset. Then there is a monomorphic formal -subset $b:B\longrightarrow A$ such that $b_{1}$ is ${\mbox{${\cal C}^+$}}/A^{+}$-isomorphic to $b^{+}$.
We sketch the proof. Details are in the style of [@LG].
We begin with (\[xlist2\].a). Let $b_{1}:B_{0}\longrightarrow A_{0}$ be an e.l.-subset. We are free to replace $b_{1}$ by any morphism ${\mbox{${\cal C}^+$}}/A^{+}$-isomorphic to it. Thus, we may assume that $b_{1}=b_{0}^{s}$ where $b_{0}:B_{0}\longrightarrow A_{0}$ is a -morphism such that, for each $j\in \Lambda (B_{0})$, $b_{0}\circ \iota _{j}$ is a formal ${\cal C}^{p}$-subset. Now a product of two affine formal subsets is known to be affine. It follows that there is a ${\cal C}^{p}$-morphism $w_{0}:W_{0}\longrightarrow A_{0}$ such that
$\Lambda (W_{0})=\Lambda (B_{0})$,
for each $j\in \Lambda (W_{0})$, $w_{0}\circ \iota _{j}=b_{0}\circ \iota _{j}$, and
for $(j,k)\in \Lambda (B_{0})^{2}$, the image of $(W_{0}[j,k];\rho _{1},\rho _{2})$ under pasting is a product $\{ b_{0}\circ \iota _{j}\} \times _{A_{0}}
\{ b_{0}\circ \iota _{k} \}$.
It follows that
$w_{0}^{s}$ is a monomorphic e.l.-subset,
there is a morphism $f_{0}:B_{0}\longrightarrow W_{0}$ such that, for each $j\in \Lambda (W_{0})$, $f_{0}\circ \iota _{j}=\iota _{j}$,
$f_{0}^{s}$ is an e.l.-subset which covers.
Thus, $b_{0}^{s}=w_{0}^{s}\circ f_{0}^{s}$ is a decomposition of the required type.
Let us interpolate a proof of Part (B). In the present context, suppose that meets the m-hypothesis and that $A_{0}=A^{p}$ where $A\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$. Then $W_{0}$ is a canopy of a cone of formal -subset. By assumption, it admits an affinization in . Let $w$ be the affinization of $w_{0}$. Then $w$ is a monomorphic local subset. By condition [@O3 11.D], $w$ is a local subset.
Now return to Part (A). Suppose $A_{0}\in {\mbox{${\cal C}^+$}}$ and $\theta$ is a cone of e.l.-subsets into $A_{0}$ indexed by a set $T$. Again, we may assume without loss of generality that for each $t\in T$, $\theta (t)=^{t}b_{0}^{s}$ where $^{t}b_{0}:^{t}B_{0}\longrightarrow A_{0}$ is a -morphism such that $^{t}b_{0}\circ \iota _{j}$ is a formal -subset for each $j\in \Lambda (^{t}B_{0})$. Put $$J=\{ (t,j)~:~t\in T,~j\in \Lambda (^{t}B_{0})\} .$$ There is $U_{0}\in {\mbox{${\cal C}^p$}}$ of type Int$(J)$ and a -morphism $u_{0}:U_{0}\longrightarrow A_{0}$ for which
for each $(t,j)\in J$, $u_{0}\circ \iota _{(t,j)}=^{t}b_{0}\circ \iota _{j}$,
for each pair $((t,j),(r,k))\in J^{2}$, the image of $(U_{0}[(t,j),(r,k)];\rho _{1},\rho _{2})$ under the pasting functor is a fibered product $\{ ^{t}b_{0}\circ \iota _{j}\}
\times _{A_{0}}\{ ^{r}b_{0}\circ \iota _{k}\}$.
For each $t\in T$, there is a unique -morphism $^{t}p_{0}:^{t}B_{0}\longrightarrow U_{0}$ such that, for each $j\in \Lambda (^{t}B_{0})$, $^{t}p_{0}\circ \iota _{j}=\iota _{(t,j)}$. Then $t\mapsto ^{t}p_{0}^{s}$ is an affinization for $\theta$ in .
Let us recall some facts and comments from [@O2]. Let be a topologically componentwise category whose topology is intrinsic and flush. In , a morphism whose domain is connected is said to be “connected”; similarly, it is called non-empty if its domain is “non-empty”. A [*decomposition into connected component*]{} of an object $A$ is an indexed family $\theta$ of complemented morphisms into $A$ for which
$\theta$ is a cover, and
for $j,k\in {\mbox{dom($\theta$)}}$ such that $j\neq k$, the product $\theta (j)\times _{A}\theta (k)$ is empty,
for each $j\in {\mbox{dom($\theta$)}}$, the domain of $\theta (j)$ is connected and non-empty.
Recall from [@O2] that, in such a category, every object with a cover by connected morphisms admits a decomposition into connected components.
\[xlem7\] Let and be topologized categories. Assume both are intrinsic and topologically componentwise. By a [*topologically componentwise*]{} functor from ${\mbox{$\cal C$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{$\cal E$}}$, we mean a continuous functor $\Gamma$ from to such that
$\Gamma$ sends empty -objects to empty -objects,
$\Gamma$ sends non-empty connected -objects to non-empty connected -objects.
Let $\Gamma :{\mbox{$\cal C$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{$\cal E$}}$ be a topologically componentwise functor. Assume that every -object has a cover by connected morphisms.
\(A) $\Gamma$ sends complemented -morphisms to complemented -morphisms.
\(B) $\Gamma$ sends non-empty objects to non-empty objects.
\(C) Let $\theta$ be a decomposition into connected components of an object $A\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$. Then $\Gamma \circ \theta$ is a decomposition into connected components of $\Gamma (A)$.
Every -object has a decomposition into connected components. Thus, every non-empty -object is a the codomain of a connected morphism. It follows that $\Gamma$ sends non-empty objects to non-empty objects.
In either or , a complemented morphism can be characterized as a morphism $b:B\longrightarrow A$ such that
$b$ is a formal subset,
$(B;1_{B},1_{B})$ is a self-product $b\times _{A}b$,
there is another morphism $c:C\longrightarrow A$ which satisfies (a) and (b) and for which $b\times _{A}c$ is empty and $\{ b,c\}$ is a cover.
These properties are preserved by $\Gamma$. Part (A) follows. Part (C) is an easy consequence.
\[big1\] Assume (\[xhyp3\]). Let be a topologized category, and let $\Gamma :{\mbox{${\cal C}^+$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{$\cal E$}}$ be a covariant functor. Assume
\[xlist3\]
is topologically componentwise and every -object has a cover by connected -morphisms,
every formal -subset is discrete,
satisfies the m-hypothesis,
the topology of is intrinsic, flush and topologically componentwise,
every formal -subset is discrete,
$\Gamma \circ +$ is faithful and topologically componentwise,
$\Gamma \circ s$ is continuous,
for $b$ a formal -subset, if $\Gamma (b^{+})$ is an -isomorphism, then $b$ is a -isomorphism.
Then
\[xlist4\]
$\Gamma$ is a faithful functor, and it sends connected -objects to connected -objects,
if $b:B\longrightarrow A$ is a formal -subset and $c:C\longrightarrow A$ is an arbitrary -morphism with connected domain, then the function induced by $\Gamma$ $$\mbox{Mor}_{C/A}(C,c;B,b)\longrightarrow
\mbox{Mor}_{E/\Gamma (A)}(\Gamma (C,c),\Gamma (B,b))$$ is a bijection,
if $b$ is an e.l.-subset such that $\Gamma (b)$ is an -isomorphism, then $b$ is a -isomorphism.
In practice, attention is limited to topologies meeting an explicit list of axioms. The theorem applies to topologies which are flush, intrinsic, topologically componentwise and such that every formal subset is discrete. In a practical situation, there would be a canonical choice of topology for , related to the e.l.-topology, with respect to which $\Gamma$ is continuous. In this context, conditions (\[xlist3\].a,b,c,d,e,g) are true by fiat or by elementary arguments (eg., using the fact that the e.l.-topology meets the m-hypothesis to show that the chosen topology of meets the same condition). The “real” hypothesis is (\[xlist3\].f,h). The theorem says that if the hypothesis holds for , it will hold for .
The conclusions of Lemma \[xlem7\] apply to $\Gamma$ by (\[xlist3\].g).
Let $A_{0}$ be a connected -object. For each $j\in \Lambda (A_{0})$, let $\phi _{j}$ be a decomposition of $A_{0}[j]$ into connected components. Let $\lambda$ be the refinement of the assigned cover through $j\mapsto \phi _{j}$, and let $\Omega$ be the domain of $\lambda$. Note that no member of $\lambda$ is empty. On $\Omega$, define the linking relation, as in [@O2]. That is, define $\sim$ on $\Omega$ to be the smallest equivalence relation such that $r\sim s$ when $\lambda (r)\times _{A_{0}}\lambda (s)$ is non-empty.
We now cite results from [@O2]. Since $A_{0}$ is connected in , all members of $\Omega$ are equivalent under $\sim$. By Lemma \[xlem7\], the image of $\lambda$ under $\Gamma \circ s$ is a connected cover of $\Gamma (A_{0})$. Define $\approx$ on $\Omega$ to be the smallest equivalence relation such that $r\approx s$ when $\Gamma (\lambda (r))\times _{\Gamma (A_{0})}
\Gamma (\lambda (s))$ is non-empty. Recall that $\Gamma \circ s$ is continuous by assumption. It follows that $\approx$ is $\sim$, and that all members of $\Omega$ are equivalent. Therefore, $\Gamma (A_{0})$ is connected.
Let $B\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$, $A_{0}\in {\mbox{${\cal C}^p$}}$ and $f_{0},g_{0}\in $Mor$_{C^{p}}(B^{p},A_{0})$ such that $\Gamma (f_{0})=\Gamma (g_{0})$. Take $j,k\in \Lambda (A_{0})$ and -morphisms $f:B\longrightarrow A_{0}[j]$ and $g:B\longrightarrow A_{0}[k]$ such that $f_{0}=\iota _{j}\circ f^{p}$ and $g_{0}=\iota _{k}\circ g^{p}$. Since $\Gamma \circ s$ is a continuous functor, $(\Gamma (A_{0}[j,k]);
\Gamma (\rho _{1}),\Gamma (\rho _{2}))$ is a fibered product $\Gamma (\iota _{j})\times _{\Gamma (A_{0})}
\Gamma (\iota _{k})$. Since $\Gamma (g_{0})=\Gamma (\iota _{k})\circ \Gamma (g^{+})$ and $\Gamma (f_{0})=\Gamma (\iota _{j})\circ \Gamma (f^{+})$ agree, there is an -morphism $H:\Gamma (B)\longrightarrow \Gamma (A_{0}[j,k])$ such that $\Gamma (\rho _{1})\circ H=\Gamma (f^{+})$ and $\Gamma (\rho _{2})\circ H=\Gamma (g^{+})$. By Lemma \[xlem6\], to prove that $\Gamma$ is faithful it suffices to show that, in this situation, $H=\Gamma (h)$ for some -morphism $h:B\longrightarrow A_{0}[j,k]$. Thus, (\[xlist4\].a) will be true if (\[xlist4\].b) holds.
Let us turn to (\[xlist4\].b). We begin with a comment equally applicable to and .
Let be any componentwise category. Let $b:B\longrightarrow A$ be a discrete pullback base, let $C$ be a connected object, and let $c:C\longrightarrow A$ be a -morphism. Let $(P;p,q)$ be a pullback $c^{-1}(B,b)$. It is known, from [@O1], that there is a bijection from the set $S$, of ${\mbox{$\cal D$}}/A$-morphisms $f:(C,c)\longrightarrow (B,b)$, to the set $T$, of connected components of $P$ on which $p$ is an isomorphism, which assigns to each $f\in S$ the connected component of $P$ through which $1_{C}\times f$ factors.
Suppose $b:B\longrightarrow A$ is a formal -subset, $c:C\longrightarrow A$ is a connected morphism and $(P;p,q)$ is a pullback $c^{-1}(B,b)$. The functor $\Gamma$ preserves these relations and sends components of $P$ to components of its image. The map in (\[xlist4\].b) can fail to be bijective only if there is a connected component of $x:X\longrightarrow P$ such that $p\circ x$ is not a -isomorphism but $\Gamma (p\circ x)$ is an -isomorphism. The latter is explicitly disallowed by assumption (\[xlist3\].h).
Conclusions (\[xlist4\].a,b) have been verified. The last is comparatively simple. Suppose $b_{1}:B_{0}\longrightarrow A_{0}$ is an e.l.-morphism for which $\Gamma (b_{1})$ is an isomorphism. Let $\theta$ be an affine -cover of $A_{0}$. To show that $b_{1}$ is an isomorphism, it suffices to prove that each pullback along a member of $\theta$ is an isomorphism. Hence, we may assume that $A_{0}=A^{+}$ for some $A\in {\mbox{$\cal C$}}$.
It is known that $\Gamma$ is faithful. Thus, if $b_{1}$ is not monomorphic in , its image cannot be monomorphic. Therefore, $b_{1}$ is a monomorphic e.l.-subset into an affine object. From Proposition \[xprop3\], it follows that $b_{1}$ is isomorphic to a formal -subset. By hypothesis (\[xlist3\].g), $b_{1}$ is an isomorphism.
What is a Morphism? {#whatis}
===================
Let $M$ and $N$ be two $C^{\infty}$-manifolds. Let $(G,\sigma )$ and $(H,\tau )$ be finite group actions on $M$ and $N$ respectively, which are discrete with respect to diffuse $C^{\infty}$-functions between manifolds. This Section discusses the specific issue of what is a morphism between the quotient spaces $G\backslash M\longrightarrow H\backslash N$. For us, this amounts to looking at the abstract machinery and rewriting the formal definition in this explicit case. Irregularities and surprising behaviors have been noted in explicit situations. We offer our spin on a pathological situation discussed by Schwarz in [@GS].
To begin, let us lay out the above situation in the abstract. Let be a category which is being used to generate orbifolds. That is,
is a topologized category,
the topology of is flush, intrinsic and topologically componentwise,
every -object has a cover by connected objects,
the topology of is [*pseudoétale*]{} (or [*torsorial*]{}); that is, a local -subset which is discrete and finite (respectively, just discrete) must be a formal -subset),
meets the set-theoretic axioms in [@O3 (11)].
By assigning to ${\mbox{$\cal M$}}^{+}$ the class of discrete (and, depending on context, finite) e.l.-subsets, we arrange for ${\mbox{$\cal M$}}^{+}$ to meet the same axioms. Thus, the fundamental construction generates a sequence of enlargements , ${\mbox{$\cal M$}}^{+}$, $({\mbox{$\cal M$}}^{+})^{+}$,... whose members are orbifolds. Assume $S$ is a set and $\Gamma :{\mbox{$\cal M$}}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$ is a faithful continuous functor. We also assume that meets the m-hypothesis, and that, for $b$ a formal -subset, $b$ is an -isomorphism if and only if $\Gamma (b)$ is a ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$-isomorphism. Then Theorem \[big1\] applies to all lifts of $\Gamma$.
In terms of the particular example, is the category whose objects were all $C^{\infty}$-manifolds but whose morphisms consisted only of diffuse $C^{\infty}$-functions, formal -subsets are finite covering maps whose Jacobian is invertible at each point, $S={\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}$, and $\Gamma$ is the forgetful functor.
Let $M,N\in {\mbox{$\cal M$}}$, and let $(G,\sigma )$ and $(H,\tau )$ be group actions on $M$ and $N$, respectively, which are discrete in the categorical sense. Let $M_{0}$ be the canopy of Type Int($\{ 1\}$) such that $M_{0}[1]=M$, $M_{0}[1,1]$ is the disjoint union of copies of , indexed by $G$, and, for $g\in G$, the restrictions of $\rho _{1}$ and $\rho _{2}$ to the $g$-th copy of $M$ are $1_{M}$ and $\sigma (g)$, respectively. Let $N_{0}$ denote the analogous canopy for $N$ and $H$. Then, as members of ${\mbox{$\cal M$}}^{+}$, $M_{0}$ is the quotient $G\backslash M$ and $N_{0}$ is the quotient $H\backslash N$. Let $\Gamma ^{+}$ denote the continuous extension of $\Gamma$ to ${\mbox{$\cal M$}}^{+}\longrightarrow {\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]^{+}$.
Before we continue with the abstract situation, let us look at a particular choice of manifolds and actions. Schwarz, in [@GS], illustrates surprising behavior with a morphism from $\{ -1,1\} \backslash {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}^{2}
\longrightarrow \{ -1,1\} {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}$. As noted in Subsection \[nonquot\], the canonical action by $\{ -1,1\}$ on is not discrete in our category. However, we get the same effect by taking his situation and forming products with . Also, we have to worry that our functions are diffuse, a concept which is not in Schwarz’s work. Below is the update of his example.
Let $M={\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}^{3}$, $N={\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}^{2}$, $H=G=\{ -1,1\}$, and characterize the two actions by $$-1\cdot (x,y,z)=(-x,-y,z)
\mbox{~~ and~~} -1\cdot (x,z)=(-x,z).$$ Let $f:(0,\infty )\longrightarrow {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}$ be a $C^{\infty}$-function such that
$f$ is periodic of period 4,
$f^{\prime}$ is negative on intervals (1,2) and (2,3), and is positive on (3,4) and (4,5),
all derivatives of $f$ vanish at every even integer,
$f(2k)=0$ for all $k\in {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{N}$}}$. Equivalently, $f$ is positive on $(4k,4k+2)$ and negative on $(4k+2,4k+4)$ for all $k\in {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{N}$}}\cup \{ 0\}$.
For each $x\in (0,\infty )$, define $g(x)=e^{-n}f\left( \frac{1}{x}\right)$ where $n$ is the smallest even integer greater than or equal to $1/x$. Adopt the convention that $g(0)=0$. Define $F:M\longrightarrow N$ by $$\begin{array}{r}
F(r\cdot \mbox{cos}(\theta ),r\cdot
\mbox{sin}(\theta ),z)~=~
\left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
(g(r)\cdot\mbox{sin}(\theta ),z) &
\mbox{if~}g(r)>0 \\
(g(r)\cdot\mbox{sin}(2\theta ),z) &
\mbox{if~}g(r)\leq 0
\end{array} \right. \\
\mbox{for all~}(r,\theta ,z)\in [0,\infty )
\times [0,2\pi ]\times {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}.
\end{array}$$ Standard theory verifies that $F$ is $C^{\infty}$.
We must verify that $F$ is diffuse. On any subset where $F$ can be identified with a projection $U\times V\longrightarrow V$, $F$ is diffuse. Also, if $F$ is diffuse on each member of a family of open subsets, then it is diffuse on the union. Thus, restriction of $F$ to the set of points where its Jacobian is surjective is diffuse.
In $M$, let $\ell$ be the line $\{ (0,0)\} \times {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}$. For each $n\in {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{N}$}}$, let $C_{n}$ be the cylinder of all points distance $1/(2n)$ from $\ell$. Let $C$ be the union of these cylinders with $\ell$. For each odd integer $k$, let $\Xi _{k}$ be union of lines of points of the form $(1/k,a,z)$ where $a\in \{ \pi /2,3\pi /2\}$ or $a\in \{ \pi /4,3\pi /4,5\pi /4,7\pi /4\}$, depending on the sign of $g(1/k)$. Let $\Xi$ be the union of these sets of lines. A brief calculation verifies that $F$ is diffuse on $M$ minus $C\cup \Xi$. In fact, our characterization of $f$ allows us to rule out the cylinders. Although the Jacobian degenerates, one can make a continuous identification with projection. Instead, let us use this example as an excuse to introduce two practical lemmas.
\[xprop4\] Let $X,Y\in {\mbox{\bf Gen}}$ and let $f:X\longrightarrow Y$ be a continuous function. Let $I\subseteq X$ be a negligible subset. If the restriction of $f$ to $X-I$ is diffuse, then $f$ is diffuse.
This is a trivial consequence of Corollary \[lcor1\].
Being diffuse is a local property, so we may invoke Proposition \[xprop4\] on each line in $\Xi$. Therefore, $F$ is diffuse on $M$ minus $C$. In fact, we can go further. The axis $\ell$ is negligible in $M$, so to prove that $F$ is diffuse on $M$, it suffices to prove the diffuse property on $M-\ell$. Consequently, it suffices to prove that $F$ is locally diffuse about each individual cylinder $C_{n}$.
\[xprop5\] Let $X$ be a topological manifold, let $Y\in {\mbox{\bf Gen}}$ be normal (and Hausdorff) in the topological sense, and let $f:X\longrightarrow Y$ be a continuous function. Let $Z$ be a submanifold of $X$ of codimension 1. Suppose $f$ is diffuse on $X-Z$. Then $f$ is diffuse unless and only unless there is a non-empty open subset $W$ of $Z$ such that the closure of $f(W)$ is negligible in $Y$.
Suppose $f$ is not diffuse. Let $(U,I)$ be a negligible subset-element of $Y$ whose inverse is not negligible. Now $f^{-1}I-Z$ is known to be negligible in $f^{-1}U-Z$. Thus, $f^{-1}U\cap Z$ must not be negligible in $f^{-1}U$. There is $x\in Z\cap f^{-1}I$ at which the local condition of Lemma \[ylem2\] fails. Because $Z$ is of codimension 1, it follows easily that there is a neighborhood $W_{1}$ of $x$ in $Z$ which is entirely contained if $f^{-1}I$. Now $Y$ is normal and Hausdorff, so there is a closed neighborhood $T$ of $f(x)$ in $Y$ such that $T\subseteq U$. Let $W_{2}=W_{1}\cap f^{-1}T$, and let $W$ be the interior of this set with respect to the topology of $Z$. Then $x\in W$ and the closure of $f(W)$ in $Y$ is a closed subset of $I$. It follows that $W$ has the stated properties.
The converse is trivial.
On each cylinder, $F$ is projection $(x,y,z)\mapsto (0,z)$. The closure of the image, under $F$, for any non-empty open subset of the cylinder will contain a line segment. In $N$, any line segment fails to be negligible. Hence, $F$ is diffuse.
We are ready to consider morphisms at three levels.
Let us recall how $M_{0}$ serves as $G\backslash M$. The quotient map is $\iota =\iota _{1}^{s}:M^{+}\longrightarrow M_{0}$. The map $\iota$ is purely formal. Its construction does not include a subtle study of quotients. What links the purely formal to the practical is the lift of the functor $\Gamma$.
Consider the situation when $M$ is a manifold. Let $q:\Gamma (M)\longrightarrow Q$ be the standard topological quotient. (Here, $\Gamma (M)$ is just $M$ with differential structure omitted.) If the fixed point set of each non-trivial member of $G$ is negligible, then we know that $q$ describes a pseudoétale quotient with respect to . In other words, we may choose $\Gamma ^{+}(\iota )$ to be $q$ and $\Gamma ^{+}(M_{0})=Q$. It is justified as, up to isomorphism, the only way to extend $\Gamma$ continuously.
Unfortunately, it is possible that $q$ is [*not*]{} pseudoétale. This is the case if $M={\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}^{2}$ and $\{ -1,1\}$ acts as described earlier. In this case, $\Gamma ^{+}(M_{0})$ can not be assigned a -object without violating continuity of functors. It is tempting to define it to be $Q$, but, as we shall show shortly, this decision would sacrifice the valuable property of faithfulness. We may say that $\Gamma ^{+}(M_{0})$ exists in a suitable expansion ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]^{+}$ of ${\mbox{\bf Gen}}[S]$, and, in that expansion, it serves as $G\backslash \Gamma (M)$. We may also say that the expansion supports a fundamental group and cohomological theories, although these differ from the classical.
Actually, for our present question, $M_{0}$ is not the troublesome quotient. In ${\mbox{$\cal M$}}^{+}$, $M_{0}$ is a true quotient for the action by $G$. A morphism on $M_{0}$ may be effectively defined as a $G$-invariant morphism on $M$! So, definition of a morphism $M_{0}\longrightarrow N_{0}$ is really a question of definition from $M\longrightarrow N_{0}$.
Our study reduces to two challenges:
\[xlist5\]
describe a morphism $M\longrightarrow H\backslash N$,
determine when two such morphisms agree.
Issue (\[xlist5\].b) runs directly into Seifert Boundaries and faithfulness of $\Gamma$.
Formally, a morphism $M\longrightarrow N_{0}$ is represented by a pair $(\theta ,f)$ where
$\theta$ is a cover of $M$ (in ${\cal M}$) indexed by some set $J$,
for each $j\in J$, $f(j)$ is an ${\cal M}^{p}$-morphism $M\longrightarrow N_{0}$,
and certain conditions are met. Actually, in this case, $f(j)$ may be interpreted simply as an -morphism $M\longrightarrow N$, with the understanding that certain morphisms are regarded as equivalent.
Even in an explicit context, such as the category of manifolds, each map $\theta (j)$ is not limited to be just open embedding. The family $\theta$ covers in the topology of . That topology includes finite-to-one maps. There is a good heuristic reason for this. Intuitively, we wish to define a morphism $M\longrightarrow N_{0}$, but our language only contains morphisms between “affine” objects like $M$ and $N$. A given $f:M\longrightarrow N_{0}$ need not factor through the canonical projection $\alpha :N\longrightarrow N_{0}$. In this case, we can not represent $f$ as $\alpha$ composed with something. Instead, we try to classify $f$ by its [*pullback*]{} along $\alpha$ to $\pi :M^{\ast }=M\times _{N_{0}}N\longrightarrow N$. Although the domain of $\pi$ need not be affine, it has a cover by affines, and $\pi$ restricted to each of these is a morphism in the old sense. Thus, $f$ gets expressed as a family of maps into $N$ from objects which are, crudely, open subsets of a finite cover of $M$. (This characterization is spiritually right, but too simple formally.)
We do have some leeway. We may replace any member of $\theta$ by a refinement. In particular, we may choose the maps so that each has its [*image*]{} constrained to lie in some indicated basis. We may pass from $\theta$ to its restriction to a subset of $J$, provided that the restriction covers. We may assume that the domain of each $\theta (j)$ is connected.
If the topology is based on morphisms with non-trivial ramification, then such morphisms may appear in $\theta$. The derived pseudoétale topology is intended to include all forms of singularity which do not prevent certain manipulations. In it, a cover may consist of complicated maps. On the other hand, the elementary finite-to-one topology is intended to be the simplest of topologies from which quotients may be generated. In it, every cover can be refined to a pseudogeometric cover; that is, in any concrete case, a usual cover by open subsets. In the standard theory of real orbifolds, if $M$ is a manifold (rather than an abstract orbifold) then $\theta$ may be chosen to be injections for all members of a cover by open subsets.
Two related questions arise.
\[wagree\]
When does a pair $(\theta ,f)$, represent an ${\mbox{$\cal M$}}^{+}$-morphism?
Given pairs $(\theta ,f)$ and $(\phi ,g)$ which represent morphisms, when do they represent the same one?
In (\[wagree\].a), it is necessary and sufficient that for every pair $(j,k)\in {\mbox{dom($\theta$)}}^{2}$ and for any $(P;\pi _{1},\pi _{2})$ a product $\theta (j)\times _{M}\theta (k)$, it is true that $f(j)\circ \pi _{1}=f(k)\circ \pi _{2}$. In (\[wagree\].b), the key condition is that for every $j\in {\mbox{dom($\theta$)}}$, $k\in {\mbox{dom($\phi$)}}$ and any $(P;\pi _{1},\pi _{2})$ a product $\theta (j)\times _{M}\phi (k)$, it is true that $f(j)\circ \pi _{1}=g(k)\circ \pi _{2}$. The basic issue is
\[wequal\]
For each $U\in {\mbox{$\cal M$}}$ and $f,g:U\longrightarrow N$ -morphisms, when do $f$ and $g$ represent the same morphism into $N_{0}$?
The theory gives an unambiguous answer. However, there is an tempting deception.
The formalism is precise. Let $U$, $f$ and $g$ be as in (\[wequal\]). Then $f$ and $g$ represent the same thing if and only if there is an -morphism $\delta :U\longrightarrow N_{0}[1,1]$ such that $$\label{weq4}
\rho _{1}\circ \delta = f
\mbox{~~and~~}\rho _{2}\circ \delta = g.$$ The first composition in (\[weq4\]) means that, on each connected component of $U$, $\delta$ restricts to a copy of $f$ which maps into one of the copies of $N$ in $N_{0}[1,1]$. In other words, for each connected component $C$ of $U$, there is $h_{C}\in H$ such that $$\label{weq5}
g(x)=h_{C}\cdot f(x) \mbox{~~~for all~}x\in C.$$ The element $h_{C}$ depends solely on $C$.
There is another notion of equality that is attractive but flawed. Let $q:N\longrightarrow H\backslash N$ be the topological quotient. It is tempting to identify the morphisms of $f$ and $g$ if $q\circ f=q\circ g$ in the topological sense. That is,
\[weq6\]
for each $x\in U$, there is $h_{x}\in H$ for which $g(x)=h_{x}\cdot f(x).$
Unlike (\[weq5\]), the member $h_{x}\in H$ depends on each point $x$.
If $q:N\longrightarrow H\backslash N$ is pseudoétale, then conditions (\[weq5\]) and (\[weq6\]) are equivalent. The link is that $N_{0}[1,1]$ really is $q\times q$. Thus, $q\circ f=q\circ g$ implies existence of of $\delta =f\times g$ which is the basis of (\[weq5\]).
Let us return to the explicit example of this Section. Put $f(v)=F(v)$ and $g(v)=F(-1\cdot v)$. Then $F$ factors to a morphism $G\backslash M\longrightarrow H\backslash N$ if and only if $f$ and $g$ determine the same morphism $M\longrightarrow N_{0}$. Let $q:{\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}^{2}\longrightarrow \{ -1,1\}\backslash {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}^{2}$ be the topological quotient. Certainly $q\circ f=q\circ g$ in . But, by inspection, $f$ and $g$ fail (\[weq5\]). In fact, $q$ is a false friend, and $F$ does not properly factor.
Equality should be a local property. Let $\cal U$ be a family of open subsets of ${\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}^{3}$. If, for each $V\in {\cal U}$, restrictions of $f$ and $g$ to V are equal, then the restrictions of $f$ and $g$ to $U=\cup {\cal U}$ should agree. In fact, this is true. However, one must realize that $U$ excludes lots of points.
Let $x\in {\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}^{3}$. Suppose that for each neighborhood $V$ of $x$ there are $v,w\in V$ such that $$\begin{array}{l}
F(v)=F(-1\cdot v)\neq (-1)\cdot F(-1\cdot v), \\
F(w)=(-1)\cdot F(-1\cdot w)\neq F(-1\cdot w).
\end{array}$$ Then restrictions of $f$ and $g$ to any neighborhood of $x$ will not agree. Obviously, every $x$ or the form $(0,0,z)$ has this property; the function $F$ was tailored to be pathological near such points. Less obvious is the fact that each $x\in C_{n}$ has the same eccentricity. In fact, the troublesome points divide ${\mbox{$I\kern -2pt{R}$}}^{3}$ into disconnected chunks. Indeed, if they did not, the morphism $F$ would have factored.
[MA2]{} M. Artin, [*Algebraization of formal moduli: I-Global Analysis,*]{} Papers in Honor of K. Kodaira, University of Tokyo Press and Princeton University Press, 1970. M. Artin, [*Algebraization of formal moduli: II-Existence of modifications,*]{} Ann. Math. [**91**]{} (1970), 88–135 P. Feit, [*Axiomization of Passage from ‘Local’ Structure to ‘Global’ Object,*]{} Memoirs of A.M.S., [**485**]{} 1993. P. Feit, [*Existence of Orbifolds I: Universal Galois Theory,*]{} Communications in Algebra, [**22**]{}(7) (1994), 2367–2404 P. Feit, [*Existence of Orbifolds II: Orbifold Structures,*]{} Communications in Algebra, [**22**]{}(7) (1994), 2405–2453 P. Feit, [*Existence of Orbifolds III: Pseudoétale Topologies,*]{} preprint. A. Grothendieck, [*Revêtements étales et groupe fondamentale,*]{} Lect. Notes in Math 224, Springer-Verlag, New York 1971. W.G.J.M. Hoffmans, [*Defining the Fundamental Group of an Orbifold,*]{} preprint of Master’s Thesis D. Knutson, [*Algebraic Spaces,*]{} Lect. Notes in Math. 203, Springer-Verlag: New York 1971. A. McLennan, [*On the Definition of Orbifolds,*]{} preprint Milne, J.S. [*Étale Cohomology.*]{} Princeton University Press, New York 1977. I. Satake, [*On a generalization of the notion of a manifold,*]{} Proc. Nat. Acad. of Science USA [**42**]{}, (1956), 359-363 G.W. Schwarz [*Generalized Orbit Spaces,*]{} preprint of Ph.D Thesis W. Thurston, [*The Geometry and Topology of Three Manifolds,*]{} book under revision
[^1]: Much of this paper and its predecessor was drafted during two summer visits to MSRI, Berkeley. Research at MSRI is supported in part by NSF Grant \# DMS-9022140
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report the detection of strong and compact molecular line emission (in the CO J=3–2,4–3,6–5,7–6, $^{13}$CO J=3–2, HCN and HCO$^+$ J=4–3 transitions) from a cometary-shaped object (Carina-frEGG1) in the Carina star-forming region (SFR) previously classified as a photoevaporating protoplanetary disk (proplyd). We derive a molecular mass of 0.35 for Carina-frEGG1, which shows that it is not a proplyd, but belongs to a class of free-floating evaporating gas globules (frEGGs) recently found in the Cygnus SFR by Sahai, Morris & Claussen (2012). Archival Adaptive Optics near-IR (Ks) images show a central hourglass-shaped nebula. The derived source luminosity (about $8-18\,{\mbox{$L_{\odot}$}}$), the hourglass morphology, and the presence of collimated jets seen in HST images, imply the presence of a jet-driving, young, low-mass star deeply embedded in the dust inside Carina-frEGG1. Our results suggest that the true nature of many or most such cometary-shaped objects seen in massive SFRs and previously labelled as proplyds has been misunderstood, and that these are really frEGGs.'
author:
- 'R. Sahai, R. G[ü]{}sten, M. R. Morris'
title: 'Are Large, Cometary-Shaped Proplyds really (free-floating) EGGs? '
---
Introduction
============
Massive stars have a profound effect on stars that subsequently form in their vicinity, thus significantly influencing the initial mass function (IMF), the star formation efficiency, and the total extent and mass of star clusters. In massive star-forming regions (SFRs), the ionizing radiation from OB stars can produce photo-evaporating protoplanetary disks or [*proplyds*]{}, the most famous of which lie in the Orion Nebula (e.g., O’Dell, Wen, & Hu 1993; Ricci, Robberto, & Soderblom 2008). This radiation can also progressively ionize dense knots of nearby molecular material, forming evaporating gaseous globules, or [*EGGs*]{} (Hester et al. 1996).
A new class of tadpole-shaped objects was recently discovered near the Cygnus OB2 association (Sahai, Morris & Claussen 2012\[SMC12\], Wright et al. 2012\[Wetal12\]) – the most massive young association within 2 kpc of the Sun, located inside the Cygnus-X giant molecular cloud complex where considerable star formation is ongoing. The strong morphological similarity between these objects and proplyds led Wetal12 to conclude that these objects are “a unique class of photoevaporating, partially-embedded, young stellar objects" and unlikely to be EGGs, from a comparison of the large fraction (about 70%) of these objects that appear to contain one or more young stars with the much lower value for M16 (15%). However, SMC12 concluded that Wetal12’s argument is not compelling, as several unconsidered variables, including density and mass of parent cloud, and strength of radiation field and winds, can affect this fraction. In addition, the sizes of these objects (20,000–110,000AU) are huge compared to the Orion proplyds (40–350AU: Henney & O’Dell 1999). Recognizing the importance of these issues, SMC12 carried out molecular-line observations that reveal dense molecular cores associated with two of these objects (the Tadpole and the Goldfish), with total masses of cold ($\sim10-15$K) molecular gas exceeding 1–2, strongly favoring the EGG hypothesis. These data also conclusively rule out the proplyd hypothesis since a proplyd is highly unlikely to harbor such a substantial mass of molecular gas. To date, no dense molecular medium has yet been found towards any known proplyd, and the low Orion proplyd disk masses (0.003–0.07) (Mann & Williams 2010), derived from continuum observations of dust emission, imply even smaller masses for the circumstellar material being evaporated from them. Finally, the evaporated material is likely to be primarily atomic, not molecular.
SMC12 concluded that these tadpole-shaped objects are dense, star-forming molecular cores that originated in the Cygnus cloud and are now being photoevaporated by ultraviolet radiation from the CygOB2No.8 cluster located $\sim$10pc to their North-West, and shaped by ram pressure of strong, nearby wind sources. Continuing observations of $^{13}$CO and $^{12}$CO lines, as well as high-density tracers such as the J=3-2 lines of HCO$^+$, HCN, HNC, and N$_2$H$^+$ in a sample of about 20 such objects have strongly supported the SMC12 hypothesis (Sahai et al. 2012b).
The discovery of these free-floating Evaporating Gas Globules (hereafter frEGGs) raises a fundamental question for star and protoplanetary disk formation in massive SFRs: what fraction of the previously classified proplyd objects are really EGGs? The distinction between frEGGs and proplyds is quite important, because in the former case, star formation and protostellar accretion are still very much under way, whereas proplyd disks are in much later stages in which accretion no longer has a strong effect on the protostellar evolution, although planet formation may still be in progress. We have therefore begun a study of the molecular gas content of objects previously classified as proplyds with the goal of determining their true nature. Smith, Bally & Morse (2003: SBM03) found many objects in the Carina SFR from ground-based optical emission-line images that closely resemble the proplyds found in Orion, and concluded that the former were proplyds as well in spite of their significantly larger (factor $\sim5$) sizes. In this Letter, we report single-dish molecular line observations of one such representative object from the set of 12 reported in SBM03, 104632.9-600354 (hereafter Carina-frEGG1), and show that our data rule out the proplyd hypothesis for this object and support its frEGG nature.
Observations & Results
======================
We observed Carina-frEGG1 (Fig.\[irachst\]) in the CO J=3–2, 4–3, 6–5 and 7–6 lines, the $^{13}$CO J=3–2 and the HCN and HCO$^{+}$ J=4–3 lines, and the continuum at 350 and 870 using the Atacama Pathfinder Experiment (Güsten et al. 2006) 12-m telescope[^1] during June 23–26, 2012. Pointing was checked on nearby $\eta$Car, and found to be generally accurate within 3.
The dual-color receiver FLASH+ (Heyminck et al. 2006) with wideband (4GHz width) sideband-separating (2SB) SIS mixers was used to map the CO J=4–3 and 3–2 lines simultaneously in a regular raster with 10 increments. Two XFFT spectrometers, each with a bandwidth of 2.5GHz, but with $64\times10^3$ ($32\times10^3$) channels for the low (high frequency) bands, were used to process a total IF band of 4GHz (with 1GHz of overlap). The weaker $^{13}$CO(3–2), HCN and HCO$^{+}$(4–3) lines were observed towards the nominal center position only.
The dual-color heterodyne array receiver CHAMP+ (Kasemann et al. 2006), providing $2\times7$ beams, was used to map the CO J=6–5 and 7–6 lines simultaneously, over a $40\arcsec\times40\arcsec$ region that was oversampled with 4 spacing (with all 7 beams of each sub-array covering a given grid position repeatedly). Two FFT spectrometers, each with a bandwidth of 1.5GHz and 1024 channels, were connected to the individual beams, processing a total IF band of 2.6GHz (with 400MHz overlap). The observations took place during excellent weather conditions with zenith precipitable water vapor, $PWV$, of 0.7(0.4)mm in the low (high) frequency band. The spectra were taken with position-switching against an absolute reference position. Calibration was performed regularly every 10–15min with a cold liquid nitrogen (LN2) load and an ambient temperature load. The data were processed with the APEX real-time calibration software (Muders et al. 2006). Beam sizes (FWHM: full-width at half-maxiumum) and main beam coupling efficiencies are given in Table\[mmdata\].
We obtained continuum observations at 350 (870) using the bolometer array receivers LABOCA (SABOCA) (Siringo et al. 2009, 2010), with a spatial resolution of $7.8{''}$ ($19{''}$) on 2012 Sep 10 (Sep 11) and $PWV\sim0.5\,(0.3-0.4)$mm. Data reduction was done with the BOA software (Schuller et al. 2009) following standard procedures, including iterative source modeling.
The CO maps show the presence of a compact molecular globule (Fig.\[co65map\]), that appears unresolved at our highest angular resolution of 7.7 in the CO J=7–6 line. The line profiles (Fig.\[spec\]a) show a central core and weak wings, extending to about $\pm6$ from the line center as seen in our highest S/N profile (J=4–3), and suggesting the presence of an outflow. Gaussian fits to the line profiles result in a width (FWHM) of about 3.1 in the 3–2 and 4–3 lines, and 3.5 and 4.1 in the 6–5 and 7–6 lines, respectively, implying an increase in the wing contribution relative to the core for the higher excitation lines. The J=4–3 and 3–2 maps show the presence of low-level extended background or foreground emission around the compact source seen in the J=6–5 and 7–6 lines, but the contribution is small ($\lesssim$10%).
In order to determine relative line intensity ratios, we convolved the CO 6–5 and 7–6 maps to the 4–3 map resolution, $13.1{''}$ (we chose not to convolve these maps to the larger 3–2 beamsize because of possible contamination from the extended cloud to the East). Since the source is unresolved, the source’s average brightness temperature in each line, $T_R$, depends on its emitting area. Conservatively assuming that all CO lines come from the dark region within the (ionized) bright periphery seen in the optical image, that has an area of 11.7arcsec$^2$, we derive the radiation temperature, $T_R$, for each of the observed CO lines (Table1). Using the online tool for the non-LTE radiative transfer code, RADEX (Van der Taak et al. 2007) to model these, we find that the 4–3 and 3–2 data can be fitted with a column density N(H$_2$)$\sim10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ and kinetic temperature $T_{k}\sim 40$K (assuming a CO/H$_2$ abundance ratio $f_{CO}\sim10^{-4}$), but the 6–5 and 7–6 line intensities predicted by this one-temperature model are weaker than observed (Fig.\[spec\]b), even with a model density high enough ($\sim 10^6$cm$^{-3}$) to thermalize these lines, implying the presence of gas with $T_{k}>>40$K in the globule. The “excess" emission in the 6–5 and 7–6 lines requires a hotter ($\gtrsim150$K) optically-thin component assuming it has the same emitting area as the cooler component. The observed CO 6–5, 7–6 and HCO$^+$ 4–3 line intensities imply the presence of high gas densities, $\gtrsim\,5\times10^5$cm$^{-3}$.
We derived the molecular mass in Carina-frEGG1 from its $^{13}$CO J=3–2 flux, using Eqn. (5) of Thi et al (2001), who used it to estimate protoplanetary disk gas masses from observations with the JCMT 15-m telescope (14 beam). We modified this equation to account for the APEX-12m’s larger beam-size. We estimate a “beam-averaged" $^{13}$CO J=3–2 optical depth, $\tau _{13}=0.56$ from the $^{12}$CO/$^{13}$CO line intensity ratio, assuming ($^{13}$CO)=($^{12}$CO)=40K. Assuming a $^{13}$CO/H$_2$ abundance ratio $f_{13CO}=10^{-6}$ and distance 2.3kpc (e.g., Smith et al. 2004), we find a molecular mass of $M_{mol}=0.35$. A $196\pm65$mJy continuum source was detected at 350, and an upper limit (40mJy, $1\sigma$) obtained at 870. Assuming the 350 flux is due to optically-thin, thermal emission from dust at the same temperature as we derive above for the bulk of the gas (i.e., $T_d=T_{k}\sim40$K), a gas-to-dust ratio of 100, and a dust opacity $\kappa(350\,\micron)=10$cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ (e.g., Miettinen et al. 2012), we derive a total mass of $\sim0.1$. The discrepancy between this value and the mass derived from CO emission is not significant, considering the uncertainties in the adopted values of $T_d$, $\kappa(350\,\micron)$ and $f_{13CO}$.
Additional Multi-wavelength Data
================================
We have compiled multi-wavelength data on Carina-frEGG1 using optical (HST), near-IR (2MASS and ESO) and mid-IR (Spitzer) data archives. Carina-frEGG1 was imaged with ACS in H$\alpha$ as part of a large-scale survey of the Carina SFR (Smith, Bally & Walborn 2010), and shows a dark tadpole-shaped globule (of length $\sim$19,000AU) with a bright periphery. The HST H$\alpha$ (+\[NII\]) image of Carina-frEGG1 shows a narrow, highly collimated jet (Fig.\[irachst\]b) – Smith et al. (2010) discuss this jet (HH1006) and infer that the putative central star related to the jet is not detected, presumably as a result of being deeply embedded within dust in the object.
The 2MASS images show a faint red compact source in the J, H, and Ks bands. Using two nearby field stars to register the ACS and 2MASS Ks images, we find that the source is located at $R.A.=10^h46^m32^s.97, Dec=-60\arcdeg03^m53^s.5$, roughly in the middle of the dark waist. We also retrieved archival Ks images towards Carina-frEGG1 taken with the NACO+CONICA instrument on the ESO-VLT-U4 on 10 Jan 2007, with a total field-of-view $27.8\arcsec\times27.8\arcsec$. Using standard IRAF packages, we generated a flat-field from these images using median-averaging and applied it to each of the 17 30-sec dithered exposures, which were then registered to a common reference frame and averaged. The angular resolution in the final image is about $0\farcs1$ as measured from radial intensity cuts of several neighbouring field stars. We find an extended faint hourglass-shaped nebula with a bright central region (Fig.\[irachst\]c) with its symmetry axis aligned with that of the jet. The northern lobe is much brighter than the southern one, implying that the hourglass structure is tilted such that its northern lobe is closer to us. In the central region of the northern lobe, which has a wide-U shape with its apex located at the center of the hourglass (inset, Fig.\[irachst\]c), the brightest feature is a small spur (of length $\sim$50AU) oriented at a position angle, $PA\sim12\arcdeg$. The spur is located slightly west of the jet axis and is not aligned with the latter (which is oriented at $PA\sim-10\arcdeg$).
The Spitzer IRAC images (3.6–8) show an elongated morphology similar to Carina-frEGG1’s optical shape (but at much lower angular resolution). As in the Ks image, the shape is bipolar, with the northern half significantly brighter than the southern one. No central star can be seen in the Ks image or the IRAC images, implying that the former is deeply embedded within a dusty disk with very high line-of-sight extinction. In longer-wavelength Spitzer images (i.e., $\ge24$), no isolated source can be detected at the location of Carina-frEGG1 due to bright extended emission from foreground or background clouds in its vicinity.
We have determined the SED of Carina-frEGG1 from 1.25 to 870. We carried out aperture photometry on the J and H-band 2MASS images (since the 2MASS catalog gives only a Ks magnitude). Aperture photometry for IRAC (channel 1 to 4) and MIPS (channel 1) is provided by Povich et al. (2011: source PCYC1173 in their catalog). Since no compact source can be seen in the MIPS 24 image at Carina-frEGG1’s location, we treat Povich et al.’s measured 24 magnitude of 3 as an upper limit. The SED (Fig.\[sed\]) continues to rise towards 350 – the longest wavelength for which we have a detection – indicating a substantial amount of emission from cool circumstellar dust in the far-IR range. For the source luminosity, we integrate the SED up to 350 to estimate $L\gtrsim8\,{\mbox{$L_{\odot}$}}$; a rough upper limit of $18\,{\mbox{$L_{\odot}$}}$ is provided by assuming flux values equal to the upper limits at 24 and 870. The observed fluxes have been corrected using an interstellar extinction $A_V=1.5$, that is intermediate between the value (1.78) given by Smith et al. (2004) and that (1.3) computed from a numerical algorithm provided by Hakkila et al. (1997), which estimates the $A_V$ of a galactic source from its longitude, latitude and distance.
We modeled the SED using an online tool that applies least-squares fitting to find the best models from a large set of pre-computed YSO models having accretion disks and infall envelopes with biconical outflow cavities (Robitaille et al.2007). The ten best-fit models (Fig.\[sed\]) have relatively low stellar effective temperatures (2660–3800K), stellar masses (0.1–0.65) and total luminosities (stellar+disk-accretion: 6–10) and small ages (1100–3000 yr). These results support our inference of a deeply-embedded YSO in Carina-frEGG1, but must be treated with some caution. Although the inferred inclination of the outflow to the line-of-sight, $i=18$, together with the large circumstellar extinction along the disk’s mid-plane ($A_V\gtrsim100$), is qualitatively consistent with the strong asymmetry in the brightness of the bipolar lobes in the Ks image, the projected opening angle of the cavity, $\theta_{proj}=tan^{-1}(tan\,\theta_c/sin\,i)=23$ ($\theta_c\sim7$, is the intrinsic opening angle in these models) appears smaller than observed.
Discussion
==========
Our detection of a substantial mass of molecular gas in Carina-frEGG1 shows that it is an frEGG, not a proplyd (as classified previously). Since the discovery of proplyds in Orion, many studies have reported the finding of proplyds in other SFRs with massive stars (e.g., Balog et al. 2006, Koenig et al. 2008, Brandner et al. 2000). However, in light of this study and that in SMC12, it is likely that the true nature of many or all of these objects has been misunderstood, and that some (or even all) of the previously classified proplyds in Carina, especially those which are significantly larger in size than the Orion proplyds, are really frEGGs.
Both proplyds and EGGs are unique probes of the effects of the harsh UV radiation and strong stellar winds from massive stars on the formation of lower-mass stars in their vicinity, thus it is of fundamental importance to be able to distinguish between these two classes. EGGs are most likely the surviving high density concentrations in a cloud as the ionization front sweeps through it. The formation of a protostar in the EGG may be induced by the compression of the latter by the high-pressure environment of the ambient HII region, supplemented by the even higher pressure at the high-density ionization front at the EGG surface. Photoevaporation sculpts out and exposes an EGG while the stellar object(s) in it is (are) still accreting mass, ultimately freezing the protostellar mass distribution at a relatively early stage in its evolution (e.g., Hester et al. l996). FrEGGs like Carina-frEGG1 (where the presence of collimated jets, central hourglass structure, and low luminosity, all imply the presence of a jet-driving, young, low-mass star) or the Tadpole (SMC12) represent the early formation phase of low or intermediate-mass stars within a massive SFR. Proplyds may represent the endpoint of evolution of such frEGGs, or may form coevally with the OB stars in these SFRs. Whether other objects like Carina-frEGG1 are proplyds or EGGs has major implications for the star-formation rate and the IMF in the massive SFRs where they are found. Outstanding questions that future research should address are: (i) do proplyds represent the evolutionary endpoint of frEGGS and (ii) is the formation of stars that may form in frEGGs induced by the surrounding HII region’s compression or were such stars already in the process of formation in the relatively dense cloud cores that are susceptible to becoming frEGGS?
Acknowledgments
===============
We thank F. Schuller, APEX, for his help with the LABOCA and SABOCA observations and data reduction. RS’s contribution to the research described here was carried out at JPL, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA and partially funded through the internal Research and Technology Development program.
Balog, Z., Rieke, G. H., Su, K. Y. L., Muzerolle, J., & Young, E. T. 2006, , 650, L83 Brandner, W., Grebel, E. K., Chu, Y.-H., et al. 2000, , 119, 292 Henney, W. J. & O’Dell, C. R. 1999, AJ, 118, 2350 G[ü]{}sten, R., Nyman, L-Å., Schilke, P., et al. 2006, , 454, L13 Heyminck, S., Kasemann, C., G[ü]{}sten, R., de Lange, G., & Graf, U. U. 2006, , 454, L21 Kasemann, C., G[ü]{}sten, R., Heyminck, S., et al. 2006, , v. 6275 Hakkila, J., Myers, J. M., Stidham, B. J., & Hartmann, D. H. 1997, , 114, 2043 Hester, J. J. et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 2349 Koenig, X. P., Leisawitz, D. T., Benford, D. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 744, 130 Mann, R. K. & Williams, J. P. 2010 ApJ, 725, 430 Miettinen, O., Harju, J., Haikala, L. K., & Juvela, M. 2012, , 538, A137 Muders, D., Hafok, H. et al. 2006, A&A, 454, L25 O’Dell, C. R., Wen, Z. & Hu, X. 1993, ApJ, 410, 696 Povich, M. S., Smith, N., Majewski, S. R., et al. 2011, , 194, 14 Ricci, L., Robberto, M. & Soderblom, D. R. 2008, AJ, 136, 2136 Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., & Wood, K. 2007, , 169, 328 Sahai, R., Morris, M., & Claussen, M. 2012a, ApJ, 751, 69 (SMC12) Sahai, R., Claussen, M. & Morris, M. 2012b, BAAS, 220, \#106.06 Schuller, F., Menten, K. M., Contreras, Y., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 415 Siringo, G. et al. 2009, A&A, 497, 945 Siringo, G. et al. 2010, The Messenger, 139, 20 Smith, N., Bally, J., & Morse, J. A. 2003, ApJ, 587, L105 (SBM03) Smith, N., Barb[á]{}, R. H., & Walborn, N. R. 2004, , 351, 1457 Smith, N., Bally, J., & Walborn, N. R. 2010, , 405, 1153 Thi, W. F., van Dishoeck, E. F., Blake, G. A., et al. 2001, , 561, 1074 Van der Tak, F.F.S., Black, J.H., Schoier, F.L., Jansen, D.J., van Dishoeck, E.F., 2007, A&A 468, 627 Wright, N. J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, L21
[l c c c c c c c ]{} Line & & $T_R$ && LineWidth & LineFlux & $\eta _{mb}$ & $\theta _b$\
& (K) & (K) & (kms$^{-1}$) & (kms$^{-1}$) & (Kkms$^{-1}$) & & (${''}$)\
CO(3-2) & 1.1 & 33.0 & -22.7 & 3.2 & 3.5 & 0.69 & 17.8\
$^{13}$CO(3-2)& 0.4 & 13.4 & -22.6 & 2.2 & 0.96 & 0.69 & 18.6\
CO(4-3) & 1.9 & 31.8 & -22.7 & 3.1 & 5.4 & 0.60 & 13.1\
CO(6-5) & 2.1 & 34.9 & -22.6 & 3.5 & 7.3 & 0.38 & 8.7\
CO(7-6) & 1.7 & 28.6 & -22.3 & 4.1 & 8.1 & 0.31 & 7.7\
HCO$^{+}$(4-3)& 0.17 & ... & -22.6 & 2.0 & 0.37 & 0.69 & 17.3\
HCN(4-3) & 0.11 & ... & -22.8 & 1.8 & 0.21 & 0.69 & 17.4\
\[mmdata\]
[^1]: APEX is a collaboration between the Max-Planck-Institut fuer Radioastronomie, the European Southern Observatory, and the Onsala Space Observatory
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'There exist non-trivial stationary points of the Euclidean action for an axion particle minimally coupled to Einstein gravity, dubbed wormholes. They explicitly break the continuos global shift symmetry of the axion in a non-perturbative way, and generate an effective potential that may compete with QCD depending on the value of the axion decay constant. In this paper, we explore both theoretical and phenomenological aspects of this issue. On the theory side, we address the problem of stability of the wormhole solutions, and we show that the spectrum of the quadratic action features only positive eigenvalues. On the phenomenological side, we discuss, beside the obvious application to the QCD axion, relevant consequences for models with ultralight dark matter, black hole superradiance, and the relaxation of the electroweak scale. We conclude discussing wormhole solutions for a generic coset and the potential they generate.'
author:
- |
Rodrigo Alonso `[email protected]`\
Alfredo Urbano `[email protected]`\
Theoretical Physics Department\
CERN\
Geneva, Switzerland
---
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
The explicit breaking of global symmetries due to gravitational effects is a topic of great relevance in physics, both for theoretical and phenomenological reasons. Its study might shed light on the reason why gravity is so different from the other fundamental interactions, and what rôle did these special features play in the history of the Universe.
Let us focus for simplicity and definiteness on the case of a $U(1)$ Peccei-Quinn (PQ) global symmetry that is spontaneously broken at some scale $f_a$ by the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of a complex scalar field $\Phi$. By introducing the polar parametrization $\Phi = \rho e^{\imath \phi/f_a}$, the VEV of the complex field is $\langle |\Phi|\rangle = f_a$, and the axion can be identified with the angular direction $\phi$ – the Nambu-Goldstone boson arising from the spontaneous symmetry breaking. Below the scale $f_a$, the axion enjoys the non-linearly realized global $U(1)$ symmetry $$\label{eq:ContinuosShift}
\phi \to \phi + \alpha f_a~,$$ for arbitrary values of the parameter $\alpha$ describing the shift in field space. The conserved Noether current implied by the symmetry in eq. (\[eq:ContinuosShift\]) is $J^{\mu} = f_a \partial^{\mu}\phi$, and the associated charge $\mathcal{Q}$ generates the symmetry transformation. For the purpose of the present discussion, it is important to notice that the subgroup of eq. (\[eq:ContinuosShift\]) given by the discrete shift $$\label{eq:DiscreteShift}
\phi \to \phi + 2k\pi f_a~,~~~~~ k\in \mathbb{Z}~,$$ represents a gauge symmetry of the system. This symmetry is inherent to the mere definition of the axion field in terms of an angular dynamical variable. Referring for definiteness to the $U(1)$ case discussed above, the discrete shift in eq. (\[eq:DiscreteShift\]) maps the complex field $\Phi$ into itself, and thus corresponds to a redundancy in the description of the physical degrees of freedom.
At the QCD scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, Yang-Mills instanton effects break the continuos shift in eq. (\[eq:ContinuosShift\]) into its discrete subgroup $\phi \to \phi + 2k\pi f_a$ generating the potential $$\label{eq:QCDpotentialterm}
V_{\rm QCD}(\phi) = - \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^4\cos\left(\frac{\phi}{f_a}\right)~,$$ minimized at $\phi = 0$ in agreement with the axion solution of the strong CP problem.
What does gravity do with global symmetries, like the axion shift symmetry in eq. (\[eq:ContinuosShift\])?
A number of ‘folk theorems’ state the impossibility to have global symmetries in a consistent theory of quantum gravity. To support this hypothesis, there exists a general semi-classical argument based on black hole physics. The reasoning is that if some amount of global charge is thrown into a black hole, then the subsequent thermal decay of the black hole into photons and gravitons via Hawking radiation destroys the global charge without any possibility to reconstruct it in the final state, thus defining a process by means of which the global charge is violated. To this respect, one also understands the crucial difference between global and local symmetries. Local symmetries obey the Gauss’s law, and any observer outside the black hole can determine its charge. The electric charge of a Kerr-Newman black hole represents an explicit example of this fact. On the contrary, there is no Gauss’s law associated with global symmetries, and when charged particles are thrown into the black hole, there is no way to track them from the outside: The global charge appears to be deleted, in obvious contradiction to its conservation.
In addition to the aforementioned theorem related to black hole physics, various arguments in perturbative string theory [@Banks:1987cy] – where global symmetries on the world-sheet become gauge symmetries in the target space – and AdS/CFT [@Witten:1998qj] – where global symmetries on the boundary correspond to gauge symmetries in the bulk – seem to corroborate this common belief.
Motivated by these arguments, many authors studied the consequences of the explicit breaking induced by higher-dimensional operators suppressed by the Planck scale $M_{\rm Pl} = \sqrt{1/G_N}$ of the form [@Kamionkowski:1992mf; @Barr:1992qq] $$\label{eq:Kamion}
V_{\rm gravity}(\Phi) = g_{2m + n}\frac{|\Phi|^{2m}\Phi^{n}}{M_{\rm Pl}^{2m + n - 4}} + h.c.~,$$ with mass-dimension $2m + n$, and generic coupling $g_{2m + n}$ that in principle is of order unity. Needless to say, the impact of these operators is catastrophic. To give an idea, in the QCD axion case including dimension-5 symmetry breaking operator induced by Planck scale physics would require a coupling of order $|g_5| \lesssim 10^{-55}$ in order to avoid dangerous CP violation effects for $f_a \sim 10^{12}$ GeV. This is of course unacceptable, since it introduces a fine-tuning by far more severe than the one the axion claims to solve.
The higher-dimensional operators in eq. (\[eq:Kamion\]) therefore represent, if present, a threat for the axion solution of the strong CP problem. To solve the issue, it is possible to tailor suitable extensions of the simple $U(1)$ model discussed at the beginning of this section. For instance, if the axion global symmetry is an accidental symmetry descending from an exact (discrete) gauge symmetry, then the problematic higher-dimensional operators can be forbidden to very high order [@Babu:2002ic; @Holman:1992us; @DiLuzio:2017tjx; @Fukuda:2017ylt; @Kim:1981bb; @Georgi:1981pu; @Harigaya:2013vja; @Dias:2002gg] (a similar conclusion remains true considering the axion global symmetry as an accidental symmetry descending from exact discrete global symmetries [@Dias:2014osa; @Kim:2015yna]).
However, before engineering possible solutions, it is important to pose the following question: Does gravity really generate power-suppressed symmetry breaking operators like those in eq. (\[eq:Kamion\])?
Let us tackle the problem from the simplest perspective, and consider the action describing an axion field minimally coupled to Einstein gravity. In this setup, it is possible to show that the global symmetry in eq. (\[eq:ContinuosShift\]) remains intact at any finite order in a perturbative expansion in $G_N$, and no power-suppressed operators are generated. Albeit surprising, this is not in contrast with the arguments presented at the beginning of this section about the breaking of global symmetries due to gravity. What is the origin of this conundrum? First of all, the reader should keep in mind that the ‘folk theorems’ mentioned above have to do with black holes, that is with non-perturbative objects. This fact suggests that the breaking of global symmetries induced by gravity is to be found at the non-perturbative level, and the lack of perturbative effects is not, after all, surprising. At the same time, this may sound discouraging – in particular from a phenomenological perspective – since referring to non-perturbative gravitational effects seems to be nothing but a vague and unclear indication. Is there a computable non-perturbative effect showing indisputably that gravity breaks explicitly global symmetries?
A careful analysis confirms the expectation sketched above, and gives a positive answer to the aforementioned question. Gravity breaks the global symmetry in eq. (\[eq:ContinuosShift\]) down to its discrete version in eq. (\[eq:DiscreteShift\]) in a non-perturbative way [@Kallosh:1995hi]. In more detail, Euclidean wormhole solutions [@Giddings:1987cg] swallow axionic charge, break the shift symmetry it generates, and create a potential for the axion that may compete, depending on the value of the axion decay constant, with the QCD effect in eq. (\[eq:QCDpotentialterm\]). These effects are, as promised, controllably calculable – up to some extent that we shall discuss in detail – in the context of Einstein gravity, thus relying surprisingly little on our ignorance of its ultraviolet (UV) completion.
This paper is structured as follows. In section \[sec:EuclideanWormholeSolution\] we review the Euclidean wormhole solutions [@Giddings:1987cg] in the context of Einstein gravity. Section \[sec:Stability\] contains the computation for the spectrum of the quadratic action, and in section \[sec:EffectivePotential\] the effective potential for a generic $U(1)$ Goldstone boson generated by Euclidean wormholes can be found. This concludes the theoretical part of this work. In section \[sec:Pheno\] we illustrate several phenomenological implications, including the QCD axion, the case of ultralight scalar dark matter, and the relaxation of the electroweak scale. In section \[sec:UV\] possible UV completions are discussed, and their impact on the existence of wormhole solutions assessed. In section \[sec:GenericCoset\], we derive wormhole solutions for a generic coset and look into $O(n+1)/O(n)$ as an specific example. Conclusions can be found in \[sec:Conclusions\]. Since part of this letter reviews existing material, for quick reference main results can be found in green boxes.
The Euclidean wormhole solution {#sec:EuclideanWormholeSolution}
===============================
In this section we review the wormhole instanton solution first discussed in [@Giddings:1987cg]. The computation we are about to discuss is not novel and can be found in the literature (see, e.g., [@Kallosh:1995hi; @Lee:1988ge; @Hebecker:2016dsw; @Montero:2015ofa; @Bachlechner:2015qja]). However, we consider useful and important to re-elaborate its derivation both for completeness and to highlight the points that will matter most for the rest of this work.
The bulk action {#sec:BulkAction}
---------------
The starting point is the Euclidean action of a three-form $H$ coupled to Einstein gravity[^1] $$\label{eq:WormholeAction}
\mathcal{S}_{\rm E} = \int d^4x\sqrt{g}\left(
-\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{16\pi}\,\mathcal{R} + \frac{\mathcal{F}}{2}H_{\mu\nu\rho}H^{\mu\nu\rho}
\right)~,$$ where $M_{\rm Pl} = 1/\sqrt{G_N}\simeq 1.22\times 10^{19}$ GeV is the Planck mass, and $\mathcal{F}\equiv 1/(3!\,f_a^2)$, with $f_a$ the PQ scale. The (dimensionless) pseudo-scalar axion field $\theta$ is related to the three-form $H$ via the relation $H_{\mu\nu\rho} = f_a^2\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(\partial^{\sigma}\theta)$. The variation of $\mathcal{S}_{\rm E}$ w.r.t. the metric is $$\left.\delta\mathcal{S}_{\rm E}\right|_{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} = \int d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[
\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{16\pi}\left(
-\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{R} + \mathcal{R}^{\mu\nu}
\right) + \frac{\mathcal{F}}{4}g^{\mu\nu}H^2 - \frac{3\mathcal{F}}{2}H^{\mu}_{\,\,\alpha\beta}H^{\nu\alpha\beta}
\right]\delta g_{\mu\nu}~,$$ and the corresponding Einstein equation reads $$\label{eq:Einstein}
\mathcal{G}^{\mu\nu}\equiv \mathcal{R}^{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}\mathcal{R} =
\frac{8\pi}{M_{\rm Pl}^2}T^{\mu\nu}_H~,~~~~~
T^{\mu\nu}_H \equiv
\mathcal{F}
\left(
3H^{\mu}_{\,\,\alpha\beta}H^{\nu\alpha\beta} - \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}H^2
\right)~.$$ By taking the trace of eq. (\[eq:Einstein\]) we find $-\mathcal{R} = 8\pi G_N\mathcal{F}H^2$. The equation of motion takes the form $$\nonumber
\left.\delta \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}\right|_{\delta B_{\nu\rho}}=\int d^4x\delta B_{\nu\rho} \left[-3\mathcal F^2 \partial_\mu\left(\sqrt{g} H^{\mu\nu\rho}\right)\right] = 0~,$$ where we write the three form as the field strength of an antisymmetric tensor $B_{\mu\nu}$, i.e. $H_{\mu\nu\rho}=\partial_{\mu}B_{\nu\rho}+\partial_{\rho}B_{\mu\nu}+\partial_{\nu}B_{\rho\mu}$.
In terms of the angular axion field $\theta$ the Euclidean action in eq. (\[eq:WormholeAction\]) reads $$\label{eq:AxionAction}
\mathcal{S}_{\rm E} = \int d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[
-\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{16\pi}\,\mathcal{R} + \frac{f_a^2}{2}(\partial_{\rho}\theta)(\partial^{\rho}\theta)
\right]~.$$ The canonically normalized axion field is $\phi \equiv f_a \theta$. Notice that the kinetic term in eq. (\[eq:AxionAction\]) has the ‘wrong’ sign if compared to the Euclidean action of an ordinary scalar. At the technical level, this is related to the Levi-Civita contraction $\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\lambda} = (-1)^t\,3!\,\delta_{\sigma}^{\lambda}$, where $t$ is the number of negative eigenvalues of the metric: Continuing from Minkowski ($t = 1$) to Euclidean ($t = 0$) space using the dual description, the axion kinetic term flips its overall sign.[^2] We refer to appendix \[app:A\] for a more detailed explanation and careful derivation. The same property appears at the level of the energy-momentum tensor. From eq. (\[eq:Einstein\]), we find $$\label{eq:TAxion}
T_{\theta}^{\mu\nu} = f_a^2\left[
-(\partial^{\mu}\theta)(\partial^{\nu}\theta) + \frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\nu}(\partial^{\rho}\theta)(\partial_{\rho}\theta)
\right]~,$$ where we used the contraction $\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\lambda\eta} = (-1)^t 2\left(
\delta^{\mu}_{\lambda}\delta^{\nu}_{\eta} - \delta^{\mu}_{\eta}\delta^{\nu}_{\lambda}
\right)$ with again $t = 0$ in the Euclidean case. Note that this energy-momentum tensor has the opposite overall sign if compared with the one of an ordinary real scalar.
![\[fig:Wormhole\] *The Euclidean wormhole solution connects two asymptotically flat regions (left panel). The minimum size of the wormhole throat defines the characteristic length $L$ in eq. (\[eq:Wormhole\]). The wormhole throat is characterized by the axion charge $n$ (see eq. (\[eq:Charge\])). This characteristic allows for the possibility to interpret the wormhole as the combination of an instanton with axion charge $+n$ and an anti-instanton with axion charge $-n$ (right panel).* ](Wormhole.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\linewidth"} ![\[fig:Wormhole\] *The Euclidean wormhole solution connects two asymptotically flat regions (left panel). The minimum size of the wormhole throat defines the characteristic length $L$ in eq. (\[eq:Wormhole\]). The wormhole throat is characterized by the axion charge $n$ (see eq. (\[eq:Charge\])). This characteristic allows for the possibility to interpret the wormhole as the combination of an instanton with axion charge $+n$ and an anti-instanton with axion charge $-n$ (right panel).* ](Instantons.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\linewidth"}
The flipped sign in eqs. (\[eq:AxionAction\],\[eq:TAxion\]) plays a crucial rôle in what follows. The mere existence of wormhole solutions – as we shall see – is a peculiar property of massless free pseudo-scalar (scalar) fields, which admit a dual description in terms of a two-index antisymmetric tensor (pseudo-tensor) whose field strength is the three-form $H$ in eq. (\[eq:WormholeAction\]). Indeed, even if we focus on the case of a pseudo-scalar axion field, it is important to remark that the construction we put forward in this section remains valid also for a genuine scalar field.
We now look for a spherically symmetric solution with the following ansatz $$\label{eq:Ansatz}
ds^2 = \alpha^2(r)dr^2 + \beta^2(r)d\Omega^2_{D-1,\mathcal{K}}~,~~~~~~H_{\mu\nu\rho} = \mathcal{H}(r)\epsilon_{ijk}~,$$ where $r$ is the time coordinate in Euclidean space, and the $D-1$ space has curvature $\mathcal{K}$. Without loss of generality, we write $d\Omega^2_{D-1,\mathcal{K}} = \hat{g}_{ij}d\varphi^i d\varphi^j$, with metric determinant $\sqrt{g} = \alpha\beta^3\sqrt{\hat{g}}$. $\mathcal{K} =1$ corresponds to a closed geometry, and for $D=4$ $d\Omega^2_{D-1,\mathcal{K}=1}$ reduces to the ordinary three-sphere whose metric can be parametrized in terms of three angles as $d\Omega^2_{3,1} = (d\psi^2,\sin^2\psi d\phi^2,\sin^2\psi\sin^2\phi d\varphi^2)$. On the contrary, $\mathcal{K} =-1$ describes an open geometry, with $d\Omega^2_{3,-1} = (d\psi^2,\sinh^2\psi d\phi^2,\sinh^2\psi\sin^2\phi d\varphi^2)$. In eq. (\[eq:Ansatz\]) the indices in $\epsilon_{ijk}$ run over the three-dimensional space $d\Omega^2_{3,\mathcal{K}}$, and they are raised and lowered by the induced metric $\hat{g}$.
The scalar curvature is $$\mathcal{R} = \frac{6\left\{
\mathcal{K}\alpha^3 + \beta\beta^{\prime}\alpha^{\prime} - \alpha\left[
(\beta^{\prime})^2 + \beta\beta^{\prime\prime}
\right]
\right\}}{\alpha^3 \beta^2}~,$$ and the Einstein equations are $$\begin{aligned}
G_{rr} = -\frac{3\mathcal{K}\alpha^2}{\beta^2} + \frac{3(\beta^{\prime})^2}{\beta^2} &=& \frac{8\pi}{M_{\rm Pl}^2}\left( -3\mathcal{F}\alpha^2 \mathcal{H}^2\right)~,\label{eq:Einstein1} \\
G_{ij} = \hat{g}_{ij}\left[-\mathcal{K} - \frac{2\beta\beta^{\prime}\alpha^{\prime}}{\alpha^3} +\frac{(\beta^{\prime})^2}{\alpha^2} + \frac{2\beta\beta^{\prime\prime}}{\alpha^2} \right] &=&
\hat{g}_{ij} \frac{8\pi}{M_{\rm Pl}^2}\left(3\mathcal{F}\beta^2\mathcal{H}^2\right)~.\label{eq:Einstein2}\end{aligned}$$
Notice that the field ansatz in eq. (\[eq:Ansatz\]) automatically solves the equation of motion $\partial_{\mu}\left(
\sqrt{g}H_{\alpha\nu\rho}g^{\alpha\mu}
\right) = 0$. On the contrary, the Bianchi identity $\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(\partial_{\rho}H_{\sigma\mu\nu})=0$ provides a non-trivial constraint. Using the field ansatz, and bearing in mind that $\epsilon_{ijk} = \beta^3\sqrt{\hat{g}}\varepsilon_{ijk}$ (see footnote $2$), we find $\partial_{r}(H\epsilon_{ijk})$ = $\partial_{r}(\mathcal{H}\beta^3\sqrt{\hat{g}}\varepsilon_{ijk})$ = 0. As a direct consequence, we have the $r$ dependence $\mathcal{H}(r) = \mathcal{H}_0/\beta^3(r)$, with $\mathcal{H}_0$ dimensionless constant. To make contact with the original solution proposed in [@Giddings:1987cg], we now restrict the analysis to the three-sphere $S_3$, with $\mathcal{K} = 1$ and $\beta^2(r) = r^2$. The constant $\mathcal{H}_0$ can be fixed by normalizing the integral of the field strength over $S_3$. We have $$\int_{S_3} \mathcal{H}_0\,d\Omega_{3,1} = 2\pi^2\mathcal{H}_0 = n~,$$ where - as we shall see later - $n$ is an integer number. We can now use eq. (\[eq:Einstein1\]). Solving for $\alpha$, we find $$\label{eq:Wormhole}
\alpha^2(r) = \frac{1}{1- L^4/r^4}~,~~~~~~~L\equiv \left(
\frac{n^2}{3\pi^3 M_{\rm Pl}^2 f_a^2}
\right)^{1/4}~.$$ The metric in eqs. (\[eq:Ansatz\],\[eq:Wormhole\]) describes the Giddings-Strominger wormhole configuration. The wormhole connects two asymptotically flat Euclidean region, as shown in the left panel of fig. \[fig:Wormhole\]. At any fixed Euclidean time $r$, the cross-section of the wormhole is a three-sphere. The length scale $L$ in eq. (\[eq:Wormhole\]) defines the minimal radius of the wormhole throat. Let us note that there is no singularity at $L=0$; this is indeed nothing but a coordinate singularity, as we shall discuss later.
Using the relation $H_{\mu\nu\rho} = f_a^2\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(\partial^{\sigma}\theta) = \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}J^{\sigma}$ and the field ansatz in eq. (\[eq:Ansatz\]) we can compute the axion charge stored in a cross-section of the wormhole throat. We find $$\label{eq:Charge}
\mathcal{Q} \equiv \int_{S^3} f_a^2\left(\partial^r \theta\right)\beta^3(r) d\Omega_{3,1} =
\int_{S_3} \mathcal{H}_0\,d\Omega_{3,1} = 2\pi^2\mathcal{H}_0 = n~.$$ The wormhole throat is therefore characterized by the axion charge $n$. This characteristic offers the possibility to consider the wormhole as the combination of an instanton with axion charge $+n$ and an anti-instanton with axion charge $-n$ (fig. \[fig:Wormhole\], right panel). Furthermore, as we shall discuss at the end of this section, $n$ is quantized, and it only takes integer values. As discussed in [@Giddings:1987cg], separating the wormhole in two halves has an important topological interpretation. On the one hand, the wormhole interpolates between two $\mathbb{R}^3$ geometries widely separated in time. On the other one, the instanton (anti-instanton) represents a topology change from $\mathbb{R}^3$ to $\mathbb{R}^3 \oplus S_3$ (from $\mathbb{R}^3 \oplus S_3$ to $\mathbb{R}^3$).
![\[fig:Wormhole2\] *Pictorial representation of an euclidean wormhole with endpoints connected to the same asymptotically flat space. The Euclidean time runs in the direction of the arrow. At each instant of time, two space dimensions have been suppressed. The cross-section of the wormhole throat is a three-sphere $S_3$.* ](WormholeTunnelFull.pdf){width=".7\linewidth"}
Instead of considering the wormhole as connecting two separate asymptotic Euclidean spaces - a configuration that has an unclear physical interpretation - it is possible to consider wormholes that connect back to the same space, as shown in fig. \[fig:Wormhole2\]. By slicing the wormhole in half, the instanton/anti-instanton represents, as before, a topology change from $\mathbb{R}^3$ to $\mathbb{R}^3 \oplus S_3$ and viceversa.
From eq. (\[eq:WormholeAction\]), we can compute the action of an instanton configuration with charge $n$. Using $\mathcal{R} = - 8\pi G_N\mathcal{F}H^2$, we find[^3] $$\label{eq:GIAction}
\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst} = \int d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathcal{F}H^2 = \frac{n^2}{4\pi^4 f_a^2}\int_L^{\infty} dr \int d\Omega_{3,1}
\frac{1}{r^3 \sqrt{1- \frac{L^4}{r^4}}} =
\frac{\sqrt{3\pi} n M_{\rm Pl}}{8 f_a} =
\frac{3\pi^2M_{\rm Pl}^2 L^2}{8}~.$$ This is the right moment to do some useful dimensional analysis, and it is convenient to restore the appropriate powers of $\hbar$ (while keeping $c = 1$). Equivalently, we can introduce a unit of energy $\mathrm{E}$ and length $\mathrm{L}$, with $[\hbar] = \mathrm{E\,L}$. Natural units correspond to $\mathrm{E} = \mathrm{L}^{-1}$. It is straightforward to realize – using the fact that a generic Lagrangian density has dimension $[\mathcal{L}] = \mathrm{E}\,\mathrm{L}^{-3}$ – that the canonically normalized axion field has dimension $[a] = \mathrm{E}^{1/2}\mathrm{L}^{-1/2}$. Similarly, the dimension of a coupling constant (like a gauge coupling) is $[\mathrm{g}] = \mathrm{E}^{-1/2}\mathrm{L}^{-1/2}$. The axion decay constant $f_a$ is a VEV, and it shares the same dimensionality of the electroweak VEV and the Planck scale: $[f_a] = [v] = [M_{\rm Pl}] = \mathrm{E}^{1/2}\mathrm{L}^{-1/2}$. From eq. (\[eq:Charge\]) the dimensionality of the axion charge is $[n] = \mathrm{E}\,\mathrm{L}$, and it corresponds to an inverse coupling squared. Finally, from eq. (\[eq:Wormhole\]) we see that $L$ is a genuine length scale. From this simple analysis we learn a number of interesting things.
First, we can exploit the analogy with the electroweak theory. The Fermi constant $G_F$ (or equivalently the electroweak VEV) is related to the ratio between the electroweak mass (defined here by the mass of the $W$ boson, and corresponding to the physical threshold of energy $\mathrm{E}\sim M_W$ at which the new degrees of freedom in the electroweak sector become dynamical) and the electroweak coupling constant $\mathrm{g}_W$ by means of $[v] = [G_F]^{-1/2} = [M_W]/[\mathrm{g}_W]$. Similarly, in gravity we expect the relation $$\label{eq:StringMassScale}
[M_{\rm Pl}] = [G_N]^{-1/2} = \frac{[M_S]}{[\mathrm{g}_S]}~,$$ where we introduced a string mass scale $M_S$ and a string coupling $\mathrm{g}_S$. If the UV completion of general relativity is weakly coupled, we expect new degrees of freedom to occur even below the Planck scale. If, on the contrary, the UV completion of general relativity is strongly coupled, $\mathrm{g}_S \gtrsim 1$, we expect the new dynamics of quantum gravity to occur above $M_{\rm Pl}$. We shall return on this point later, discussing the validity of the wormhole solutions (see section \[sec:HigherCurv\]).
Second, from eq. (\[eq:GIAction\]) we recover the correct dimensionality of an instanton action since we have that $[\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}] = 1/[\mathrm{g}]^2 =[\hbar]$. On general ground, this also explains why instantons are non-perturbative. If $\mathrm{g} \to 0$, $\exp(-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}/\hbar)$ goes to zero faster then any power of $\mathrm{g}$, and instanton effects cannot be captured at any finite order in perturbation theory.
Finally, notice that the wormholes with action given in eq. (\[eq:GIAction\]) realize the Weak Gravity Conjecture (WGC) proposed in [@ArkaniHamed:2006dz]. The generalization of the WGC to the case of axions states that for an axion with decay constant $f_a$ there exists an instanton with action $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst} \lesssim M_{\rm Pl}/f_a$. In the context of Einstein gravity, this is precisely the wormhole with $n=1$ and $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst} \simeq 0.38\,M_{\rm Pl}/f_a$.
Let us now explore in more detail our solution. The wormhole metric $$\label{eq:WormholeMetric}
ds^2 = \left(\frac{1}{1- L^4/r^4}\right)dr^2 + r^2d\Omega_{3,1}$$ is conformally equivalent to a flat metric on $S_3 \times \mathbb{R}$. The coordinate transformation $$\left(\frac{d\tau}{dr}\right)^2 = \frac{r^2}{r^4 - L^4}~~~~~~\Longrightarrow~~~~~~\tau(r) = \frac{1}{2}\ln\left[
\frac{r^2 + \sqrt{r^4 - L^4}}{L^2}
\right]~,$$ brings the metric in eq. (\[eq:WormholeMetric\]) into the form $$\label{eq:ConformalFactor}
ds^2 = a^2(\tau)\left(
d\tau^2 + d\Omega_{3,1}
\right)~,~~~~a^2(\tau) = L^2\cosh(2\tau)~.$$ Notice that $r=L$ is mapped to $\tau=0$ and in this coordinate system is plain to see that there is no singularity and the wormhole connects the two asymptotically flat regions at $\tau=\pm\infty$. With respect to this metric, the Einstein equations and the equation of motion for the axion field, which can be obtained from taking $\alpha=\beta=a$ in eqs. (\[eq:Einstein1\],\[eq:Einstein2\]), are $$\label{eq:ConformalEinstein}
-3+3\left(\frac{a^{\prime}}{a}\right)^2 = -\frac{f_a^2\kappa}{2}(\theta^{\prime})^2~,~~~~
2\frac{a^{\prime\prime}}{a} - \left(
\frac{a^{\prime}}{a}
\right)^2 - 1 = \frac{f_a^2\kappa}{2}(\theta^{\prime})^2~,~~~~\theta^{\prime\prime} + (2a^{\prime}/a)\theta^{\prime} = 0~,$$ where we defined $\kappa \equiv 8\pi/M_{\rm Pl}^2$. From the first Einstein equation, we find $$\label{eq:AxionWormhole}
f_a^2\kappa(\theta^{\prime})^2 = \frac{6}{\cosh^2(2\tau)}~.$$
![\[fig:InstantonSolution\] *Axion field profile corresponding to the wormhole solution in eq. (\[eq:Instanton\]). The blue and red colors describe the instanton and anti-instanton part of the solution (see fig. \[fig:Wormhole\]). A string of widely separated instantons and anti-instantons (right panel) provides an approximate stationary point of the Euclidean action (which becomes an exact solution of the equation of motion only asymptotically, in the limit of infinite separation).* ](InstantonSolution1.pdf "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"} ![\[fig:InstantonSolution\] *Axion field profile corresponding to the wormhole solution in eq. (\[eq:Instanton\]). The blue and red colors describe the instanton and anti-instanton part of the solution (see fig. \[fig:Wormhole\]). A string of widely separated instantons and anti-instantons (right panel) provides an approximate stationary point of the Euclidean action (which becomes an exact solution of the equation of motion only asymptotically, in the limit of infinite separation).* ](InstantonSolution2.pdf "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"}
Integrating over $\tau$, we find $$\label{eq:Instanton}
f_a^2\kappa\theta(\tau) = \sqrt{6}\arctan\left[\tanh(\tau)\right]~.$$ In the left panel of fig. \[fig:InstantonSolution\] we show the instanton solution in eq. (\[eq:Instanton\]). Asymptotically, the axion field configuration approaches the constant values $f_a^2\kappa\theta(\tau)/\sqrt{6} \overset{\tau \to \pm \infty}{\rightarrow} \pm \pi/4$, and features a sharp transition in between. Notice that the asymptotic limit is exponentially fast, $\tanh(\tau)\overset{\tau \to \pm \infty}{\rightarrow} \pm \left(
1 - e^{-2\tau}
\right)$. Since instantons are well-localized objects, there are also approximate solutions consisting of strings of widely separated instantons and anti-instantons centered at $\tau_1,\dots, \tau_m$. Notice that the possibility to center the instanton-anti-instanton pair at an arbitrary position in $\tau$ is due to the fact that the wormhole solution in eqs. (\[eq:ConformalFactor\],\[eq:AxionWormhole\]) possesses a ‘time’-translation symmetry. Indeed, the most general solution of the field equations is $a^2(\tau) = L^2\cosh[2(\tau-\tau_0)]$, $f_a^2\kappa(\theta^{\prime})^2 = 6/\cosh^2[2(\tau-\tau_0)]$, and it depends on the arbitrary constant $\tau_0$. As we shall see in section \[sec:Fluctuations\], the presence of this ‘time’-translation symmetry will imply the existence of a zero eigenvalue in the spectrum of the quadratic action describing fluctuations around the wormhole solution. For illustrative purposes, we show a multi-instanton solution in the right panel of fig. \[fig:InstantonSolution\]. Since the $m$ instantons are widely separated, the classical action is just $m\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}$.
Finally, we close this section with the following remark. As already anticipated, the axion charge in eq. (\[eq:Charge\]) turns out to be quantized. This property can be understood as follows. We consider the action for the axion field in the background metric of eq. (\[eq:ConformalFactor\]), and, after introducing the new variable $d\tau/d\sigma \equiv a^2$ and considering radially symmetric field configurations $\theta(\tau(\sigma))$, we find $$\label{eq:AxionAction2}
\mathcal{S}_{\theta} = 2\pi^2\int d\sigma\frac{f_a^2}{2}\left(
\frac{d\theta}{d\sigma}
\right)^2~.$$ With respect to the new variable, the equation of motion of the axion field is simply given by $d^2\theta/d\sigma^2 = 0$. Equivalently, using eqs. (\[eq:ConformalFactor\],\[eq:AxionWormhole\]), we find $d\theta/d\sigma = {\rm const} = n/2\pi^2 f_a^2$. We can now expand eq. (\[eq:AxionAction2\]) around the instanton solution, $\theta \to \theta + \delta\theta$. We find, using the equation of motion, the following change in the action $$\label{eq:Quantization}
\delta\mathcal{S}_{\theta} = 2\pi^2f_a^2\int d\sigma\frac{d}{d\sigma}\left(
\delta\theta \frac{d\theta}{d\sigma}
\right) = 2\pi^2f_a^2 \delta\theta \left.\frac{d\theta}{d\sigma}\right|_{\rm boundary} = n\delta\theta~.$$ In the presence of wormholes, the action is no longer invariant under the generic shift $\theta \to \theta + \delta\theta$. We now restrict to the discrete transformations $\delta\theta = 2k\pi$, with $k\in \mathbb{Z}$. Since $\theta$ is an angular variable, we know that $\theta \to \theta + 2k\pi$ corresponds to the same physical point, as discussed in section \[sec:Intro\]. This is a gauge redundancy, and, as such, it cannot be broken. The simple observation is that quantum mechanical transition amplitudes involve $e^{\imath \mathcal{S}_{\theta}}$, and the phase exponential must be gauge invariant. This means that the only change $\delta\mathcal{S}_{\theta}$ that can be tolerated corresponds to an integer multiple of $2\pi$. We therefore find the quantization condition $n \in \mathbb{Z}$.
The quantization of the wormhole charge $\mathcal{Q}$ – and the subsequent invariance of the action under the transformation $\theta \to \theta + 2k\pi$, with $k\in \mathbb{Z}$ – is a crucial point, since it is related to the fact that in the presence of wormholes the continuos shift symmetry in eq. (\[eq:ContinuosShift\]) is broken down to its discrete subgroup in eq. (\[eq:DiscreteShift\]). We shall elaborate more on this point in section \[sec:EffectivePotential\].
The quantization of the wormhole charge $\mathcal{Q}$ is tightly related to the periodicity of the axion field, and it has a profound mathematical explanation. It is indeed possible to show that $n$ can only be either an integer or zero. The point is that if the flux of the three-form $H$ through $S_3$ is non-zero, then in general a unique two-form potential $B$ – an antisymmetric tensor whose filed strength is $H$ according to $H_{\mu\nu\rho} = \partial_{\mu}B_{\nu\rho} + \partial_{\nu}B_{\rho\mu} + \partial_{\rho}B_{\mu\nu}$, see appendix \[app:A\] – covering the whole sphere $S_3$ does not exist. Only if $n$ is an integer the ambiguity can be bypassed by defining two potentials $B_{1,2}$, covering the upper and lower halves of $S_3$, and related to each other by a gauge transformation in an overlap region which is topologically $S_2$ [@Ortin:2015hya; @Witten:1983ar; @Callan:1991at]. The argument is very similar to the Dirac quantization of the electric charge in the presence of a magnetic monopole. We discuss in more detail this point in appendix \[app:AxionChargeQuantization\]. The analogy is indeed deeper, and the Dirac quantization condition corresponds to the quantization of the axion charge over a spatial slice $S_3$ [@Rohm:1985jv; @Allen:1991wc].
The Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term \[sec:GHY\]
--------------------------------------------------
In the presence of a manifold with boundary, the Einstein-Hilbert action in eq. (\[eq:WormholeAction\]) must be supplemented by a boundary term so that the variational principle is well-defined [@York:1971hw; @York:1972sj; @Gibbons:1976ue]. To make this point clear, let us only focus on the term involving the Ricci scalar for the metric ansatz in eq. (\[eq:ConformalFactor\]) with $\mathcal{R} = 6(a - a^{\prime\prime})/a^3$ $$\label{eq:VariationalProblem}
\mathcal{S} = -\frac{3M_{\rm Pl}^2}{8\pi}\int d\Omega_{3,1} d\tau \left(a^2 - a a^{\prime\prime}\right) \\
= -\frac{3M_{\rm Pl}^2}{8\pi}\int d\Omega_{3,1} d\tau
\left[
a^2 + (a^{\prime})^2 - \frac{d(a a^{\prime})}{d\tau}
\right]~.$$ The presence of the second derivative prevents the correct formulation of the variational principle.[^4] It is therefore necessary to add the Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term, whose general form is given by $$\mathcal{S}_{\rm GHY} = -\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{8\pi}\int_{\partial M} d^3\vec{x}\sqrt{h}\left(
K - K_0
\right)~,$$ where $h$ is the determinant of the induced metric on the boundary manifold $\partial M$, $K$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature tensor, and $K_0$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature tensor of the same boundary embedded in flat spacetime. The explicit computation of $\mathcal{S}_{\rm GHY}$ is straightforward. The trace of the extrinsic curvature tensor is $K = \nabla_{\mu}n^{\mu} = \partial_{\mu}n^{\mu} + \Gamma^{\mu}_{\mu\nu}n^{\nu}$, where $n^{\mu}$ is the unit normal to $\partial M$. The boundary we are interested in are hypersurfaces of constant $\tau$, and the corresponding unit normal vector is $n^{\tau} = 1/a$. By direct computation, we find $K = 3a^{\prime}/a^2$. As far as $K_0$ is concerned, we use $a = e^{\tau}$ for the flat metric, and we find $K_0 = 3/a$. All in all, the Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term reduces to $$\label{eq:GHY}
\mathcal{S}_{\rm GHY} = -\frac{3M_{\rm Pl}^2}{8\pi}\int d\Omega_{3,1}\left(
a a^{\prime} - a^2
\right)~,$$ and it cancels the total derivative in eq. (\[eq:VariationalProblem\]).
The Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term must be included for a correct formulation of the gravitational action in the presence of a manifold with boundary, and this is the case for the half-wormhole configuration. It is therefore important to evaluate the topological contribution of eq. (\[eq:GHY\]) to the bulk action in eq. (\[eq:GIAction\]). Using the explicit solution in eq. (\[eq:ConformalFactor\]), we find $$\mathcal{S}_{\rm GHY} = -\frac{3M_{\rm Pl}^2\pi}{4}\left|
aa^{\prime} - a^2
\right|_{\tau = 0}^{\tau = \infty} =-\frac{3M_{\rm Pl}^2\pi L^2}{4} = -\left(
\frac{2}{\pi}
\right)\frac{\sqrt{3\pi} n M_{\rm Pl}}{8 f_a}~,$$ where only the boundary at the wormhole throat gives a non-vanishing contribution. Taking into account the boundary term, the action of an instanton configuration with charge $n$ is
\_[inst]{} = ( 1 - ) .\[eq:Fullaction\]
Quadratic action and the absence of negative modes {#sec:Stability}
==================================================
Instantons are responsible for one of the most important effect in Quantum Mechanics, that is the tunneling through a potential barrier.
![\[fig:Instanton\] *Tunneling through a potential barrier in Quantum Mechanics mediated by non-perturbative instanton solutions.* ](DoubleWell.pdf "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"} ![\[fig:Instanton\] *Tunneling through a potential barrier in Quantum Mechanics mediated by non-perturbative instanton solutions.* ](Tunneling.pdf "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"}
The importance of such effect lies in the fact that it changes the vacuum of the system, and there exist two paradigmatic situations in which this effect is particularly manifest [@ColemanBook; @Vainshtein:1981wh].
In the left panel of fig. \[fig:Instanton\] we show a one-dimensional quantum system featuring a potential with a double well, of the form $V(x) =\lambda(x^2 - k^2)^2$. In perturbation theory, the ground state has two degenerate minima at $x = \pm k$, which are equivalent because of the reflection symmetry of the system (dashed black lines). Instantons lift the degeneracy, and the energy difference between the true ground state and the first excited state (solid black lines – respectively, the anti-symmetric and symmetric combination of the two vacua at $x = \pm k$) is controlled by the instanton action, according to the qualitative scaling $E_1(\mathrm{g}) - E_0(\mathrm{g}) \sim e^{-{\rm const}/\mathrm{g}^2}$. In the right panel of fig. \[fig:Instanton\] we show a potential with a metastable vacuum, of the form $V(x) = m\omega^2 x^2 + \lambda x^3$. In perturbation theory – assuming small $\lambda$ – one can compute the energy of the ground state of the system at, in principle, any order (solid black line). However, perturbation theory can not describe the tunneling through the barrier, and the instability of the vacuum. Again, the tunneling is captured by instanton effects, that in this case introduce a small imaginary part in the ground state energy, $E_0(\mathrm{g}) = \Re E_0(\mathrm{g}) + \imath\Im E_0(\mathrm{g})$, with $\Im E_0(\mathrm{g}) \sim e^{-{\rm const}/\mathrm{g}^2}$, which in turn becomes a decay probability in the time evolution $e^{\imath E_0(\mathrm{g})t}$. In this case the instanton is called [*bounce*]{}.
In order to understand the true nature of the instanton, it is necessary to inspect the action at the quadratic order. Let us clarify this point with an explicit example. In Euclidean time, the quantum probability amplitude from the initial state $|i\rangle$ at time $-T/2$ to the final state $| f \rangle$ at time $T/2$ – that corresponds, for instance, to the transition amplitude between the two vacua in the quantum systems discussed in fig. \[fig:Instanton\] – is given by $$\label{eq:FluctuationDet}
\langle f| e^{-T H} | i \rangle = \sum_{n}e^{- TE_n} \langle f| n\rangle \langle n | i \rangle \approx
\frac{\mathcal{N}}{\sqrt{{\rm det}^{\prime}\left(
\frac{\delta^2 \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}}{\delta x^2}
\right)}}e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm E}[x_{\rm cl}(\tau)]}~.$$ where $\mathcal{N}$ is a normalization constant, $\mathcal{S}_{\rm E}[x_{\rm cl}(\tau)]$ is the Euclidean action computed for the classical instanton solution $x_{\rm cl}(\tau)$, and the prefactor encodes the quantum fluctuation around the classical trajectory. The latter, as a result of a Gaussian integration, takes the shape of a determinant with a prime denoting the subtraction of zero eigenvalues. If we take $T$ to be very large, the lowest energy state dominates the sum, and we can extract the ground state energy from the computation of the path integral. The spectrum of the differential operator $\delta^2 \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}/\delta x^2$ is therefore crucial. In the presence of one (or an odd number of) negative eigenvalue(s), there is an imaginary contribution to the vacuum energy, and the instanton plays the rôle of a bounce. If the spectrum of the quadratic action is positive (or if the number of negative eigenvalues is even) the vacuum energy is real, and the instanton describes the transition between degenerate vacua, lifting their degeneracy as discussed in the case of the double well.
The analogy with one-dimensional systems in Quantum Mechanics suits particularly well our case since the wormhole solutions discussed in section \[sec:EuclideanWormholeSolution\] are characterized by one relevant dimension, that is the time coordinate in the Euclidean 4D space.
Bulk action and boundary terms {#sec:Fluctuations}
------------------------------
In this section we study, motivated by the previous discussion, the spectrum of the quadratic action describing perturbations around the Euclidean wormhole solution. To this end, we shall exploit the formalism developed in the context of cosmological perturbation theory for the analysis of fluctuations of a scalar field $\varphi_0$ coupled to gravity in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric [@Garriga:1997wz]. This study requires the canonical formalism in order to correctly get rid of the non-dynamical degrees of freedom, as in any other gauge theory. The canonical formulation, although non-explicitly, preserves gauge invariance.
In the following, we start considering metric perturbations in Minkowski space around the background line element $ds^2 = a^2(\eta)(- d\eta^2 + \gamma_{ij}dx^i dx^j)$. Including fluctuations, in full generality we write $ds^2 = a^2(\eta)\left[
-(1+2A)d\eta^2 + 2B_i dx^id\eta +(\gamma_{ij} + h_{ij})dx^i dx^j
\right]$. This perturbed line element can be further analyzed by means of the scalar-vector-tensor decomposition, which separates the fluctuations into components according to their transformations under spatial rotations. In particular, the three-vector $B_i$ splits into the gradient of a scalar, and a divergence-free vector $B_i = \partial_i B + \hat{B}_i$ while the symmetric tensor $h_{ij}$ can be decomposed into a scalar part, a divergence-free vector, and a trace-free transverse tensor $h_{ij} = -2\psi \gamma_{ij} + 2\partial_{\langle i}\partial_{j\rangle}E + 2\partial_{(i}\hat{E}_{j)} + t_{ij}$.[^5] The advantage of this decomposition is that scalar, vector and tensor Einstein equations are decoupled at the linear order and can therefore be treated separately. Vector perturbations are pure gauge modes, and they carry no dynamics [@Garriga:1997wz]. As far as tensor perturbations are concerned, they do not couple to scalar modes, and we can therefore rely on standard computations of gravitational waves in instanton background [@Hertog:1999kg]. We found a positive spectrum, and we summarize our computation in appendix \[app:Perturbations\]. We focus here on scalar perturbations. The perturbed line element is therefore $$\label{eq:Perturbations}
ds^2=a^2(\eta)\left\{-(1+A) d\eta^2+2\partial_i B dx^id\eta+[\gamma_{ij}(1-2\psi)+2\partial_{\langle i}\partial_{j\rangle}E]dx^idx^j\right\}~,$$ where we simultaneously expand the scalar field, assumed to be function of $\eta$, as $\varphi_0+\delta\varphi$.
The second order Lagrangian in terms of the perturbations in eq. (\[eq:Perturbations\]) can be found in e.g. [@Garriga:1997wz], but it has, at this level, non-dynamical degrees of freedom and gauge redundancy. First $A$ and $B$ are not dynamical, that is they do not have a ‘kinetic term’; they behave like $A_0$ in a ‘conventional’ gauge theory. In addition, there is a two-parameter gauge transformation, corresponding to diffeomorphism acting on scalar perturbations, given by $\delta x^\mu=(\lambda^0, \partial^i \lambda)$, and we have $$\label{eq:GaugeonPer}
\delta\psi=-\frac{\dot a}{a}\lambda^0~,~~~~~~~\delta B=\dot \lambda-\lambda^0~,~~~~~~~
\delta E=\lambda~,~~~~~~~ \delta(\delta \varphi)=\dot\varphi_0 \lambda^0~,$$ where we indicate with $\dot{}$ the derivative w.r.t. the time variable $\eta$. Out of the 5 perturbations $A,B,E,\psi,\delta\varphi$, 2 are non dynamical, and 2 can be removed via a gauge transformation which leaves us with 1 d.o.f. All in all, we have the following quadratic action in Hamiltonian form $p\dot q-\mathscr H$ (see [@Garriga:1997wz] for details of the derivation) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:FullQuadratic}
&&\delta \mathcal{S}^{(2)} = \\ && \int d\eta d\vec{x}\left\{
\Pi_\Psi \dot \Psi -\frac{2a^2\sqrt{\gamma}}{\kappa^2 \dot\varphi_0 ^2}\left[
\left(\Delta + 3\mathcal{K}\right)\Psi + \frac{\kappa \dot{a}/a}{2a^2\sqrt{\gamma}\Pi_\Psi}
\right]^2 - \frac{a^2 \sqrt{\gamma}}{\kappa}\Psi\left(\Delta + 3\mathcal{K}\right)\Psi
+\frac{1}{4a^2\sqrt{\gamma}}\Pi_\Psi\frac{\kappa\mathcal{K}}{(\Delta + 3\mathcal{K})}\Pi_\Psi
\right\}~,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the dynamical variable $\Psi$ and its conjugate momentum $\Pi_\Psi$ in terms of the metric perturbations in eq. (\[eq:Perturbations\]) are $\Psi \equiv \psi + (\dot{a}/a)\delta\varphi/\dot\varphi_0$ and $\Pi_\Psi \equiv \Pi_{\psi} - 2a^2\sqrt{\gamma}(\Delta + 3\mathcal{K})\delta\varphi/\kappa\dot{\varphi}_0$, where $\Pi_{\psi}$ is the conjugate momentum of $\psi$ and $\Delta$ is the Laplacian on the three-sphere associated with $\gamma_{ij}$. The background solutions satisfy $$\label{eq:MinkowskiEOM}
\left(\frac{\dot a}{a}\right)^2+\mathcal K -\frac\kappa6\dot\varphi_0 ^2=0~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ddot\varphi_0+2\frac{\dot a\dot\varphi_0}{a} =0~.$$ In the following we focus on the spatially homogeneous $O(4)$ invariant modes, and we formally set $\Delta = 0$.[^6] As discussed in [@Gratton:2000fj; @Gratton:1999ya], the homogeneous modes are those that are potentially responsible for the presence of negative eigenvalues in the spectrum of the quadratic action, and they need to be carefully analyzed. Indeed, in [@Rubakov:1996cn] the authors claimed the existence of a negative mode among the homogenous fluctuations around the Giddings-Strominger wormholes. If true, this result would imply that wormholes are bounce solutions mediating unstable vacuum decay via tunneling transition. Motivated by the necessity to further explore and check this result, we now turn to discuss our own analysis. For completeness, in appendix \[app:Perturbations\] we discuss the spectrum of inhomogeneous scalar perturbations.
Restricting to the homogeneous modes, eq. (\[eq:FullQuadratic\]) becomes $$\left.\delta \mathcal{S}^{(2)}\right|_{\Delta = 0} = \int d\eta d^3\vec{x}\left[ \Pi_\Psi \dot \Psi-\left(\begin{array}{cc}\Psi&\Pi_\Psi \end{array} \right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{3\mathcal{K}a^2\sqrt{\gamma}(6\mathcal K+\kappa \dot \varphi_0^2)}{\kappa \dot\varphi_0 ^2}& \frac{3\mathcal K \dot a}{\kappa a \dot\varphi_0 ^2}\\
\frac{3\mathcal K \dot a}{\kappa a \dot\varphi_0 ^2}& \frac{6\dot a^2-\kappa a^2 \dot\varphi_0 ^2}{12 a^4\sqrt{\gamma}\dot\varphi_0 ^2}
\end{array}
\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\Psi\\\Pi_\Psi \end{array} \right)\right]~.\label{S2Psi}$$
The first difficulty one faces is the conformal factor problem [@Gibbons:1978ac].[^7] The conformal factor problem can be spotted in the Hamiltonian of eq. (\[S2Psi\]) by using the equation of motion $6\dot{a}^2-\kappa a^2\dot\varphi_0^2 = -6\mathcal K a^2$. As a consequence, we find a ‘wrong sign’ kinetic term since we will be looking at the closed case $\mathcal K=1$. The literature often treats this problem by just turning $\Psi$ into the imaginary axis but this, other than pretty arbitrary, will lead to augmented confusion when convoluted with the rotation to Euclidean. Instead the most sensible way in our humble opinion is to perform a canonical (symplectic) transformation and study the resulting system as done in [@Gratton:2000fj]. This will correspond roughly to swapping $\Psi$ and $\Pi_\Psi$ and then performing another transformation, explicitly and in a single step $$\label{eq:CanonicalTransformation}
\Pi_\Psi =-\frac{3a^2\sqrt{\gamma}}{\dot\varphi_0}q-\frac{\dot\varphi_0 \dot a}{\kappa a}p~,~~~~~~~~~
\Psi =-\frac{\kappa a}{2\dot\varphi_0 \dot a}q+\frac{\dot\varphi_0}{6a^2\sqrt{\gamma}}p~,$$ which is symplectic since $$J^{\rm T}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{array}
\right)J =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
-1 & 0
\end{array}
\right)
~~~~~~{\rm with}~~~~~\left(\begin{array}{c}\Psi\\\Pi_\Psi
\end{array}\right)=J \left(\begin{array}{c}p\\q
\end{array}\right)
~.$$ and leads to the action $$\left.\delta \mathcal{S}^{(2)}\right|_{\Delta = 0} =\int d\eta d^3\vec{x} \left[p\dot q- \left(\begin{array}{cc}q&p \end{array} \right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0& \frac{3\mathcal K-\kappa\dot\varphi_0^2}{3\dot a/a}\\
\frac{3\mathcal K-\kappa\dot\varphi_0^2}{3\dot a/a}& \frac{2\mathcal K^2}{\kappa^2a^2\sqrt{\gamma}}
\end{array}
\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}q\\ p \end{array} \right)\right]~,\label{S2qR}$$ where we discarded boundary terms since the equation above is the starting point for a canonical formulation, as discussed in sec. \[sec:GHY\] and in accordance with [@Gratton:1999ya].
The canonical transformation above might appear to have no other virtue than to simplify the Hamiltonian, so it is worth pausing and looking at its connection with the original variables and physical interpretation. Indeed in ref. [@Garriga:1997wz] a similar canonical transformation is used such that the resulting coordinate is proportional to Bardeen’s potential. In our case we have, after substituting in the canonical transformation:$$\label{qOurs}
q=\frac{1}{\kappa}\left\{
\dot\varphi_0\left[ \mathcal K(B-\dot E)-\frac{\dot a}{a}\psi\right]+\left(\mathcal K-\frac{\dot a^2}{a^2}\right)\delta \varphi \right\}~,$$ which, under a gauge transformation as in eq. (\[eq:GaugeonPer\]) stays invariant. The gauge invariance of the variable speaks to the success of the proccess of removing redundancies and is a valuable check on the procedure here employed.
Notice that we can write this action, since there is no ‘potential’ in the Hamiltonian for $q$, as $$\label{DeqSm}
\left.\delta \mathcal{S}^{(2)}\right|_{\Delta = 0} =\int d\eta d^3\vec{x}\frac{2\mathcal K^2}{\kappa^2a^2\sqrt{\gamma}}p^2~,$$ with $p=\partial\mathscr H/\partial q$. It would seem that the discussion of the sign of eigenvalues ends here: they are $\geq 0$ from construction. The only non-trivial step to corroborate this conclusion is the rotation to Euclidean, which as it turns out changes nothing. However we pursue here further to find the explicit eigenvalues of the spectrum. After using $\dot q=\partial \mathscr H/\partial p$ to write $p$ in terms of $q,\dot q$, repeated use of equations of motion and integration by parts leads to $$\label{It2Op1}
\left.\delta \mathcal{S}^{(2)}\right|_{\Delta = 0} = \int d\eta d^3\vec{x}\sqrt{\gamma} \left\{\frac{\kappa^2 a^2}{8\mathcal K^2}\left(\dot q^2+\frac83\kappa\dot\varphi_0^2 q^2\right)-\frac{d}{d\eta}\left[\frac{\kappa^2a^2q^2}{4\mathcal K^2}\frac{(3\mathcal K -\kappa \dot{\varphi}_0^2)}{\dot{a}/a}\right]\right\}~.$$ We note that the bulk term can be generalized to the Lorentz invariant form $d^4x \sqrt{-g}(\partial_\mu q\partial^\mu q +\dots)$. As the last step in Minkowski we substitute $q\to q/a$, and we find $$\left.\delta \mathcal{S}^{(2)}\right|_{\Delta = 0} =
\int d\eta d^3\vec{x}\sqrt{\gamma}\left\{
\frac{\kappa^2 }{8\mathcal K^2}\left(-q\ddot q-\mathcal K q^2+\frac52\kappa\dot\varphi_0^2 q^2\right)+
\frac{\kappa^2 }{8\mathcal K^2}\frac{d}{d\eta}\left[
q\dot q+q^2\left(\frac{2\kappa \dot\varphi_0^2 - 3(\dot{a}/a)^2- 6\mathcal K}{3\dot{a}/a}
\right)
\right]
\right\}~.
\label{FINOB}$$ Finally, going to the Euclidean, $\tau=i\eta$ and with $()^\prime=d/d\tau$ $$\left.\delta \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}^{(2)}\right|_{\Delta = 0} =
\int d\tau d^3\vec{x}\sqrt{\gamma}
\frac{\kappa^2 }{8\mathcal K^2}\left[\left( -q q^{\prime\prime} + \mathcal Kq^2 - \frac52\kappa f_a^2\theta^{\prime\,2} q^2\right)+
\frac{d}{d\tau}\left(q q^\prime-\frac{2\kappa f_a^2\theta^{\prime\,2} a^2 + 3a^{\prime2}
-6a^2\mathcal K}{3a a^\prime}q^2\right)\right]~.\label{FINOBEc}$$ At this point, an important comment is in order. In addition to the usual analytical continuation, in eq. (\[FINOBEc\]) we performed the formal substitution $\varphi_0\to \imath f_a\theta$. This is because the starting point of our analysis, that is the quadratic action in eq. (\[eq:FullQuadratic\]), was derived in [@Garriga:1997wz] considering a generic real scalar field $\varphi_0$. In our case, on the contrary, we are interested in the case of an axion field $\phi$ (or, more generically, in the case of a Goldstone boson which admits a three-form description). Going from Minkowski to Euclidean, in the axion case one gets an extra minus sign whenever a term quadratic in $\theta$ appears (as discussed in section \[sec:BulkAction\] and appendix \[app:Minkowski2Euclidean\]), and the imaginary factor in $\varphi_0\to \imath f_a\theta$ precisely accounts for this issue. For instance, this replacement is indeed crucial to match eq. (\[eq:ConformalEinstein\]) starting from the corresponding Minkowski version in eq. (\[eq:MinkowskiEOM\]).
Substituting the wormhole solution for the background fields $a$ and $\kappa f_a^2\theta^{\prime\,2}$ as given in eq. (\[eq:AxionWormhole\]), and considering the case of a closed Universe $\mathcal{K} = 1$, we have the following quadratic action $$\label{eq:ExplictOp}
\left.\delta \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}^{(2)}\right|_{\Delta = 0} =
\int d\tau d^3\vec{x}\sqrt{\gamma}
\frac{\kappa^2 }{8\mathcal K^2}\left\{ q\left[ -\frac{d^2}{d\tau^2}+1- \frac{15}{\cosh^2(2\tau)}\right]q+\frac{d}{d\tau}\left[qq^\prime-\frac{3-\cosh^2(2\tau)}{\cosh(2\tau)\sinh(2\tau)}q^2\right] \right\}~,$$ and, consequently, the following operator in the bulk
-+1- . \[eq:Schrod\]
This action can be written as the square of a generalized momentum, as the analysis in Minkowski indicated, explicitly $$\left.\delta \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}^{(2)}\right|_{\Delta = 0} = \int d\tau d^3\vec{x}\sqrt{\gamma} \frac{\kappa^2}{8\mathcal K^2}\left[q^\prime - \frac{3-\cosh^2(2\tau)}{\cosh(2\tau)\sinh(2\tau)}q\right]^2~. \label{eq:posform}$$
Remarkably, the spectral problem for the quadratic action describing fluctuations around the wormhole background reduced to the eigenvalue problem for a Schrödinger-type operator. In particular, the differential operator in eq. (\[eq:Schrod\]) describes the one-dimensional motion of a particle subject to the Pöschl-Teller potential (see appendix \[App:PT\]).
The possible presence of negative eigenvalues is therefore related to the existence of bound states. Indeed, in general $\mathcal{O}$ has a discreet spectrum of bound states and for higher energies a continuum. The eigenvalues have definite ‘partiy’ under $\tau\to-\tau$ and this will be determining. In figure \[Fig:Schrod\] we show the odd (left panel) and even (right panel) discrete eigenvalues.
![\[Fig:Schrod\] *Spectrum of the differential operator in eq. (\[eq:Schrod\]) that coincides with the Pöschl-Teller potential well in Quantum Mechanics. The green band corresponds to the continuum spectrum. In the left (right) panel we show the parity odd (parity even) eigenfunction $q^{-}_{\lambda = 0}(\tau)$ ($q^{+}_{\lambda = -8}(\tau)$). We do not show the parity even eigenfunction $q^{+}_{\lambda = 0}(\tau)$ since it is not square-integrable.* ](Daplot.pdf "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"} ![\[Fig:Schrod\] *Spectrum of the differential operator in eq. (\[eq:Schrod\]) that coincides with the Pöschl-Teller potential well in Quantum Mechanics. The green band corresponds to the continuum spectrum. In the left (right) panel we show the parity odd (parity even) eigenfunction $q^{-}_{\lambda = 0}(\tau)$ ($q^{+}_{\lambda = -8}(\tau)$). We do not show the parity even eigenfunction $q^{+}_{\lambda = 0}(\tau)$ since it is not square-integrable.* ](Daplot2.pdf "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"}
Considering the eigenvalue equation $\mathcal{O}q_\lambda(\tau) = \lambda q_\lambda(\tau)$, they correspond to $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Odd\,eigenfunction:}~~&\left\{q^{-}_{\lambda = 0}(\tau) = \frac{\sinh(2\tau)}{\cosh^{3/2}(2\tau)}\right\}~,\label{eq:PTOdd}\\
{\rm Even\,eigenfunctions:}~~&\left\{q^{+}_{\lambda = -8}(\tau) = \frac{1}{\cosh^{3/2}(2\tau)}~,~~
q^{+}_{\lambda = 0}(\tau) = \frac{3 - \cosh(4\tau)}{2\cosh^{3/2}(2\tau)}\right\}~.\label{eq:PTEven}\end{aligned}$$ At this stage, one would naïvely conclude that the differential operator in eq. (\[eq:Schrod\]) has one negative eigenvalue; this is, the reader might have noticed, in contradiction with eq. (\[eq:posform\]). The resolution of this conflict requires closer inspection, in particular, one needs to check the behaviour of the eigenfunctions at the boundaries in eq. (\[FINOBEc\]) and the transformation property under parity. Let us start from the latter. Parity under $\tau\to-\tau$ $(\sim\eta\to-\eta)$ can be assigned to the perturbations in eq. (\[eq:Perturbations\]), and carried on to the expression for $q$ in eq. (\[qOurs\]) we see that it has odd parity, a reminder of the fact that the canonical transformation has ‘swapped’ momentum and coordinate. In eqs. (\[eq:PTOdd\],\[eq:PTEven\]), the only eigenfunction that is compatible with this requirement is $q^{-}_{\lambda = 0}(\tau)$, with eigenvalue $\lambda = 0$. Based on this parity argument, we therefore discard the eigenfunctions $q^{+}_{\lambda = -8}(\tau)$ and $q^{+}_{\lambda = 0}(\tau)$. Second, we have to check the behaviour of the eigenfunctions at the boundaries in eq. (\[eq:ExplictOp\]). This can be done in two ways: $i)$ direct computation in eq. (\[eq:ExplictOp\]) where one finds that the boundary term cancel at $\tau\pm\infty$ for $q^{-}_{\lambda=0}$ (it does cancel at $\tau=0$ as well if one instead considers a half-wormhole), $ii)$ alternatively substitution of $q^{-}_{\lambda=0}$ in eq. (\[eq:posform\]) yields $0$ which comprises both bulk and boundary contributions in eq (\[eq:ExplictOp\]). In this regard, let us note that the even solutions put in eq. (\[eq:posform\]) yield $\infty$ when integrating around the throat of the wormhole. In this sense only $q^{-}_{\lambda=0}$ is an eigenfunction of both eq. (\[eq:ExplictOp\]) and eq. (\[eq:posform\]) which adds to the evidence in favour of the odd eigenfunction.
Notice that otherwise the presence of a zero eigenvalue can be inferred from the ‘time’-translation symmetry for the wormhole solution, as discussed in section \[sec:BulkAction\].
All in all, we found that homogeneous scalar perturbations give a positive contribution to the fluctuation determinant in eq. (\[eq:FluctuationDet\]). This result supports the interpretation of the wormhole as an instanton mediating tunneling transitions between degenerate vacua. Equipped with this result, we can now move to compute the effective potential generated by gravity.
Before proceeding, let us comment about the discrepancy with the result presented in [@Rubakov:1996cn] where a negative eigenvalue was found. The metric studied in [@Rubakov:1996cn] has the form $ds^2 = N^2(\rho)d\rho^2 + R^2(\rho)d\Omega^2$, with the wormhole solution corresponding to $N(\rho) = 1$ and $R(\rho) = R_{\rm wh}(\rho)$, where $R_{\rm wh}(\rho)$ satisfies the equation $[R_{\rm wh}^{\prime}(\rho)]^2 = 1- 1/R_{\rm wh}^4(\rho)$ with $R_{\rm wh}(\rho = 0) = L$. The authors of [@Rubakov:1996cn] focused the analysis only on homogeneous perturbations; they defined the perturbed metric element as $ds^2 = [1 + n(\rho)]^2d\rho^2 + [R_{\rm wh}(\rho) + r(\rho)]^2$, and – contrary to the explicit gauge-invariant formulation in this work – they fixed the gauge with the choice $n(\rho) = 0$. This procedure may lead to incorrect results since perturbations are truncated before the gauge fixing, thus preventing from the possibility to fix all possible gauge degrees of freedom. Furthermore, in [@Rubakov:1996cn] the conformal factor problem was circumvented by using the Gibbons-Hawking-Perry rotation [@Gibbons:1978ac]. In synthesis, the ‘wrong’ negative kinetic term in the quadratic action for the perturbation $r(\rho)$ changes its sign as a consequence of the replacement $r\to \imath r$, with the new $r$ real. As already mentioned above, this is an [*ad hoc*]{} prescription without a clear physical interpretation, and its naïve application may lead to misleading results [@Mazur:1989by].
Effective potential from Euclidean wormholes {#sec:EffectivePotential}
============================================
The non-linearly realized global $U(1)$ symmetry $\phi\to \phi + \alpha f_a$ is generated by the axion charge $\mathcal{Q}$. The ground state – corresponding to the bottom of the mexican hat potential – is degenerate along the angular direction, and vacua are described by continuously connected field configurations with minimum energy.
Half-wormholes induce quantum tunneling between classical vacuum states with different axion charge $\mathcal{Q}$. The situation is schematically represented in fig. \[fig:Coleman\]. As Euclidean time passes by, in the presence of an instanton (anti-instanton) an observer on $\mathbb{R}^3$ experiences a change $\Delta\mathcal{Q} = -n$ ($\Delta\mathcal{Q} = +n$) since there is a net flux of axion charge equal to $+n$ ($-n$) through the wormhole throat [@Giddings:1987cg; @Lee:1988ge; @Rey:1989mg].
![\[fig:Coleman\] *Half-wormholes as instantons in Euclidean space. In the left (right) panel we show an instanton (anti-instanton) mediating the topology change $\mathbb{R}^3 \to \mathbb{R}^3 \oplus S_3$, and carrying away an axion charge $+n$ ($-n$). The axion charge is overall conserved but an observer on $\mathbb{R}^3$ experiences, as Euclidean time passes by, a change $\Delta\mathcal{Q} = -n$ ($\Delta\mathcal{Q} = +n$). The non-conservation of the axion charge $\mathcal{Q}$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$ implies an explicit breaking of the symmetry it generates.* ](HalfWormholePlus.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\linewidth"} ![\[fig:Coleman\] *Half-wormholes as instantons in Euclidean space. In the left (right) panel we show an instanton (anti-instanton) mediating the topology change $\mathbb{R}^3 \to \mathbb{R}^3 \oplus S_3$, and carrying away an axion charge $+n$ ($-n$). The axion charge is overall conserved but an observer on $\mathbb{R}^3$ experiences, as Euclidean time passes by, a change $\Delta\mathcal{Q} = -n$ ($\Delta\mathcal{Q} = +n$). The non-conservation of the axion charge $\mathcal{Q}$ on $\mathbb{R}^3$ implies an explicit breaking of the symmetry it generates.* ](HalfWormholeMinus.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\linewidth"}
Eventually, we will consider the case with $n = 1$, since the instanton action in eq. (\[eq:GIAction\]) is minimized. Consequently, from the point of view of the observer on $\mathbb{R}^3$, the axion charge is not conserved, and the associated symmetry explicitly broken down to the discrete gauge symmetry $\phi \to \phi + 2k\pi f_a$, with $k\in \mathbb{Z}$, which remains intact in the presence of wormhole instantons, as discussed in section \[sec:BulkAction\].
In the presence of wormhole instantons the situation is similar to that of a particle moving in a one-dimensional periodic potential. There are infinite classical minima at $x = j$, and each minimum corresponds to a degenerate ground state $|j\rangle$, as shown in fig. \[fig:Topology\]. Instantons can begin at any initial position, $x=j$, and go to the next one, $x = j+1$.
![\[fig:Topology\] *Periodic potential in Quantum Mechanics. Non-perturbative instanton solutions tunnel between classically degenerate vacua.* ](Pot.pdf){width=".5\linewidth"}
As a result of these tunneling transitions, the true vacuum of the system is a superposition of the degenerate ground states $|j\rangle$. It is instructive to work out this analogy in more detail. In particular, we can compute the probability for the tunneling process $|j \rangle \to |k \rangle$ summing over all the possible instanton and anti-instanton configurations. We find [@ColemanBook] $$\label{eq:PeriodicPotential}
\langle k|e^{-HT}|j \rangle = \sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\pi}}e^{-\omega T/2}\sum_{n = 0}^{\infty}\sum_{\bar{n} = 0}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n!\bar{n}!}\left(
Ke^{-\mathcal{S}_0}T
\right)^{n+\bar{n}}\delta_{n-\bar{n},k-j}~,$$ where $\omega \equiv V^{\prime\prime}(0)$, $K$ is the determinant factor describing quantum fluctuations around the classical instanton trajectory. Notice that for a single instanton/anti-instanton path with action $\mathcal{S}_0$ the contribution to the transition amplitude is [@ColemanBook] $$\label{eq:SingleInstanton}
\sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\pi}}e^{-\omega T/2}Ke^{-\mathcal{S}_0}~.$$ Eq. (\[eq:PeriodicPotential\]) include multi-instanton/anti-instanton solutions using the dilute-gas approximation. According to this approximation, strings of widely separated instantons and anti-instantons centered at $\tau_1,\dots, \tau_n$, and satisfying the condition $-T/2 < \tau_1 < \dots < \tau_n < T/2$, are distributed arbitrarily along the time direction. Multi-instantons are not exact classical solutions, but they represent the leading term for the tunneling amplitude between distant wells. The contribution of a multi-instanton solution consisting in $n$ well-separated objects takes the same form as in eq. (\[eq:SingleInstanton\]) but with $K \to K^n$, $\mathcal{S}_0 \to n\mathcal{S}_0$. A similar result, with $n$ substituted by $\bar{n}$, is valid for an anti-instanton string. In addition, the integration over the freely-distributed position gives the factor $$\int_{-T/2}^{T/2}dt_n\int_{-T/2}^{t_n}dt_{n-1}\dots \int_{-T/2}^{t_2}dt_1 = \frac{T^n}{n!}~.$$ The Kronecker delta in eq. (\[eq:PeriodicPotential\]) takes into account the fact that the total number of instantons minus the total number of anti-instantons must equal the change in $x$ between the initial and final position eigenstates. Using the Fourier series representation $$\delta_{a,b} = \int_0^{2\pi} \frac{d\bar{\zeta}}{2\pi}e^{\imath \bar{\zeta}(a - b)}~,$$ we find $$\label{eq:DiluteGas}
\langle k|e^{-HT}|j \rangle = \sqrt{\frac{\omega}{\pi}}e^{-\omega T/2}\int_0^{2\pi} \frac{d\bar{\zeta}}{2\pi}
e^{\imath \bar{\zeta} (j-k)}\exp\left(2Ke^{-\mathcal{S}_0}T\cos\bar{\zeta} \right)~.$$ From eq. (\[eq:DiluteGas\]), we read the energy eigenstates (Bloch waves, using the language of solid state systems) and eigenvalues $$\label{eq:PeriodicSpectrum}
|\zeta \rangle = \left(
\frac{\omega}{\pi}
\right)^{1/4}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\sum_{n}e^{-\imath n\zeta}|n\rangle~,~~~~~E(\zeta) = \frac{\omega}{2} + 2Ke^{-\mathcal{S}_0}\cos\zeta~.$$ The periodic potential contains a translation symmetry – analogue in rôle to the gauge symmetry $\theta \to \theta + 2k\pi$ in eq. (\[eq:DiscreteShift\]), left unbroken by wormhole instantons – that forces the eigenstates to be shift-invariant. It is indeed possible to introduce an operator $\mathcal{T}$ that generates an elementary translation $\mathcal{T}| j\rangle = | j + 1 \rangle$. $\mathcal{T}$ commutes with the Hamiltonian, and both operators can be diagonalized simultaneously. Each energy eigenstate in eq. (\[eq:PeriodicSpectrum\]) is characterized by an angle $\zeta$, eigenvalue of $\mathcal{T}$. It is indeed immediate to check that the states $|\zeta \rangle$ are eigenstates of $\mathcal{T}$, with $\mathcal{T}|\zeta \rangle = e^{\imath \zeta}|\zeta \rangle$.
A rigorous treatment in the context of wormhole physics was proposed in [@Rey:1989mg; @Giddings:1988cx; @Coleman:1988cy] (see also [@Preskill:1988na; @Hawking:1990ue; @Hawking:1988ae]).
![\[fig:WormholeTopology\] *The computation of the transition amplitude between a state $|n_i\rangle$ with $n_i$ instantons to a state $|n_f\rangle$ with $n_f$ instantons requires the sum over all possible four-geometries. We show here the most general one [@Giddings:1988cx; @Coleman:1988cy] which includes $m$ non-interacting wormholes, $n$ wormholes that are emitted and reabsorbed, $n_i - m$ half-wormholes in the initial and $n_f - m$ half-wormholes in the final state. From a local perspective, an effective potential on the space-time volume $\mathcal{M}$ is generated (see text for details).* ](WormholeGeometry.pdf){width=".8\linewidth"}
The goal of these papers was to compute the influence of wormholes on physics at low energy, or at distances large compared to the thickness of the wormhole throat, $L$. The key idea is that at energy scales below $L^{-1}$ wormholes can be integrated out.[^8] In the resulting low-energy effective theory, the Lagrangian density takes the form $$\label{eq:EffectiveWormholeLagrangian}
\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_0\left[\Phi(x),\dots\right] + \sum_{i}\mathcal{O}_{i}\left[\Phi(x),\dots\right]\mathcal{A}_i~.$$ The second term captures the effect of topological fluctuations due to wormhole physics. In full generality, the sum over $i$ represents the possible presence of instantons of different type (for instance, instantons with different charge $\mathcal{Q}$). $\mathcal{O}_{i}(x) \equiv \mathcal{O}_{i}\left[\Phi(x),\dots\right]$ are generic functions of fields and their derivatives, and $\mathcal{A}_i$ are combinations of creation and annihilation operators describing emission and absorption of half-wormhole geometries of type $i$. Notice that $\mathcal{A}_i$ do not depend on space-time position since wormholes do not carry any momentum. Furthermore, wormholes do not carry away any quantity coupled to gauge fields, and $\mathcal{O}_{i}$ must be a Lorentz scalar, singlet under charge and color. However, as we learned in section \[sec:EuclideanWormholeSolution\], wormholes carry off axion charges, and as a consequence we expect the operator $\mathcal{O}_{i}(x)$ to transform non-trivially under the global $U(1)$ symmetry. We shall return on this point later.
Before proceeding, let us give a more quantitative understanding. The fact that integration over wormhole geometries gives rise to the structure in eq. (\[eq:EffectiveWormholeLagrangian\]) can be understood with an explicit computation [@Giddings:1988cx; @Coleman:1988cy]. In practice, one can compute the probability for the transition between a state $|n_i\rangle$ with $n_i$ instantons to a state $|n_f\rangle$ with $n_f$ instantons, $\langle n_f|e^{-HT}|n_i\rangle$. For simplicity we do not distinguish here between instantons and anti-instantons, and we only consider instantons of unit charge. The computation should include a sum over all possible four-geometries, and in fig. \[fig:WormholeTopology\] we show the most general of such configurations [@Giddings:1988cx; @Coleman:1988cy]. This configuration includes $m$ disconnected wormholes that do not interact with the Euclidean space-time, and $n$ wormholes that are emitted and reabsorbed (see also fig. \[fig:Wormhole2\]). The amplitude for this geometry is weighted by the factor $e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}(2n + n_f + n_i - 2m)}$, where $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}$ is the instanton action (with unit charge) computed in eq. (\[eq:Fullaction\]). Furthermore, we indicate with $K\sqrt{g}d^4x$ the amplitude for inserting a single wormhole end in an infinitesimal volume of $\mathcal{M}$. For simplicity, we treat $K$ as a constant while, in general, it contains combinations of fields defined on $\mathcal{M}$. The final result – in analogy with eq. (\[eq:PeriodicPotential\]) – is $$\label{eq:TransitionWormhole}
\langle n_f|e^{-HT}|n_i\rangle = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=0}^{{\rm min}(m_i,n_f)} \frac{\sqrt{n_i!\,n_f!}}{m!}
\frac{(Ke^{-S_{\rm inst}}VT)^{2n+n_i + n_f - 2m}}{2^n n!(n_i - m)!(n_f - m)!}~,$$ where the volume factor $VT = \int_{\mathcal{M}}d^4x\sqrt{g}$ comes from an integration over the location of each instanton in the dilute gas approximation. The crucial observation in [@Giddings:1988cx; @Coleman:1988cy] is that the same result presented in eq. (\[eq:TransitionWormhole\]) can be directly obtained from the left-hand side of eq. (\[eq:TransitionWormhole\]) using the Hamiltonian $H = Ke^{-S_{\rm inst}}V(a + a^{\dag})$, after introducing creation and annihilation operators $a^{\dag}$ and $a$ subject to the commutation relation $[a,a^{\dag}]=1$, and defined by $|n\rangle = \sqrt{1/n!}(a^{\dag})^n|0\rangle$. This result shows the validity of the assumption made in eq. (\[eq:EffectiveWormholeLagrangian\]).[^9]
The effective wormhole action – writing explicitly the presence of field operators $\mathcal{O}_{i}(x)$ in the spirit of eq. (\[eq:EffectiveWormholeLagrangian\]) – is therefore [@Rey:1989mg] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:EffectiveWormholeAction}
\mathcal{S}_{\rm wh} &=& \int d^4x\sqrt{g}\sum_{q}K_q e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}\left[
\left(a^{\dag}_q + a_{-q}\right)\mathcal{O}_{-q}(x) + \left(a^{\dag}_{-q} + a_{q}\right)\mathcal{O}_{q}(x)
\right]\nonumber \\
&=& \int d^4x\sqrt{g}\sum_{q}K_q e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}
\mathcal{O}_{S}(x)
\left[
\left(a^{\dag}_q + a_{-q}\right)\exp\left(-\frac{\imath q\phi}{f_a}\right)+ \left(a^{\dag}_{-q} + a_{q}\right)\exp\left(\frac{\imath q\phi}{f_a}\right)
\right]~,\end{aligned}$$ where $a^{\dag}_q + a_{-q}$ ($a^{\dag}_{-q} + a_{q}$) describes the creation of a half-wormhole with charge $q$ ($-q$) or, equivalently, the annihilation of a half-wormhole with charge $-q$ ($q$), as illustrated in fig. \[fig:WormholeTopology2\]. The operators $a_q$ and $a_q^{\dag}$ obey the usual commutation relations $[a_q, a_{q^{\prime}}] = [a_q^{\dag}, a_{q^{\prime}}^{\dag}]=0$ and $[a_q, a_{q^{\prime}}^{\dag}] = \delta_{qq^{\prime}}$.
![\[fig:WormholeTopology2\] *Creation and annihilation operators for instanton (blue) and anti-instantons (red) with commutation relations $[a_q, a_{q^{\prime}}] = [a_q^{\dag}, a_{q^{\prime}}^{\dag}]=0$ and $[a_q, a_{q^{\prime}}^{\dag}] = \delta_{qq^{\prime}}$.* ](CreationAnnihilation.pdf){width="1\linewidth"}
As anticipated before, the operator $\mathcal{O}_{q}(x)$ transforms non-trivially under the global $U(1)$ symmetry, and it is possible to show that $\mathcal{O}_{q}(x) = \exp(\imath q\phi/f_a)\mathcal{O}_{S}(x)$, where $\mathcal{O}_{S}(x)$ is a singlet. Under the symmetry transformation $\phi \to \phi + \alpha f_a$, it follows that $\mathcal{O}_{q}(x) \to \exp(\imath q\alpha)\mathcal{O}_{q}(x)$. As shown in [@Rey:1989mg], this transformation property ensures conservation of the global $U(1)$ charge when the sum over all possible topologies is considered (that is, for instance, $\mathbb{R}^3 \oplus S_3$ for the creation of a single instanton, see fig. \[fig:Coleman\]).
Finally, in order to derive a viable effective action, it is crucial to understand the rôle of the creation and annihilation operators in eq. (\[eq:EffectiveWormholeAction\]). To this end, we can apply the lesson learned from Quantum Mechanics. At the beginning of section \[sec:Stability\], we discussed the double-well potential. In perturbation theory, the system has two degenerate vacua $|\pm k\rangle$, and, after including instanton solutions, the Hamiltonian is diagonalized by $|+k\rangle \pm |- k\rangle$, with the true vacuum corresponding to the antisymmetric combination. This example shows that in the presence of instanton with no negative modes the quantum vacuum is constructed as a coherent superposition of classical vacua. The same conclusion remains valid for the periodic potential studied at the beginning of this section, with the true vacuum defined by the superposition in eq. (\[eq:PeriodicSpectrum\]). A similar situation arises in Quantum Field Theory. The QCD Lagrangian has a discrete set of degenerate classical minima, labelled by integers $n$ – dubbed winding number – and indicated with $|n\rangle$. Indeed, considering the Chern-Simons current $\mathcal{K}^{\rm CS}_{\mu}$ and the corresponding charge $\mathcal{K}^{\rm CS}$ $$\mathcal{K}^{\rm CS}_{\mu} = 2\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\left[
A_{\nu}^{a}(\partial_{\alpha}A_{\beta}^{a}) + \frac{g_s}{3}f_{abc}A_{\nu}^a A_{\alpha}^b A_{\beta}^c
\right]~,~~~~~~\mathcal{K}^{\rm CS} = \frac{g_s^2}{32\pi^2}\int \mathcal{K}_0^{\rm CS}(\vec{x},t)d^3\vec{x}~,$$ it is possible to show that integer values $\mathcal{K}^{\rm CS} = n$ correspond to non-equivalent pure gauge field configurations with zero energy. Yang-Mills instantons tunnel between two such classical vacua, resulting in a non-zero matrix element $\langle n+1|e^{-HT}|n\rangle$. It means that in the presence of instantons the $|n\rangle$ vacua do not diagonalize the Hamiltonian, in analogy with eq. (\[eq:DiluteGas\]) and eq. (\[eq:TransitionWormhole\]). On the contrary, the true vacuum is the coherent superposition $|\theta\rangle = \sum_n e^{\imath n\theta}|n\rangle$. We expect the same situation in the presence of gravitational instantons. To this end, we introduce the operators $C_q \equiv a^{\dag}_q + a_{-q}$ and $C^{\dag}_q \equiv a^{\dag}_{-q} + a_{q}$ with commutation relations $[C_q, C_{q^{\prime}}] = [C^{\dag}_q, C^{\dag}_{q^{\prime}}] = [C_q, C^{\dag}_{q^{\prime}}] = 0$. It is possible to simultaneously diagonalize the operators $C_q$ and $C_q^{\dag}$, and we define the eigenvalue equations $C_q|\alpha \rangle = \alpha_q |\alpha \rangle$, $C^{\dag}_q|\alpha \rangle = \alpha_q^{*} |\alpha \rangle$.
Tunneling transitions bring the system in the coherent state $(a^{\dag}_{-q} + a_q)|\alpha \rangle = \alpha_q e^{\imath \delta_q}|\alpha \rangle$, defined in analogy with the harmonic oscillator as the eigenstate of the annihilation operator with complex eigenvalue $\tilde{\alpha}_q \equiv \alpha_q e^{\imath \delta_q}$. We can therefore replace creation and annihilation operators in eq. (\[eq:EffectiveWormholeAction\]) with their eigenvalues, and obtain
\[eq:MainPotential\] \_[wh]{} = d\^4x\_[q]{}K\_q e\^[-\_[inst]{}]{}\_q \_S( + \_q ) ,\
\_S = + aL\^2 + bL\^4 (\_)(\^) + … ,\[eq:FinalEffective\]
where in the last line we explicitly wrote the most general combination of operators singlet under the $U(1)$ global symmetry. In eq. (\[eq:FinalEffective\]), we used as mass suppression scale the cutoff $1/L$, and $a$, $b$ and $\alpha_q$ are expected to be order one numbers. In eq. (\[eq:MainPotential\]) the crucial point is that breaking effects are [*always*]{} proportional to the factor $e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}$, a trademark representing their non-perturbative origin. We remark that this point seems to be quite often overlooked in the literature, especially as far as phenomenological applications are concerned. Very often breaking effects generated by gravity are treated in a naïve way, along the line of the discussion outlined in the introduction, see eq. (\[eq:Kamion\]). On the contrary, the presence of the suppression factor $e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}$ plays a crucial rôle. In the second part of this paper we shall discuss in detail the most relevant phenomenological applications.
Phenomenological implications {#sec:Pheno}
=============================
In this section we discuss several phenomenological situations characterized by the presence of light axions with a decay constant such that non-perturbative gravity effects become relevant.
The QCD axion {#eq:QCDAxion}
-------------
We start discussing the implication of eq. (\[eq:MainPotential\]) for the QCD axion. We consider only wormholes with unit charge, since they give the dominant contribution. The effective axion potential, including both QCD and non-perturbative gravitational contributions, is schematically given by $$\label{eq:QCDPotential}
V(a) = \Lambda_{\rm QCD}^4\cos\left(\frac{\phi}{f_a}\right) + (1/L)^4e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}\cos\left(
\frac{\phi}{f_a} + \delta_1
\right)~,$$ where we estimated the prefactor of the gravitational contribution to be of order $(1/L)^4$. This is nothing but an order-of-magnitude estimate based on dimensional arguments but it does not affect the final result since the exponential term $e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}$ dominates. In this regard, it is worth emphasizing the size of this suppression. Considering the benchmark value $f_a = 10^{10}$ GeV for a QCD axion in the classical window, we have $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst} \simeq 1.7\times 10^8$. The explicit breaking generated by gravity is therefore negligible for all purposes.
Let us explore the implications of eq. (\[eq:QCDPotential\]) in more detail. First, notice that we defined the axion field so that the low energy QCD contribution to the axion potential is minimized at $\phi = 0$, and we redefined accordingly the phase $\delta_1$ in eq. (\[eq:MainPotential\]). The phase shift $\delta_1$ arises from a mismatch between the gravitational and the low energy QCD term. In the absence of CP violation in the gravitational sector, the phase $\delta_1$ is just proportional to ${\rm Arg\,Det}[Y_u Y_d]$, with $Y_{u,d}$ the Yukawa matrices for up- and down-type quarks, and it arises from the chiral rotation needed to move the phase of the fermion mass matrix into the $\theta$-term.[^10] In the following, we interpret $\delta_1$ as an arbitrary order one phase.
![\[fig:QCD\] *Non-perturbative gravity corrections (red dot-dashed line) on $\theta_{\rm eff}$ (left panel) and the axion mass $m_a$ (right panel) as a function of the axion decay constant $f_a$. In the regions shaded in red non-perturbative gravity dominates. In the right panel, the dashed blue line represents the contribution to the axion mass generated by QCD, computed according to [@diCortona:2015ldu].* ](ThetaEff.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\linewidth"} ![\[fig:QCD\] *Non-perturbative gravity corrections (red dot-dashed line) on $\theta_{\rm eff}$ (left panel) and the axion mass $m_a$ (right panel) as a function of the axion decay constant $f_a$. In the regions shaded in red non-perturbative gravity dominates. In the right panel, the dashed blue line represents the contribution to the axion mass generated by QCD, computed according to [@diCortona:2015ldu].* ](LowerMass.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\linewidth"}
The effect of the gravitational correction is twofold: It shifts the axion mass, and produces a non-zero $\theta_{\rm eff}$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
m_a^2 &\simeq & \frac{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^4}{f_a^2} + \frac{(1/L)^4}{f_a^2}e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}~,\label{eq:GravityMass}\\
\theta_{\rm eff} &\simeq & \frac{(1/L)^4}{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^4}\,\sin\delta_1\,e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}~.\label{eq:GravityThetaEff}\end{aligned}$$ where we remind the reader that the action scales with $M_{\rm Pl}/f_a$. The gravitational correction to the axion mass features a very interesting property if compared with the contribution generated by QCD. As $f_a$ increases, the QCD axion mass $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^4/f_a^2$ decreases but the gravitational term becomes more and more important, and eventually it overcomes the former. This means that we expect a lower bound on the axion mass. This is shown in the right panel of fig. \[fig:QCD\] where we shaded in red the region in which non-perturbative gravitational corrections dominate. We find the lower bound on the axion mass (or, equivalently, the upper bound on the axion decay constant)
m\_a 4.810\^[-10]{}[eV]{} , f\_a 10\^[16]{}[GeV]{} .\[eq:QCDbound\]
In the left panel of fig. \[fig:QCD\] we show the impact of the non-zero $\theta_{\rm eff}$ in eq. (\[eq:GravityThetaEff\]). For reference, we consider the experimental bound $\theta_{\rm eff} < 10^{-10}$ (horizontal gray line). We find that if $f_a \gtrsim 10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}$ then the contribution induced by gravity becomes too large. Notice that, by accident, the bounds on $f_a$ extracted from $m_a$ and $\theta_{\rm eff}$ are of the same order, and assuming $\delta_1 = 0$ does not change quantitatively our conclusion.
![\[fig:AxionMasterPlot\] *QCD axion parameter space (see text for details). The region shaded in red with horizontal meshes is excluded by non-perturbative gravitational effects, eq. (\[eq:QCDbound\]).* ](AxionParameterSpace.pdf){width=".55\linewidth"}
In fig. \[fig:AxionMasterPlot\] we show the impact of the bound in eq. (\[eq:QCDbound\]) on the QCD axion parameter space. As customary, the condition $f_a \lessgtr H_I/2\pi$, with $H_I$ the Hubble expansion rate at the end of inflation distinguishes between the cases in which the PQ symmetry is broken before ($>$) or after ($<$) the end of inflation. The first possibility defines the so-called anthropic axion window, in which the possibility to reproduce the observed dark matter relic density $\Omega_a h^2 \simeq 0.1$ relies on a fine-tuned choice of the initial misalignment angle $\theta_{in}$ (black dot-dashed lines in fig. \[fig:AxionMasterPlot\] for different $\theta_{in}$). Notice that a substantial part of the anthropic axion window is excluded by the presence of axion isocurvature perturbations in the early Universe (blue region with vertical meshes) that we compute following [@Visinelli:2009zm; @Visinelli:2014twa] (see also [@Visinelli:2009kt; @Visinelli:2017imh] for recent progress for non-standard cosmologies and generalization to axion-like particles). The region $f_a < H_I/2\pi$ defines the classical axion window. In the region ([*i*]{}) shaded in brown with diagonal meshes $\Omega_a h^2 > 0.1$, and the Universe is over-closed. The dashed brown lines reproduce $1\%$ and $10\%$ of the observed dark matter abundance. In this region a sizable contribution from decay of topological defects is expected [@Kawasaki:2014sqa]. For completeness, we also show the region excluded by white dwarf cooling time [@Raffelt:1985nj] and upper limit on the tensor-to-scalar ratio [@Ade:2015lrj]. The bound in eq. (\[eq:QCDbound\]) applies in the anthropic axion window, and disfavors a region of the parameter space (shaded in red with horizontal meshes) previously allowed. We remark that the bound in eq. (\[eq:QCDbound\]) was derived without specific assumption but only considering minimal coupling of the axion field with Einstein gravity.
We now move to briefly discuss few scenarios of phenomenological relevance in which non-perturbative gravitational corrections to the mass of the QCD axion may play an important rôle.
### QCD axions and black hole superradiance
Spin and mass measurements of stellar-size black holes exclude the QCD axion mass window [@Arvanitaki:2014wva] $$\label{eq:SuperradianceBound}
6\times 10^{-13} \lesssim m_a\,[{\rm eV}] \lesssim 2\times 10^{-11}~,$$ corresponding to $3\times 10^{17}\lesssim f_a\,[{\rm GeV}] \lesssim 10^{19}$. This is because superradiance effects become efficient [@Brito:2015oca; @Arvanitaki:2010sy] when the Compton wavelength of the axion is comparable with the horizon size of the black hole. The axionic field forms a quasi-stationary configuration around the black hole at the expense of its rotational energy, giving birth to a quasi-bound system that shares remarkable similarities – such as energy orbitals and level transitions – with the hydrogen atom. From $\lambda_{\rm Compton} = h/m_ac \sim R$, we have $$m_a \sim 6\times 10^{-12}\left(\frac{30\,{\rm km}}{R}\right)\,{\rm eV}~,$$ where $R$ is the typical radius of a stellar-mass black hole, thus justifying the mass range excluded in eq. (\[eq:SuperradianceBound\]). At the two sides of this interval, and within the mass range $m_a =[10^{-14}, 10^{-10}]$ eV, stellar black hole superradiance in the presence of the QCD axion may produce in the next few years spectacular signatures – both direct and indirect – in gravitational wave detectors such as Advanced LIGO [@Arvanitaki:2016qwi; @Giudice:2016zpa]. Indirect signatures refer to the observation of gaps in the spin-mass distribution of final state black holes produced by binary black hole mergers. Direct signatures refer to monochromatic gravitational wave signals produced during the dissipation of the scalar condensate after the superradiant condition is saturated.
As far as direct signatures are concerned, a careful assess of the detection prospects in Advanced LIGO and LISA was recently proposed in [@Brito:2017wnc; @Brito:2017zvb]. The outcome of the analysis is that, considering optimistic astrophysical models for black hole populations, the gravitational wave signal produced by superradiant clouds of scalar bosons with mass in the range $m_a = [2\times 10^{-13}, 10^{-12}]$ eV is observable – i.e. it is characterized by a signal-to-noise ratio larger than the experimental threshold – by Advanced LIGO. Notice that this region seems to be ruled out if one considers at face value the bound in eq. (\[eq:SuperradianceBound\]). However, it is worth emphasizing that the bound in eq. (\[eq:SuperradianceBound\]) is most likely only indicative since it is based on black hole spin measurements that are extracted indirectly from X-ray observations of accretion disks in X-ray binaries. We only have very few of such measurements at our disposal, and it is difficult to extract a bound with significant statistical confidence. The discussion of this matter however escapes the scope of the present work.
As clear from the right panel of fig. \[fig:QCD\] and from the parameter space in fig. \[fig:AxionMasterPlot\], the QCD axion in the mass range $m_a =[10^{-14}, 10^{-10}]$ eV violates the bound in eq. (\[eq:QCDbound\]), and fits into a region where non-perturbative gravitational effects dominate over QCD. We therefore conclude that – working under the very same hypothesis, that is an axion minimally coupled to Einstein gravity – the phenomenologically interesting mass range $m_a =[10^{-14}, 10^{-10}]$ eV motivated by black hole superradiance is theoretically forbidden for the QCD axion. This is not, of course, a lapidary conclusion. To be more optimistic, observing the QCD axion in connection with black hole mergers at the Advanced LIGO could imply an evidence for modifications of Einstein gravity. Alternatively, a scalar boson different from the QCD axion could still leave its imprint in the texture of gravitational wave signatures.
![\[fig:ScalarBosonMass\] *Gravitational mass generated by non-perturbative Euclidean wormholes as a function of the Goldstone boson decay constant $f_a$. In the inset plot, we show, in the same interval of $f_a$, the inverse of the wormhole size $L$ (see eq. (\[eq:Wormhole\])). The horizontal blue lines represent the mass range favored by the analysis in [@Brito:2017wnc; @Brito:2017zvb] considering both Advanced LIGO ($m_a = [2\times 10^{-13}, 10^{-12}]$ eV) and LISA ($m_a = [5\times 10^{-19}, 5\times 10^{-16}]$ eV) gravitational wave detectors.* ](ScalarBosonMass.pdf){width=".6\linewidth"}
In this last case, the mass term generated by gravity can be used to justify the lightness of the scalar boson. By turning off the QCD contribution in eq. (\[eq:GravityMass\]), we show the gravitational mass $m_a^2 \simeq (1/L)^4e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}/f_a^2$ in fig. \[fig:ScalarBosonMass\]. Clearly, if $f_a \simeq 10^{16}$ GeV it is possible to span, thanks to the exponential factor $e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}$ a large range of allowed values, including the regions favored by the analysis in [@Brito:2017wnc; @Brito:2017zvb].
### Axion stars as black hole seeds
The idea is to consider axion stars as black hole seeds, which are supermassive in the case of ultralight axions [@Helfer:2016ljl]. By studying numerically the collapse of axion stars in the context of general relativity, the authors of [@Helfer:2016ljl] identified the critical value of the axion decay constant $f_{\rm TP}\sim 0.06\,M_{\rm Pl}$ above which black hole formation occurs. The mass of the typical black hole formed from axion star collapse is $M_{\rm BH}\sim 3.4\left(f_a/0.12\,M_{\rm Pl}\right)^{1.2}M_{\odot}$.
As before, the condition $f_a \gtrsim f_{\rm TP}\sim 0.06\,M_{\rm Pl}$ is not compatible with the bound in eq. (\[eq:QCDbound\]). We stress that this bound was derived considering a QCD axion minimally coupled to Einstein gravity, therefore without any additional assumptions compared to the ones in [@Helfer:2016ljl]. Said differently, it would be interesting to include in the analysis of [@Helfer:2016ljl] non-perturbative gravitational corrections to the axion potential since they play a relevant rôle in the region of parameter space in which black hole formation may occur.
Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter
----------------------------------------------
Dark matter must behave sufficiently classically to be confined on galaxy scales. If we suppose dark matter to be a boson with mass $m_a$ and velocity $v$, we can require to behave classically down to the typical size of Milky Way satellite galaxies, and obtain the condition $$\label{eq:DeB}
\lambda_{\rm De\,Broglie} = \frac{1}{m_a v}\lesssim 1~{\rm kpc}
~~~~\Longrightarrow~~~~
m_a \gtrsim 10^{-22}\,\left(\frac{120\,{\rm km/s}}{v}\right)\,{\rm eV}~.$$ For a typical halo with size $R\sim {\rm kpc}$, and mass $M \sim 10^9\,M_{\odot}$, we expect a virial velocity $v \sim \sqrt{G_N M/R} \sim 70$ km/s. From eq. (\[eq:DeB\]), we extract a lower limit for the mass of bosonic dark matter of about $10^{-22}$ eV. The dark matter saturating this value is known as [*fuzzy dark matter*]{} (FDM) [@Hu:2000ke]. This kind of ultralight dark matter could form a Bose-Einstein condensate on galactic scales, providing a possible solution to the tensions that arise when the standard cold dark matter paradigm is probed into the deep non-linear regime at redshift $z \sim 0$ [@Moore:1999gc; @BoylanKolchin:2011de; @BoylanKolchin:2011dk]. Apart from this motivation, an ultralight dark matter condensate features peculiar observational astrophysical properties, and it catalyzed increasing attention in the dark matter community (see, e.g., [@Chavanis:2011uv; @Boehmer:2007um; @Harko:2011xw; @Sikivie:2009qn; @Schive:2014dra; @Harko:2011zt; @Hui:2016ltb; @Diez-Tejedor:2017ivd]).
From a particle physics perspective, the extreme lightness of the FDM is well suited by an axion-like particle. Furthermore, reproducing the observed value of relic abundance via the misalignment mechanism gives a clue about the value of its decay constant $f_a$.
For completeness, let us quickly sketch the computation. We consider here an axion-like field $a(t, \vec{x}) = f_a\theta(t, \vec{x})$ with potential $V(a) = \mu^4\left(1 - \cos\theta\right)$. In the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology $ds^2 = -dt^2 +R^2(t)d\vec{x}^2$ the evolution of the axion field is given by $\ddot{a}(t, \vec{x}) + 3H\dot{a}(t, \vec{x}) - \triangle a(t, \vec{x})/R^2 +
dV(a)/da = 0$, where $H \equiv \dot{R}/R$, and the dot indicates derivative w.r.t. time. Neglecting higher order in the potential, we have $\ddot{a}(t, \vec{x}) + 3H\dot{a}(t, \vec{x}) - \triangle a(t, \vec{x})/R^2 + m_a^2a(t, \vec{x}) = 0$, with $m_a^2 \equiv \mu^4/f_a^2$. As customary, we can define the time $t_1$ at which the condition $m_a = 3H(t_1)$ is satisfied. Notice that for simplicity we are considering an axion mass that is, to a first approximation, temperature-independent. The time $t_1$ separates two regimes.
For $t< t_1$, we can neglect the mass term, $H \gg m_a$. Introducing the Fourier decomposition $a(t,\vec{k}) = \int d^3\vec{x}e^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}a(t,\vec{x})$ we obtain $\ddot{a}(t,\vec{k}) + 3H\dot{a}(t,\vec{k}) -
(k^2/R^2)a(t,\vec{k}) = 0$. The Fourier modes $a(t,\vec{k})$ separate into modes outside (that is for $k/R \ll H$) and inside (that is for $k/R \gg H$) the horizon. Inside the horizon, we can not neglect the $k^2/R^2$ term. Solving the equation of motion for these modes, it is possible to show that the corresponding solutions oscillate with frequency $k/R$, and the amplitude decreases with time as $1/R$. The modes that are confined inside the horizons until $t\simeq t_1$ can therefore be neglected. As far as the modes outside the horizon are concerned, we can neglect the $k^2/R^2$ term, and the equation of motion is solved by $a(t,\vec{k}) = c_1(\vec{k}) + c_2(\vec{k})t^{-1/2}$. The modes that are confined outside the horizon until $t\simeq t_1$ are therefore frozen at some constant initial value, and they are collectively called zero modes $a_0$.
Let us now move to discuss the second regime, $t\gtrsim t_1$, focusing on the zero modes. When the axion mass becomes non-negligible, the evolution of the zero modes is described by the equation $\ddot{a}_0 + 3H\dot{a}_0 + m_a^2 a_0 = 0$. The zero modes, previously frozen, at $t\gtrsim t_1$ start oscillate with frequency set by $m_a$. From the definition of axion energy density $2\rho_{a_0} = \dot{a}_0^2 + m_a^2 a_0^2$ we find, using the equation of motion, $\dot{\rho}_{a_0} = -3H\dot{a}_0^2$. Since $a_0$ oscillates with period $m_a$, we can average over an oscillation, and estimate $\dot{a}_0 \simeq m_a a_0$. Consequently, $\rho_{a_0} \simeq m_a^2 a_0^2$ and $\dot{\rho}_{a_0} \simeq -3H\rho_{a_0}$. After integration, the latter equation gives the scaling $\rho_{a_0}(t) \sim m_a/R^3(t)$. This is the key argument defining the physics of the misalignment mechanism: During the cosmological evolution of the axion field, for $t\gtrsim t_1$ the number of axions in a comoving volume is conserved. We can therefore write the energy density stored in the axion zero modes today as $$\label{eq:Misalignment}
\rho_{a_0}(t_0) = \rho_{a_0}(t_1)\left[
\frac{R(t_1)}{R(t_0)}
\right]^3~,~~~~\rho_{a_0}(t_1) \simeq m_a^2 f_a^2\theta_{in}^2~,$$ where the dependence from the so-called initial misalignment angle $\theta_{in}$ is manifest.
The rest of the computation makes use of some basic thermodynamic concepts to rephrase eq. (\[eq:Misalignment\]) in terms of observable quantities. From entropy conservation, $g_*^s(T)R^3 T^3 = {\rm const}$, we have $$\label{eq:thermodynamic}
\left[
\frac{R(t_1)}{R(t_0)}
\right]^3 = \frac{s(T_0)}{\frac{2\pi^2}{45}g_*(T_1)T_1^3}~,~~~~~{\rm with}~~~s(T_0) = \frac{4}{3}\left[
\frac{g_*^s(T_0)}{g_*(T_0)}
\right]\left(
\frac{\rho_R(T_0)}{T_0}
\right)~,$$ where $h \equiv H_0/(100\,{\rm km/s/Mpc})$, with $H_0 = 67.8\,{\rm km/s/Mpc}$ [@Ade:2015xua], is the reduced Hubble constant, $T_{1}$ is the temperature at time $t_1$, $T_0 = 2.726$ $^{\circ}$K is the present temperature of the Universe, $\rho_{\rm crit} = 3H_0^2/8\pi G_N$ is the critical energy density, $g_*(T)$ ($g_*^s(T)$) is the effective number of degrees of freedom (effective number of degrees of freedom in entropy) at temperature $T$, and $\rho_{R}(T_0)$ is the present energy density in radiation. In eq. (\[eq:thermodynamic\]) $s(T_0)$ is the entropy density at present time, and the relation between $s(T_0)$ and $\rho_{R}(T_0)$ follows from $$s(T) = \frac{2\pi^2}{45}g_*^s(T)T^3~,~~~~\rho_R(T) = \frac{\pi^2}{30}g_*(T)T^4~.$$
The energy density in radiation can be estimated from the two Planck measurements [@Ade:2015xua] of the current matter density $\Omega_{m}$ and the redshift of radiation-matter equality $z_{eq}$. From $\rho_m(z_{eq}) = \rho_{R}(z_{eq})$, which is equivalent to $\Omega_{m}(z_{eq} + 1)^3
= \Omega_{R}(z_{eq} + 1)^4$, and using $\Omega_{m} = 0.3$, $z_{eq} = 3365$, it follows that $\Omega_{R}h^2 \simeq 4.3\times 10^{-5}$.
The value of $T_1$ follows from the condition $m_a = 3H(t_1)$ taking into account that we can write the Hubble parameter as a function of the temperature as $H(T) = \sqrt{\pi^2 g_*(T)/90 M_{\rm Pl}^2}T^2$. Parametrically, we have the relation $M_{\rm Pl}m_a \simeq T_1^2$. For a FDM candidate with $m_a \simeq 10^{-22}$ eV, it follows that $T_1 \simeq 10^3$ eV. At such small value of the temperature, we can approximate $g_*(T_1) \approx 1$. Furthermore, we also have $g_*(T_0) \simeq g_*^s(T_0)$.
All in all, defining $\Omega_a \equiv \rho_{a_0}(t_0)/\rho_{\rm crit}$, and assuming $\theta_{\rm in}\simeq 1$, we find the parametric order-of-magnitude scaling $$\label{eq:FDM}
\Omega_a h^2 \approx 0.1\,\left(
\frac{f_a}{10^{17}\,{\rm GeV}}
\right)^2\left(
\frac{m_a}{10^{-22}\,{\rm eV}}
\right)^{1/2}~.$$
Eq. (\[eq:FDM\]) points towards a very specific interplay between $f_a$ and $m_a$, and it is interesting to further investigate its origin. In [@Hui:2016ltb] this relation was justified referring to string theory models in which one expects an explicit breaking of the axionic shift symmetry due to the existence of worldsheet or membrane instantons [@Svrcek:2006yi]. Even without invoking string theory constructions, we point out that the mass term generated by gravity in eq. (\[eq:MainPotential\]) provides a nice explanation for the relic abundance in eq. (\[eq:FDM\]). Indeed, using $m_a^2 \simeq (1/L)^4 e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}/f_a^2$, the observed abundance can be reproduced with $f_a \simeq 8\times 10^{15}$ GeV and $m_a \simeq 2.5\times 10^{-18}$ eV. Notice that this value falls within the mass range that will be explored by the LISA gravitational wave interferometer, see fig. \[fig:ScalarBosonMass\]. This is an interesting observation, since it shows that a dark matter candidate with nothing more than gravitational interactions may explain in a natural way the lightness of its mass.
We finally note that, as fig. \[fig:ScalarBosonMass\] shows, a value of the axion decay constant above $f_a \simeq 10^{16}$ GeV would generate an unacceptably large contribution in eq. (\[eq:FDM\]).
Comments on the rôle of possible UV completions {#sec:UV}
===============================================
In this section we discuss possible UV completions of the axion Goldstone mode, and their consequences on wormhole physics.
Dynamical radial mode {#sec:DynamicalRadialMode}
---------------------
We start our investigation considering the simplest UV completion of the axion theory. This is the case of a $U(1)$ global symmetry that is spontaneously broken by the VEV $\langle |\Phi|\rangle = f_a/\sqrt{2}$ of a complex scalar field $\Phi(x) = [f(x)/\sqrt{2}]e^{\imath \phi(x)/f_a}$. The mexican hat potential responsible for the spontaneous symmetry breaking is $V(f) = \lambda(f^2 - f_a^2)^2/4$. The radial field $f(x)$ gets a mass $M_f^2 = \lambda f_a^2$. The physics discussed in the previous sections corresponds to the case in which the radial mode does not participate in the dynamics, and its value remains frozen at $f = f_a$. We expect this situation to be strictly true if $M_{f} > 1/L$. For the critical value $f_a \simeq 10^{16}$ GeV that we identified in section \[eq:QCDAxion\], we have $1/L \simeq 10^{18}$ GeV. It is therefore hard to imagine that the radial field $f$ plays no dynamical rôle, since we expect its mass – for reasonable small coupling $\lambda$ – to lie below the scale set by the wormhole throat. In order to validate our conclusions, it is necessary to generalize the wormhole solutions, and compute their action, to the case in which $f$ is a dynamical field [@Kallosh:1995hi; @Abbott:1989jw]. In order to make contact with the existing literature, we look for spherically symmetric solutions, and we use the Euclidean metric ansatz $ds^2 = dr^2 + R^2(r)d\Omega^2_{3,1}$. The Ricci scalar is $\mathcal{R} = -6[-1+(R^{\prime})^2 + RR^{\prime\prime}]/R^2$, and the Einstein field equations, together with the equation of motion for the radial field $f$, are [@Lee:1988ge; @Abbott:1989jw] $$\begin{aligned}
(R^{\prime})^2 &=& 1 - \frac{8\pi R^2}{3M_{\rm Pl}^2}\left[
-\frac{(f^{\prime})^2}{2} + V(f) + \frac{n^2}{8\pi^4f^2 R^6}
\right]~,\label{eq:Radial1} \\
-1 + (R^{\prime})^2 + 2RR^{\prime\prime} &=& - \frac{8\pi R^2}{M_{\rm Pl}^2}
\left[
\frac{(f^{\prime})^2}{2} + V(f) - \frac{n^2}{8\pi^4f^2 R^6}
\right]~,\label{eq:Radial2}\\
f^{\prime\prime} + \frac{3R^{\prime}}{R}f^{\prime} &=& \frac{dV}{df} - \frac{n^2}{4\pi^4f^3R^6}~,\label{eq:Radial3}
\end{aligned}$$ where we already substituted $f^2(\theta^{\prime})^2 = n^2/4\pi^4f^2R^6$, with $n$ the quantized axion charge along the wormhole throat. Instead of eqs. (\[eq:Radial1\],\[eq:Radial2\]), in our numerical investigation we found more useful to use the combination $R^{\prime\prime} = (4\pi R/3M_{\rm Pl}^2)[-2(f^{\prime})^2 - 2V(f) +n^2/2\pi^4 f^2 R^6]$. We introduce the dimensionless variables [@Kallosh:1995hi; @Abbott:1989jw] $$\label{eq:Dimensionless}
\rho \equiv rM_{\rm Pl}\sqrt{\frac{3\lambda}{8\pi}}~,~~~~A\equiv RM_{\rm Pl}\sqrt{\frac{3\lambda}{8\pi}}
~,~~~~F\equiv\frac{f}{M_{\rm Pl}}\sqrt{\frac{8\pi}{3}}~,$$ and the differential equations become $$\label{eq:Shooting}
A^{\prime\prime} = \frac{A}{2}\left[
-2(F^{\prime})^2 - \frac{1}{2}(F^2 - F_a^2)^2 + \frac{4Q}{F^2A^6}
\right]~,~~~~~~~F^{\prime\prime} + \frac{3A^{\prime}}{A}F^{\prime} = F(F^2 - F_a^2)^2 - \frac{2Q}{F^3A^6}~,$$ with $Q\equiv n^2\lambda^2/8\pi^4$. Finally, in terms of the dimensionless variables defined in eq. (\[eq:Dimensionless\]), the action – including the Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term – reads $$\label{eq:ActionRadial}
\mathcal{S} = \frac{2\pi^2}{\lambda}\int_0^{\infty}d\rho\left[
A^3(F^{\prime})^2 + 2AA^{\prime}\left(1-A^{\prime}\right)
\right]~.$$
We solve eq. (\[eq:Shooting\]) by means of a shooting method that we validate against the results of [@Kallosh:1995hi].
![\[fig:RadialMode\] *Left panel. Wormhole geometry in terms of the rescaled metric factor $A(\rho)$ as a function of the dimensionless coordinate $\rho$ for different values of $\lambda$. The dashed black line refers to the flat Euclidean limit $A(\rho) = \rho$. Right panel. Rescaled radial field $F(\rho)$ as a function of the dimensionless coordinate $\rho$ for different values of $\lambda$. The dashed black line refers to the VEV $F_a$.* ](Geometry.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\linewidth"} ![\[fig:RadialMode\] *Left panel. Wormhole geometry in terms of the rescaled metric factor $A(\rho)$ as a function of the dimensionless coordinate $\rho$ for different values of $\lambda$. The dashed black line refers to the flat Euclidean limit $A(\rho) = \rho$. Right panel. Rescaled radial field $F(\rho)$ as a function of the dimensionless coordinate $\rho$ for different values of $\lambda$. The dashed black line refers to the VEV $F_a$.* ](RadialField.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\linewidth"}
The procedure goes as follows. First, for a given initial guess for $F(\rho = 0)$ we compute $A(0)$ from the equation $A^4(0) - A^6(0)[F(0)^2 - F_a^2]^2/4 - Q/F^2(0) = 0$. Second, we solve the system in eq. (\[eq:Shooting\]) with the four boundary data $F(0)$, $A(0)$, $A^{\prime}(0) = 0$, $F^{\prime}(0) = 0$. Finally, we check the asymptotic condition $F(\infty) = F_a$, and we tune the initial guess $F(0)$ until we find it satisfied. We show our result in fig. \[fig:RadialMode\], where we focused on the critical value $f_a = 10^{16}$ GeV and wormhole with unit charge $n=1$. In the left (right) panel we show the dimensionless metric function $A(\rho)$ (the dimensionless radial field $F(\rho)$) as a function of the rescaled distance $\rho$ for three different values of $\lambda$. As far as the geometry is concerned, we see that, asymptotically, the solution recovers the flat space $A(\rho) = \rho$ while for small $\rho$ deviations describing the wormhole geometry emerge. Going through the wormhole throat, the radial field $F(\rho)$ substantially deviates w.r.t. the its asymptotic value $F_a$. As expected, including the radial mode with mass $M_f < 1/L$ as dynamical degree of freedom alters the wormhole solution found for non-propagating $f$. It is therefore important to quantify such deviation by computing the value of the action in eq. (\[eq:ActionRadial\]).
![\[fig:FullAction\] *Left panel. On-shell action in eq. (\[eq:ActionRadial\]) as a function of the mass of the radial mode $M_f$. Right panel. Instanton action as a function of the string coupling $\mathrm{g}_S$. On the top x-axis we show the value of the string mass scale $M_S$ computed in eq. (\[eq:StringMassHeterotic\]). In solid red, we show the on-shell action $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}$ for the instanton at the critical value $f_a = 10^{16}$ GeV. The blue dashed line represents the topological contribution $\gamma = 8\pi^2/\mathrm{g}_S^2$. The region shaded in gray corresponds to $M_S < L^{-1}$.* ](FullActionRadialMode.pdf "fig:"){width=".95\linewidth"} ![\[fig:FullAction\] *Left panel. On-shell action in eq. (\[eq:ActionRadial\]) as a function of the mass of the radial mode $M_f$. Right panel. Instanton action as a function of the string coupling $\mathrm{g}_S$. On the top x-axis we show the value of the string mass scale $M_S$ computed in eq. (\[eq:StringMassHeterotic\]). In solid red, we show the on-shell action $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}$ for the instanton at the critical value $f_a = 10^{16}$ GeV. The blue dashed line represents the topological contribution $\gamma = 8\pi^2/\mathrm{g}_S^2$. The region shaded in gray corresponds to $M_S < L^{-1}$.* ](StringTheory.pdf "fig:"){width="1.\linewidth"}
We show our result in the left panel of fig. \[fig:FullAction\], in which we plot the on-shell action $\mathcal{S}$ as a function of the mass of the radial mode $M_f$. From eq. (\[eq:Fullaction\]), we have that the instanton action with the radial mode frozen at $f_a = 10^{16}$ GeV is $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}\simeq 170$. Including the dynamics of the radial mode results in a net decrease of the action, in agreement with the result of [@Kallosh:1995hi]. Let us give a qualitative understanding of this effect. As derived in eq. (\[eq:GIAction\]), the wormhole action is proportional to $M_{\rm Pl}^2 L^2$, and it decreases if the size of its throat gets smaller. The inclusion of a light dynamical radial mode has precisely this effect, as can be seen from the left panel in fig. \[fig:FullAction\]: Going towards smaller values of $\lambda$ the size of the wormhole shrinks, and, consequently, the wormhole action decreases. For illustrative purposes, in fig. \[fig:FullAction\] we extend the plot to large values of $\lambda$ in order to show that, as $M_f$ moves towards the threshold $1/L$ above which it can be safely integrated out, the action increases.
The inclusion of the radial mode in the $U(1)$ model shows that the presence of dynamical degrees of freedom belonging to the UV completion of the axion Lagrangian does not weaken the strength of the non-perturbative global symmetry breaking induced by gravity. On the contrary, the total action in fig. \[fig:FullAction\] is significantly smaller if compared to the one in which the radial mode does not fluctuate around its VEV.
We therefore conclude that the bound derived in section \[eq:QCDAxion\] presumably represents a conservative estimate, since extra dynamics related to the UV completion of the axion Lagrangian may even strengthen the global symmetry breaking.
Higher-curvature operators and string theory {#sec:HigherCurv}
--------------------------------------------
In this section we explore the impact of higher-curvature operators on the wormhole solution. To be more concrete, we include the Gauss-Bonnet term $$\label{eq:GB}
\Delta\mathcal{S}_{\rm E} = -\frac{\gamma}{32\pi^2}\int d^4x \sqrt{g}\left(
\mathcal{R}_{\mu\nu\lambda\delta}\mathcal{R}^{\mu\nu\lambda\delta} - 4\mathcal{R}_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{R}^{\mu\nu} + \mathcal{R}^2
\right)~,$$ that represents the $4^{\rm th}$ order in the derivative expansion of the gravitational action. We limit our analysis to the Gauss-Bonnet term since it is the unique ghost-free quadratic curvature invariant [@Zwiebach:1985uq]. Furthermore, as we shall discuss later, the presence of the effective higher-curvature correction in eq. (\[eq:GB\]) is a peculiar prediction of many string theories – bosonic [@Zwiebach:1985uq], heterotic [@Gross:1986mw], and type-I string [@Tseytlin:1995bi] (while it vanishes in type-II superstring theory [@Gross:1986iv]).
In $D=4$ dimensions, the Gauss-Bonnet term reduces to a total derivative. As a consequence, it does not enter in the equation of motion but it gives a non-vanishing topological contribution to the wormhole action. Before proceeding, we notice that the validity of the derivative expansion in the gravitational action imposes the cutoff $\Lambda \sim M_{\rm Pl}/\sqrt{\gamma/4\pi}$. It is therefore natural to require the condition $\Lambda > 1/L$, in order to ensure the validity of the derivative expansion all the way down the wormhole throat. We find that this condition corresponds to $$\gamma < \frac{4M_{\rm Pl}}{\sqrt{3\pi} f_a}~.$$ To fix ideas, if $f_a = 10^{16}$ GeV we have $\gamma \lesssim 1600$. We now compute the value of the Gauss-Bonnet term on the wormhole solution. Using the metric in eq. (\[eq:WormholeMetric\]), a direct computation gives $$\mathcal{R}_{\mu\nu\lambda\delta}\mathcal{R}^{\mu\nu\lambda\delta} - 4\mathcal{R}_{\mu\nu}\mathcal{R}^{\mu\nu} + \mathcal{R}^2 =
\frac{24\alpha^{\prime}(-1 + \alpha^2)}{r^3\alpha^5}~,$$ and the action in eq. (\[eq:GB\]) gives $$\label{eq:Bonnet}
\Delta\mathcal{S}_{\rm E} = \frac{3\gamma}{2}\int_L^{\infty}\frac{\alpha^{\prime}(1-\alpha^2)}{\alpha^4}
= \frac{3\gamma}{2}\left|
\frac{1}{\alpha} - \frac{1}{3\alpha^3}
\right|_{r = L}^{r = \infty} = \gamma~.$$ Let us focus on the case of the QCD axion, discussed in section \[eq:QCDAxion\]. At the critical value $f_a = 10^{16}$ GeV, the instanton action is $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst} \simeq 170$. As a rule of thumb, we can say that if $\gamma \gtrsim 170$ the higher-curvature topological correction due to the Gauss-Bonnet term in eq. (\[eq:Bonnet\]) significantly alters the instanton action, increasing its value, and making its impact on axion physics harmless. Although qualitatively correct, the real point here is to understand the physical implications of this numerical condition. On a pure gravitational ground, $\gamma$ is nothing but a dimensionless number, and it seems difficult to justify the relation $\gamma \gtrsim 170$. Reinterpreting the effective action in eq. (\[eq:GB\]) having in mind the UV physics responsible for its generation would be much more useful. The lack of a quantum theory of gravity, however, makes any argument highly speculative. For lack of a better choice, we can ask string theory to help us with this task. In string theory the Gauss-Bonnet term often appears with the identification [@Green:1987sp; @Green:1987mn] $$\label{eq:GBString}
\gamma = \frac{\pi\alpha^{\prime}M_{\rm Pl}^2}{4}~,$$ where $\alpha^{\prime} = l_S^2$ is related to the string scale $l_S$. We can gain more insight considering the case of heterotic string theory in which the string gauge coupling $\mathrm{g}_S$, the string mass scale $M_S$, and the parameter $\alpha^{\prime}$ are related by [@Gross:1984dd] $$\label{eq:StringMassHeterotic}
M_S = \frac{2}{\alpha^{\prime}} = \frac{2}{l_S^2} = \frac{\mathrm{g}_S M_{\rm Pl}}{\sqrt{8\pi}}~,$$ in close analogy with the relation discussed in eq. (\[eq:StringMassScale\]). From eq. (\[eq:GBString\]), we find $\gamma = 8\pi^2/\mathrm{g}_S^2$. Notice that, presented in this form, the topological contribution to the action precisely matches the typical instanton action in the Yang-Mills case. We are now in the position to compare $\gamma = 8\pi^2/\mathrm{g}_S^2$ and $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}$. We show our result in the right panel of fig. \[fig:FullAction\], in which we compare the half-wormhole action $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}$ computed at the critical value $f_a = 10^{16}$ GeV that we identified in section \[eq:QCDAxion\], with the action $\gamma = 8\pi^2/\mathrm{g}_S^2$ as a function of the string coupling. On the top y-axis we put the values of the string mass scale $M_S$, computed according to eq. (\[eq:StringMassHeterotic\]). The region shaded in gray corresponds to the condition $M_S < 1/L$.
Clearly, in the presence of a weak string coupling our computation can be completely invalidated. The string mass scale becomes lower than $L^{-1}$ – thus breaking the effective description – and the topological action generated by string theory dominates over the gravitational instanton contribution.
However, we also stress that in the presence of a moderately strong string coupling the UV completion of GR cannot fix the problem since the gravitational instanton contribution dominates over the topological string term.
The lack of a quantum theory of gravity makes any speculation quite far-fetched, and the only intent of the plot in the right panel of fig. \[fig:FullAction\] is to provide a fair example in which the gravitational action based on Einstein gravity captures the relevant non-perturbative gravitational corrections.
Higher-dimensional operators {#sec:HDO}
----------------------------
As discussed in the introduction, many authors proposed and tailored suitable extensions of the PQ symmetry in order to protect it from the presence of power-suppressed higher dimensional operators like those in eq. (\[eq:Kamion\]). Clearly, these attempts were motivated by a naïve understanding of the breaking effects generated by gravity. As revisited in this paper, gravity breaks global symmetries at the non-perturbative level, and the effective operators originated from this physics are always suppressed by the exponential of the wormhole action, as exemplified in eqs. (\[eq:MainPotential\],\[eq:FinalEffective\]).
However, it is conceivable that the $U(1)$ PQ symmetry arises as an accidental global symmetry from a more fundamental theory. In this realization, because of its accidental nature, higher-dimensional operators may source an explicit breaking. In order to preserve the solution of the strong CP problem without introducing any degree of fine-tuning, it is necessary to protect the accidental symmetry from breaking effects induced by dangerous irrelevant operators. This can be achieved in a natural way by supporting the accidental PQ symmetry with a gauge symmetry. In this way, as we shall see, one can prevent the presence of symmetry breaking operators up to (in principle arbitrarily) high dimensions, thus obtaining a global PQ symmetry of very good quality, though accidental.
In this context, it is interesting to see what happens to non-perturbative breaking effects. In order to answer this question, let us discuss the specific construction put forward in [@Fukuda:2017ylt]. The model features the presence of two sectors with two anomalous PQ symmetries, $U(1)_{\rm PQ}$ and $U(1)_{\rm PQ}^{\prime}$, realized through the complex fields $\sqrt{2}\phi = f_a e^{\imath\tilde{a}/f_a}$ and $\sqrt{2}\phi^{\prime} = f_b e^{\imath\tilde{b}/f_b}$. Notice that for simplicity we do not consider explicitly the radial components. The domain of the two phase fields are $\tilde{a}/f_a = [0,2\pi)$ and $\tilde{b}/f_b = [0,2\pi)$. The crucial observations are the following.
- It is possible to define a linear combination of $U(1)_{\rm PQ}$ and $U(1)_{\rm PQ}^{\prime}$ that is free from QCD anomaly. Consequently, it can be promoted to a gauge symmetry, $U(1)_{\rm PQ}^{\rm gauge}$.
- In the limit in which the only interactions between the two sectors are those dictated by the aforementioned gauge symmetry, the theory possesses an accidental $U(1)$ symmetry, and delivers a massless Goldstone field.
The gauge symmetry $U(1)_{\rm PQ}^{\rm gauge}$ can be characterized as follows. The phases of $\phi$ and $\phi^{\prime}$, with gauge charges $q$ and $q^{\prime}$, transform under $U(1)_{\rm PQ}^{\rm gauge}$ according to the shifts $$\label{eq:GaugeTransformation}
\tilde{a}/f_a \to \tilde{a}/f_a + q\alpha~,~~~~~~\tilde{b}/f_b \to \tilde{b}/f_b + q^{\prime}\alpha~,$$ and from the kinetic Lagrangian we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} &=& \left|D_{\mu}\phi\right|^2 + \left|D_{\mu}\phi^{\prime}\right|^2 =
\left|\partial_{\mu}\phi - \imath g qA_{\mu}\phi \right|^2 + \left|\partial_{\mu}\phi^{\prime} - \imath g q^{\prime}A_{\mu}\phi^{\prime} \right|^2 \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\tilde{a})^2 + \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\tilde{b})^2 + \frac{m_A^2}{2}A_{\mu}A^{\mu}
- gA_{\mu}\left[
qf_a(\partial^{\mu}\tilde{a}) + q^{\prime}f_b(\partial^{\mu}\tilde{b})
\right]~,
\end{aligned}$$ where the mass of the gauge field is $m_A^2 \equiv g^2(q^2 f_a^2 + q^{\prime\,2}f_b^2)$. The rotation $$\left(
\begin{array}{c}
a \\
b
\end{array}
\right) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{q^2 f_a^2 + q^{\prime\,2}f_b^2}}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
q^{\prime}f_b & -qf_a \\
qf_a & q^{\prime}f_b
\end{array}
\right)\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\tilde{a} \\
\tilde{b}
\end{array}
\right)~,$$ brings the Lagrangian into the neat form $$\label{eq:Accidental}
\mathcal{L} = \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}a)^2 + \frac{m_A^2}{2}\left(A_{\mu} - \frac{1}{m_A}\partial_{\mu}b\right)^2~.$$ The field $b$ is the would-be Goldstone boson eaten by the massive vector field $A_{\mu}$. The theory in eq. (\[eq:Accidental\]) enjoys an accidental (non-linearly realized) $U(1)$ global symmetry under which the massless Goldstone field $a$ remains shift-invariant. The Goldstone field $a$ plays the rôle of the axion, and its continuos global shift symmetry is analogue to the one discussed in eq. (\[eq:ContinuosShift\]). In addition, and again in close analogy with the discussion outlined in the introduction, a subgroup of this continuos shift symmetry is gauged, meaning that there is a phase redundancy in the definition of $a$. In order to visualize this property, we consider, following [@Fukuda:2017ylt], the specific values $q=2$ and $q^{\prime} = 3$. Notice that these two integers are relatively prime, meaning that their greatest common divisor is $1$. This particular choice does not change the conclusion of the present discussion but it simplifies the formulas.
In the right panel of fig. \[fig:Accidenti\] we show in solid red the gauge orbits described in the field space $(\tilde{a}/f_a, \tilde{b}/f_b)$ by the gauge transformations in eq. (\[eq:GaugeTransformation\]). For instance, starting from the point $\tilde{a}/f_a = 0$, $\tilde{b}/f_b = 0$ in field space (‘pure gauge’ configuration), by changing the value of the gauge parameter $\alpha$ one moves along the corresponding red line in the direction of the red arrow. At the point $\tilde{a}/f_a = 4\pi/3$, $\tilde{b}/f_b = 2\pi$, because of the $2\pi$-periodicity in $\tilde{b}/f_b$, the gauge orbits reappears at $\tilde{a}/f_a = 4\pi/3$, $\tilde{b}/f_b = 0$. Similarly, because of the $2\pi$-periodicity in $\tilde{a}/f_a$, the gauge orbit connects the points in field space $\tilde{a}/f_a = 2\pi$, $\tilde{b}/f_b = \pi$ and $\tilde{a}/f_a = 0$, $\tilde{b}/f_b = \pi$.
The axion field $a = (q^2 f_a^2 + q^{\prime\,2}f_b^2)^{-1/2}(q^{\prime}f_b\tilde{a} - qf_a\tilde{b})$ is gauge invariant, and describes the direction orthogonal to the gauge orbits. The crucial points is that configurations in field space connected by gauge orbits are physically equivalent, since related by gauge transformations. As a consequence, by crossing the gauge orbits the axion field experiences a periodicity, and it is possible to show that the domain of $a$ is given by [@Fukuda:2017ylt; @Kim:2004rp] $$a = \left[
0,\frac{2\pi f_a f_b}{\sqrt{q^2 f_a^2 + q^{\prime\,2}f_b^2}}
\right)~.$$ In parallel with eq. (\[eq:DiscreteShift\]), we therefore conclude that the discrete symmetry $$a \to a + 2k\pi F_a~,~~~~~ k\in \mathbb{Z}~,~~~~~{\rm with}~~F_a \equiv \frac{f_a f_b}{\sqrt{q^2 f_a^2 + q^{\prime\,2}f_b^2}}~,$$ represents a gauge symmetry of the axion field $a$. Finally, since the $U(1)_{\rm PQ}^{\rm gauge}$ gauge symmetry must be anomaly free, the anomalous QCD coupling should involve the combination $$\mathcal{L}_{\rm QCD} = \frac{g_s^2}{32\pi^2}\left(
\frac{q^{\prime}\tilde{a}}{f_a} - \frac{q\tilde{b}}{f_b}
\right)G_{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu} = \frac{g_s^2}{32\pi^2}\frac{a}{F_a}G_{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}~.$$
The advantage of this construction is the following. The accidental $U(1)$ symmetry remains unbroken in the limit in which one only considers gauge interactions between the two sectors. More generally, additional interactions between the two sectors have no reason to respect the accidental $U(1)$ symmetry but they must be invariant under the gauge symmetry $U(1)_{\rm PQ}^{\rm gauge}$. This means that operators of the form $$\label{eq:EffectiveBreaking}
\mathcal{L}_{\cancel{U(1)}} = \frac{\mathcal{O}_1\mathcal{O}_2}{\Lambda^{d_{\mathcal{O}_1} + d_{\mathcal{O}_2} - 4}} + h.c.~,$$ may source a breaking of the accidental $U(1)$ symmetry. The suppression scale $\Lambda$ may or may not coincide with the Planck scale. $\mathcal{O}_1$ and $\mathcal{O}_2$ are generic operators with mass-dimension $d_{\mathcal{O}_1}$ and $d_{\mathcal{O}_2}$ made out of fields in the two sectors, and they have equal and opposite $U(1)_{\rm PQ}^{\rm gauge}$ charge in order to respect the gauge symmetry. The lowest dimensional $U(1)$ symmetry breaking operator depends on the charge assignment under $U(1)_{\rm PQ}^{\rm gauge}$, and, in the context of explicit models [@Fukuda:2017ylt], it is possible to show that judicious choices suppress $U(1)$ breaking effects down to an acceptable level.
Having set the framework, we can now go back to the original motivation of this section, and explore the rôle and impact of non-perturbative wormhole solutions.
As noticed before, eq. (\[eq:Accidental\]) contains an accidental (non-linearly realized) $U(1)$ global symmetry under which the massless Goldstone field $a$ remains shift-invariant. The subgroup $a \to a + 2k\pi F_a$, $k\in \mathbb{Z}$ is a gauge symmetry. The conditions for the existence of Euclidean wormhole solutions discussed in section \[sec:EuclideanWormholeSolution\] are therefore fulfilled, and non-perturbative gravitational effects lead to an explicit breaking of the axionic shift symmetry generating a potential as in eq. (\[eq:MainPotential\]). The wormhole action in eq. (\[eq:Fullaction\]) is controlled by the decay constant $F_a$ that sets the periodicity of $a$. In conclusion, the outcome of this qualitative discussion is that the protection due to the gauge symmetry $U(1)_{\rm PQ}^{\rm gauge}$ may suppress irrelevant operators like those in eq. (\[eq:EffectiveBreaking\]) but cannot remove non-perturbative breaking terms. The idea behind this construction is to use gauge symmetry to protect the axion by means of a local discrete symmetry; however, since wormhole solutions already respect this symmetry, their presence is unaffected. We expect this argument to be fairly general.
Relaxation of the electroweak scale and the clockwork mechanism {#sec:Relaxion}
----------------------------------------------------------------
The relaxation of the electroweak scale addresses the issue of naturalness from a cosmological perspective [@Graham:2015cka]. The idea that lies at the heart of the model is that the mass parameter in the Higgs potential $V(|H|) = \mu^2H^{\dag}H + \lambda(H^{\dag}H)^2$ changes during inflation as a function of the classical value of a slow-rolling axion-like scalar field, the relaxion $\phi$. To achieve a large separation of scales between the electroweak scale $v$ and the cutoff $M$ of the theory one needs a compact field space of size $2\pi F$, with $F > M/g$. The condition $M \gg v$ implies $g \ll 1$, and, for reasonably large values of $M$, one comes up against the problem of having trans-Planckian field excursions, typically $F > M/g > M_{\rm Pl}$ [@Gupta:2015uea].
An elegant solution to this problem, dubbed clockwork mechanism, was proposed in [@Choi:2015fiu; @Kaplan:2015fuy]. In a nutshell, the clockwork is a theory where a $U(1)^{N+1}$ global symmetry is explicitly broken in such a way to preserve a single $U(1)_{\phi}$ symmetry under which the original $U(1)_{i = 0,\dots, N}$ fields $\phi_i$ rotate synchronously, $\delta\phi_i = q\delta\phi_{i+1}$, where $q$ is the clockwork factor. This construction delivers a single Goldstone boson with large field range $f_{\rm eff} \approx q^N f \gg f$, where $f$ is the symmetry breaking scale of the $U(1)^{N+1}$ symmetry.
As already noticed in [@Gupta:2015uea], the effective operators generated by gravity in eq. (\[eq:MainPotential\]) with $F>M_{\rm Pl}$ would spoil the simplest realization of the relaxation mechanism by introducing large corrections to the slow-roll potential of $\phi$. It is therefore interesting to address the following question: Is the clockwork mechanism protected against non-perturbative gravitational corrections? To answer this question we can start from a simple realization of the mechanism with only two axions [@Choi:2015fiu]. The Lagrangian density of the model is $$\label{eq:Clockwork1}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm CW}^{(2)} = \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi_1)(\partial^{\mu}\phi_1)+
\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi_2)(\partial^{\mu}\phi_2) + \underbrace{\Lambda^4\cos\left(
\frac{\phi_1}{f_1} + q\frac{\phi_2}{f_2}
\right)}_{\equiv V(\phi_1,\phi_2)}~,$$ where the two shift symmetries $\phi_{i=1,2}/f \to \phi_{i=1,2}/f_{i=1,2} + c_{i=1,2}$ are explicitly broken by the potential $V(\phi_1,\phi_2)$ down to the residual $U(1)_{\phi}$ symmetry under which the two axion fields transform according to $$\label{eq:ResidualU1}
U(1)_{\phi} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\phi_1/f_1 \to \phi_1/f_1 + qc~, \\
\phi_2/f_2 \to \phi_2/f_2 - c~,
\end{array}
\right.~$$ with $c$ arbitrary continuos parameter. In full generality, we are considering different (but comparable $f_1\sim f_2$) decay constants $f_{1,2}$. The potential $V(\phi_1,\phi_2)$ is endowed with the flat direction $\phi \equiv (qf_1\phi_1 - f_2\phi_2)/f_{\rm eff}$, with $f_{\rm eff}\equiv \sqrt{q^2f_1^2 + f_2^2}$, as one can see by diagonalizing the mass matrix $$\label{eq:DiagonalCW}
M^2 =\Lambda^4
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1/f_1^2 & q/f_1f_2 \\
q/f_1f_2 & q^2/f_2^2
\end{array}
\right)~~~~\Longrightarrow~~~~
\Lambda^4\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\
0 & 1/f_1^2 + q^2/f_2^2
\end{array}
\right)~.$$ The canonically normalized massive direction is $\phi_H \equiv (f_2\phi_1 +qf_1\phi_2)/f_{\rm eff}$.
The crucial point is to identify the periodicity of the flat direction $\phi$. The length of a periodic flat direction is determined by the minimal shift $\Delta\phi$ under which the field configuration $\phi$ comes back to its original value.
![\[fig:Accidenti\] *Left panel. The red lines follow the $U(1)_{\phi}$ orbits described by the symmetry transformation in eq. (\[eq:ResidualU1\]) with $q= 5$. For illustrative purposes, we also show the direction in field space corresponding to the axion $\phi$ and the massive mode $\phi_H$. Right panel. The red lines follow the gauge orbits described by the symmetry transformation in eq. (\[eq:GaugeTransformation\]). The axion direction is orthogonal to the gauge orbits (black arrow, see section \[sec:HDO\] for details).* ](Clockwork.pdf "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"} ![\[fig:Accidenti\] *Left panel. The red lines follow the $U(1)_{\phi}$ orbits described by the symmetry transformation in eq. (\[eq:ResidualU1\]) with $q= 5$. For illustrative purposes, we also show the direction in field space corresponding to the axion $\phi$ and the massive mode $\phi_H$. Right panel. The red lines follow the gauge orbits described by the symmetry transformation in eq. (\[eq:GaugeTransformation\]). The axion direction is orthogonal to the gauge orbits (black arrow, see section \[sec:HDO\] for details).* ](AccidentalAxion.pdf "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"}
We can visualize the periodicity of the flat direction $\phi$ by means of a simple plot, as shown in the left panel of fig. \[fig:Accidenti\]. Let us start from the point in field space $(\phi_1 = 0, \phi_2 = 0)$, with $\phi = 0$, and follow the $U(1)_{\phi}$ orbits (solid red lines) obtained from the symmetry transformation in eq. (\[eq:ResidualU1\]) by continuously changing the parameter $c$. For illustration, we take $q = 5$. Because of the periodicities $\phi_{i=1,2} \equiv \phi_{i=1,2} + 2\pi f_{i=1,2}$, the $U(1)_{\phi}$ orbits are wrapped in the elementary domain $\phi_1/f_1 = [0,2\pi]$, $-\phi_2/f_2 = [0,2\pi]$. Notice that $\phi_H$ is invariant under the symmetry transformation in eq. (\[eq:ResidualU1\]), and it describes the direction orthogonal to the $U(1)_{\phi}$ orbits. The axion direction, on the contrary, is aligned with the $U(1)_{\phi}$ orbits (black arrows in fig. \[fig:Accidenti\]). The axion field comes back to the origin after a distance in field space $$\Delta\phi = 2\pi \sqrt{q^2f_1^2 + f_2^2}\equiv 2\pi f_{\rm eff}~,$$ which is enhanced by the winding number $q$ if compared with the original periodicities $2\pi f_1\sim 2\pi f_2$.
In terms of mass eigenstates, the Lagrangian density takes the simple form $$\mathcal{L}_{\rm CW}^{(2)} = \frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi)(\partial^{\mu}\phi) +
\frac{1}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\phi_H)(\partial^{\mu}\phi_H) -\frac{m_H^2}{2}\phi_H^2 + \dots~,$$ with $m_H^2$ defined by the non-zero eigenvalue in eq. (\[eq:DiagonalCW\]), and where $\dots$ represents higher order in the potential for $\phi_H$. The massless scalar field $\phi$ corresponding to the unbroken $U(1)_{\phi}$ symmetry admits, in full analogy with the construction we put forward in section \[sec:EuclideanWormholeSolution\], wormhole solutions whose quantization condition is set by the periodicity $2\pi f_{\rm eff}$. We remark that $\phi$ represents the only direction in field space that can accommodate wormhole solutions as presented here. To understand this point one might consider wormhole solutions for the fields $\phi_{1,2}$ with decay constants $f_{1,2}\ll f_{eff}$ defined by the Lagrangian in eq. (\[eq:Clockwork1\]) and see if the potential $V(\phi_1,\phi_2)$ can be treated as a small perturbation. However, it is possible to see[^11] that gravitational instantons computed for the free field $\phi_{1,2}$ do not minimize the potential $V(\phi_1,\phi_2)$. As a consequence of the latter, instead of being a small correction, the potential gives a large contribution to the action when integrating over large scales away from the throat, and this makes these solutions, on balance, irrelevant.
This conclusion can be generalized to the case of $N+1$ axions. The Lagrangian density is $$\label{eq:Clockwork2}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm CW}^{(N+1)} = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=0}^{N}(\partial_{\mu}\phi_j)(\partial^{\mu}\phi_j)
+\underbrace{\sum_{j=0}^{N-1}\Lambda_j^4 \cos\left(
\frac{\phi_i}{f_i} + q\frac{\phi_{i+1}}{f_{i+1}}
\right)}_{\equiv V(\phi_i)}~.$$ The periodicity of the flat direction is given by [@Choi:2015fiu; @Kaplan:2015fuy] $$f_{\rm eff} = \sqrt{\sum_{i=0}^{N}\left(\prod_{j=i}^{N-1}q^2\right)f_i^2}
\overset{f_{i=0,\dots,N} \equiv f}{=}
f\sqrt{\frac{-1 + (q^2)^{N+1}}{-1+ q^2}}
\approx
q^N f~,$$ where in the equality we assumed for simplicity equal decay constant $f_{i=0,\dots,N}\equiv f$. As before, it is possible to construct wormhole solutions in connection with the Goldstone boson $\phi$ associated with the unbroken non-linearly realized $U(1)_{\phi}$ symmetry. The periodicity of $\phi$, $\Delta\phi = 2\pi f_{\rm eff} \approx 2\pi q^N f$, is completely fixed by the clockwork construction, and it sets the quantization condition discussed in section \[sec:BulkAction\]. From this discussion, it is clear that the instanton action is controlled by the ratio $M_{\rm Pl}/f_{\rm eff}$, and that non-perturbative breaking effects prevent from the possibility to have trans-Planckian field excursions: Gravity breaks explicitly the $U(1)$ direction left unbroken by the clockwork construction.
However, in order to provide a rock-solid conclusion, it is important to keep in mind – in close analogy with what discussed in section \[sec:DynamicalRadialMode\] – the possible rôle played by UV dynamics. For instance, the Lagrangian density in eq. (\[eq:Clockwork2\]) could be generated by the dynamics describing $N + 1$ complex scalar fields $\Phi_i = [(\rho_i + f_i)/\sqrt{2}]e^{\imath \phi_i/f_i}$ subject to the potential $$\mathcal{V}(\Phi_i) = \sum_{i=0}^{N}\left(
-m_i^2|\Phi_i|^2 + \frac{\lambda_i}{4}|\Phi_i|^4
\right) + \sum_{i=0}^{N-1}\left(
\epsilon_i \Phi_i^{\dag}\Phi_{i+1}^3 + h.c.
\right)~,$$ with $m_i \sim f_i$, $\lambda_i \sim 1$, after integrating out the radial modes. In this setup, one gets $\Lambda_i \equiv (\epsilon_i f_i f_{i+1}^3/2)^{1/4}$. The situation in similar in spirit to the setup explored in section \[sec:DynamicalRadialMode\] with the additional complication given by the presence of more fields and explicit breaking terms controlled by the order parameters $\epsilon_i$. The results of section \[sec:DynamicalRadialMode\] suggest that the presence of extra fields does modify the geometry of the wormhole solution. However, this could result – as explicitly proved in section \[sec:DynamicalRadialMode\] considering the presence of a dynamical radial mode – in a decrease of the wormhole action, with a consequent tightening of the amount of symmetry breaking. Within the present study, no firm conclusion can be established. Nevertheless, we argue that the possible presence of Euclidean wormhole solutions represents the most concrete threat against the possibility to engineer trans-Planckian field excursions via the clockwork mechanism. We think this is an interesting open question, and we leave it for future investigation.
Wormhole solutions for a generic Goldstone coset {#sec:GenericCoset}
================================================
Let us start with a lightning review of the treatment of Goldstone bosons from the coset $\mathfrak G/\mathfrak H$ in the formalism of CCWZ [@Coleman:1969sm; @Callan:1969sn]. The broken part of the Lie algebra will be denoted by the generators $X_A$ whereas the un-broken symmetry generators are $T_a$ with the following structure $$\left[ T_a\,,T_b\right]= \imath f_{ab}^{\,\,\,\,\,c}\,T_c~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\left[ T_a\,,X_B\right]= \imath f_{aB}^{\,\,\,\,\,C}\,X_C~, \label{LieComm}$$ where the last equation follows for compact groups and we take the generators to be hermitian. The Goldstones parametrize the broken part of the group; one can write $\eta=\exp(iX\theta)$ with $\eta\in\mathfrak G/\mathfrak H$ in terms of $n={\rm dim} (\mathfrak G)-{\rm dim}(\mathfrak H)$ $\theta$ coordinates although different parametrizations are useful and often used. The transformation properties of $\eta$ are $$\eta\to \mathbf G\, \eta\, \mathfrak h^{-1}(\eta)~,\label{GBtrnsf}$$ with $\mathbf G\in \mathfrak G$ and $\mathfrak h\in\mathfrak H$. This expression follows from the result that any element of the group can be factorized into a broken times an unbroken element and the composition law $\mathbf G \eta= \eta'\mathfrak h(\eta)$. The basic building block is the Lie-dragged derivative which is a one-form $\omega$ living in the broken Lie algebra, or tangent space of the broken group manifold. Explicitly $$\eta^{-1} d \eta= \imath\,\omega^A X_A+\imath\,V^aT_a~,~~~~~~~~~~~ d=dx^\mu\partial_\mu~,$$ where $\omega^A=\omega^A_\mu dx^\mu$. In terms of the $\theta$ coordinates one has the vierbein and metric (we use the convention of summed repeated indices unless otherwise stated) $$\omega^A_\mu=e_{i}^A(\theta) \partial_\mu\theta^i~,~~~~~~~~~~~~
G_{ij}(\theta)=e_{i}^Ae_{j}^B\delta_{AB}~.$$ In order to extract the symmetry transformations in terms of the $\theta$ coordinates we make eq. (\[GBtrnsf\]) infinitesimal $$\delta_\epsilon\eta=(i\epsilon^a T_a+i\epsilon^A X_A)\eta-i\eta(\epsilon \cdot F(\eta))^aT_a~,~~~~~~~~~~~~
\eta^{-1}\delta_\epsilon\eta =\eta^{-1}(i\epsilon T+i\epsilon X)\eta-i(\epsilon\cdot F(\eta))^aT_a~,$$ and we project out the non-linear piece $F(\eta)$ by restricting to broken generators only. We find $$\eta^{-1} X_A \eta\big|_X = X_B e_i^B\xi_A^i ,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\eta^{-1} T_a \eta\big|_X = X_B e_i^B\xi_a^i ,$$ where by $\big|_X$ we denote projection onto the broken generators. The above result yields the Killing vectors in $\theta$-space ($\delta_\epsilon\theta^i=\epsilon_A\xi_A^i$); there are $n$ Killing vectors $\xi_A$ associated to the coset and dim$(\mathfrak H)$ Killing vectors $\xi_a$ for the unbroken symmetries. The transformation of the one-form $\omega^A$ under the unbroken part of the group is specially simple since the symmetry is linearly realized $$\delta_{\epsilon}\omega^A\to \epsilon^a f_{aB}^{\,\,\,\,\,A}\omega^B~,$$ where we have used the second relation in eq. (\[LieComm\]). In coordinate space the Killing vectors by construction satisfy $$\label{KillMetDef}
\frac{\partial \xi^k}{\partial \theta^i}G_{kj}+G_{ik}\frac{\partial \xi^k}{\partial \theta^j}+\left(\xi^k\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta^k}\right)G_{ij} = 0~,$$ The Noether currents for the broken generators read $$\label{eq:NoetherGeneralCoset}
J^\mu_A=\sqrt{g}\,f^2\xi_A ^i e_i^B e^B_j \partial^\mu\theta^j~,$$ where we introduced the Goldstones decay constant $f$ and equivalent expressions apply for the unbroken currents. We note that, if a coordinate system can be found for which $\xi^i_Ae^B_i=\delta^A_{\,\,B}$, the Noether currents read $\sqrt{g}\omega^\mu_A$ and their conservation can be written as the equation of motion for a one-form although the Bianchi identity is not satisfied in general.
We now turn to the action. By using the variational principle, one should be able to find non-trivial solutions of the equation of motion, and subsequently obtain the corresponding non-perturbative action by substituting back the solution in the original action – in parallel with what was done in section \[sec:BulkAction\]. It is often remarked how the axion gets an extra sign in its kinetic term when turning the action from Minkowski to Euclidean; here we observe that regardless of the sign, starting from the variational principle in Euclidean space yields a vanishing wormhole action, as we shall show below. This is remedied either using a three-form description – as done in section \[sec:BulkAction\] – or introducing Lagrange multipliers [@Lee:1988ge; @Grinstein:1988ja]. Since a general coset does not seemingly accept a three-form description we opt for the second option and write an action $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_{\rm E} =\int d^4x \left[\sqrt{g}\left(-\frac{\mathcal{R}}{2\kappa}+\frac{f^2}{2}\partial_\mu\theta \,G \, \partial^\mu \theta\right)+\lambda^A(x)\partial_\mu (\sqrt{g}\,f^2 \xi_A \, G \, \partial^\mu \theta)\right]\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa=8\pi G_N$, we have suppressed scalar indices which otherwise are summed univocally to build invariants and the Lagrange multiplier’s ($\lambda^A(x)$) coefficient is the divergence of the Noether currents ($J^\mu=\sqrt{g}f^2 \xi G\partial^\mu\theta $) which vanishes on-shell. Here we have used $\theta$ coordinates yet the following derivation does not require explicit expressions for the metric $G$ or the Killing vectors; in terms of the one form $\omega$ the kinetic term of the Goldstones reads simply $\omega_A^\mu \omega_\mu^A/2$.
The variational principle yields the equations of motion $\left.\delta \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}\right|_{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} = 0$, $\left.\delta \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}\right|_{\delta\theta} = 0$, $\left.\delta \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}\right|_{\delta\lambda^A} = 0$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EinstEoM}
&&\left.\delta \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}\right|_{\delta g_{\mu\nu}} = \\ && \int d^4x\frac{\sqrt{g}}{2\kappa}\left[
\mathcal{R}^{\mu\nu}-\frac{g^{\mu\nu}}{2}\mathcal{R}+\kappa f^2\left(\frac{g^{\mu\nu}}{2}\partial_\rho\theta G\partial^\rho\theta-\partial^\mu\theta G\partial^\nu \theta\right)-\kappa f^2\left(g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\rho\lambda \xi G\partial^{\rho}\theta-2\partial^{\mu}\lambda \xi G \partial^\nu\theta\right)\right]\delta g_{\mu\nu}~,\nonumber \\ \label{GBEoM}
&&\left.\delta \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}\right|_{\delta\theta} = \\&& \int d^4x \,f^2\left[
-\delta\theta \partial_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}\, G \partial^\mu\theta\right)+\frac{\sqrt{g}}{2}\partial_\mu \theta \left(\delta \theta\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\right)G \partial^\mu\theta +\delta\theta \partial_\mu \left(\sqrt{g} G\xi\partial^\mu\lambda\right) - \partial_\mu \lambda \left(\delta \theta\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta}\right)\xi G\partial^\mu\theta \right]~,\nonumber \\ \label{LagMulEoM}
&&\left.\delta \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}\right|_{\delta\lambda^A} = \int d^4x\,f^2\delta\lambda^A\partial_\mu\left( \sqrt{g}\, \xi_A G \partial^\mu \theta\right)~,\end{aligned}$$ Taking the trace in Einstein equations, if we omit $\lambda$ terms, yields $-\mathcal{R}+\kappa f^2 \partial_\mu \theta G\partial^\mu\theta=0 $ and a vanishing action (regardless of the sign that one can change with $\kappa f^2$). The rôle of the extra $\lambda$ term, as we shall see in the following, is exactly to turn this result into a properly defined variational principle for wormhole solutions with non-vanishing action. In this regard, our result is the generalization of the construction put forward in [@Lee:1988ge] to the case of a generic coset.
Most of the computation now involves manipulations of the equations of motion in order to put them in a clean and readable form, and we proceed as follows. In the equation for the Goldstones we perform the substitution $\delta\theta^i=\partial_\nu\lambda^B\xi^i _B$, and, after repeated use of the definition of Killing vectors with respect to the metric in eq. (\[KillMetDef\]), we find $$\label{GBEoMd1}
\partial_\nu\lambda^B\partial_\mu\left[\sqrt{g}\xi_BG\left( \xi\partial^\mu\lambda-\partial^\mu\theta \right)\right]
+\partial_\mu \lambda^A \partial_\nu\lambda^B \left(\xi_A\frac{\partial \xi_B}{\partial\theta}-\xi_B\frac{\partial \xi_A}{\partial\theta}\right)G\partial^\mu\theta
=0~,$$ where the last term is antisymmetric in the summed indices $A,B$ and proportional to the structure constants. This means that, for spherically symmetric solutions which depend only on the radius $r$ as the ones we are interested in, such a term cancels, since $\partial_r\lambda^A\partial_r\lambda^B$ is symmetric in $A,B$. From now on, we focus on this type of solutions, $\theta(r)^i$, $\lambda^A(r)$, and we adopt the spherically symmetric metric in eq. (\[eq:Ansatz\]). As remarked above eq. (\[GBEoMd1\]) reduces in this case to $$\partial_r\lambda_B\partial_r\left[\sqrt{g}\xi_BG\left( \xi_A\partial^r\lambda_A-\partial^r\theta \right)\right]=0~,$$ solved by $\xi_A\partial_\mu \lambda^A=\partial_r \theta$. On passing, we note that this substitution in Einstein equations yields $\mathcal{R}+\kappa f^2\partial_r\theta G\partial^r\theta=0$, and a non-zero on-shell action. This relation for $\lambda$ back into the Goldstone equation of motion eq. (\[GBEoM\]) yields, substituting $\delta\theta=\partial_r \theta$ $$\label{eq:Int1}
\frac12 \sqrt g\partial_r\theta\left(\partial_r G\right) \partial^r \theta-\sqrt g\partial_r\theta(\partial_r G\xi)\partial^r\lambda=0~.$$ We now use the eq. (\[LagMulEoM\]) for the variation of the Lagrange multiplier to substitute $\partial_r\xi$. Eq. (\[eq:Int1\]) above becomes $$-\frac12 \sqrt g \partial_r\theta
\left(\partial_r G\right) \partial^r \theta+\partial_r\theta (\partial_r \sqrt{g} G\partial^r\theta)=0~,$$ and, after introducing a total derivative $$\frac12\partial_r(\partial_r\theta \sqrt g G \partial^r\theta)+\frac12\partial_r\theta \sqrt g G \partial^r\theta\frac{g_{rr}}{\sqrt g}\partial_r \left(\frac{\sqrt g}{g_{rr}}\right)=0~,$$ which can be integrated to find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GoldstoneKin}
\sqrt g \partial_r\theta G \partial^r\theta=C\frac{g_{rr}}{\sqrt g}=C\frac{\alpha}{\beta^3}~,\end{aligned}$$ where for consistency the constant $C\geq0$. Finally, we substitute the Goldstone boson kinetic term in eq. (\[eq:GoldstoneKin\]) back in the Einsteins equations $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{3\mathcal K \alpha^2}{\beta^2}+\frac{3(\partial_r\beta)^2}{\beta^2}+\frac{\kappa f^2}{2}C\frac{\alpha^2}{\beta^6} &=& 0~, \\
\hat g_{ij}\left[-\mathcal K -\frac{2\beta\partial_r\beta\partial_r\alpha}{\alpha^3}+\left(\frac{\partial_r\beta}{\alpha}\right)^2+2\frac{\beta\partial_r^2\beta}{\alpha^2}\right]-\kappa f^2\hat g_{ij}\frac{\beta^2}{2\alpha^2}C\frac{\alpha^2}{\beta^6} &=& 0~,\end{aligned}$$ which, remarkably, have the same structure and solution for the metric as found in the axion case, see eqs. (\[eq:Einstein1\]-\[eq:Einstein2\]). The positive-definite constant $C$ can be given in terms of the $n$ Noether currents which are constants of motion $\sqrt{g}\xi_A G\partial^r\theta=C_A$; this in certain cases takes a simple form as the sum of the squares but a general expression for all cases is not known to us.
Let us now move to discuss the most important aspect of this computation, that is the potential that these wormhole solutions generate as a consequence of the explicit symmetry breaking that they induce. As emphasized in the discussion we put forward in the first part of this letter, the crucial point in this respect is to understand the correct quantization condition. In the simple case of the $U(1)$ symmetry, the quantization condition is related to the periodicity of the axion field. In the generalization to the coset space $\mathfrak G/\mathfrak H$, the fact that the Goldstone manifold is compact discretizes the possible charges and, as a consequence, the wormhole action. However, the discussion of the geometry a generic coset can be forbiddingly complicated. To shed light on the issue, we shall consider in the rest of this section an explicit example. In order to make an educated choice, as ever, symmetry is helpful, in particular the unbroken symmetry. In this respect the maximal unbroken symmetry allowed is $O(n)$ for $n$ Goldstones, which is the largest linearly realised symmetry that the associated tangent space, $\omega_\mu^A$, admits. A breaking pattern that yields this unbroken symmetry is $O(n+1)/O(n)$, which we will adopt as an explicit case to exemplify our discussion. One has $n$ broken generators $X_A$ and $n(n-1)/2$ unbroken ones $T_a$ that read – we will use antisymmetric generators and therefore there is no need for factors of $\imath$ in the following: $$(X_A)_{\alpha\beta}=\delta_{\beta}^{n+1}\delta_{\alpha}^{A}-\delta_{\alpha}^{n+1}\delta_{\beta}^{A}~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(T_a)_{\alpha\, n+1}=(T_{a})_{n+1\,\beta}=0~,~{\rm with}~~T_a^T=-T_a~.$$ The Goldstone fields can be taken as $\theta^i$ with $i=1,..,n$ but, motivated by the symmetries of the unbroken group, we shall use in the following spherical coordinates $\theta=\rho \, u(\varphi)$, with $u\cdot u=1$. We therefore have one radius $\rho$ and $n-1$ angles $\varphi^i$. The Goldstone matrix reads $$\eta=e^{X\cdot \theta}=e^{\rho X\cdot u}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1-(1-\cos\rho) u u^T& \sin\rho \, u\\
-\sin\rho \, u^T&\cos\rho
\end{array}
\right)~,$$ where we note that $\rho+2\pi$ gives the same group element as $\rho$. This yields the one-form $$\eta^{-1}d\eta\big|_X=\omega^AX_A=u^AX_Ad\rho+\sin \rho \frac{\partial u^A}{\partial \varphi^i} X_A d\varphi^i~,$$ which, in turn, gives a kinetic term for the Goldstones $$\frac{ f^2}2\omega_\mu^A\omega_A^\mu=\frac{f^2}2\left(\partial_\mu\rho\partial^\mu \rho+\sin^2\rho\, \partial_\mu\varphi^i \frac{\partial u^A}{\partial\varphi^i}\delta_{AB}\frac{\partial u^B}{\partial\varphi^j}\partial^\mu\varphi^j\right)~,$$ where $(\partial u/\partial \varphi)^2$ is the metric in a $S_{n-1}$ sphere. Using eq. (\[eq:NoetherGeneralCoset\]), the Noether currents can be found to be $$\begin{aligned}
J^\mu_A &=& f^2\sqrt g (\xi_A\cdot e)^B \omega_B^\mu=f^2\sqrt g\left( u_A \partial^\mu\rho+\sin\rho\cos\rho\frac{\partial u_A}{\partial \varphi^i}\partial^\mu\varphi^i\right)~,\\
J^\mu_a &=& f^2\sqrt g(\xi_A\cdot e)^B \omega_B^\mu= f^2\sqrt g\sin^2\rho\, u^T T_a\frac{\partial u}{\partial \varphi} \partial^\mu\varphi~,\end{aligned}$$ and in this case we can find the explicit connection between kinetic term and Noether currents by taking the sum over the unbroken currents $$\sqrt{g}f^2\omega_\mu^A \omega^\mu_A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}f^2}\left( J_{\mu}^A J^\mu_A+J_\mu^a J^\mu_a\right)~.$$ We now proceed in parallel to section \[sec:BulkAction\]. We denote an instanton solution with $\bar\rho$, $\bar\varphi$, and we consider a variation of the fields $\delta \rho$, $\delta \varphi^i$ around it. The first variation of the action reads, after using the equations of motion for the background: $$\delta \mathcal{S}= \int dr d\Omega_{3,1} \frac{d}{dr}\left[\sqrt gf^2 \left( \delta\rho \partial^r \bar\rho+\delta\varphi^i\sin^2\bar\rho \frac{\partial u}{\partial\varphi^i}\frac{\partial u}{\partial\varphi^j} \partial^r\bar\varphi^j\right)\right]~.$$ If we take the variations to be independent from the solid angle $\Omega_3$, we can rewrite $\delta\mathcal S$ in terms of charges $Q_{A(a)}=\int d\Omega_{3,1} J_{A(a)}^r$. We find $$\delta\mathcal S= \left[ \delta\rho \left(\bar u^A Q_A\right)+\delta\varphi^i \left(\bar u\cdot T_a\cdot \frac{\partial \bar u}{\partial \varphi^i}Q_a\right)\right]~,$$ where there is a sum over broken $Q_A$ and unbroken $Q_a$ charges. The explicit form of this expression is not relevant, what is important to note is that if gravity is to respect the unbroken symmetry, which certainly would be the case if it were gauged, the solutions would have $Q_a=0$ and therefore $\varphi$ coordinates would [*not*]{} get a potential. On the other hand the radius $\rho$ gets a contribution proportional to broken charges $Q_A$. Furthermore, the periodicity of this field, in full analogy with the axion case, discretizes the possible charges to be $\bar u^A Q_A=k$, with $k\in \mathbb Z$. We can expect therefore a potential generated for the radial coordinate as follows $$\label{eq:PotentialGoldstoneGeneral}
V(\rho) = -K e^{-\mathcal S_{\rm inst}} \cos\rho~,$$ which nevertheless produces a mass term for [*all*]{} Goldstone bosons. To visualize this fact, notice that the minimum of eq. (\[eq:PotentialGoldstoneGeneral\]) sits at $\rho=0$ were the spherical coordinate system is singular. It is therefore better to go back to $\theta$ coordinates. We find $$-V(\theta^i) = K e^{-\mathcal S_{\rm inst}} \cos\rho\simeq\frac{K }{2}e^{-\mathcal S_{\rm inst}} \rho^2= \frac{K }{2}e^{-\mathcal S_{\rm inst}}\sum_i(\theta^i)^2$$ This means gravity produces a mass for all Goldstone bosons. Although obtained in the specific case of the $O(n+1)/O(n)$ symmetry breaking pattern, it is tempting to generalize this result to a general coset. We postpone the verification of this conjecture to future investigation.
Conclusions and outlook {#sec:Conclusions}
=======================
The explicit breaking of global symmetries induced by gravitational effects is a mesmerising phenomenon. Furthermore, far from academic, this issue could have direct implication in phenomenology.
In this paper we considered the specific case of the global shift symmetry of a Goldstone boson, and we explored the non-perturbative breaking due to Euclidean gravitational instantons in the context of Einstein gravity (aka wormholes).
This field has been studied in a decades-long endeavour, and in this regard the main novelties of our analysis are the following.
- . On the theory side, we addressed the problem of stability of wormhole solutions by computing the spectrum of the quadratic action, and we found a positive spectrum. This result is of fundamental importance since only in the absence of negative eigenvalues the gravitational instantons mediate tunneling transitions between degenerate vacua, in parallel with other known situations both in Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory. In turn, this property allows to consistently compute the effective potential generated by gravitational instantons. The latter, as a consequence of its non-perturbative nature, is characterized by the suppression factor $e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}$, where $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}$ is the wormhole action which scales with the Goldstone decay constant and Planck mass as $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}\propto M_{\rm Pl}/f_a$.
- . On the phenomenological side, we focused our analysis on the compelling case of the QCD axion. By computing non-perturbative gravitational corrections to the QCD axion potential, we found the following lower bound on the mass of the QCD axion $$m_a \gtrsim 4.8\times 10^{-10}\,{\rm eV}~,~~~~ f_a \lesssim 10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}~.$$ As an application, we discussed important consequences related to black hole superradiance, and we showed that the mass range $m_a =[10^{-14}, 10^{-10}]$ eV motivated by experimental searches and phenomenological considerations is theoretically disfavored.
In addition to the QCD axion, we discussed the case of ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter. We showed that non-perturbative gravitational effects due to Einstein gravity generate a mass term in agreement with the estimate of the relic abundance based on the misalignment mechanism. In numbers, we found a dark matter candidate with mass $m_a \simeq 2.5\times 10^{-18}$ eV corresponding to the decay constant $f_a \simeq 8\times 10^{15}$ GeV.
Finally, we discussed to rôle of non-perturbative gravitational corrections in connection with the relaxation of the electroweak scale and the clockwork mechanism.
We concluded with a derivation of the of wormhole solution for a generic Goldstone coset, and we inspected the breaking pattern $O(n+1)/O(n)$ to find that all Goldstone bosons in the coset acquire a mass via gravitational effects.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Diego Blas, Georgi Dvali, Benjamin Grinstein, Matthew McCullough, Riccardo Rattazzi, Luca Vecchi and Giovanni Villadoro for discussions. We also benefited from important feedback by Michele Frigerio and David Marsh. Finally, we thank Christopher Nolan for inspiration [@Nolan].
Dual Formulation of broken symmetry phases {#app:A}
==========================================
Axions and forms
----------------
Let us start considering the theory of a massless Goldstone field $\theta$ described by the Lagrangian density $$\label{eq:AxionBasic}
\mathcal{L}_{\theta} = \frac{f_a^2}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\theta)(\partial^{\mu}\theta)~.$$ For simplicity, we restrict here to flat space. It is straightforward to check that $\mathcal{L}_{\theta}$ can be obtained from $$\mathcal{L}_{J} = i(\partial_{\mu}\theta)J^{\mu} + \frac{1}{2f_a^2}J_{\mu}J^{\mu}~,$$ after eliminating the non-dynamical current $J^{\mu}$ by means of its algebraic equation of motion $J^{\mu} = -if_a^2(\partial^{\mu}\theta)$. Equivalently, after integration by parts, we have $$\label{eq:DualPicture}
\mathcal{L}_{J} = - i(\partial_{\mu}J^{\mu})\theta + \frac{1}{2f_a^2}J_{\mu}J^{\mu}~,$$ where now the Goldstone boson field is non-dynamical, implying the constraint $\partial_{\mu}J^{\mu} = 0$. The Lagrangian density in eq. (\[eq:AxionBasic\]) is therefore nothing but $\mathcal{L}_{J} = J_{\mu}J^{\mu}/2f_a^2$, subject to the current conservation constraint $\partial_{\mu}J^{\mu} = 0$. The latter can be formally solved by introducing the antisymmetric tensor field $B$, with $J^{\mu} \equiv -\frac{i}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(\partial_{\nu}B_{\rho\sigma})$. From these simple manipulations follows that the Goldstone theory admits a description in terms of an antisymmetric tensor field. Using the condition $J^{\mu} = -if_a^2(\partial^{\mu}\theta)$, we have $$\label{eq:Axion3Form}
f_a^2(\partial^{\mu}\theta) = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(\partial_{\nu}B_{\rho\sigma})~~~~~\Longrightarrow~~~~~
f_a^2\epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\lambda}(\partial^{\mu}\theta) = \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\lambda}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(\partial_{\nu}B_{\rho\sigma}) \equiv H_{\alpha\beta\lambda}~,$$ where $H$ is the dual strength of the antisymmetric tensor field $B$, $H_{\mu\nu\rho} = \partial_{\mu}B_{\nu\rho} + \partial_{\nu}B_{\rho\mu} + \partial_{\rho}B_{\mu\nu}$. Notice that this definition implies the Bianchi identity $\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(\partial_{\rho}H_{\sigma\mu\nu})=0$.
Eq. (\[eq:Axion3Form\]), $f_a^2\epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\lambda}(\partial^{\mu}\theta) = H_{\alpha\beta\lambda}$, incarnates the dual description of the field $\theta$ in terms of a three-form.
Notice that at this level of the analysis we did not specify the parity transformation of the Goldstone field. On the contrary, the construction in eqs. (\[eq:AxionBasic\]-\[eq:Axion3Form\]) remains valid both for scalar and pseudo-scalar bosons. From the dual relation $2f_a^2(\partial^{\mu}\theta) = \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(\partial_{\nu}B_{\rho\sigma})$, it follows that if $\theta$ is a pseudo-scalar (scalar) field, then the two-form $B_{\rho\sigma}$ is forced to transform as a tensor (pseudo-tensor). Without additional input one can not tell one option from the other, both perfectly consistent (for instance, in string-inspired situation the two-form $B_{\rho\sigma}$ can be identified with the Kalb-Ramond field that, after compactification in 4-dimensions, is an even parity tensor; having this specific dual picture in mind, the field $\theta$ transforms as a pseudo-scalar).
In the dual picture, the free Lagrangian density in eq. (\[eq:DualPicture\]) takes the form $$\mathcal{L}_{J} = \frac{1}{4f_a^2}\left(
\partial_{\nu}B_{\rho\sigma}
\right)\left(\partial^{\nu}B^{\rho\sigma}\right) - \frac{1}{2f_a^2}\left(
\partial^{\sigma}B_{\sigma\rho}
\right)\left(\partial_{\nu}B^{\nu\rho}\right)~.$$ The antisymmetric tensor $B_{\rho\sigma}$ has $6$ independent components, but the gauge symmetry $$\delta B_{\rho\sigma} = \partial_{[\rho}\Lambda_{\sigma]} = \frac{1}{2}\left(\partial_{\rho}\Lambda_{\sigma}-
\partial_{\sigma}\Lambda_{\rho} \right)~,$$ with the extra redundancy $\Lambda^{\prime}_{\sigma} = \Lambda_{\sigma} +\partial_{\sigma}\lambda$ correctly reduces to one the number of dynamical degrees of freedom.
From Minkowski to Euclidean space {#app:Minkowski2Euclidean}
---------------------------------
Let us consider the action in curved space-time, with flat metric $\eta_{\mu\nu} = {\rm diag}(+1,-1,-1,-1)$ $$\label{eq:AppA1}
\mathcal{S} = \int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[
\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{16\pi}\,\mathcal{R} + \frac{f_a^2}{2}(\partial_{\rho}\theta)(\partial^{\rho}\theta)
\right]~,$$ describing a massless Goldstone boson field $\theta$ minimally coupled to Einstein gravity. As discussed in section \[sec:BulkAction\], the field $\theta$ admits a dual description in terms of an antisymmetric two-form with field strength $H_{\mu\nu\rho}$ given by $H_{\mu\nu\rho} = f_a^2\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\left(
\partial^{\sigma}\theta
\right)$. In Lorentzian space-time, we have the following identity $$\label{eq:DualMinkowski}
\frac{f_a^2}{2}(\partial_{\rho}\theta)(\partial^{\rho}\theta) = -\frac{\mathcal{F}}{2}H_{\mu\nu\rho}H^{\mu\nu\rho}~,$$ with $\mathcal{F}$ defined right below eq. (\[eq:WormholeAction\]). The minus sign follows from the Levi-Civita contraction $\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\lambda} = (-1)^t\,3!\,\delta_{\sigma}^{\lambda}$, with $t=1$ in Minkowski space-time. The action in eq. (\[eq:AppA1\]) takes the form $$\label{eq:AppA2}
\mathcal{S} = \int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[
\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{16\pi}\,\mathcal{R} -\frac{\mathcal{F}}{2}H_{\mu\nu\rho}H^{\mu\nu\rho}
\right]~.$$ We are now ready to go from Minkowski – with coordinates $x\equiv (t,\vec{x})$, and metric $g_{\mu\nu}(x)$ – to Euclidean space-time – with coordinates $\tilde{x}\equiv (t_{\rm E},\vec{x})$, and metric $\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{x})$ – by means of the Wick rotation $t_{\rm E} \equiv \imath t$. The Euclidean action is related to eq. (\[eq:AppA1\]) via $S_{\rm E} \equiv -\imath\left.\mathcal{S}\right|_{t = -\imath t_{\rm E}}$. The analytical continuation can be seen as the coordinate transformation $x\equiv (t,\vec{x}) \to \tilde{x}\equiv (t_{\rm E},\vec{x}) = (\lambda t,\vec{x})$, with $\lambda = \imath$. We can therefore write the general coordinate transformation $$g_{\alpha\beta}(x) = \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}(\tilde{x})\frac{\partial \tilde{x}^{\mu}}{\partial x^{\alpha}}
\frac{\partial \tilde{x}^{\nu}}{\partial x^{\beta}} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\lambda^2 \tilde{g}_{00} & \lambda \tilde{g}_{01} & \lambda \tilde{g}_{02} & \lambda \tilde{g}_{03} \\
\lambda \tilde{g}_{01} & \tilde{g}_{11} & \tilde{g}_{12} & \tilde{g}_{13} \\
\lambda \tilde{g}_{02} &\tilde{g}_{12} & \tilde{g}_{22} & \tilde{g}_{23} \\
\lambda \tilde{g}_{03} & \tilde{g}_{13} & \tilde{g}_{23} & \tilde{g}_{33}
\end{array}
\right)~,$$ from which it follows that $g = \lambda^2 \tilde{g} = -\tilde{g}$, and $d^4x\sqrt{-g} = d^4\tilde{x}\sqrt{\tilde{g}}(-\imath)$. The Euclidean version of eq. (\[eq:AppA2\]) is $$\mathcal{S}_{\rm E} = \int d^4x\sqrt{\tilde{g}}\left[
-\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{16\pi}\,\mathcal{R} + \frac{\mathcal{F}}{2}H_{\mu\nu\rho}H^{\mu\nu\rho}
\right]~,$$ which coincides, after renaming $\tilde{g}$, with eq. (\[eq:WormholeAction\]). In Euclidean space, the duality relation in eq. (\[eq:DualMinkowski\]) reads $$\label{eq:DualEuclidean}
\frac{f_a^2}{2}(\partial_{\rho}\theta)(\partial^{\rho}\theta) = \frac{\mathcal{F}}{2}H_{\mu\nu\rho}H^{\mu\nu\rho}~,$$ where we now used $\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\lambda} = (-1)^t\,3!\,\delta_{\sigma}^{\lambda}$, with $t=0$ in Euclidean space-time. Consequently, we reconstruct the Euclidean action in eq. (\[eq:AxionAction\]).
Notice that it is crucial to define the Euclidean action by analytical continuation of eq. (\[eq:AppA2\]) rather then eq. (\[eq:AppA1\]). Indeed, the analytical continuation of eq. (\[eq:AppA1\]) would generate the Euclidean action $$\label{eq:WrongAxionAction}
\mathcal{S}_{\rm E} = \int d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[
-\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{16\pi}\,\mathcal{R} - \frac{f_a^2}{2}(\partial_{\rho}\theta)(\partial^{\rho}\theta)
\right]~,$$ that features the ‘wrong’ minus sign in front of the Goldstone kinetic term.
Finally, we stress again that the construction we put forward in this appendix, as well as the consequent wormhole solutions, does not rely on the transformation properties under parity of the Goldstone boson. This suggests that wormhole solutions can be defined for both free massless scalar and pseudo-scalar fields.
Axion charge quantization {#app:AxionChargeQuantization}
-------------------------
In this appendix we provide a more quantitative picture of the quantization condition discussed at the end of section \[sec:BulkAction\]. To this end, we exploit the analogy with the quantization of the electric charge in the presence of a magnetic monopole.
The magnetic field of a putative magnetic monopole placed at the origin of $\mathbb{R}^3$ is $$\label{eq:MagneticMonopole}
\vec{\mathcal{B}}(\vec{r}) = \frac{g_{\rm M}}{4\pi}\frac{\vec{r}}{r^3}~,~~~~~~~g_{\rm M} = \int_{S_2}\vec{\mathcal{B}}\cdot d\vec{S}~,$$ where in the second equation the magnetic charge $g_{\rm M}$ corresponds to the magnetic flux through the sphere $S_2$. Bearing in mind the relation with the electromagnetic field strength, $F_{ij} = -\epsilon_{ijk}\mathcal{B}_k$, one can already identify the analogy with the three-form field $H_{ijk} = \epsilon_{ijk}\mathcal{H}_0 = \epsilon_{ijk}n/2\pi^2 r^3$ and the computation of the flux in eq. (\[eq:Charge\]). Of course, in the electromagnetic case we are dealing with a two-form field strength $F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_{\mu}A_{\nu} - \partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$ while in the axion case the field strength is the three-form $H_{\mu\nu\rho} =
\partial_{\mu}B_{\nu\rho} + \partial_{\nu}B_{\rho\mu} + \partial_{\rho}B_{\mu\nu}$ but the comparison is evident. The rôle of the electromagnetic potential $A_{\mu}$ is played by the antisymmetric tensor $B_{\mu\nu}$. The obstacle is that it is not possible to find a vector potential such that $\vec{\nabla}\times \vec{A} = \vec{\mathcal{B}}$ since the monopole field is not divergenceless. The best that one can do is to define (in ordinary spherical coordinates) the vector potentials $$\vec{A}_{1} \equiv \frac{g_{\rm M}(1-\cos\theta)}{4\pi r \sin\theta}\hat{\phi}~,~~~~~~~
\vec{A}_{2} \equiv - \frac{g_{\rm M}(1+\cos\theta)}{4\pi r\sin\theta}\hat{\phi}~,$$ defined, respectively, in $R_1:\theta \in [0,\pi/2 +\delta)$ and $R_2:\theta \in (\pi/2 -\delta,\pi]$ with an overlap region $\pi/2 -\delta < \theta < \pi/2 +\delta$. In their domains, both potentials satisfy $\vec{\nabla}\times \vec{A}_{1,2} = \vec{\mathcal{B}}$ but they are singular in the complementary region. This is the same ambiguity one encounters for the two-form potential $B$ in the axion case. The only way to obtain a consistent picture is to show that the two vector potentials describe the same physics in the overlap region. Said differently, $\vec{A}_{1}$ and $\vec{A}_{2}$ must be related by a gauge transformation $\vec{A}\to \vec{A}^{\prime} = \vec{A} + \vec{\nabla}\chi$. From $\vec{A}_1 - \vec{A}_2 = \vec{\nabla}\chi$ one immediately finds $\chi \equiv g_{\rm M}\phi/2\pi$. Notice that the function $\chi(\phi)$ is not continuous since the azimuthal angle is defined modulo $2\pi$. This is actually crucial for the existence of a non-zero flux in eq. (\[eq:MagneticMonopole\]) since $$g_{\rm M} = \int_{S_2}\vec{\mathcal{B}}\cdot d\vec{S} = \int_{R_1}(\vec{\nabla}\times \vec{A}_{1})\cdot d\vec{S} +
\int_{R_2}(\vec{\nabla}\times \vec{A}_{2})\cdot d\vec{S} =
\int_0^{2\pi}(\partial\chi/\partial\phi)d\phi =
\chi(2\pi) - \chi(0)~.$$ Dirac quantization proceeds as follows. We consider a test particle of mass $m$ and charge $q$ in the field of the magnetic monopole. Its wavefunction satisfies the Schrödinger equation $-\slashed{h}^2/2m(\vec{\nabla} + \imath e\vec{A})^2\psi =
\imath\slashed{h}\partial\psi/\partial t$, with $e= q/\slashed{h}$, and the gauge transformation $\vec{A}\to \vec{A}^{\prime} = \vec{A} + \vec{\nabla}\chi$ transforms $\psi$ into $\psi^{\prime} = e^{-\imath e\chi}\psi = e^{-\imath e g_{\rm M}\phi/2\pi}\psi$. Since $\phi = 0$ and $\phi = 2\pi$ are the same physical point, consistency of Quantum Mechanics requires the wavefunction $\psi^{\prime}$ to be single valued. The quantization condition $e g_{\rm M} = 2\pi k$, with $k \in \mathbb{Z}$, then follows.
Dirac quantization involves the product $e g_{\rm M}$ of electric and magnetic charge. The electric charge of a particle is given by the surface integral at spatial infinity over a $S_2$ sphere of the Hodge dual of the electromagnetic field strength two-form $F_{\mu\nu}$. Conversely, the magnetic charge of a particle is given by the surface integral at spatial infinity over a sphere $S_2$ of the electromagnetic field strength two-form $F_{\mu\nu}$, as already discussed in eq. (\[eq:MagneticMonopole\]).
The quantization in the axion case is based on the fact that potentials of higher rank admit the following generalization. Formally, in $D$ dimensions, the ‘electric’ charge $Q_{\rm E}$ is the integral over the sphere $S_{D-(p+2)}$ of the Hodge dual of the $(p+2)$-form field strength. For the axion three-form $H$, $p=1$, and in $D=4$ dimensions $Q_{\rm E} = \int_{S_1} {^*H}$. The ‘magnetic’ charge, as already noticed, is $Q_{\rm M} = \int_{S_3} H = n$ (see eq. (\[eq:Charge\])), that in our case corresponds to the axion charge flowing through the wormhole throat. Dirac quantization therefore generalizes to $Q_{\rm E} n= 2\pi k$. If $Q_{\rm E}\neq 0$, the quantization of $n$ trivially follows. In terms of the Goldstone field, we have $Q_{\rm E} = \int_{S_1} {^*H} = \int_{S_1}d\theta$. The key observation is that this integral encompasses a closed path. This means that $Q_{\rm E}$ can be different from zero only if $\theta$ is multi-valued, and this is exactly the case for the Goldstone field since it is a phase, and possesses the periodicity $\theta = \theta + 2\pi$. This concludes the argument, and shows the fundamental importance of the periodicity of the Goldstone boson field for the quantization of the axion charge along the wormhole throat.
The Pöschl-Teller potential {#App:PT}
===========================
We want to solve the spectral problem for the differential operator $$\left[
-\frac{d^2}{d\tau^2} + 1 - \frac{15}{\cosh^2(2\tau)}
\right]u(\tau) = \lambda u(\tau)~,$$ or, equivalently $$\label{eq:PT}
\left[-\frac{d^2}{dx^2} - \frac{15/4}{\cosh^2x}\right]u(x) = 2E u(x)~,~~~~{\rm with}~~2E=\left(
\frac{\lambda - 1}{4}
\right)~.$$ Eq. (\[eq:PT\]) is describes the one-dimensional motion of a particle in the Pöschl-Teller potential [@Flugge]. In full generality, the dynamics in the Pöschl-Teller potential is described by the differential equation $-u^{\prime\prime}(x) - \frac{\alpha^2 \xi(\xi -1)}{\cosh^2(\alpha x)} u(x) = 2Eu(x)$. Eq. (\[eq:PT\]) corresponds to $\alpha = 1$, $\xi = 5/2$. By changing variable $y\equiv \cosh^2x$ we find $$y(1-y)u^{\prime\prime}(y) + \left(
\frac{1}{2} - y
\right)u^{\prime}(y) - \left(
\frac{15}{16 y} + \frac{E}{2}
\right)u(y) = 0~.$$ After the rescaling $u(y) = y^{5/4}v(y)$ the problem reduces to the hypergeometric differential equation $$y(1-y)v^{\prime\prime}(y) + v^{\prime}(y)\left[
\xi + \frac{1}{2} - y(\xi +1)
\right] - \frac{v(y)}{4}\left(
\xi^2 + 2E
\right)= 0~,$$ with $\xi = 5/2$. We have the general solution $$u(x) = y^{\xi/2}\left[
B\sqrt{1-y}~_2F_1\left(
a+\frac{1}{2}, b+\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};1-y
\right) + A~_2F_1\left(
a,b;\frac{1}{2};1-y
\right)
\right]~,$$ where $_2F_1(a,b;c;z) $ is the Gaussian or ordinary hypergeometric function, and we introduced the short-hand notation $$a \equiv \frac{1}{2}\left(
\xi + \imath\sqrt{2E}
\right)~,~~~~~b\equiv \frac{1}{2}\left(
\xi - \imath\sqrt{2E}
\right)~.$$ We can separate the two independent solutions. If $B=0$, $A=1$, we have the even solution $$\label{eq:EvenSolutions}
u_{\rm even}(x) = \cosh^{\xi}x~_2F_1\left(
a,b;\frac{1}{2};-\sinh^2x
\right)~.$$ If $A=0$, $B = \imath$ we have the odd solution $$\label{eq:OddSolutions}
u_{\rm odd}(x) = \cosh^{\xi}x\sinh x~_2F_1\left(
a+\frac{1}{2},b+\frac{1}{2};\frac{3}{2};-\sinh^2x
\right)~.$$ In order to identify the bound states with negative energy solutions, we need to study the asymptotic behavior. Using the trigonometric definitions $\sinh x = (e^x - e^{-x})/2$, $\cosh x = (e^x + e^{-x})/2$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
u_{\rm even}(x) &\overset{x \to \pm \infty}{\rightarrow}& \sqrt{\pi}\left[
\frac{2^{2a-\xi}e^{-\imath\sqrt{2E}|x|}\Gamma(-a+b)}{\Gamma(1/2 - a)\Gamma(b)} +
\frac{2^{2b-\xi}e^{\imath\sqrt{2E}|x|}\Gamma(a-b)}{\Gamma(a)\Gamma(1/2 - b)}
\right]~, \label{eq:Even} \\
u_{\rm odd}(x) &\overset{x \to \pm \infty}{\rightarrow}& \pm\sqrt{\pi}\left[
\frac{2^{2a-(\xi+1)}e^{-\imath\sqrt{2E}|x|}\Gamma(-a+b)}{\Gamma(1 - a)\Gamma(1/2 + b)} +
\frac{2^{2b-(\xi+1)}e^{\imath\sqrt{2E}|x|}\Gamma(a-b)}{\Gamma(1/2 + a)\Gamma(1 - b)}
\right]~.\label{eq:Odd}\end{aligned}$$ In the presence of negative energy states, we have $$e^{-\imath\sqrt{2E}} = e^{+\sqrt{2|E|}}~,~~~~~e^{\imath\sqrt{2E}} = e^{-\sqrt{2|E|}}~.$$ The coefficient of $e^{-\imath\sqrt{2E}}$ must therefore vanish in order to ensure the correct asymptotic behavior. This condition leads to quantization of energy. The Gamma function diverges for negative integer numbers, and we can impose this condition to cancel the coefficient of $e^{-\imath\sqrt{2E}}$ in both $u_{\rm even}(x) $ and $u_{\rm odd}(x)$. For the even functions we find $$\frac{1}{2} - a = -m~~~~\Longrightarrow~~~~2E_m^{\rm (even)} = - (-2m -1 +\xi)^2~,$$ whereas for the even functions we find $$1 - a = -m~~~~\Longrightarrow~~~~2E_m^{\rm (odd)} = - (-2m -2 +\xi)^2~,$$ with $m=0,1,2,\dots$.
With $\xi = 5/2$ we only have one negative (even) state with energy $2E_0^{\rm (even)} = -9/4$ or, equivalently, $\lambda = -8$. Next, we have two states with $\lambda = 0$ corresponding to $2E_1^{\rm (even)} = -1/4$ and $2E_0^{\rm (odd)} = -1/4$. Using eqs. (\[eq:EvenSolutions\],\[eq:OddSolutions\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Odd\,eigenfunction:}~~&\left\{u_{\rm odd}^{\lambda = 0}(\tau) = \frac{\sinh(2\tau)}{\cosh^{3/2}(2\tau)}\right\}~,\\
{\rm Even\,eigenfunctions:}~~&\left\{u_{\rm even}^{\lambda = -8}(\tau) = \frac{1}{\cosh^{3/2}(2\tau)}~,~~
u_{\rm even}^{\lambda = 0}(\tau) = \frac{3 - \cosh(4\tau)}{2\cosh^{3/2}(2\tau)}\right\}~.\end{aligned}$$ The eigenfunction $u_{\rm even}^{\lambda = 0}(\tau) $ is not square-integrable.
Spectrum of tensor and inhomogeneous scalar perturbations {#app:Perturbations}
=========================================================
In this appendix we compute the spectrum of tensor and inhomogeneous scalar perturbations of the quadratic action expanded around the wormhole background.
Tensor perturbations
--------------------
We exploit the results of [@Hertog:1999kg] in which tensor fluctuations around instanton background were studied. The perturbed line element, in Euclidean space, is $ds^2 = a^2(\tau)\left[d\tau^2 + (\gamma_{ij} + t_{ij})dx^i dx^j\right]$, where $\gamma_{ij}$ is the background metric on the three-sphere and $a(\tau)$ the background conformal factor. As discussed in section \[sec:Fluctuations\], $t_{ij}$ is a transverse trace-free symmetric tensor. The Euclidean quadratic action takes the form [@Hertog:1999kg] $$\left.\delta \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}^{(2)}\right|_{\rm tensor} = \frac{1}{8\kappa}\int d\tau d^3\vec{x}\sqrt{\gamma}a^2\left(
t^{\prime\,ij}t^{\prime}_{ij} +
\nabla^{i}t^{jk}\nabla_{i}t_{jk} + 2t^{ij}t_{ij}
\right)~,$$ where covariant derivatives and contractions are defined w.r.t. the metric $\gamma$. By introducing the rescaling $\tilde{t}_{ij} \equiv at_{ij}$, and integrating by parts, one finds [@Hertog:1999kg] $$\label{eq:TensorQuadratic}
\left.\delta \mathcal{S}_{\rm E}^{(2)}\right|_{\rm tensor} = \frac{1}{8\kappa}
\int d\tau d^3\vec{x}\sqrt{\gamma}\left[
\tilde{t}_{ij}\left(
\hat{K} + 3 -\Delta
\right)\tilde{t}^{ij}
- \frac{d}{d\tau}\left(
\frac{a^{\prime}}{a}\tilde{t}_{ij}\tilde{t}^{ij}
\right)
\right]~,$$ with the Schrödinger-type operator $$\label{eq:TensroSch}
\hat{K} \equiv -\frac{d^2}{d\tau^2} + \frac{a^{\prime\prime}}{a} -1 = -\frac{d^2}{d\tau^2} + \frac{1}{\cosh^2(2\tau)}~,$$ where in the last step we substituted the wormhole background solution. Notice that the quadratic action in eq. (\[eq:TensorQuadratic\]) does not present the conformal factor problem. This is indeed correct since, as reviewed in section \[sec:Fluctuations\], the quadratic action for the trace-free part of the tensor fluctuations is not unbounded from below. The differential operator $ \hat{K}$ acts on the $\tau$ variable while the Laplacian operator $\Delta$ acts on the three-dimensional space. We can therefore diagonalize them independently and add their spectra. The differential operator $\hat{K}$ does not possess negative eigenvalues since the potential is a positive function and there are no bound states. The tensor harmonics $(G_{ij})^{n}_{lm}(\psi,\phi,\varphi)$ are tensor eigenfucntions of the Laplacian operator on $S_3$. They satisfy the eigenvalue equation $\Delta(G_{ij})^{n}_{lm} = -(n^2 - 3)(G_{ij})^{n}_{lm}$, with $n=3,4,5,\dots$, supported by the transverse and traceless conditions $\nabla^{i}(G_{ij})^{n}_{lm} = 0$ and $(G_{i}^{i})^{n}_{lm} = 0$. Because of the degeneracy in $l$ and $m$, the most general solution of the eigenvalue equation is $G_{ij}^{(n)}(\psi,\phi,\varphi) = \sum_{l=2}^{n-1}\sum_{m=-l}^l C_{lm}^{(n)}(G_{ij})^{n}_{lm}(\psi,\phi,\varphi)$, with $C_{lm}^{(n)}$ arbitrary constants. From this general discussion it follows that the tensor Laplacian $-\Delta$ in eq. (\[eq:TensorQuadratic\]) has positive eigenvalues, starting from $\lambda = 6$. We conclude that tensor fluctuations around the wormhole background have a positive spectrum.
Inhomogeneous scalar perturbations
----------------------------------
We now move to discuss inhomogeneous scalar perturbations. In section \[sec:Fluctuations\] we focused on scalar homogeneous perturbations. A separated analysis is required since, as well known [@Gratton:2000fj; @Gratton:1999ya], inhomogeneous perturbations have positive Euclidean action and do not suffer from the conformal factor problem. We exploit the results of [@Gratton:1999ya]. In the Euclidean space, the quadratic action takes in form $$\label{eq:InhomogeneousScalar}
\left.\delta\mathcal{S}_{\rm E}^{(2)}\right|_{\Delta \neq 0} =
\frac{1}{2}\int d\tau d^{3}\vec{x}\sqrt{\gamma}\left\{\left(
-\Delta + 3\right)q\left(
\hat{O} - \Delta + 3
\right)q + \left(
-\Delta + 3
\right)\frac{d}{d\tau}\left[
qq^{\prime} + \left(
-\frac{\kappa \phi^{\prime\,2}}{4a^{\prime}/a} + \frac{\phi^{\prime\prime}}{\phi^{\prime}}
\right)q^2
\right]
\right\}~,$$ with the Schrödinger-type operator $$\label{eq:DifferentialInhom}
\hat{O} \equiv -\frac{d^2}{d\tau^2} - \frac{\kappa\phi^{\prime\,2}}{2} + \phi^{\prime}\left(\frac{1}{\phi^{\prime}}\right)^{\prime\prime}
= -\frac{d^2}{d\tau^2} + 4 - \frac{3}{\cosh^2(2\tau)}~.$$ As before, the differential operator $ \hat{O}$ acts on the $\tau$ variable while the Laplacian operator $\Delta$ acts on the three-dimensional space. We can therefore diagonalize them independently and add their spectra. Furthermore, we already know that $-\Delta$ has positive eigenvalues starting from $\lambda = 3$ (ignoring the homogeneous mode). In eq. (\[eq:InhomogeneousScalar\]) $q$ is the only physical dynamical variable describing scalar perturbations after gauge degrees of freedom are removed [@Gratton:1999ya]. By defining $2\tau \equiv x$, the differential equation $\hat{O}u(\tau) = \lambda u(\tau)$ in eq. (\[eq:DifferentialInhom\]) takes the form $$\label{eq:PT2}
\left[-\frac{d^2}{dx^2} - \frac{3/4}{\cosh^2x}\right]u(x) = 2E u(x)~,~~~~{\rm with}~~2E=\left(
\frac{\lambda}{4} - 1
\right)~.$$ This is again a Pöschl-Teller potential with $\alpha = 1$, $\xi = 3/2$. We can repeat the analysis presented in appendix \[App:PT\]. With $\xi = 3/2$, we have a double-degenerate negative eigenvalue $E_{0}^{\rm even/odd} = -1/4$ but it corresponds to the positive value $\lambda = 3$, that is the starting point of the spectrum of the differential operator $\hat{O}$. We therefore conclude that the spectrum of the bulk operator in eq. (\[eq:InhomogeneousScalar\]) is fully positive.
\#1[[\#1](http://arxiv.org/abs/#1)]{}
[20]{}
T. Banks, L. J. Dixon, D. Friedan and E. J. Martinec, “[*Phenomenology and Conformal Field Theory Or Can String Theory Predict the Weak Mixing Angle?,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**299**]{}, 613 (1988). E. Witten, “[*Anti-de Sitter space and holography,*]{}” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 253 (1998) \[\]. M. Kamionkowski and J. March-Russell, “[*Planck scale physics and the Peccei-Quinn mechanism,*]{}” Phys. Lett. B [**282**]{}, 137 (1992) \[\]. S. M. Barr and D. Seckel, “[*Planck scale corrections to axion models,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 539 (1992).
K. S. Babu, I. Gogoladze and K. Wang, “[*Stabilizing the axion by discrete gauge symmetries,*]{}” Phys. Lett. B [**560**]{}, 214 (2003) \[\]. R. Holman, S. D. H. Hsu, T. W. Kephart, E. W. Kolb, R. Watkins and L. M. Widrow, “[*Solutions to the strong CP problem in a world with gravity,*]{}” Phys. Lett. B [**282**]{}, 132 (1992) \[\]. L. Di Luzio, E. Nardi and L. Ubaldi, “[*Accidental Peccei-Quinn symmetry protected to arbitrary order,*]{}” \[hep-ph\]. H. Fukuda, M. Ibe, M. Suzuki and T. T. Yanagida, “[*A ‘Gauged’ $U(1)$ Peccei-Quinn Symmetry,*]{}” \[hep-ph\]. J. E. Kim, “[*Invisible Axion and Neutrino Oscillation in SU(11),*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**24**]{}, 3007 (1981). H. M. Georgi, L. J. Hall and M. B. Wise, “[*Grand Unified Models With an Automatic [Peccei-Quinn]{} Symmetry,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**192**]{}, 409 (1981). K. Harigaya, M. Ibe, K. Schmitz and T. T. Yanagida, “[*Peccei-Quinn symmetry from a gauged discrete R symmetry,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, no. 7, 075022 (2013) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. A. G. Dias, V. Pleitez and M. D. Tonasse, “[*Naturally light invisible axion in models with large local discrete symmetries,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**67**]{}, 095008 (2003) \[\]. A. G. Dias, A. C. B. Machado, C. C. Nishi, A. Ringwald and P. Vaudrevange, “[*The Quest for an Intermediate-Scale Accidental Axion and Further ALPs,*]{}” JHEP [**1406**]{}, 037 (2014) \[ \[hep-ph\]\].
J. E. Kim and D. J. E. Marsh, “[*An ultralight pseudoscalar boson,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 2, 025027 (2016) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Kallosh, A. D. Linde, D. A. Linde and L. Susskind, “[*Gravity and global symmetries,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 912 (1995) \[\]. S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, “[*Axion Induced Topology Change in Quantum Gravity and String Theory,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**306**]{}, 890 (1988). K. M. Lee, “[*Wormholes and Goldstone Bosons,*]{}” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 263 (1988). A. Hebecker, P. Mangat, S. Theisen and L. T. Witkowski, “[*Can Gravitational Instantons Really Constrain Axion Inflation?,*]{}” JHEP [**1702**]{} (2017) 097 \[ \[hep-th\]\]. M. Montero, A. M. Uranga and I. Valenzuela, “[*Transplanckian axions!?,*]{}” JHEP [**1508**]{}, 032 (2015) \[ \[hep-th\]\]. T. C. Bachlechner, C. Long and L. McAllister, “[*Planckian Axions and the Weak Gravity Conjecture,*]{}” JHEP [**1601**]{}, 091 (2016) \[ \[hep-th\]\]. N. Arkani-Hamed, L. Motl, A. Nicolis and C. Vafa, “[*The String landscape, black holes and gravity as the weakest force,*]{}” JHEP [**0706**]{}, 060 (2007) \[\]. S. Coleman, “[*Aspects of symmetry - Selected Erice lectures,*]{}” Cambridge University Press (2010), [book DOI](https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511565045).
A. I. Vainshtein, V. I. Zakharov, V. A. Novikov and M. A. Shifman, “[*ABC’s of Instantons,*]{}” Sov. Phys. Usp. [**25**]{}, 195 (1982) \[Usp. Fiz. Nauk [**136**]{}, 553 (1982)\]. T. Ortin, “[*Gravity and Strings,*]{}” [Cambridge University Press](http://www.cambridge.org/mw/academic/subjects/physics/theoretical-physics-and-mathematical-physics/gravity-and-strings-2nd-edition#0p6LdO1Ig06wyfJW.97). E. Witten, “[*Nonabelian Bosonization in Two-Dimensions,*]{}” Commun. Math. Phys. [**92**]{} (1984) 455. C. G. Callan, Jr., J. A. Harvey and A. Strominger, “[*Supersymmetric string solitons,*]{}” In Trieste 1991, Proceedings, String theory and quantum gravity ‘91 \[\]. R. Rohm and E. Witten, “[*The Antisymmetric Tensor Field in Superstring Theory,*]{}” Annals Phys. [**170**]{}, 454 (1986). T. J. Allen, “[*Duality and the vacuum,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**395**]{}, 185 (1993). J. W. York, Jr., “[*Gravitational degrees of freedom and the initial-value problem,*]{}” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**26**]{}, 1656 (1971). J. W. York, Jr., “[*Role of conformal three geometry in the dynamics of gravitation,*]{}” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**28**]{}, 1082 (1972). G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, “[*Action Integrals and Partition Functions in Quantum Gravity,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**15**]{}, 2752 (1977). J. Garriga, X. Montes, M. Sasaki and T. Tanaka, “[*Canonical quantization of cosmological perturbations in the one-bubble open universe,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**513**]{}, 343 (1998) Erratum: \[Nucl. Phys. B [**551**]{}, 511 (1999)\] \[\]. T. Hertog and N. Turok, “[*Gravity waves from instantons,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 083514 (2000) \[\]. S. Gratton and N. Turok, “[*Homogeneous modes of cosmological instantons,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 123514 (2001) \[\]. S. Gratton and N. Turok, “[*Cosmological perturbations from the no boundary Euclidean path integral,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 123507 (1999) \[\]. V. A. Rubakov and O. Y. Shvedov, “[*A Negative mode about Euclidean wormhole,*]{}” Phys. Lett. B [**383**]{}, 258 (1996) \[\].
G. W. Gibbons, S. W. Hawking and M. J. Perry, “[*Path Integrals and the Indefiniteness of the Gravitational Action,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**138**]{}, 141 (1978). P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, “[*The Gravitational Measure, Solution of the Conformal Factor Problem and Stability of the Ground State of Quantum Gravity,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**341**]{}, 187 (1990).
S. J. Rey, “[*The Axion Dynamics in Wormhole Background,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**39**]{}, 3185 (1989). S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, “[*Loss of Incoherence and Determination of Coupling Constants in Quantum Gravity,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**307**]{}, 854 (1988). S. R. Coleman, “[*Black Holes as Red Herrings: Topological Fluctuations and the Loss of Quantum Coherence,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**307**]{}, 867 (1988). J. Preskill, “[*Wormholes in Space-time and the Constants of Nature,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**323**]{}, 141 (1989). S. W. Hawking, “[*The Effective action for wormholes,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**363**]{}, 117 (1991). S. W. Hawking, “[*Wormholes in Space-Time,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**37**]{}, 904 (1988). S. R. Coleman, “[*Why There Is Nothing Rather Than Something: A Theory of the Cosmological Constant,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**310**]{}, 643 (1988). I. R. Klebanov, L. Susskind and T. Banks, “[*Wormholes and the Cosmological Constant,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**317**]{}, 665 (1989). W. Fischler and L. Susskind, “[*A Wormhole Catastrophe,*]{}” Phys. Lett. B [**217**]{}, 48 (1989). S. R. Coleman and K. M. Lee, “[*Escape From the Menace of the Giant Wormholes,*]{}” Phys. Lett. B [**221**]{}, 242 (1989). S. R. Coleman and K. M. Lee, “[*Big Wormholes and Little Interactions,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**341**]{}, 101 (1990). S. A. Ridgway, “[*Axion charge decay and wormhole destabilization,*]{}” Phys. Lett. B [**264**]{}, 31 (1991). T. Eguchi and A. J. Hanson, “[*Asymptotically Flat Selfdual Solutions to Euclidean Gravity,*]{}” Phys. Lett. [**74B**]{}, 249 (1978). T. Eguchi and A. J. Hanson, “[*Selfdual Solutions to Euclidean Gravity,*]{}” Annals Phys. [**120**]{}, 82 (1979). R. Holman, T. W. Kephart and S. J. Rey, “[*Semiclassical gravity and invisible axions,*]{}” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 320 (1993) \[\]. G. Dvali, “[*Three-form gauging of axion symmetries and gravity,*]{}” . G. Dvali, S. Folkerts and A. Franca, “[*How neutrino protects the axion,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, no. 10, 105025 (2014) \[ \[hep-th\]\]. G. Dvali, “[*Topological Origin of Chiral Symmetry Breaking in QCD and in Gravity,*]{}” \[hep-th\]. G. Dvali and L. Funcke, “[*Small neutrino masses from gravitational ?-term,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 11, 113002 (2016) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Dvali and L. Funcke, “[*Domestic Axion,*]{}” \[hep-ph\]. G. Grilli di Cortona, E. Hardy, J. Pardo Vega and G. Villadoro, “[*The QCD axion, precisely,*]{}” JHEP [**1601**]{}, 034 (2016) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. L. Visinelli and P. Gondolo, “[*Dark Matter Axions Revisited,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 035024 (2009) \[ \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. L. Visinelli and P. Gondolo, “[*Axion cold dark matter in view of BICEP2 results,*]{}” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 011802 (2014) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. L. Visinelli and P. Gondolo, “[*Axion cold dark matter in non-standard cosmologies,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 063508 (2010) \[ \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. L. Visinelli, “[*Light Axion-Like Dark Matter must have Anthropic Origins,*]{}” \[astro-ph.CO\].
M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa and T. Sekiguchi, “[*Axion dark matter from topological defects,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 6, 065014 (2015) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. G. G. Raffelt, “[*Axion Constraints From White Dwarf Cooling Times,*]{}” Phys. Lett. [**166B**]{}, 402 (1986). P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], “[*Planck 2015 results. XX. Constraints on inflation,*]{}” Astron. Astrophys. [**594**]{}, A20 (2016) \[ \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar and X. Huang, “[*Discovering the QCD Axion with Black Holes and Gravitational Waves,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, no. 8, 084011 (2015) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. For a comprehensive review: R. Brito, V. Cardoso and P. Pani, “[*Superradiance : Energy Extraction, Black-Hole Bombs and Implications for Astrophysics and Particle Physics,*]{}” Lect. Notes Phys. [**906**]{}, pp.1 (2015) \[ \[gr-qc\]\]. A. Arvanitaki and S. Dubovsky, “[*Exploring the String Axiverse with Precision Black Hole Physics,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 044026 (2011) \[ \[hep-th\]\].
A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky and R. Lasenby, “[*Black Hole Mergers and the QCD Axion at Advanced LIGO,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 4, 043001 (2017) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. G. F. Giudice, M. McCullough and A. Urbano, “[*Hunting for Dark Particles with Gravitational Waves,*]{}” JCAP [**1610**]{}, no. 10, 001 (2016) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Brito, S. Ghosh, E. Barausse, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, I. Dvorkin, A. Klein and P. Pani, “[*Stochastic and resolvable gravitational waves from ultralight bosons,*]{}” \[gr-qc\]. R. Brito, S. Ghosh, E. Barausse, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, I. Dvorkin, A. Klein and P. Pani, “[*Gravitational wave searches for ultralight bosons with LIGO and LISA,*]{}” \[gr-qc\].
T. Helfer, D. J. E. Marsh, K. Clough, M. Fairbairn, E. A. Lim and R. Becerril, “[*Black hole formation from axion stars,*]{}” \[astro-ph.CO\]. W. Hu, R. Barkana and A. Gruzinov, “[*Cold and fuzzy dark matter,*]{}” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1158 (2000) \[\]. B. Moore, T. R. Quinn, F. Governato, J. Stadel and G. Lake, “[*Cold collapse and the core catastrophe,*]{}” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**310**]{}, 1147 (1999) \[\].
M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock and M. Kaplinghat, “[*Too big to fail? The puzzling darkness of massive Milky Way subhaloes,*]{}” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**415**]{}, L40 (2011) \[ \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. M. Boylan-Kolchin, J. S. Bullock and M. Kaplinghat, “[*The Milky Way’s bright satellites as an apparent failure of LCDM,*]{}” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**422**]{}, 1203 (2012) \[ \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. P. Sikivie and Q. Yang, “[*Bose-Einstein Condensation of Dark Matter Axions,*]{}” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 111301 (2009) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. T. Harko, “[*Cosmological dynamics of dark matter Bose-Einstein Condensation,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 123515 (2011) \[ \[gr-qc\]\]. T. Harko, “[*Bose-Einstein condensation of dark matter solves the core/cusp problem,*]{}” JCAP [**1105**]{}, 022 (2011) \[ \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. C. G. Boehmer and T. Harko, “[*Can dark matter be a Bose-Einstein condensate?,*]{}” JCAP [**0706**]{}, 025 (2007) \[ \[astro-ph\]\]. H. Y. Schive, T. Chiueh and T. Broadhurst, “[*Cosmic Structure as the Quantum Interference of a Coherent Dark Wave,*]{}” Nature Phys. [**10**]{}, 496 (2014) \[ \[astro-ph.GA\]\]. P. H. Chavanis, “[*Growth of perturbations in an expanding universe with Bose-Einstein condensate dark matter,*]{}” Astron. Astrophys. [**537**]{}, A127 (2012) \[ \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine and E. Witten, “[*Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter,*]{}” \[astro-ph.CO\].
A. Diez-Tejedor and D. J. E. Marsh, “[*Cosmological production of ultralight dark matter axions,*]{}” \[hep-ph\]. P. A. R. Ade [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], “[*Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters,*]{}” Astron. Astrophys. [**594**]{}, A13 (2016) \[ \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. P. Svrcek and E. Witten, “[*Axions In String Theory,*]{}” JHEP [**0606**]{}, 051 (2006) \[\].
P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran, “[*Cosmological Relaxation of the Electroweak Scale,*]{}” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, no. 22, 221801 (2015) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. R. S. Gupta, Z. Komargodski, G. Perez and L. Ubaldi, “[*Is the Relaxion an Axion?,*]{}” JHEP [**1602**]{}, 166 (2016) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. K. Choi and S. H. Im, “[*Realizing the relaxion from multiple axions and its UV completion with high scale supersymmetry,*]{}” JHEP [**1601**]{}, 149 (2016) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. D. E. Kaplan and R. Rattazzi, “[*Large field excursions and approximate discrete symmetries from a clockwork axion,*]{}” Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, no. 8, 085007 (2016) \[ \[hep-ph\]\]. S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, “[*Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,*]{}” Phys. Rev. [**177**]{}, 2239 (1969). C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, “[*Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2.,*]{}” Phys. Rev. [**177**]{}, 2247 (1969). L. F. Abbott and M. B. Wise, “[*Wormholes and Global Symmetries,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**325**]{} (1989) 687. B. Zwiebach, “[*Curvature Squared Terms and String Theories,*]{}” Phys. Lett. [**156B**]{}, 315 (1985). D. J. Gross and J. H. Sloan, “[*The Quartic Effective Action for the Heterotic String,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**291**]{}, 41 (1987). A. A. Tseytlin, “[*Heterotic type I superstring duality and low-energy effective actions,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**467**]{}, 383 (1996) \[\]. D. J. Gross and E. Witten, “[*Superstring Modifications of Einstein’s Equations,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**277**]{}, 1 (1986). M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and E. Witten, “[*Superstring Theory. Vol. 1: Introduction,*]{}” Cambridge Univ. Pr. (1987) [book DOI](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asna.2113090428/abstract). M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz and E. Witten, “[*Superstring Theory. Vol. 2: Loop Amplitudes, Anomalies And Phenomenology,*]{}” Cambridge Univ. Pr. (1987) [book DOI](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/zamm.19880680631/abstract). D. J. Gross, J. A. Harvey, E. J. Martinec and R. Rohm, “[*The Heterotic String,*]{}” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 502 (1985). B. Grinstein, “[*Charge Quantization of Wormholes and the Finiteness of Newton’s Constant,*]{}” Nucl. Phys. B [**321**]{} (1989) 439. J. E. Kim, H. P. Nilles and M. Peloso, “[*Completing natural inflation,*]{}” JCAP [**0501**]{}, 005 (2005) \[\]. [“A wormhole’s not a naturally occurring phenomenon.”](https://www.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ff52b27b-cb29-4878-8774-13f37d708a0c)
S. Flügge, “[*Practical Quantum Mechanics,*]{}” [Springer Link](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-642-61995-3).
[^1]: Unlike the case of Yang-Mills theories, the Euclidean action in pure gravity is unbounded from below. Naïvely, this fact seems to prevent from a well-defined path integral formulation of gravity. We shall discuss further this issue in section \[sec:Fluctuations\].
[^2]: Notice that $\epsilon$ is a genuine tensor under general coordinate transformations, and we have the relation $$\label{eq:Levi}
\epsilon_{i_1,\dots,i_n} = \sqrt{|g|}\varepsilon_{i_1,\dots,i_n}~,~~~~\epsilon^{i_1,\dots,i_n} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}\varepsilon^{i_1,\dots,i_n}~,$$ where the tensor density $\varepsilon$ of weight $-1$ is the usual total antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol, defined to be $\pm 1$ and $0$ in [*all*]{} frames. In eq. (\[eq:Levi\]), $\sqrt{|g|} = \sqrt{g}$ if $t=0$ (or more generally if $t$ is even), and $\sqrt{|g|} = \sqrt{-g}$ if $t=1$ (or more generally if $t$ is odd).
Finally, in full generality, we have $$\epsilon_{i_1,\dots,i_k,i_{k+1},\dots,i_n}\epsilon^{i_1,\dots,i_k,j_{k+1},\dots,j_n} = (-1)^t\,k!\,\delta_{i_{k+1},\dots,i_n}^{j_{k+1},\dots,j_n}~,~~
~~~~~{\rm with}~~~
\delta_{\nu_1,\dots,\nu_p}^{\mu_1,\dots,\mu_p} \equiv\left|
\begin{array}{ccc}
\delta_{\nu_1}^{\mu_1} & \dots & \delta_{\nu_1}^{\mu_p} \\
\vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\delta_{\nu_1}^{\mu_p} & \dots & \delta_{\nu_p}^{\mu_p}
\end{array}
\right|~.$$
[^3]: Notice that our result agrees with the original computation of [@Giddings:1987cg], and with [@Kallosh:1995hi; @Hebecker:2016dsw]. However, we report a factor of $2$ discrepancy if compared with the result of [@Montero:2015ofa; @Bachlechner:2015qja], where the action of the half-wormhole configuration is half of $\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}$ in eq. (\[eq:GIAction\]).
[^4]: As a prototype, consider the action $S = \int_{t_1}^{t_2}dt L(q,\dot{q}) = \frac{1}{2}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}dt\,\dot{q}^2$ with variation $$\delta S = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} dt\left(
\frac{\partial L}{\partial q} - \frac{d}{dt}\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}\right)\delta q +
\left.
\frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{q}}\delta q
\right|_{t_1}^{t_2} = -\int_{t_1}^{t_2} dt\,\ddot{q}\delta q + \left.
\dot{q}\delta q
\right|_{t_1}^{t_2}~.$$ In order to extract the equation of motion by means of the variational principle, it is necessary to specify boundary data prescribing the values of the variation at the boundaries $\delta q(t_2)$, $\delta q(t_1)$.
Let us now suppose to add a total derivative term $$\tilde{L} = \frac{1}{2}\dot{q}^2 - \frac{d}{dt}\left(
\frac{1}{2}q\dot{q}
\right) = -\frac{1}{2}q\ddot{q}~~~~~\Longrightarrow~~~~~\delta \tilde{L} = -\ddot{q}\delta q + \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(
\dot{q}\delta q - q\delta\dot{q}
\right)~.$$ The equation of motion remains unchanged, since a total derivative does not affect the dynamics. However, in order to apply the variational principle, four boundary data are needed, namely $\delta q(t_2)$, $\delta q(t_1)$, $\delta \dot{q}(t_2)$, $\delta \dot{q}(t_1)$. This is inconsistent since fixing position and velocity violates the uncertainty principle. It is therefore necessary to add a boundary term which cancels the extra total derivative in $\tilde{L}$. This example mimics the typical situation in general relativity – and, in particular, the case of eq. (\[eq:VariationalProblem\]) – with the rôle of $\tilde{L}$ played by the Einstein-Hilbert action. In fact, the Ricci scalar has second derivative of the metric, and its variation generates a total derivative that is precisely canceled by the addition of the Gibbons-Hawking-York boundary term.
[^5]: We use the following short-hand notation: $\partial_{\langle i}\partial_{j\rangle}E \equiv (\partial_i\partial_j - \frac{1}{3}\gamma_{ij}\nabla^2)E$, and $\partial_{(i}\hat{E}_{j)} \equiv (\partial_i\hat{E}_j + \partial_j \hat{E}_i)/2$.
[^6]: In a closed Universe, $\mathcal{K}=1$, the line element on $S_3$ is $dl^2 = \gamma_{ij}dx^i dx^j = d\psi^2 + \sin^2\psi(d\phi^2 + \sin^2\phi d\varphi^2)$. The scalar spherical harmonics $Q^{(n)}_{lm}(\psi,\phi,\varphi)$ are eigenfunctions of the Laplacian operator on $S_3$ with eigenvalue equation $\Delta Q^{(n)}_{lm} = -(n^2 - 1)Q^{(n)}_{lm}$, $n\in \mathbb{N}^+$. Because of the degeneracy in $l$ and $m$, the most general solution of the eigenvalue equation is $Q^{(n)}(\psi,\phi,\varphi) = \sum_{l=0}^{n-1}\sum_{m = -l}^{+l}A_{lm}^{(n)}Q^{(n)}_{lm}(\psi,\phi,\varphi)$ with $A_{lm}^{(n)}$ arbitrary constants. Explicitly, we have $Q^{(n)}_{lm}(\psi,\phi,\varphi) = \Pi_l^n(\psi)Y_{lm}(\phi,\varphi)$ where $Y_{lm}(\phi,\varphi)$ are the usual spherical harmonics on $S_2$ and $\Pi_l^n(\psi)$ are the Fock harmonics. The eigenfunction corresponding to $n = 1$ with zero eigenvalue defines the spatially homogeneous modes. In a open Universe, $\mathcal{K}= -1$, the Laplacian is again zero for the spatially homogeneous modes, and takes the values $-p^2 - 1$, with $p^2 > 0$, for the continuum of square integrable modes.
[^7]: The natural definition of path integral in pure gravity involves the Euclidean partition function $$\mathcal{Z}=\int_{\mathcal{M}}[\mathfrak{D}g]e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm E}[g]}~,~~~~~~
\mathcal{S}_{\rm E}[g] = -\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{16\pi}\int_{\mathcal{M}}d^4x\sqrt{g}\mathcal{R}
-\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{8\pi}\int_{\partial\mathcal{M}}d^3\vec{x}\sqrt{h}(K - K_0)~,$$ where the sum runs over all metrics on a four-dimensional manifold $\mathcal{M}$ with boundary $\partial\mathcal{M}$. The Euclidean path integral is ill-defined due to the fact that the scalar curvature can be made arbitrarily negative. The physics behind is related to the fact that the gravitational potential energy is negative because gravity is attractive. A concrete way to look at the problem is to perform the conformal transformation $g_{\mu\nu}\to \tilde{g}_{\mu\nu} = \Omega^2 g_{\mu\nu}$ which brings the Euclidean action into the form $$\mathcal{S}_{\rm E}[g,\Omega] = -\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{16\pi}\int_{\mathcal{M}}d^4x\sqrt{g}
\left(
\Omega^2\mathcal{R} +6g^{\mu\nu}\nabla_{\mu}\Omega\nabla_{\nu}\Omega\right) - \frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{8\pi}\int_{\partial\mathcal{M}}d^3\vec{x}\sqrt{h}\Omega^2(K-K_0)~.$$ The Euclidean action can be made arbitrarily negative by choosing a rapidly varying conformal factor. In turn, this implies that the path integral diverges since one has to integrate over all possible $\Omega$. An alternative formulation of the problem, closer in spirit to the content of this section, consists in performing an expansion of the Euclidean action around a fixed on-shell metric $g$ obeying the classical field equations $R_{\mu\nu}[g]= 0$. At the quadratic order in the fluctuation $h_{\mu\nu}$ we have [@Mazur:1989by] $$\label{eq:Mottola}
\delta\mathcal{S}_{\rm E}^{(2)} = \frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2}{32\pi}\int_{\mathcal{M}}d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[
h^{{\rm T}\mu\nu}\left(
2\nabla^{\sigma}\nabla_{\mu}h^{\rm T}_{\sigma\nu} - \nabla^2h^{\rm T}_{\mu\nu} - \nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}h
\right) + \frac{3}{8}h\nabla^2h
\right]~,$$ where we decomposed the fluctuation into its trace and a trace-free part, $h_{\mu\nu} = \frac{1}{4}hg_{\mu\nu} + h_{\mu\nu}^{\rm T}$. The quadratic action in eq. (\[eq:Mottola\]) reveals that the trace part of the perturbation is unbounded from below, since the eigenvalue equation for the Laplace-Beltrami operator, $-\nabla^2u=\lambda u$, admits only positive eigenvalues, $\lambda \geqslant 0$, in a compact Riemannian manifold (a result known as the Lichnerowicz-Obata theorem).
[^8]: Notice that the validity of this approach relies on the fact that large wormholes, with size $L^{\prime}>L$, can be safely neglected. Naïvely, by looking at the action in eq. (\[eq:GIAction\]), one would conclude that this is indeed the case: The action of a wormhole of size $L$ scales as $L^2M_{\rm Pl}^2$, and larger wormholes will be strongly suppressed by $e^{-\mathcal{S}}$. It is important to remark that this conclusion might not be so obvious. Wormholes received in the past a lot of attention in connection with a possible solution of the cosmological constant problem [@Coleman:1988tj; @Klebanov:1988eh]. The major objection to this proposal, known precisely as ‘large wormhole problem’, refers to the fact that large wormholes are also characterized by large densities in the Euclidean space, and, despite the suppression provided by their action, they may lead to strong non-local interactions over arbitrarily large distances, a prediction of fatal consequences [@Fischler:1988ia]. A possible solution to this obstruction was proposed in [@Coleman:1989ky; @Coleman:1990tz]. The point is that if the wormhole solutions carry a non-zero value of some conserved charge – as in the case we are considering in this work – large wormholes are destabilized by small ones as a consequence of the charge non-conserving interactions introduced by the latter (see eq. (\[eq:MainPotential\]) below), and, as a result, only small wormholes survive. This argument was refined in [@Ridgway:1991gg] in the axion case.
[^9]: The full wormhole configuration with both ends in $\mathbb R^3$ has no boundary term at the throat and therefore its action does not match $2\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}$ as in eq. (\[eq:Fullaction\]), this can be accounted for in the summation formula but the correction is sub-leading $e^{-2\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}$ vs. $e^{-\mathcal{S}_{\rm inst}}$.
[^10]: The possibility to have CP violation from gravitational effects is a subtle question, and, to the best of our knowledge, the situation is the following. Gravity is CP-conserving at the perturbative level, and the only source of CP violation may arise in connection with non-perturbative physics. In the Standard Model plus gravity, CP-violating effects are related to the three terms $$\label{eq:EH}
\mathcal{L}_{\cancel{{\rm CP}}} = \underbrace{\frac{\theta_{\rm QCD}}{32\pi^2}G_{\mu\nu}\tilde{G}^{\mu\nu}}_{\rm Yang-Mills\,instantons} +
\underbrace{\frac{\theta_{\rm EM}}{32\pi^2}F_{\mu\nu}\tilde F^{\mu\nu}
+ \frac{\theta_{\rm grav}}{32\pi^2}\mathcal{R}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\tilde{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}}_{\rm Eguchi-Hanson\,gravitational\,instantons}~,$$ where $\tilde{\mathcal{R}}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} = \epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\mathcal{R}^{\alpha\beta}_{~~~\rho\sigma}/2$. Notice that, in addition to the standard Ricci term of the Einstein-Hilbert action, one needs to add the topological contribution proportional to the CP-odd combination $\mathcal{R}_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\tilde{\mathcal{R}}^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}$. As well known, these three terms are total derivatives, and they do not contribute to the equation of motion. However, in QCD $\theta_{\rm QCD}$ becomes a fundamental physical parameter at the non-perturbative level. The reason is ultimately related to the fact that the third homotopy group of $SU(3)_{\rm C}$ is non-trivial, since $\pi_3[SU(N)] = \mathbb{Z}$, and non-equivalent pure gauge filed configurations with zero energy fall into topologically distinct classes. QED in Minkowski space does not possess this property since $\pi_3[U(1)] = 0$. However, in the presence of gravity this is not true anymore. Eq. (\[eq:EH\]) admits non-perturbative gravitational instanton solutions, dubbed Eguchi-Hanson instantons [@Eguchi:1978xp; @Eguchi:1978gw], that provide a non-trivial background metric in which $\theta_{\rm EM}$ becomes physical. The Eguchi-Hanson gravitational instantons are not related to wormhole physics, and in general their contribution is suppressed by the large action $\mathcal{S}_{\rm EH} = P^2\pi/\alpha_{\rm EM}$, where $P$ is the electric charge of the instanton [@Holman:1992ah]. In this paper we do not investigate such non-perturbative solutions. Recently, in [@Dvali:2005an; @Dvali:2013cpa; @Dvali:2017mpy; @Dvali:2016uhn; @Dvali:2016eay] CP-violating effects related to $\mathcal{R}\tilde{\mathcal{R}}$ were explored using the language of differential forms. In the three-form formulation the strong CP problem is equivalent to the dynamical generation of a mass gap for the Chern-Simons three-form of QCD, $\mathcal{C}$. This is exactly what the axion solution does, since it provides a pseudo-scalar degrees of freedom that is eaten up by $\mathcal{C}$ which in turn becomes massive. In this picture, the only way to re-introduce the strong CP problem in the presence of the axion is to re-establish a massless pole in the propagator of $\mathcal{C}$. This can be accomplished by introducing an additional massless three-form, $\mathcal{C}_{\rm G}$, since in this case the axion will be able to give a mass only to a linear combination of $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{\rm G}$. Gravity naturally provides a candidate for $\mathcal{C}_{\rm G}$, that can be identified with the gravitational Chern-Simons three-form whose field strength equals $\mathcal{R}\tilde{\mathcal{R}}$ [@Dvali:2005an].
[^11]: The wormhole solutions far from the throat ($\tau\to\pm \infty$) tend asymptotically to a constant value of the axion field, as displayed in fig. \[fig:InstantonSolution\], and the axion field varies by $\sqrt{6}\pi/2f^2\kappa$ as it goes through the throat. This implies that (even if the one starts at the bottom of the potential at $\tau=-\infty$) the asymptotic value of the field will not sit at the bottom of the potential. This surplus of potential energy, as one integrates large scales away from the throat, will give the wormhole a diverging action.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that Be stars belong to a high velocity tail of a single B-type star rotational velocity distribution in the main sequence (MS). We studied 127 galactic field Be stars and obtained their true equatorial velocity at the ZAMS using models of stellar evolution with rotation. There is a sharp mass-dependent cut in the ZAMS under which there is no Be star. Velocities above this cut follow a Gaussian-tail distribution. B stars with ZAMS rotational velocities lower than the cut probably cannot become Be.'
address:
- 'Observatoire de Paris, Section d’Astrophysique de Meudon, GEPI, FRE K 2459'
- 'Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, UMR7095 CNRS, Université Pierre & Marie Curie'
- Royal Observatory of Belgium
author:
- 'Martayan, C.'
- 'Zorec, J.'
- 'Frémat, Y.'
- 'Hubert, A.M.$^1$'
- 'Floquet, M.$^1$'
title: ZAMS ROTATIONAL VELOCITIES OF Be STARS
---
Motivation and Method
=====================
There is a long-lasting debate whether Be stars belong to a high velocity end of a single distribution suited to all MS B stars, or they form a stellar group with a separate high-velocity distribution. To obtain answer elements to this question, we corrected the $V\!\sin i$ for gravitational darkening effects (Frémat et al. 2005), calculated the inclination angle $i$ and derived masses and ages of 127 program Be stars using models of stellar evolution with rotation (Meynet & Maeder 2000, Zorec et al. 2005). To derive the respective ZAMS true equatorial velocities we have taken into account four main phenomena determining the variation of the surface rotation with age (Meynet & Maeder 2000): 1) the equatorial radius-dependent changes; 2) variations due to angular momentum-loss through mass-loss events; 3) variations carried by internal density distribution changes with age and rotation, which affect the stellar inertial momentum; 4) meridional circulation and other hydrodynamical instabilities that produce internal angular momentum redistribution with time scales of the order of $\tau_{\rm
HK}/\eta$, where $\tau_{\rm HK}$ is the Kelvin-Helmholtz time and $\eta\sim$ 0.9 is the ratio of centrifugal to gravitational acceleration.
We note that $V_{\rm ZAMS}$ is the equatorial velocity the star acquires after its rapid initial short-lasting re-arrangement of the internal angular velocity law $\Omega(r)$. This re-arrangements last no more than 1 to 2% of the stellar MS life (Denissenkov et al. 1999, Meynet & Maeder 2000) and transforms an initial entirely rigid rotation into another differential one where the stellar core has a faster angular velocity than the equator.
Results and Conclusion
======================
The transformation of individual $V\!\sin i$ parameters into $V_{\rm ZAMS}$ is shown in Fig. 1a. The most striking feature in this figure is the neat cut depicted by the regression line obtained from the $V_{\rm min}$ in each mass-interval. According to this finding, no Be star is seen below the cutting line. This indicates that stars need an initial velocity $V_{\rm ZAMS}\ga$ $V_{\rm min}$ in order to become Be at any moment in the MS evolutionary phase. In each mass-interval we divided the $V_{\rm ZAMS}$ by the corresponding $V_{\rm min}$ and formed the global histogram shown in Fig. 1b. The fit that better describes the distribution obtained is a Gaussian tail. We note that under the histogram there must be roughly 17% of stars out of the whole MS B-type star population. More than 80% of B-type stars must then be gathered into the $V_{\rm ZAMS}/V_{\rm min}$ $\la 1$ interval. It may then happen that Be stars do not form a separate distribution, but possibly a Gaussian-like tail of a more general distribution of rotational velocities that encompasses the whole MS B-type star population.
We note that some B stars without emission lines, of which a non negligible proportion is in the lower mass-extreme ($M<7M_{\odot}$) is represented by Bn stars, which distribute over both velocity intervals. Bn stars with $V_{\rm
ZAMS}<V_{\rm min}$ might then never become Be, while those with $V_{\rm
ZAMS}>V_{\rm min}$ could probably do.
{height="5cm" width="11cm"}
Denissenkov, P.A., Ivanova, N.S., & Weiss, A. 1999, A&A, 341, 181 Frémat, Y., Zorec, J., Hubert, A.M., & Floquet, M. 2005, A&A, 440, 305 Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 2000, A&A, 361, 101 Zorec J., Frémat, Y., Cidale, L. 2005, A&A, in press and astro-ph/0509119
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a class of weighted $L_2$-type tests of fit to the Gamma distribution. Our novel procedure is based on a fixed point property of a new transformation connected to a Steinian characterization of the family of Gamma distributions. We derive the weak limits of the statistic under the null hypothesis and under contiguous alternatives. Further, we establish the global consistency of the tests and apply a parametric bootstrap technique in a Monte Carlo simulation study to show the competitiveness to existing procedures.'
author:
- Steffen Betsch
- Bruno Ebner
bibliography:
- 'lit-gamma.bib'
title: '**A new characterization of the Gamma distribution and associated goodness of fit tests** '
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
Testing the goodness-of-fit of data to a Gamma distribution is a first step to serious statistical inference involving this model. Due to its versatile nature the Gamma distribution generalizes the exponential, the $\chi^2$ and the Erlang distribution. Applications include modelling rainfall data in Africa, see [@HMF:2007], or honey bee transit times, see [@PS:2017]. To be specific, let $X_1,\ldots,X_n,\ldots$ be a sequence of independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) copies of a positive random variable $X$, all random variables being defined on a common underlying probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{A},\mathbb{P})$. Writing $\Gamma(k,\lambda)$ for the Gamma distribution with shape parameter $k>0$ and scale parameter $\lambda>0$ as well as $\mathbf{\Gamma}=\{\Gamma(k,\lambda) \, | \, k,\lambda>0\}$ for the family of Gamma distributions, we want to check the assumption that the distribution of $X$ belongs to $\mathbf{\Gamma}$, or equivalently, test the composite hypothesis $$H_0: \mathbb{P}^{X}\in \mathbf{\Gamma}$$ against general alternatives. This testing problem has been considered in the statistical literature. In recent papers, [@BG:2015; @PS:2017; @WM:2008] proposed tests based on some independence properties of the Gamma distribution, [@HME:2012] considered a test based on the empirical Laplace transform, [@KKC:2006] proposed a method using the empirical moment generating function and [@VG:2015] suggested to use a variance ratio test. Most of these tests are built upon a characterization of the Gamma distribution, while classical ’omnibus’ methods like the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Cramér-von Mises test, the Anderson-Darling test or the Watson test utilize the (weighted) distance of the empirical to the theoretical distribution function in some suitable function space. For a review see [@delBarrio2000]. Note that, since $H_0$ stands for testing the fit to a whole family of distributions, every statistic relies on some adequate estimator $(\widehat{k},\widehat{\lambda})$ of $(k,\lambda)$ to choose a ’best’ representative of $\mathbf{\Gamma}$.
Our novel idea for this testing problem is to use a fixed point property of a transformation connected to a Stein-type characterization for the Gamma distribution. The family of test statistics is then based on the weighted distance from the empirical transformation to the empirical distribution function.\
Inspired by the density approach as introduced in [@CGS:2011], section 4, and [@LS:2013], section 2, we first state a characterizing Steinian equation for the Gamma distribution. For $(k, \lambda) \in (0,\infty)^2$ we denote by $$p(t) = p(t,k,\lambda) = \frac{\lambda^{-k}}{\Gamma(k)} \, t^{k-1} \, e^{- t / \lambda}, \quad t > 0,$$ the density function of the Gamma distribution $\Gamma(k,\lambda)$ with shape parameter $k$ and scale parameter $\lambda$. We write $\mathcal{F}$ for the set of all functions $f : (0, \infty) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ that are differentiable, satisfy $$\lim_{x \, \searrow \, 0} f(x)
= \lim_{x \, \searrow \, 0} f(x) p(x)
= \lim_{x \, \to \, \infty} f(x) p(x)
= 0$$ and have a locally integrable derivative.
\[thm SC\] A positive random variable $X$ has a $\Gamma(k,\lambda)$-distribution (with parameters $k,\lambda>0$) if, and only if, $$\label{density approach}
{\mathbb{E}}\left[ f^{\prime}(X) + \left( \frac{k - 1}{X} - \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) f(X) \right] = 0$$ for every $f \in \mathcal{F}$ for which this expectation exists.
For completeness, and as we have changed the class of test functions $\mathcal{F}$ as compared to [@LS:2013], a proof is given in the appendix.\
The characterization of the Gamma distribution given in Theorem \[thm SC\] is not directly accessible for the proposal of a goodness-of-fit test, since (\[density approach\]) depends on the class of functions $\mathcal{F}$. We tackle this problem by the following fixed point property.
\[thm fixed point statement\] Let $X$ be a positive random variable with distribution function $F$ and assume ${\mathbb{E}}|X| < \infty$. For $k, \lambda > 0$ define $T^X : {\mathbb{R}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
T^X (t) = {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left(- \frac{k - 1}{X} + \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) \min \{ X, t \} \right], \quad t > 0,
\end{aligned}$$ and set $T^X(t) = 0$ for $t \leq 0$. Then $X$ follows the $\Gamma(k, \lambda)$-law if, and only if, $T^X \equiv F$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$.
For the necessity note first that if $X \sim \Gamma(k,\lambda)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left( - \frac{k - 1}{X} + \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) \mathds{1} \{ X > t \} \right]
&= - \int_0^{\infty} \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \, p(x, k, \lambda) \, \mathds{1} \{ x > t \} \, \mathrm{d} x \\
&= p(t, k, \lambda) \\
&\geq 0
\end{aligned}$$ for all $t > 0$. Therefore, setting $$\begin{aligned}
d^X(t) = {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left( - \frac{k - 1}{X} + \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) \mathds{1} \{X > t\} \right] \, \mathds{1}_{(0,\infty)} (t) , \quad t \in {\mathbb{R}},
\end{aligned}$$ and realizing that Fubini’s Theorem implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{proof eq 1}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} d^X (s) \, \mathrm{d}s
&= {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left( - \frac{k - 1}{X} + \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) \int_0^{\infty} \mathds{1} \{ X > s \} \, \mathrm{d}s \right] \nonumber \\
&= -(k - 1) + \frac{1}{\lambda} \, {\mathbb{E}}X \nonumber \\
&= 1,
\end{aligned}$$ we notice that $d^X$ is the density function corresponding to $T^X$ since $$\begin{aligned}
\label{proof eq 2}
\int_{-\infty}^{t} d^X (s) \, \mathrm{d}s
= {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left( - \frac{k - 1}{X} + \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) \int_0^{t} \mathds{1} \{ X > s \} \, \mathrm{d}s \right]
= T^X (t)
\end{aligned}$$ holds for all $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Now, using the fundamental theorem of calculus and (\[density approach\]), we get, for any $f \in \mathcal{F}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} f^{\prime}(s) \, d^X(s) \, \mathrm{d}s
&= {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left( - \frac{k - 1}{X} + \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) \int_0^{\infty} f^{\prime}(s) \, \mathds{1} \{ X > s \} \mathrm{d}s \right] \\
&= {\mathbb{E}}\left[ - \left( \frac{k - 1}{X} - \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) f(X) \right] \\
&= {\mathbb{E}}\big[ f^{\prime}(X) \big]
\end{aligned}$$ which implies the claim (note that the set of derivatives of the functions in $\mathcal{F}$ separates probability measures). For the converse, we assume $T^X (t) = F(t)$ for all $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$, and let $d^X$ be as above. By Tonelli’s theorem, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \left| d^X (s) \right| \mathrm{d}s
\leq |k - 1| + \frac{1}{\lambda} \, {\mathbb{E}}|X|
< \infty
\end{aligned}$$ and thus $\left| d^X \right| < \infty$ $\mathcal{L}^1$-almost everywhere, with $\mathcal{L}^1$ denoting the Lebesgue measure on the Borel sets of the real line. Consequently, Fubini’s theorem is applicable and we acknowledge (\[proof eq 2\]) to hold true. Since $T^X$ is increasing, we have $d^X \geq 0$ $\mathcal{L}^1$-a.e. and as dominated convergence gives us $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left( - \frac{k - 1}{X} + \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) X \right]
= \lim\limits_{t \, \to \, \infty} T^X (t)
= 1,
\end{aligned}$$ equation (\[proof eq 1\]) holds. Therefore, $d^X$ is the density function corresponding to $T^X \equiv F$. Using this, we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ f^{\prime}(X) \big]
& = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} f^{\prime}(s) \, d^X(s) \, \mathrm{d}s \\
& = {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left( - \frac{k - 1}{X} + \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) \int_0^{\infty} f^{\prime}(s) \, \mathds{1} \{X > s\} \, \mathrm{d}s \right] \\
& = {\mathbb{E}}\left[ - \left( \frac{k - 1}{X} - \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) f(X) \right]
\end{aligned}$$ for every $f \in \mathcal{F}$. By Theorem \[thm SC\] we are done.
Note that [@BE:2018] used the similar zero bias transformation (introduced by [@GR:1997]) for testing normality. By analogy with this transformation, the proof of Theorem \[thm fixed point statement\] also shows that if $X$ is chosen such that $T^X$ is a distribution function, there exists a random variable $X^{\Gamma} \sim T^X$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{transform equation}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ f^{\prime}(X^{\Gamma}) \big] = {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left( - \frac{k - 1}{X} + \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) f(X) \right]\end{aligned}$$ for each $f \in \mathcal{F}$. Since $T^X$ apparently constitutes the only solution of (\[transform equation\]), Theorem \[thm fixed point statement\] assures that the $\Gamma(k, \lambda)$-law is the unique fixed point of the distributional transformation $\mathbb{P}^{X} \mapsto \mathbb{P}^{X^{\Gamma}}$. However, the restrictions on $X$ that render $T^X$ a distribution function are very strict (for instance, ${\mathbb{E}}X = k \lambda$ is a necessary condition) so, in general, we cannot think of $\mathbb{P}^X \mapsto T^X$ as a distributional transformation. For treatments that focus specifically on distributional transformations related to Stein’s method we refer to [@GR:2005] and [@D:2017]. In the latter, the sign changes of the so called biasing function (which in our case is $B = - p^{\prime} / p$) are taken into account to guarantee that the ’biased distribution’ is, indeed, a distribution. The price which is paid for this additional piece of structure is that the explicit representation of the transformation (see Remark 1 (d) in [@D:2017]) is substantially more complex, especially when considering that, in the case of the Gamma distribution, the sign change depends on the parameters which, later on, have to be estimated.
By Theorem \[thm fixed point statement\], we are able to compare $T^X$ to $F$ in order to determine how close a given distribution is to $\Gamma(k, \lambda)$ and construct a goodness-of-fit statistic for testing the hypothesis $H_0$, based on $X_1, \dots, X_n$. In what follows, in addition to $X>0$ $\mathbb{P}$-almost surely, we assume ${\mathbb{E}}|X| < \infty$. Of course the unknown parameters $k, \lambda$ have to be estimated from the data. In view of the scale invariance of the class of Gamma distributions, we set $Y_{n,j} = X_j / \widehat{\lambda}_n$, $j = 1, \dots, n$, where $\widehat{\lambda}_n = \widehat{\lambda}_n(X_1, \dots, X_n)$ is a consistent, scale equivariant estimator of $\lambda$, i.e., we have $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\lambda}_n (\beta X_1, \beta X_2, \dots, \beta X_n) = \beta \, \widehat{\lambda}_n (X_1, \dots, X_n), \quad \beta > 0.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, we let $\widehat{k}_n = \widehat{k}_n (X_1, \dots, X_n)$ be a consistent, scale invariant estimator of $k$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{k}_n (\beta X_1, \beta X_2, \dots, \beta X_n) = \widehat{k}_n (X_1, \dots, X_n), \quad \beta > 0.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we assume that the limit $(\widehat{k}_n, \widehat{\lambda}_n) \stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow} (k, \lambda) \in (0,\infty)^2$ exists regardless of the underlying distribution of $X$. Here, $\stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}$ denotes convergence in probability. Notice that any statistic based on $Y_{n,1}, \dots, Y_{n,n}$ and $\widehat{k}_n$ is scale invariant. Observing that $\widehat{\lambda}_n(Y_{n,1}, \dots, Y_{n,n}) = 1$ and that, under $H_0$, $Y_{n,1}$ approximately follows a $\Gamma(k,1)$-law for some $k \in (0,\infty)$, we propose the Cramér-von Mises type test statistic $$\begin{aligned}
\label{teststatistic}
G_{n} = \int_{0}^{\infty} \Lambda^2_n(t) \, w(t) \, \mathrm{d}t,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_n (t) = \sqrt{n} \left[ \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{n} \left( - \frac{\widehat{k}_n - 1}{Y_{n,j}} + 1 \right) \min \{ Y_{n,j}, t \} - \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{n} \mathds{1} \{ Y_{n,j} \leq t \} \right],\end{aligned}$$ for $t > 0$, and $w : (0, \infty) \to (0, \infty)$ is a continuous weight function satisfying $$\label{prerequ weight fct}
\int_0^{\infty} (t^2 + 1) \, w(t) \, \mathrm{d}t < \infty .$$ A test based on $G_n$ rejects $H_0$ for large values of the statistic.\
Special focus will be given to the weight function $w_a(t) = e^{- at}$, where $a > 0$ is some tuning parameter. The appealing feature of this weight function is that $G_{n, a}=\int_{0}^{\infty} \Lambda^2_n(t) \, w_a(t) \, \mathrm{d}t,$ has a closed form expression. Namely, putting $B_{\widehat{k}_n}\left( Y_{j:n} \right) = - \frac{\widehat{k}_n - 1}{Y_{j:n}} + 1$ , where $Y_{1:n} \leq \dotsc \leq Y_{n:n}$ are the order statistics of $Y_{n,1},\ldots,Y_{n,n}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{computational form}
G_{n, a}
= \, & \frac{2}{n} \sum\limits_{1\leq j < \ell \leq n} \left\{ \frac{e^{- a Y_{\ell:n}}}{a} \big( Y_{j:n} - \widehat{k}_n \big) \left[ - \frac{1}{a} \, B_{\widehat{k}_n}\left( Y_{\ell:n} \right) - 1 \right]\right. \nonumber \\
& ~~~~~~+ \frac{2}{a^3} \, B_{\widehat{k}_n}\left( Y_{j:n} \right) \, B_{\widehat{k}_n}\left( Y_{\ell:n} \right) \nonumber \\
& ~~~~~~+ \left. \frac{e^{- a Y_{j:n}}}{a} B_{\widehat{k}_n}\left( Y_{\ell:n} \right) \left[ \frac{1}{a} \, (\widehat{k}_n - 2 - Y_{j:n}) - \frac{2}{a^2} \, B_{\widehat{k}_n}\left( Y_{j:n} \right) - Y_{j:n} \right] \right\} \nonumber \\
& + \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n} \left\{ \frac{e^{- a Y_{j:n}}}{a} \left[ 2 \widehat{k}_n - 1 - 2 Y_{j:n} + \big(B_{\widehat{k}_n}\left( Y_{j:n} \right)\big)^2 \, \left( - \frac{2}{a} \, Y_{j:n} - \frac{2}{a^2} \right) \right] \right. \nonumber \\
& ~~~~~~+ \left. \frac{2}{a^3} \, \big(B_{\widehat{k}_n}\left( Y_{j:n} \right)\big)^2 \right\}\end{aligned}$$ by plain integral calculations.
It is interesting to see that, when restricted to the class of exponential distributions $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\mathcal{E}} = \big\{ \mathrm{Exp}(\lambda) = \Gamma(1, \lambda) \, \big| \, \lambda > 0 \big\} ,\end{aligned}$$ our statistic $G_{n,a}$ reduces to the one proposed in [@BH:2000] (see also [@BH:2008]). Arguing that $X$ has an exponential distribution if, and only if, the mean residual life function is constant, that is $${\mathbb{E}}\big[ X - t \, \big| \, X > t \big]
= {\mathbb{E}}X, \quad \text{for each } t > 0,$$ which is equivalent to $$\label{mean res life}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ \min \{ X, t \} \big]
= F(t) \, {\mathbb{E}}X, \quad \text{for each } t > 0,$$ the authors of [@BH:2000] proposed the statistic $$n \int_0^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n} \min \{ U_k, t \} - \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{n} \mathds{1}\{ U_k \leq t \} \right)^2 e^{-a t} \, \mathrm{d}t, \quad a > 0,$$ with $U_k = X_k / \overline{X}_n$, $k = 1, \dots, n$, and $\overline{X}_n = n^{-1} \sum_{k=1}^{n} X_k$. The resulting test is consistent against general alternatives (cf. [@BH:2000]) and has already been included in the extensive simulation study [@ASSV:2017] delivering a remarkable performance in terms of the tests power. We also want to emphasize that our Theorem \[thm fixed point statement\] is a vast generalization of the characterization (\[mean res life\]).\
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we will apply the central limit theorem in Hilbert spaces to determine the limit distribution of $G_n$ under the hypothesis $H_0$. We will further use these results in Section \[contiguous alternatives\] to study the behaviour of our statistic under a sequence of contiguous alternatives that converge to a fixed Gamma distribution at rate $n^{-1/2}$. In Section \[consistency\], we establish the consistency of our test based on $G_n$ against general alternatives. Section \[empirical\] is devoted to the details of the implementation with special focus on the bootstrap technique and the maximum likelihood estimators. Additionally, we compare our new procedure to different classical and modern tests of fit in a finite-sample Monte Carlo power study.
The limit null distribution {#limit null}
===========================
As a framework for asymptotic results, we let $L^2 = L^2 \big( (0, \infty), \mathcal{B}_{>0}, w(t) \, \mathrm{d}t \big)$ be the Hilbert space of measurable, square integrable functions $f: (0,\infty) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ and regard $\Lambda_n$ as a random element of $L^2$. In this setting, $G_n = {\left\lVert \Lambda_n \right\rVert}_{L^2}^2$, where $${\left\lVert f \right\rVert}_{L^2}^2 = \int_0^{\infty} f^2(t) \, w(t) \, \mathrm{d}t$$ is the $L^2$-norm. We will use the notation $\stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow}$ for the convergence in distribution of both random variables and random elements of $L^2$. For the remainder of this section, we assume that $H_0$ holds, i.e. $X \sim \Gamma(k,\lambda)$ for some $(k, \lambda) \in (0, \infty)^2$. By the scale invariance of $G_n$, the null distribution of $G_n$ does not depend on the underlying second parameter $\lambda$, so we assume $\lambda = 1$. In view of the bootstrap procedure used to obtain critical values for $G_n$, we consider a triangular array $X_{n,1}, \dots, X_{n,n}$, $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, of (rowwise) independent and identically distributed random variables with $$\begin{aligned}
X_{n,1} \sim \Gamma(k_n, 1), \quad k_n \in (0, \infty) \quad \text{and} \quad \lim\limits_{n \, \to \, \infty} k_n = k .\end{aligned}$$ We let $\widehat{k}_n$ be a scale invariant, consistent estimator of $k$, having an expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expansion k}
\sqrt{n} \big( \widehat{k}_n - k_n \big)
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{n} \Psi_1(X_{n,j}, k_n) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1),\end{aligned}$$ where $o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)$ denotes convergence to $0$ in probability, as $n \to \infty$. The function $\Psi_1$ is measurable and satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{regularity1 k}
{\mathbb{E}}[ \Psi_1 (X_{n,1}, k_n) ] = 0, ~~~ {\mathbb{E}}[ \Psi_1^2(X_{n,1}, k_n) ] < \infty\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{regularity2 k}
\lim\limits_{n \, \to \, \infty} {\mathbb{E}}[ \Psi_1^2(X_{n,1}, k_n) ]
= {\mathbb{E}}[ \Psi_1^2(X, k) ] .\end{aligned}$$ Note that when implementing the bootstrap, we set $k_n = \widehat{k}_n(\omega)$ for the same element $\omega$ of the underlying probability space that generates the values $X_{n,1}(\omega), \ldots, X_{n,n}(\omega)$. Similarly, we assume that $\widehat{\lambda}_n$ is a scale equivariant, consistent estimator of $\lambda$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{expansion lambda}
\sqrt{n} \big( \widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} - 1 \big)
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{n} \Psi_2(X_{n,j}, k_n) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)\end{aligned}$$ and require (\[regularity1 k\]) and (\[regularity2 k\]) to hold for $\Psi_2$ also. Under these assumptions, we obtain the following asymptotic result.
\[thm H\_0 distr\] For the test statistic defined in (\[teststatistic\]) we have $$\begin{aligned}
G_n = {\left\lVert \Lambda_n \right\rVert}_{L^2}^2 \stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow} {\left\lVert \mathcal{W} \right\rVert}_{L^2}^2 \quad \text{as } n \to \infty.
\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\mathcal{W}$ is a centred Gaussian element of $L^2$ with covariance kernel $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{K}_k (s,t) = & ~ k(1 + k) P(s, k+2) - 2 k P(s, k+1) + k^2 P(s, k) \\
& + st \, {\mathbb{E}}\big[ \big( (k - 1)^2 X^{-2} - (k - 1) X^{-1} \big) \, \mathds{1} \{ X > t \} \big] \\
& + s k \big( P(t, k+1) - P(s, k+1) \big) + s(1 - k) \big( P(t,k) - P(s,k) \big) \\
& + s k \big( p(t,k) - p(s,k) \big) + st \, p(t,k) \\
& + {\mathbb{E}}\big[ R_k^X (s) \, r_k^X (t) \big] + {\mathbb{E}}\big[ R_k^X (t) \, r_k^X (s) \big] + {\mathbb{E}}\big[ r_k^X (s) \, r_k^X (t) \big],
\end{aligned}$$ where $0 < s \leq t < \infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
R_k^X (t) &= (X - k) \, \mathds{1}\{ X \leq t \} + t \, \big( -(k - 1) X^{-1} + 1 \big) \, \mathds{1}\{ X > t \}, \\
r_k^X (t) &= \Psi_1(X, k) \Big( P(t,k) + t \, {\mathbb{E}}\big[ X^{-1} \, \mathds{1}\{ X > t \} \big] \Big) \\
& ~~~- \Psi_2(X, k) \Big( k P(t, k+1) + t \big( 1 - P(t,k) \big) \Big).
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $p(\cdot, k) = p(\cdot, k, 1)$ and $P(\cdot, k)$ denote the density and distribution function of the $\Gamma(k,1)$-law, respectively.
We define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{V_n element L^2 for change of var}
V_n (s) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{n} \big( - (\widehat{k}_n - 1) X_{n,j}^{-1} + \widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} \big) \min \{ X_{n,j}, s \} - \mathds{1} \{ X_{n,j} \leq s \},
\end{aligned}$$ and observe that a simple change of variable yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{representation G}
G_n
= \widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} \int_0^{\infty} V^2_n (s) \, w\big(\widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} s \big) \, \mathrm{d}s
= {\left\lVert V_n \right\rVert}_{L^2}^2 + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) .
\end{aligned}$$ Here, the second equality holds since $\widehat{\lambda}_n \to 1$ in probability, as $n \to \infty$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{evade parameter in weight fct}
\left| \int_0^{\infty} V^2_n (s) \, w(s) \, \mathrm{d}s - \int_0^{\infty} V^2_n (s) \, w\big(\widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} s \big) \, \mathrm{d}s \right|
&\leq \sup\limits_{s \, > \, 0} \left| 1 - \frac{w\big( \widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} s \big)}{w(s)} \right| {\left\lVert V_n \right\rVert}_{L^2}^2 \nonumber \\
&\stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow} 0,
\end{aligned}$$ provided that $V_n \in L^2$ is bounded in probability. Indeed, we will show that $V_n$ converges in distribution to the Gaussian element stated in the theorem. To this end, we notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{V}_n (s)
= & ~ \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n} \big( -(k_n - 1) X_{n,j}^{-1} + 1\big) \min \{ X_{n,j}, s \} - \mathds{1} \{ X_{n,j} \leq s \} \\
& ~ + \sqrt{n} (k_n - \widehat{k}_n) \, {\mathbb{E}}\big[ X^{-1} \min \{ X, s \} \big]
+ \sqrt{n} (\widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} - 1) \, {\mathbb{E}}\big[ \min \{ X, s \} \big]
\end{aligned}$$ satisfies $\lVert V_n - \widetilde{V}_n \rVert_{L^2}^2 = o_{\mathbb{P}}(1),$ since both $\sqrt{n} (k_n - \widehat{k}_n)$ and $\sqrt{n} (\widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} - 1)$ are bounded in probability and, using (\[prerequ weight fct\]) together with Fubini’s theorem and $X_{n,1} \stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow} X$, we have $${\left\lVert \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{n} X_{n,j}^{-1} \min \{ X_{n,j}, \cdot \} - {\mathbb{E}}\big[ X^{-1} \min \{ X, \cdot \} \big] \right\rVert}_{L^2}^2 = o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)$$ and $${\left\lVert \frac{1}{n} \sum_{j=1}^{n} \min \{ X_{n,j}, \cdot \} - {\mathbb{E}}\big[ \min \{ X, \cdot \} \big] \right\rVert}_{L^2}^2
= o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) .$$ From (\[expansion k\]) and (\[expansion lambda\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left\lVert \widetilde{V}_n - \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n} W_{n,j} \right\rVert_{L^2}^2 = o_{\mathbb{P}}(1),
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
W_{n,j} (s)
&= \left( - (k_n - 1) X_{n,j}^{-1} + 1 \right) \min \{ X_{n,j}, s \} - \mathds{1} \{ X_{n,j} \leq s \} \\
& ~~~~+ \Psi_1(X_{n,j}, k_n) \, {\mathbb{E}}\big[ X^{-1} \min \{ X, s \} \big] + \Psi_2(X_{n,j}, k_n) \, {\mathbb{E}}\big[ \min \{ X, s \} \big],
\end{aligned}$$ $j = 1, \dots, n$, are i.i.d. random elements of $L^2$. Since $${\mathbb{E}}\big[ \big( -(k_n - 1) X_{n,1}^{-1} + 1\big) \min \{ X_{n,1}, s \} \big] = \mathbb{P} \big( X_{n,1} \leq s \big)$$ by Theorem \[thm fixed point statement\] and ${\mathbb{E}}[\Psi_1(X_{n,1}, k_n)] = {\mathbb{E}}[\Psi_2(X_{n,1}, k_n)] = 0$ by assumption, we have ${\mathbb{E}}W_{n,1} = 0$. Consequently, by the central limit theorem for Hilbert spaces as stated, for instance, in [@CW:1998], there exists a centred Gaussian random element $\mathcal{W}$ of $L^2$ with $V_n \stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{W}$. Since the assumptions on $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$ entail $$\mathcal{K}_k (s,t) = \lim_{n \, \to \, \infty} {\mathbb{E}}[W_{n,1}(s) \, W_{n,1}(t)], \quad s \leq t,$$ (\[representation G\]) and (\[evade parameter in weight fct\]), combined with Slutsky’s Lemma and the continuous mapping theorem, imply the claim.
The distribution of ${\left\lVert \mathcal{W} \right\rVert}_{L^2}^2$ is known to be that of $\sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \kappa_j N_j^2$, where $N_1, N_2, \dotso$ are independent, standard Gaussian random variables and $\kappa_1, \kappa_2, \dotso$ are the non-zero eigenvalues of the integral operator $$L^2 \longrightarrow L^2, \quad f \longmapsto \int_0^{\infty} \mathcal{K}_k (\cdot, t) \, f(t) \, w(t) \, \mathrm{d}t .$$ We can neither hope to calculate the eigenvalues of this operator explicitly nor do we know the limiting parameter $k$ in practice. Thus, we cannot use asymptotic critical values to implement our test but are forced to operate a parametric bootstrap procedure. With a proof similar to that presented in [@Hen:1996], Theorem \[thm H\_0 distr\] guarantees that in this endeavour, a given level of significance is attained in the limit, as the sample size and the number of bootstrap replications go to infinity.
To justify the conditions on the estimators, we will specify them for the maximum likelihood and moments estimators. Since, in the former case, the estimators solve the log-likelihood equations for $k$ and $\lambda$, we have $$\label{likelihood equation k}
\log(\widehat{k}_n) - \psi(\widehat{k}_n) = \log(\overline{X}_n) - \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n} \log(X_{n,j}),$$ with the Digamma function $\psi(k_n) = \Gamma^{\prime}(k_n) / \Gamma(k_n)$, and $$\label{likelihood equation lambda}
\widehat{\lambda}_n = \frac{\overline{X}_n}{\widehat{k}_n},$$ where $\overline{X}_n = n^{-1} \sum_{j = 1}^{n} X_{n,j}$ denotes the sample mean. Noticing that (\[likelihood equation k\]) may be written as $$\log(\widehat{k}_n) - \psi(\widehat{k}_n) - \log (k_n) + \psi(k_n)
= \log(\overline{X}_n) - \log(k_n) + \psi(k_n) - \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n} \log(X_{n,j}) ,$$ Taylor expansions of the left-hand side and the first two logarithmic terms on the right-hand side yield $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{1}{k_n} - \psi^{\prime}(k_n) \right) \sqrt{n} \big( \widehat{k}_n - k_n \big)
&= \sqrt{n} \left( \psi(k_n) - \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n} \log(X_{n,j}) \right) \\
& ~~~+ \frac{1}{k_n} \sqrt{n} \big( \overline{X}_n - k_n \big) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) .
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, (\[expansion k\]) holds with $$\Psi_1(X_{n,j}, k_n) = \big( 1 - k \psi^{\prime}(k) \big)^{-1} \Big\{ X_{n,j} - k_n + k \big( \psi(k_n) - \log(X_{n,j}) \big) \Big\} .$$ Next, we rewrite (\[likelihood equation k\]) as $$\log \big(\widehat{k}_n\big) - \psi\big(\widehat{k}_n\big) - \log \big( \overline{X}_n \big) + \psi\big( \overline{X}_n \big)
= \psi\big( \overline{X}_n \big) - \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n} \log \big(X_{n,j}\big) ,$$ and, with another pair of Taylor expansions, we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{1}{\overline{X}_n} - \psi^{\prime}\big( \overline{X}_n \big) \right) \sqrt{n} \big( \widehat{k}_n - \overline{X}_n \big)
&= \sqrt{n} \left( \psi(k_n) - \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{n} \log(X_{n,j}) \right) \\
& ~~~+ \sqrt{n} \Big( \psi^{\prime}(k_n) \big( \overline{X}_n - k_n \big) \Big) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) .
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, (\[likelihood equation lambda\]) provides $$\sqrt{n} \big( \widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} - 1 \big)
= \overline{X}_n^{-1} \big( \widehat{k}_n - \overline{X}_n \big)$$ and, using that $\overline{X}_n \to k$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.s., (\[expansion lambda\]) holds with $$\Psi_2 (X_{n,j}, k_n) = \big( 1 - k \psi^{\prime}(k) \big)^{-1} \Big\{ \psi^{\prime}(k) (X_{n,j} - k_n) + \psi(k_n) - \log(X_{n,j}) \Big\} .$$ Now, we can further specify the covariance operator figuring in Theorem \[thm H\_0 distr\]. For the maximum likelihood estimators we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ r_k^X(s) \, r_k^X(t) \big]
&= \big( 1 - k \psi^{\prime}(k) \big)^{-1} \Big( -k e_1(s) e_1(t) - \psi^{\prime}(k) e_2(s)e_2(t) \\
& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\,~~~~~~~~+ e_1(s)e_2(t) + e_1(t)e_2(s) \Big) ,
\end{aligned}$$ where we set $$e_1(t) = P(t,k) + t \, {\mathbb{E}}\big[ X^{-1} \, \mathds{1}\{ X > t \} \big] \quad \text{and} \quad
e_2(t) = k P(t, k+1) + t \big( 1 - P(t,k) \big) .$$ Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\big( 1 - k \psi^{\prime}(k) \big) \, {\mathbb{E}}\big[ R_k^X(s) \, r_k^X(t) \big] \\
& ~~~~= \big( e_1(t) - \psi^{\prime}(k) e_2(t) \big) \Big\{ k(1 + k) P(s, k+2) - 2 k P(s, k+1) + k^2 P(s, k) \Big\} \\
& ~~~~~~+ \big( k e_1(t) - e_2(t) \big) \Big\{ k \psi(k) \big( P(s, k+1) - P(s,k) \big) \\
& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- {\mathbb{E}}\big[ \log(X) (X - k) \, \mathds{1}\{ X \leq s \} \big] \Big\} \\
& ~~~~~~+ s \big( e_1(t) - \psi^{\prime}(k) e_2(t) \big) \Big\{ 1 - k P(s, k+1) + (k - 1) P(s,k) - k p(s,k) \Big\} \\
& ~~~~~~+ s \big( k e_1(t) - e_2(t) \big) \Big\{ \psi(k) p(s,k) \\
& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- {\mathbb{E}}\big[ \big( - (k - 1)X^{-1} + 1 \big) \log(X) \, \mathds{1}\{ X > s \} \big] \Big\} .
\end{aligned}$$ If moment estimation is employed, the estimators take the form $$\widehat{k}_n = \frac{(\overline{X}_n)^2}{S_n^2} \quad \text{and} \quad
\widehat{\lambda}_n = \frac{S_n^2}{\overline{X}_n} ,$$ where $S_n^2 = n^{-1} \sum_{j=1}^{n} (X_{n,j} - \overline{X}_n)^2$ is the sample variance. We rewrite the first relation as $$\label{starting equation moment estima}
\log(\widehat{k}_n) = 2 \log(\overline{X}_n) - \log(S_n^2)$$ and realize that Taylor expansions yield $$\begin{aligned}
\sqrt{n} \big(\log(\widehat{k}_n) - \log(k_n) \big)
&= \sqrt{n} \Big( 2 \log(\overline{X}_n) - 2 \log(k_n) - \big( \log(S_n^2) - \log(k_n) \big) \Big) \\
&= 2 k_n^{-1} \sqrt{n} (\overline{X}_n - k_n) - k_n^{-1} \sqrt{n} (S_n^2 - k_n) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) .
\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\sqrt{n} \big( S_n^2 - k_n \big)
= \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{n} \big[ (X_{n,j} - k_n)^2 - k_n \big] + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1) ,$$ we verify with yet another Taylor expansion that (\[expansion k\]) holds with $$\Psi_1(X_{n,j}, k_n) = 2 X_{n,j} - k_n - (X_{n,j} - k_n)^2 .$$ In a similar manner, we derive $$\sqrt{n} \big( \log(\widehat{k}_n) - \log(\overline{X}_n) \big)
= k_n^{-1} \, \sqrt{n} (\overline{X}_n - k_n) - k_n^{-1} \, \sqrt{n} (S_n^2 - k_n) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1)$$ from (\[starting equation moment estima\]) and, via $$\sqrt{n} \big( \widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} - 1 \big)
= \overline{X}_n^{-1} \sqrt{n}\big( \widehat{k}_n - \overline{X}_n \big),$$ establish that (\[expansion lambda\]) is satisfied putting $$\Psi_2(X_{n,j}, k_n) = \frac{1}{k} \Big\{ X_{n,j} - (X_{n,j} - k_n)^2 \Big\} .$$ For the corresponding terms in the covariance operator from Theorem \[thm H\_0 distr\], we calculate $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\big[ r_k^X(s) \, r_k^X(t) \big]
&= 2k(1 + k) \, e_1(s) e_2(t) - 2(1 + k) \big( e_1(s) e_2(t) + e_1(t) e_2(s) \big) \\
& ~~~+ k^{-1} (3 + 2k) \, e_2(s) e_2(t)
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{E}}\big[ R_k^X(s) \, r_k^X(t) \big] \\
&~~= \left( 2 e_1(t) - k^{-1} e_2(t) \right) \big\{ k(1 + k) P(s, k+2) - k^2 P(s, k+1) \big\} \\
& ~~~~+ \left( k^{-1} e_2(t) - e_1(t) \right) \big\{ k(k+1)(k+2) P(s, k+3) - 3k^2 (1 + k) P(s, k+2) \\
& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ 3k^3 P(s, k + 1) - k^3 P(s,k) \big\} \\
& ~~~~- k^2 e_1(t) \big( P(s, k+1) - P(s,k) \big) - k s \, e_1(t) p(s,k) \\
& ~~~~+ \left( k^{-1} e_2(t) - e_1(t) \right) s \big\{ k(1 + k) (1 - P(s, k+2)) + 2k(k - 1) (1 - P(s,k)) \\
& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\,~~~~~+ k(1 - 3k) (1 - P(s, k+1)) + k^2 p(s,k) \big\} \\
& ~~~~+ \left( 2 e_1(t) - k^{-1} e_2(t) \right) s \big\{ k (1 - P(s, k+1)) + (1 - k) (1 - P(s,k)) \big\} .
\end{aligned}$$ Summarizing, we have validated the asymptotic expansions listed in Remark 2.2 of [@HME:2012] for both types of estimators.
The behaviour under contiguous alternatives {#contiguous alternatives}
===========================================
In contrast to the setting under the null hypothesis, where we had to study the asymptotic properties of our statistic under a triangular array to account for the bootstrap procedure that is run to obtain critical values, we will now look at a triangular array of (rowwise) i.i.d. random variables $Z_{n,1}, \dots, Z_{n,n}$, $n \in {\mathbb{N}}$, with Lebesgue density $$q_n (x) = p_0(x) \left( 1 + \tfrac{c(x)}{\sqrt{n}} \right), \quad x \in (0, \infty).$$ Here, $p_0$ denotes the density function of a fixed $H_0$-distribution, that is, with the scale invariance of our statistic in mind, the density function of the $\Gamma(k, 1)$-law for some arbitrary, but fixed, $k > 0$. The function $c : (0, \infty) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is measurable and bounded, and it satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{0}^{\infty} c(x) \, p_0(x) \, \mathrm{d}x = 0 .\end{aligned}$$ Additionally, we assume $n$ to be large enough to ensure $q_n \geq 0$. In what follows, we examine $$\mu_n = \bigotimes\limits_{j=1}^{n} (p_0 \, \mathcal{L}^1) \quad \text{and} \quad
\nu_n = \bigotimes\limits_{j=1}^{n} (q_n \, \mathcal{L}^1),$$ which are measures on $(0, \infty)^n$ endowed with the Borel-$\sigma$-field $\mathcal{B}_{>0}^n$.
The sequence of measures $\{ \nu_n \}_{n \, \in \, \mathbb{N}}$ is contiguous to $\{ \mu_n \}_{n \, \in \, \mathbb{N}}$.
By the absolute continuity of $\nu_n$ with respect to $\mu_n$, the Radon-Nikodym derivative $L_n = \frac{\mathrm{d}\nu_n}{\mathrm{d}\mu_n}$ exists and a Taylor expansion (using the boundedness of $c$) gives $$\begin{aligned}
\log \big( L_n (X_{n,1}, \dots, X_{n,n}) \big)
= \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n} \left( \frac{c(X_{n,j})}{\sqrt{n}} - \frac{c^2(X_{n,j})}{2n} \right) + o_{\mathbb{P}}(1),
\end{aligned}$$ whenever $(X_{n,1}, \dots, X_{n,n}) \stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{=} \mu_n$. Writing $$\tau^2 = \int_0^{\infty} c^2(x) \, p_0(x) \, \mathrm{d}x,$$ the Lindeberg-Feller central limit theorem and Slutsky’s Lemma imply $$\log \big( L_n \big) \xlongrightarrow{\mathcal{D}}
\mathcal{N} \left( - \frac{\tau^2}{2}, \tau^2 \right) \quad\mbox{under}\,\mu_n.$$ By LeCam’s first Lemma (cf. [@HSS:1999], p.253, Corollary 1) we are done.
We will now use the statements from Section \[limit null\] and fundamental results for contiguous measures to derive the (non-degenerate) limit distribution of our statistic under the sequence of contiguous alternatives of the form given above. From this result we conclude that a test based on $G_n$ is able to detect these alternatives. To our knowledge, this setting has not yet been examined in the context of goodness-of-fit tests for Gamma distributions, however, the standard reasoning for this type of contiguous alternatives (see, for instance, [@HW:1997] or [@BE:2018]) works well.
Under the triangular array $\big(Z_{n,1}, \dots, Z_{n,n}\big) \stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{=} \nu_n$ we have $$G_n \stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow}
\lVert \mathcal{W} + \zeta \rVert_{L^2}^2 \quad \text{as } n \to \infty,$$ where $\zeta(\cdot) = \int_0^{\infty} \eta(x, \cdot) \, c(x) \, p_0(x) \, \mathrm{d}x \in L^2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\eta(x,s) = & \left( - (k - 1) x^{-1} + 1 \right) \min \{ x, s \} - \mathds{1} \{ x \leq s \} \\
& + \Psi_1(x, k) \, {\mathbb{E}}\left[ X^{-1} \min \{ X, s \} \right] + \Psi_2(x, k) \, {\mathbb{E}}\big[ \min \{ X, s \} \big] ,
\end{aligned}$$ with $X \sim \Gamma(k,1)$, and $\mathcal{W}$ is the centred Gaussian element of $L^2$ that arose in the proof of Theorem \[thm H\_0 distr\].
When interpreting $V_n$ from (\[V\_n element L\^2 for change of var\]) as a random element $$\big((0, \infty)^n, \, \mathcal{B}_{>0}^n, \, \mu_n \big) \to \big((0, \infty), \, \mathcal{B}_{>0} \big) ,$$ we have seen in the proof of Theorem \[thm H\_0 distr\] (cf. (\[representation G\])) that $$\label{G_n is L^2 norm of V_n + asymp neglig term}
G_n = \lVert V_n \rVert_{L^2}^2 + o_{\mu_n}(1) .$$ Further, we have already established that $$\lVert V_n - \mathcal{W}_n^* \rVert_{L^2}^2 = o_{\mu_n}(1),$$ where $\mathcal{W}_n^*(s) = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \sum_{j=1}^{n} W_{n,j}^*(s)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
W_{n,j}^* (s)
= & ~ \left( - (k - 1) X_{n,j}^{-1} + 1 \right) \min \{ X_{n,j}, s \} - \mathds{1} \{ X_{n,j} \leq s \} \\
& ~ + \Psi_1(X_{n,j}, k) \, {\mathbb{E}}\left[ X^{-1} \min \{ X, s \} \right] + \Psi_2(X_{n,j}, k) \, {\mathbb{E}}\big[ \min \{ X, s \} \big],
\end{aligned}$$ with $(X_{n,1}, \dots, X_{n,n}) \stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{=} \mu_n$. Thus, by contiguity, $$\label{asymp equiv under nu_n}
\lVert V_n - \mathcal{W}_n^* \rVert_{L^2}^2 = o_{\nu_n}(1) .$$ Using the boundedness of $c$ and assumption (\[regularity1 k\]) on $\Psi_1$ and $\Psi_2$, we get, still under $\mu_n$, $$\lim\limits_{n \, \to \, \infty} \mathrm{Cov} \left( W_{n,1}^*(s), \, c(X_{n,1}) - \tfrac{1}{2\sqrt{n}} \cdot c^2(X_{n,1}) \right)
= \zeta(s) .$$ Now, for fixed $\ell \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we let $v \in {\mathbb{R}}^\ell$ and $s_1, \dots, s_\ell \in (0, \infty)$. Putting $\Sigma = \big( \mathcal{K}_k(s_i, s_j) \big)_{1 \leq i,j \leq \ell}$, where $\mathcal{K}_k$ is the covariance kernel of $\mathcal{W}$ figuring in Theorem \[thm H\_0 distr\], and letting $\zeta_{\ell} = \big( \zeta(s_1), \dots, \zeta(s_{\ell}) \big)^\top$, the multivariate Lindeberg-Feller central limit theorem implies $$\left(\begin{array}{c} v_1 \, \mathcal{W}_n^*(s_1) + \dots + v_\ell \, \mathcal{W}_n^*(s_\ell) \\ \log (L_n) \end{array}\right)
\xlongrightarrow{\mathcal{D}_{\mu_n}}
\mathcal{N}_{2} \left(
\left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ - \tfrac{\tau^2}{2} \end{array}\right),
\left(\begin{array}{rr} v^\top \Sigma v \, & \, v^\top \zeta_\ell \\
\zeta_\ell^\top v & \tau^2 \end{array}\right)
\right).$$ Here, $\mathcal{N}_2$ denotes a bivariate normal distribution determined by its vector of expectations and its covariance matrix. LeCam’s third Lemma (see eg. [@HSS:1999], p.259, Lemma 2) yields the convergence of the finite-dimensional distributions of $\mathcal{W}_n^*$ to those of $\mathcal{W} + \zeta$ under $\nu_n$. As $\{\mathcal{W}_n^*\}_{n \in {\mathbb{N}}}$ is tight under $\mu_n$ and, thus, also under $\nu_n$, we have $$\mathcal{W}_n^* \xlongrightarrow{\mathcal{D}_{\nu_n}}
\mathcal{W} + \zeta.$$ In combination with (\[G\_n is L\^2 norm of V\_n + asymp neglig term\]) and (\[asymp equiv under nu\_n\]) (and the contiguity) this finishes the proof.
Consistency
===========
In this section, we let $X$ be a non-negative, non-degenerate random variable with ${\mathbb{E}}|X| < \infty$, and $X_1, X_2, \dotso$ are i.i.d. copies of $X$. We assume that the estimators $\widehat{k}_n$, $\widehat{\lambda}_n$ are scale invariant and scale equivariant, respectively, as in Section \[Intro\]. Furthermore, there exists $(k, \lambda) \in (0,\infty)^2$ so that $$(\widehat{k}_n, \widehat{\lambda}_n) \stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow} (k, \lambda) \quad \text{as } n \to \infty .$$ In view of the scale invariance of $G_n$, we assume $\lambda = 1$.
\[thm consistency\] As $n \to \infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{G_{n}}{n} \stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}
\int_0^{\infty} \Big( {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left( - (k - 1) X^{-1} + 1 \right) \min \{ X, t \} \right] - \mathbb{P}\big( X \leq t \big) \Big)^2 w(t) \, \mathrm{d}t .
\end{aligned}$$
By a change of variable, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{G_{n}}{n}
= \widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} \int_0^{\infty} V^{* 2}_n(s) \, w\big(\widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} s\big) \, \mathrm{d}s,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
V^*_n(s)
= \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n} \big( - (\widehat{k}_n - 1) X_j^{-1} + \widehat{\lambda}_n^{-1} \big) \min \{ X_j, s \} - \mathds{1} \{ X_j \leq s \} .
\end{aligned}$$ Next, standard Glivenko-Cantelli arguments ensure both $$\sup\limits_{s \, > \, 0} \left| \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n} X_j^{-1} \min\{ X_j, s \} - {\mathbb{E}}\big[ X^{-1} \min\{ X, s \} \big] \right|
\longrightarrow 0 \quad \mathbb{P}\text{-a.s.}$$ and $$\sup\limits_{s \, > \, 0} \left| \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{j=1}^{n} \min\{ X_j, s \} - {\mathbb{E}}\big[ \min\{ X, s \} \big] \right|
\longrightarrow 0 \quad \mathbb{P}\text{-a.s. }$$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, since all functions involved are continuous and increasing, and the deterministic functions have compact ranges. Thus, an argument similar to (\[evade parameter in weight fct\]), the assumption $(\widehat{k}_n, \widehat{\lambda}_n) \stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow} (k, 1)$ and the Glivenko-Cantelli theorem give $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{G_n}{n} \stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}
\int_0^{\infty} \Big( {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \big( - (k - 1) X^{-1} + 1 \big) \min \{ X, s \} \right] - \mathbb{P} \big( X \leq s \big) \Big)^2 w(s) \, \mathrm{d}s
\end{aligned}$$ as $n \to \infty$. Another change of variable yields the claim.
Note that Theorem \[thm fixed point statement\] implies that the limit figuring in Theorem \[thm consistency\] is positive if $X$ has a non-Gamma distribution. Hence, a test based on $G_n$ is consistent against each alternative with existing expectation and the further assumption discussed in the following remark. From the proof it is evident that, if $(\widehat{k}_n, \widehat{\lambda}_n)$ converges to $(k, \lambda)$ almost surely, we also have almost sure convergence in the theorem.\
\
From (\[likelihood equation k\]) we deduce that, if maximum likelihood estimation is employed, we have $\widehat{k}_n \to k$ $\mathbb{P}$-a.s. where $k$ is the solution of $$\label{theoretical likelihood eq k}
\log (k) - \psi (k) = \log ({\mathbb{E}}X) - {\mathbb{E}}[\log (X)] .$$ Under the further assumption ${\mathbb{E}}|\log (X)| < \infty$ we can assure that $$0 < \log ({\mathbb{E}}X) - {\mathbb{E}}[\log (X)] < \infty$$ since $X$ is non-degenerate. We define $h(x) = \log(x) - \psi(x)$, for $x > 0$. From $$- \frac{1}{2 x} - \frac{1}{x^2}
< \psi(x) - \log(x)
< - \frac{1}{2 x},
\quad x > 0,$$ (cf. 6.3.21 in [@AS:1965]), we derive $$\frac{1}{2 x}
< h(x)
< \frac{1}{2 x} + \frac{1}{x^2},
\quad x > 0.$$ Together with the continuity and monotonicity of $h$ this gives a unique solution $0 < k < \infty$ of (\[theoretical likelihood eq k\]). Additionally, $\widehat{\lambda}_n = \widehat{k}_n^{-1} \, \overline{X}_n \to \lambda = k^{-1} \, {\mathbb{E}}X \in (0, \infty)$ which shows that Theorem \[thm consistency\] is valid for the maximum likelihood estimators. Note that the consistency of our test holds without requiring the existence of the second moment (as e.g. the test in [@HME:2012]).\
If, instead, moment estimation is employed, we need the condition on the second moment to assure the applicability of Theorem \[thm consistency\] since $$\widehat{k}_n \longrightarrow \frac{({\mathbb{E}}X)^2}{\mathbb{V}(X)} \quad \text{and} \quad \widehat{\lambda}_n \longrightarrow \frac{\mathbb{V}(X)}{{\mathbb{E}}X} .$$
Monte Carlo Simulation {#empirical}
======================
The finite-sample power performance of our test based on $G_{n,a}$ from (\[computational form\]) is compared to several competitors by means of a Monte Carlo simulation study. All simulations were performed using the statistical computing environment [R]{}, see [@Rstat:2018]. The simulation study was conducted at a $5\%$ nominal level with each entry in Table \[Tab.n20\] and \[Tab.n50\] representing the percentage of empirical rejection rates based on $10~000$ replications. Since the limit null distribution depends on the shape parameter $k$, we used the parametric bootstrap procedure proposed in [@HME:2012], section 3, to obtain critical values. In each Monte Carlo run, we computed the approximate maximum likelihood estimator $\widehat{\lambda}_n=\overline{X}_n/\widehat{k}_n$ as in (\[likelihood equation lambda\]) and $$\widehat{k}_n=\left\{\begin{array}{cc} R_n^{-1}\big(0.500876+0.1648852R_n-0.0544274 R_n^2\big), & 0<R_n\le0.5772,\\[1mm]
R_n^{-1}\big(17.79728+11.968477R_n+R_n^2\big)^{-1}\big(8.898919&\\
+9.059950R_n+0.9775373R_n^2\big), & 0.5772< R_n\le 17,\\[1mm]
1/R_n, & R_n>17,\end{array}\right.$$ where $R_n=\log{\overline{X}_n}-\frac1n\sum_{j=1}^n\log X_j$ is the logarithmic ratio of the arithmetic and geometric mean of $X_1,\ldots,X_n$, see [@JKB:1994] section 7.2 or [@B:2001]. We then generated 500 bootstrap samples from the $\Gamma(\widehat{k}_n,1)$-law and calculated the critical value, as suggested in [@GH:2000], which is given by $$\tilde{c}_B=T^*_{(475)}+0.95\left(T^*_{(476)}-T^*_{(475)}\right).$$ Here, $T^*_{(j)}$ denotes the $j$-th order statistic, $j=1,\ldots,500$, of the bootstrap sample of values of the test statistic $T_1^*,\ldots,T_{500}^*$. This method leads to a more accurate empirical level of the test. In view of the heavy computations due to the bootstrap procedure, we confined the sample sizes to $n=20$ and $n=50$. We didn’t consider moment estimators since we expect the same behaviour of the tests as in [@HME:2012], where problems in adhering the significance level are reported.
We compare our new test with classical procedures based on the empirical distribution function, like the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS), Cramér-von Mises test (CM), the Anderson-Darling test (AD), and the Watson test (WA), see [@delBarrio2000], section 3, and for a description, see section 3 of [@HME:2012]. In addition we implemented the following tests based on the empirical Laplace transform. Writing $$\mathcal{Z}_n(t)=\sqrt{n}\left(\frac{\widehat{k}_n}{n}\sum_{j=1}^n\exp(-tY_j)-\frac{1+t}{n}\sum_{j=1}^nY_j\exp(-tY_j)\right),$$ where $Y_j$ is shorthand for $Y_{n,j}=X_j/\overline{X}_n$, the authors of [@HME:2012] propose, for a tuning parameter $a>0$, the statistics $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(1)}_{n,a} &=& \int_0^\infty \mathcal{Z}^2_n(t)\exp{(-at)} \: \mbox{d}t\\
&=&\frac
{1}{n} \sum_{j,k=1}^n \left[\frac{Y_j Y_k-\widehat
{k}_n(Y_j+Y_k)+\widehat {k}^2_n}{Y_j+Y_k+a}+
\frac{2Y_jY_k-\widehat {k}_n(Y_j+Y_k)}{(Y_j+Y_k+a)^2}\right.\\&&
~~~+\left.\frac{2Y_jY_k}{(Y_j+Y_k+a)^3}\right]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
T^{(2)}_{n,a} & = &\int_0^\infty \mathcal{Z}^2_n(t)\exp{(-at^2)} \: \mbox{d}t\\
&=&\frac{1}{2n} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}}
\sum_{j,k=1}^n\left[Y_jY_k+\widehat
{k}^2_n-\widehat{k}_n(Y_j+Y_k)\right]\varphi_{jk}(a)
\\ & & \
+\ \frac{1}{2n}\frac{1}{2a}
\sum_{j,k=1}^n\left[2Y_jY_k-\widehat{k}_n(Y_j+Y_k)\right]
\left[2-\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}}(Y_j+Y_k)\varphi_{jk}(a)\right] \\ & &
\ +\ \frac{1}{2n}\frac{1}{4a^2} \sum_{j,k=1}^n
Y_jY_k\left[\left \{\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{a}}(Y_j+Y_k)^2+2\sqrt{\pi a}\right\}
\varphi_{jk}(a)-2(Y_j+Y_k)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $$\varphi_{jk}(a)\ = \ \left[1-\Phi \left( \frac{Y_j+Y_k}{2\sqrt{a}}\right)\right] \exp\!
\left(\frac{(Y_j+Y_k)^2}{4a}\right)$$ and $\Phi(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0}^x\exp\left(-t^2\right)\mbox{dt}$ denotes the error function. To obtain critical values the same parametric bootstrap procedure as referenced above has been used. We chose $T^{(1)}_{n,1}$ and $T^{(2)}_{n,4}$ as representatives for the simulation study, since these choices of the tuning parameter $a$ are recommended by the authors.
For easy comparison to the existing simulation study in [@HME:2012], we considered the same alternative distributions and restate them here (each density being defined for $x > 0$):
- [the Weibull distribution $W(\vartheta)$ with density $\vartheta x^{\vartheta -1} \exp(-x^\vartheta)$,]{}
- [the inverse Gaussian law $IG(\vartheta)$ with density $(\vartheta/2\pi)^{1/2} x^{-3/2}\exp[-\vartheta(x-1)^2/2x]$,]{}
- [the lognormal law $LN(\vartheta)$ with density $(\vartheta x)^{-1} (2\pi)^{-1/2} \exp[-(\log x)^2/(2\vartheta^2)]$,]{}
- [the power distribution $PW(\vartheta)$ with density $\vartheta^{-1} x^{(1-\vartheta)/\vartheta}$, $0 < x \le 1$,]{}
- [the shifted-Pareto distribution $SP(\vartheta)$ with density $\vartheta/(1+x)^{1+\vartheta}$,]{}
- [the Gompertz law $GO(\vartheta)$ with distribution function $1-\exp[\vartheta^{-1}(1-e^x)]$,]{}
- [the linear increasing failure rate law $LF(\vartheta)$ with density $(1+\vartheta x)\exp(-x-\vartheta x^2/2)$.]{}
The best performing tests for each distribution and sample size in Tables \[Tab.n20\] and \[Tab.n50\] have been highlighted for easy reference. It is apparent that our tests outperform the classical procedures in most cases (except for the $W(0.5)$, the $PW(4)$ and $SP(1)$ alternatives), although they show a conservative performance under the null hypothesis, i.e. they do not fully exploit the significance level. While $T_{n,1}^{(1)}$ and $T_{n,4}^{(2)}$ have very good power for most alternatives, our new procedures are not too far away or are even better for a reasonable choice of the tuning parameter $a$. When comparing the power of $G_{n,a}$ for the two sample sizes $n=20$ and $n=50$, it seems that a smaller choice of $a$ increases the power, when the tests are among the best procedures, while for some alternatives, e.g. the $LN(1.5)$-law, the performance increases for greater values of $a$.
$G_{n,0.1}$ $G_{n,0.25}$ $G_{n,0.5}$ $G_{n,0.75}$ $G_{n,1}$ $G_{n,1.5}$ $G_{n,2}$ $G_{n,3}$ $T_{n,1}^{(1)}$ $T_{n,4}^{(2)}$ $KS$ $CM$ $AD$ $WA$
---------------- ------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------ ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------------- ----------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
$\Gamma(0.25)$ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 5 5 5 5
$\Gamma(0.5)$ 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5
$\Gamma(1)$ 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
$\Gamma(5)$ 5 6 5 3 3 2 2 3 6 5 5 5 5 5
$\Gamma(10)$ 6 5 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 1 5 5 5 5
$W(0.5)$ 7 8 9 7 9 8 9 8 [**15**]{} [**15**]{} 11 12 12 11
$W(1.5)$ 5 6 7 [**8**]{} [**8**]{} 7 7 5 [**8**]{} [**8**]{} 6 7 7 6
$W(3)$ 15 17 16 13 13 11 12 12 [**18**]{} 9 11 12 13 10
$IG(0.5)$ 35 37 40 41 43 43 42 40 [**44**]{} [**44**]{} 30 37 39 32
$IG(1.5)$ 20 21 21 [**22**]{} 20 17 13 10 20 19 14 16 17 14
$IG(3)$ 13 [**14**]{} 13 10 8 4 3 1 12 9 9 10 11 9
$LN(0.5)$ [**13**]{} [**13**]{} 11 8 6 4 2 1 11 8 9 9 10 8
$LN(0.8)$ 21 [**22**]{} [**22**]{} 21 20 17 15 11 21 [**22**]{} 14 16 17 14
$LN(1.5)$ 37 38 38 39 39 41 41 42 [**46**]{} 43 32 38 39 34
$PW(1)$ 45 [**50**]{} [**50**]{} 49 45 40 34 29 44 42 33 42 47 37
$PW(2)$ 22 25 28 30 [**31**]{} [**31**]{} 29 24 28 27 20 25 28 22
$PW(4)$ 6 7 8 8 10 10 12 10 [**16**]{} 10 11 13 15 12
$SP(1)$ 38 40 43 40 45 43 47 45 [**58**]{} 56 46 52 52 47
$SP(2)$ 26 26 26 27 26 27 26 25 28 [**30**]{} 19 23 23 20
$GO(2)$ 20 25 28 [**29**]{} 28 26 24 20 28 28 18 21 23 18
$GO(4)$ 34 39 [**41**]{} [**41**]{} 39 35 32 28 [**41**]{} 37 25 31 33 26
$LF(2)$ 7 9 12 13 13 13 12 11 [**14**]{} [**14**]{} 9 10 11 9
$LF(4)$ 9 12 15 17 16 16 15 13 [**18**]{} [**18**]{} 11 12 13 10
: Empirical rejection rates for $n=20$, $\alpha=0.05$ ($10~000$ replications)[]{data-label="Tab.n20"}
$G_{n,0.1}$ $G_{n,0.25}$ $G_{n,0.5}$ $G_{n,0.75}$ $G_{n,1}$ $G_{n,1.5}$ $G_{n,2}$ $G_{n,3}$ $T_{n,1}^{(1)}$ $T_{n,4}^{(2)}$ $KS$ $CM$ $AD$ $WA$
---------------- ------------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------ ------------- ----------- ----------- ----------------- ----------------- ------ ------ ------ ------
$\Gamma(0.25)$ 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5
$\Gamma(0.5)$ 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
$\Gamma(1)$ 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5
$\Gamma(5)$ 5 6 5 4 3 3 3 3 5 6 5 5 5 5
$\Gamma(10)$ 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 0 5 5 5 5
$W(0.5)$ 14 17 20 15 22 17 22 17 32 [**33**]{} 21 26 26 21
$W(1.5)$ 9 10 11 [**12**]{} [**12**]{} 11 11 9 [**12**]{} [**12**]{} 8 9 10 8
$W(3)$ 36 [**37**]{} 34 32 30 32 33 33 [**37**]{} 14 19 23 26 18
$IG(0.5)$ 79 81 83 84 85 85 85 83 [**88**]{} 84 66 78 82 70
$IG(1.5)$ 48 49 50 50 48 44 40 34 [**52**]{} 46 30 37 41 30
$IG(3)$ [**29**]{} [**29**]{} 28 25 21 16 14 11 [**29**]{} 14 17 20 22 17
$LN(0.5)$ [**27**]{} 26 22 19 15 11 10 8 24 8 14 17 18 14
$LN(0.8)$ [**49**]{} [**49**]{} 48 47 45 40 36 30 [**49**]{} 45 29 36 38 29
$LN(1.5)$ 78 79 80 80 81 81 81 79 [**86**]{} 82 68 78 80 70
$PW(1)$ [**95**]{} 94 93 90 87 79 72 61 88 86 72 86 92 80
$PW(2)$ 78 [**79**]{} 78 78 75 71 65 53 64 71 48 60 69 53
$PW(4)$ 10 12 17 14 20 16 22 16 40 [**41**]{} 22 28 34 25
$SP(1)$ 71 74 77 73 80 76 81 77 [**93**]{} 92 85 90 90 86
$SP(2)$ 58 58 58 57 57 54 52 48 [**59**]{} [**59**]{} 42 49 50 42
$GO(2)$ 61 63 [**64**]{} 63 61 55 50 42 63 [**64**]{} 42 52 56 42
$GO(4)$ 82 [**83**]{} 82 80 77 72 67 62 82 79 58 71 75 61
$LF(2)$ 22 24 27 27 27 26 24 21 30 [**31**]{} 18 21 22 16
$LF(4)$ 28 30 33 34 34 31 29 25 37 [**38**]{} 21 26 28 20
: Empirical rejection rates for $n=50$, $\alpha=0.05$ ($10~000$ replications)[]{data-label="Tab.n50"}
Conclusions and Outlook {#concl}
=======================
We established a new characterization of the Gamma distribution by introducing a transformation related to a Stein-type identity. This novel relation can be interpreted as a vast generalization of the characterization of the exponential distribution via the mean residual life function. Based on the explicit representation of our transformation, we proposed a new family of universally consistent goodness-of-fit tests for the Gamma distribution, which can be computed efficiently. We derived the asymptotic distribution under the null hypothesis and under a certain type of contiguous alternatives. Applying a parametric bootstrap technique, we included simulations to show that for an appropriate choice of the tuning parameter, the tests are competitive to existing procedures. It would be beneficial for the application of the test to choose an optimal tuning parameter depending on the data, perhaps using the method suggested in [@AS:2015]. An interesting open question is the behaviour of the tests under fixed alternatives: Do we have $$\sqrt{n} \left(\frac{G_{n,a}}{n}-\Delta_{k}\right) \stackrel{\mathcal{D}}{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{N} (0,\sigma_{k}^2) \quad \text{as } n \to \infty,$$ under suitable moment conditions, for some $\sigma_{k}^2>0$. Here, $$\Delta_{k} = \int_0^{\infty} \Big( {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \left( - (k - 1) X^{-1} + 1 \right) \min \{ X, t \} \right] - \mathbb{P}\big( X \leq t \big) \Big)^2 w(t) \, \mathrm{d}t$$ is the constant arising as the limit in Theorem \[thm consistency\]. This result would open ground to equivalence tests and related theory proposed in [@BEH:2017; @BH:2017].
Acknowledgements
================
The authors thank Norbert Henze for fruitful discussions and ingenious comments.
Proof of Theorem \[thm SC\] {#apx}
===========================
Note that if $X \sim \Gamma(k, \lambda)$, $X$ has Lebesgue density $p = p(\cdot, k, \lambda)$, and the fundamental theorem of calculus implies $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\left[ f^{\prime}(X) + \left( \frac{k-1}{X} - \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) f(X) \right]
&= {\mathbb{E}}\left[ f^{\prime}(X) + \frac{p^{\prime}(X)}{p(X)} \, f(X) \right] \\
&= \int_0^{\infty} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x} \Big( f(x) p(x) \Big) \, \mathrm{d}x \\
&= \lim_{x \, \to \, \infty} f(x) p(x) - \lim_{x \, \searrow \, 0} f(x) p(x) \\
&= 0\end{aligned}$$ for any $f \in \mathcal{F}$. For the converse, define $f_t : (0, \infty) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$f_t(x) = \frac{1}{p(x)} \int_0^{x} \Big( \mathds{1}_{(0, t]} (s) - P(t) \Big) p(s) \, \mathrm{d}s,\quad t>0,$$ where $P(t) = \int_0^t p(s) \, \mathrm{d}s$ is the distribution function of the $\Gamma(k, \lambda)$-law. Apparently, $f_t$ is differentiable with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{deriv}
f_t^{\prime}(x)
&= - \frac{p^{\prime}(x)}{p^2(x)} \int_0^{x} \Big( \mathds{1}_{(0, t]} (s) - P(t) \Big) p(s) \, \mathrm{d}s + \frac{1}{p(x)} \Big( \mathds{1}_{(0, t]} (x) - P(t) \Big) p(x) \nonumber \\
&= - \left( \frac{k - 1}{x} + \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) f_t(x) + \mathds{1}_{(0, t]} (x) - P(t)\end{aligned}$$ and, since $\left( (k-1)x^{-1} + \lambda^{-1} \right) f_t(x)$ is continuous for $x>0$ and $\mathds{1}_{(0, t]} - P(t)$ is bounded, $f_t^{\prime}$ is locally integrable. Further, $$\lim_{x \, \to \, \infty} f_t(x) p(x) = \int_0^{\infty} \Big( \mathds{1}_{(0, t]} (s) - P(t) \Big) p(s) \, \mathrm{d}s = P(t) - P(t) = 0 .$$ Noting that, for $x < t$, the function takes the form $$\label{form of f_t if x < t}
f_t(x) = \frac{1}{p(x)} P(x) \big( 1 - P(t) \big) ,$$ we infer $\lim_{x \, \searrow \, 0} f_t(x) p(x) = \lim_{x \, \searrow \, 0} P(x) \big( 1 - P(t) \big) = 0$. Arguing that $$0 \leq \frac{1}{p(x)} \, P(x)
= \int_0^x \left( \frac{s}{x} \right)^{k - 1} e^{\lambda^{-1} (x - s)} \, \mathrm{d}s
= x e^{\lambda^{-1} x} \int_0^1 z^{k - 1} e^{- \lambda^{-1} x z} \, \mathrm{d}z
\leq \frac{x e^{\lambda^{-1} x}}{k},$$ equation (\[form of f\_t if x < t\]) also implies $\lim_{x \searrow \, 0} f_t(x) = 0$ and therefore $f_t \in \mathcal{F}$. Thus, the assumption and (\[deriv\]) yield $$0
= {\mathbb{E}}\left[ f_t^{\prime}(X) + \left( \frac{k-1}{X} - \frac{1}{\lambda} \right) f_t(X) \right]
= \mathbb{P}(X \leq t) - P(t).$$ As $t$ was arbitrary, $X$ follows the $\Gamma(k, \lambda)$-law. $\square$\
\
Since $f_t^{\prime}(x) + \left( (k - 1)^{-1} - \lambda^{-1} \right) f_t(x)$ is bounded for $x > 0$ and the proof depends on $\mathcal{F}$ solely through $f_t$, we can assume that, for any $f \in \mathcal{F}$, the function $$f^{\prime}(x) + \left( (k - 1)x^{-1} - \lambda^{-1} \right) f(x)$$ is integrable with respect to any probability measure and hence the stated expectations exist. We also realize that the requirement $\lim_{x \, \searrow \, 0} f(x) = 0$ for functions in $\mathcal{F}$ was not yet needed. Still, as the last step in the proof of Theorem \[thm fixed point statement\] relies on this assumption, we had to include it in the characterization given in Theorem \[thm SC\].
S. Betsch and B. Ebner, Institute of Stochastics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Englerstr. 2, D-76133 Karlsruhe:\
[`S`[email protected]]{} [`B`[email protected]]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We have considered the $S=1/2$ antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model in two dimensions, with an additional Ising [next-nearest neighbour]{}interaction. Antiferromagnetic [next-nearest neighbour]{}interactions will lead to frustration, and the system responds with flipping the spins down in the $xy$ plane. For large next nearest neighbour coupling the system will order in a striped phase along the $z$ axis, this phase is reached through a first order transition. We have considered two generalizations of this model, one with random [next-nearest neighbour]{}interactions, and one with an enlarged unit cell, where only half of the atoms have [next-nearest neighbour]{} interactions. In both cases the transition is softened to a second order transition separating two ordered states. In the latter case we have estimated the quantum critical exponent $\beta \approx
0.25$. These two cases then represent candidate examples of deconfined quantum criticality.
author:
- 'J. Hove and A. Sudb[ø]{}'
title: Deconfined quantum criticality in the two dimensional Antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model with next nearest neighbour Ising exchange
---
Introduction
============
The groundstate of the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model is macroscopically degenerate. This makes it particularly sensitive to additional interactions, which might induce transitions to different states[@Cuccoli:2003]. In a seminal paper the concept of fractionalized order, was set forth in Ref. [@Senthil:2004]. The generic starting point of this analysis is the two dimensional antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model $$\label{Heisenberg}
H = J\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} \vec{S}_i \cdot \vec{S}_j + \cdots,$$ where the ellipsis represent additional short range interactions, governed by a coupling $g$. For $g = 0$ the groundstate is the antiferromagnetic [Néel]{}state, and by tuning $g$ the system can supposedly be driven through a continuous quantum phase transition to a state with a different type of order. According to the Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson (LGW) paradigm for phase transitions, an order-to-order transition must either be first order, or proceed via an intermediate disordered state. Since the scenario envisaged in Ref. [@Senthil:2004], namely a [*continuous*]{} order-to-order transition, breaks with this paradigm, the term “deconfined criticality” was coined to describe these transitions [@Senthil:2004].
The only microscopic model considered in some detail in the context of deconfined criticality is a dimer model with two spins in the unit cell[@Sachdev:2004:book]. For this particular model the transition between a [Néel]{}state and a spin-gapped paramagnet can be shown analytically, and are also confirmed with QMC calculations[@Matsumoto:2001]. Apart from this dimer model it has been difficult construct microscopic models which give rise to deconfined criticality. Sandvik et.al. have investigated a model with ferromagnetic XY interactions and a four-spin ring exhange[@Sandvik:2002; @Melko:2004], this model has a quantum critical point separating a superfluid and valence bond solid, which might be a microscopic manifestation of deconfined criticality. Another possible way to build a microscopic model which might give rise to deconfined criticality is to include frustration. A natural way to frustrate the Heisenberg model is with a next nearest neighbour (nnn) Heisenberg interaction; this is usually called the $J_1-J_2$ model. The $J_2$ coupling will favor antiparallel spins along next nearest neighbour bonds, this is in conflict with the nearest neighbour exchange. The result is frustration, and a reduction in the antiferromagnetic ordering.
Unfortunately, in this model the geometric frustration gives rise to a sign-problem, and the model is really not amenable to a Monte Carlo based approach. Studies of this model have been based on a reweighting technique[@Nakamura:1993], exact diagonalization[@Schulz:1996] and variational methods[@Capriotti:2001]. The results indicate that [Néel]{}order persists up to $\kappa = J_2 / J_1 \lesssim 0.40$, and that a striped order develops for $\kappa \gtrsim 0.60$. Recent results indicate that the transition at $\kappa \sim 0.40$ is a weak first-order transition[@Sirker:2006].
To avoid the sign problem of the $J_1-J_2$ model, one can study a simplified model where the nnn exchange is only along the $z$-components of the spin, i.e. the model $$\label{Eq:H}
H = J\big(\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} \vec{S_i} \cdot \vec{S_j} +
\kappa \sum_{\langle\langle i,j\rangle\rangle} S_i^{z} S_j^{z}\big).$$
This simplified model captures the effect of frustration, but in contrast to the $J_1 - J_2$ model the isotropy in spin space is explicitly broken by the [next-nearest neighbour]{}interaction. Hence, in particular for small $\kappa$ we expect this to be a much stronger perturbation of the antiferromagnet Heisenberg model than the $J_2$ coupling. Apart from the Heisenberg point at $\kappa = 0$ we expect three different phases as $\kappa$ is varied: For $\kappa < 0$ the system is not frustrated, and the additional [next-nearest neighbour]{}will only serve to increase the antiferromagnetic ordering. Observe however that the [next-nearest neighbour]{}interaction has singled out the $z$ direction in spin space, i.e. the model should be in the universality class of the Ising model and have an ordered state at finite $T$. For $\kappa > 0$ the system will be frustrated, for moderate $\kappa$ we expect that the system will avoid the frustration by flipping the spins down in the $xy$ plane, i.e. we will effectively get an antiferromagnetic $O(2)$ model. For larger values of $\kappa$ the [next-nearest neighbour]{}interaction will dominate, in which case the spins will again point along the $z$ axis, and order in a state with stripe order. The transition from the effective antiferromagnetic $O(2)$ model to the striped state is first order. In Ref. [@Roscilde:2004] an antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model with an additional *anisotropic* [next-nearest neighbour]{}exchange was studied. This work reported Monte Carlo results in the limit of zero transverse nnn interactions; i.e. [Eq. \[Eq:H\]]{}. In addition, a model similar to [Eq. \[Eq:H\]]{} in the terms of hardcore bosons was considered in Refs. [@Hebert:2001; @Schmid:2004]. We have deteremined the phase diagram of [Eq. \[Eq:H\]]{}, essentially reproducing the results of Refs. . In addition, we have considered two generalisations aimed at softening the first order transition to the striped state.
The generalisations of [Eq. \[Eq:H\]]{} we have considered are first a disordered model, where the [next-nearest neighbour]{}bond strength is $\kappa_0 \pm \Delta \kappa$ with equal probability. This is motivated from a theorem [@Aizenman:1989] which states that in two dimensions any amount of bond disorder will be sufficient to soften a first order transition into a second order transition. Secondly, we have studied a model were only half of the sites have [next-nearest neighbour]{}interaction. This model will clearly share many of the qualitative features of the original model, but the effect of the [next-nearest neighbour]{}interactions will be reduced.
QMC Simulations
===============
We have performed Quantum Monte Carlo simulations using the Stochastic Series Expansion (SSE)[@Sandvik:1991; @Sandvik:1997] method. In the SSE method the Hamilton operator is written as a sum of bond operators $$\label{HBond}
H = \sum_{b} \left(H_{d,b} + H_{od,b}\right).$$ The sum in [Eq. \[HBond\]]{} is over all the bonds on the lattice, $H_{d,b}$ is an operator working on bond $b$, which is *diagonal* in the basis chosen to represent the spin space, and $H_{od,b}$ is an off-diagonal operator. For spin models with $z$ axis magnetization as basis, the operator $H_{d,b}$ will be $$\label{Hd}
H_{d,b} = J ~ S_{i(b)}^zS_{j(b)}^z,$$ where $i(b)$ and $j(b)$ are the two sites connected by bond $b$. $H_{od,b}$ is an off-diagonal operator, and in the case of spin models we will have $H_{od,b}$ given by $$\label{Hod}
H_{od,b} = \frac{J}{2} \left( S_{i(b)}^{+}S_{j(b)}^{-} + S_{i(b)}^{-}S_{j(b)}^{+}\right).$$ Observe that for the actual simulations the operators $H_{d,b}$ are scaled and shifted[@Sandvik:1997] to ensure $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SSE:req}
H_{d,b} | \uparrow \downarrow \rangle &= | \uparrow \downarrow \rangle & H_{d,b} | \uparrow \uparrow \rangle &= 0.\end{aligned}$$
The formal expression for the partition function is then expanded, which yields the following representation $$\label{PartSSE}
Z(\beta) = \sum_{\{\alpha\}} \sum_{n} \sum_{\{S_n\}} \frac{\left(-\beta\right)^n}{n!} \left\langle \alpha\left|\prod_{i}^n H_{\sigma_i}\right| \alpha \right\rangle.$$ Here $S_n$ is a sequence of $n$ pairs, each pair consisting of a variable denoting operator type and a bond index, i.e. $$\label{Sn}
S_{n} = \big\{\underbrace{\left(a_1,b_1\right)}_{\sigma_1}, \left(a_2,b_2\right),\ldots \left(a_n,b_n\right) \big\}.$$ The variable $a_i$ in [Eq. \[Sn\]]{} denotes *type* of operator and can be either diagonal or off-diagonal. The SSE method then consists of doing importance sampling in the combined space $\left| \left\{
\alpha \right\} \right \rangle \otimes S_n$. The actual updates are of two different types. The diagonal updates insert or remove a diagonal operator $H_{d,b}$, thereby changing the expansion order $n \to n \pm 1$. The off-diagonal operators change operator types $H_{d,b} \leftrightarrow H_{od,b}$ and flip the corresponding spins, this must be done in a way which ensures periodicity in the $\beta$ direction, i.e. $|\alpha(0)\rangle = |\alpha(n)\rangle$. For the off diagonal updates, the advent of loop updates [@Evertz:1993] has significantly improved the performance of SSE simulations [@Sandvik:1999; @Syljuaasen:2002].
For the ordinary $S=1/2$ Heisenberg model, SSE simulations with operator loop update are particularly simple. In order to include the [next-nearest neighbour]{}interactions, we need to modify the algorithm slightly. In the case of the diagonal updates this merely amounts to including the extra factor $\kappa$ in the weight calculation for the [next-nearest neighbour]{}bonds. Whereas for the operator loop the [next-nearest neighbour]{}interactions have a more profound effect. These interactions are *only* diagonal, i.e. the incoming and outgoing spin states must be equal. Furthermore, the [next-nearest neighbour]{}bonds can only connect antiparallel ($\kappa > 0$) spins. The result of this is that the [next-nearest neighbour]{}bonds “freeze” a substantial part of the spin configuration, and only those spins/operators not directly linked to a [next-nearest neighbour]{}bond are amenable to operator loop update, as illustrated in [Fig. \[Freezing\]]{}. Clearly, this freezing affects the performance of the simulations in a negative way, in particular for intermediate values of $\kappa$.
Observables
-----------
To differentiate between the different types of order in the model, we have studied the structure factor $$\label{Sq}
S({{\bf Q}}) = \frac{1}{N} \left\langle \bigg(\sum_{{{\bf r}}} \langle \alpha | S^z({{\bf r}})| \alpha \rangle e^{i{{\bf Q}} \cdot {{\bf r}}} \bigg)^2\right\rangle,$$ for different values of ${{\bf Q}}$. An estimator of $S({{\bf Q}})$ taking all the intermediate SSE states into account can be found in [@Sandvik:1997]. For the remaining part of the text we will make frequent use of the terms staggered and striped magnetization, these quantities are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Mq}
M^z_{(\pi,\pi)} &= \frac{1}{N}\sqrt{3S(\pi,\pi)}, \\
\label{Mq_striped}
M^z_{(\pi,0)} &= \frac{1}{N}\sqrt{S(\pi , 0 ) + S( 0, \pi )}. \end{aligned}$$ The upper index indicates that the magnetization is evaluated along the $z$ axis, and the lower index is the direction of ${{\bf Q}}$ in the evalution of [Eq. \[Sq\]]{}, i.e. $(\pi,\pi)$ for staggered and $(\pi,0)$ for striped magnetization. The factor of three in [Eq. \[Mq\]]{} is included to account for rotational averaging among the three directions in spin space. When $\kappa$ is finite, isotropy in spin space is explicitly broken. We have nevertheless retained this factor to get continuous formulae around $\kappa = 0$. In addition to the structure factor, we have also measured two other quantities, namely specific heat and superfluid density.
The specific heat is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SSEE}
C_V &= \beta^2 \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \beta^2} \ln Z = \langle n (n-1) \rangle - \langle n \rangle^2.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $n$ refers to the summation variable in [Eq. \[PartSSE\]]{}. This summation is truncated in a stochastic manner and $n$ is thus promoted to a dynamical variable in SSE. We will not exhibit results for $C_V$ explicitly, but have used the anomalies in this quantity to corroborate the phase boundaries shown in [Fig. \[Fig:PhaseD\]]{} (with the exception of the line separating the superfluid phase from the disordered phase, see comments on this below).
The estimator for the superfluid density ($O(2)$ ordering) is given by [@Sandvik:1997] $$\label{rhos:estimator}
\rho_S = \frac{3}{4\beta N}\left(\langle \left(N_x^+ - N_x^-\right)^2 \rangle + \langle \left(N_y^+ - N_y^-\right)^2 \rangle \right),$$ where $N_{\mu}^+/N_{\mu}^-$ is the number of $S^+_iS^-_j$ and $S^-_iS^+_j$ operators applied along bonds in the $\mu$ direction.
Results
=======
As mentioned previously, the model in the form of [Eq. \[Eq:H\]]{} has already been studied in Ref. [@Roscilde:2004]. As a benchmark of our QMC methods, we started with this model to reproduce the results of Ref. [@Roscilde:2004]. [Figs. \[Mxy\] and \[MxMy\]]{} shows the staggered and striped magnetization along the $z$ axis, as a function of $\kappa$.
From these two figures we conclude the following. (1) For negative $\kappa$ the magnetization along the $z$ axis is enhanced; this is expected since the $\kappa < 0$ system is not frustrated. (2) For $\kappa \gtrsim 0$ the magnetization is immediately tilted away from the $z$ axis, leaving zero magnetization along the $z$ axis. (3) For large $\kappa$ the magnetization again orders along the $z$ axis, in this case in a striped formation. The transition to the striped phase is a first order transition, the discontinuous jumps in $M^z(\pi,0)$ in [Fig. \[MxMy\]]{} indicate this, and it is also confirmed by a more detailed analysis of histograms of e.g. the striped order parameter[@Roscilde:2004] or number of [next-nearest neighbour]{} bond operators. Hence, for this case the order-to-order transition depicted in [Fig. \[MxMy\]]{} (a transition from superfluid order, equivalently $O(2)$ order, to stripe order) falls within the standard Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson paradigm of phase transitions.
For $\kappa < 0$ and $\kappa > 0$ the ordered state breaks a discrete symmetry, and the order persists for finite $T$. In the intermediate regime, $0 < \kappa \lesssim 1.205$ the remaining model is an antiferromagnetic $2DXY$ model with a continuous $O(2)$ symmetry. According to the Mermin Wagner theorem this symmetry can not be spontaneously broken at finite $T$. However, there is finite spin stiffness and topological order up to a temperature $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$ where the order vanishes in a *Berezinski-Kosterlitz-Thouless* transition. The boundary of this region has been (approximately) located by equating $\rho_S(T)$ with $2T/\pi$. All in all we have found the phase diagram presented in [Fig. \[Fig:PhaseD\]]{} for [Eq. \[Eq:H\]]{}.
Disordered system {#DisorderB}
-----------------
The effect of disorder on phase transitions is a much studied topic. In the case of continuous transitions, the Harris criterion [@Harris:1974; @Chayes:1986] states that disorder will change the universality class of the transition, i.e. be relevant, if the exponents of the pure system satisfy $\nu < 2/d$. In the case of first order transitions, disorder can soften the transition into a continuous transition, in the case of two dimensions any amount of disorder is sufficient [@Aizenman:1989], whereas a finite amount is needed in three dimensions. These predictions have been confirmed for the Potts model in both two and three dimension[@Chen:1995; @Chatelain:2005]. We have, however, not found tests of these predictions for a first order *quantum* phase transition. We have investigated what happens with the first order quantum phase transition at $\kappa \approx 1.205$ when disorder is included in the model. Along each bond is $\kappa$ is given by $$\label{kappaDisordered}
\kappa = \kappa_0 \pm \Delta \kappa,$$ with equal probability. We have focused on the striped order parameter $M^z(\pi,0)$ in the vicinity of $\kappa \approx 1.205$, in order to compare with [Fig. \[MxMy\]]{}. In the disordered system we must perform both ordinary thermodynamic averaging and subsequently disorder averaging. In e.g. [Fig. \[Disorder:MxMy\]]{} the plotted quantity is given by
$$\label{MxMy:D}
\overline{M^{z}(\pi,0)} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i = 1}^N M^{z}_i(\pi,0),$$
where $M^z_i(\pi,0)$ is the striped magnetization in disorder realization $i$, calculated according to [Eq. \[Mq\_striped\]]{}, and $N$ is the total number of disorder realizations. The number of disorder realizations has typically been $N = 100$.
[Fig. \[Disorder:MxMy\]]{} shows the disorder averaged striped magnetization as a function of $\kappa_0$ for $\Delta \kappa = 0.05$. The strongly discontinuous features of $M^z(\pi,0)$ from [Fig. \[MxMy\]]{} are washed out when disorder is introduced. From this, we conclude that the transition changes order when disorder is introduced. The location of the critical point coincides with the original transition point of the uniform system. We have not varied $\Delta \kappa$ systematically, our results (not shown) indicate that the system is not very sensitive to $\Delta \kappa$ variations.
The low-$\kappa$ region in [Fig. \[Disorder:MxMy\]]{} is an $O(2)$ ordered state. The large-$\kappa$ region is an Ising-ordered state with an additional stripe order. [*Hence, this quantum phase transition is a transition from an ordered state to another ordered state, and since it is continuous, it represents a candidate example of so-called deconfined quantum criticality.*]{}
AB system
---------
For large $\kappa$ the Ising [next-nearest neighbour]{}interaction in [Eq. \[Eq:H\]]{} is a very strong interaction. In an attempt to soften the transition to the high $\kappa$ state into a continuous transition we have devised a model consisting of two “atom” types A and B, where the Ising [next-nearest neighbour]{}interaction is only between the $A$ atoms, the scenario is illustrated in [Fig. \[ABLattice\]]{}.
This model has many of the same qualitative properties as the original model, in particular small values of $\kappa$ will frustrate the system and tilt the magnetization down in the $xy$ plane. For large $\kappa$ the A atoms will form an antiferromagnetically ordered state, with AF magnetization along the $z$ axis. In this state the A and B sites will decouple, and the B sites will be disordered with no net contribution to the energy of the system. As an order parameter for this transition we have considered the staggered magnetization along the $z$ axis, for the $A$ sites, i.e. $$\label{Eq:MAB}
M^{z}_{(\pi/2,\pi/2)} = \frac{1}{N}\sqrt{S_{\mathrm{A}}(\pi/2,\pi/2)},$$ where the sum is only over $A$ sites. Because the sum is limited to the $A$ sites, full polarization corresponds to $M^z = 0.25$. [Fig. \[MAB\]]{} shows the staggered magnetization among the $A$ sites as a function of $\kappa$.
Comparing with the striped magnetization of the uniform model, [Fig. \[MxMy\]]{}, we see that the critical coupling $\kappa_c \approx
1.705$ of the AB system is much larger than for the uniform system. This is reasonable, since the [next-nearest neighbour]{}interaction only operates on half of the sites. Furthermore, [Fig. \[MAB\]]{} shows that the transition to the ordered state is much *smoother* than in the uniform model, hence the figure indicates that the transition is continuous. The continuous nature of the transition is also confirmed by considering the number distribution of e.g. [next-nearest neighbour]{}operators at critical point. This quantity is unimodal, whereas for the uniform model it is strongly bimodal, reminiscent of a first order transition. From this, we conclude that the AB-model deformation of the Hamiltonian in [Eq. \[Eq:H\]]{} suffices to promote quantum deconfined criticality. Stripe order is lost by removing every second next-nearest neighbor coupling, but an order-to-order quantum phase transition nevertheless remains. Namely, the transition is that from an $O(2)$ (superfluid) ordered state at low and intermediate values of $\kappa$ to a $Z_2$ (Ising) ordered state at high values of $\kappa$. [*Since the transition is second order, it represents a second candidate example of deconfined quantum criticality.*]{}
We have not made attempts at completely determining the critical exponents at the transition. However a fit of $M^z$ from the $L=32$ system to the functional form $$\label{MAB:Fit}
M^{z}_{(\pi/2,\pi/2)} \propto | \kappa - \kappa_c |^{\beta}$$ with $\kappa_c = 1.705$ gave good results, with a critical exponent $\beta \approx 0.25$. The fit is shown as a solid line in [Fig. \[MAB\]]{}.
Conclusion
==========
We have studied varieties of the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model in two dimensions with additional [next-nearest neighbour]{}Ising exchange. This model has a strong first order transition at $\kappa_c \approx 1.205$. We have studied two generalisations of the model, one based on disordered [next-nearest neighbour]{}couplings, and another where only half the sites are endowed with [next-nearest neighbour]{}interaction. Both the generalised models feature continuous quantum phase transitions from one ordered state to another ordered state. [*As such, these two cases represent candidate examples of deconfined quantum criticality.*]{} Frustrated interactions is an essential part of the models we have considered, and as such they are distinct from the model already considered by Sandvik et.al. [@Sandvik:2002; @Melko:2004], where (possible) deconfined criticality is brought about by ring-exchange.
Acknowledgement
===============
This work was supported in part by the Research Council of Norway through Grants No. 157798/432 and 158547/431 (NANOMAT) and 167498/V30(STORFORSK). Bergen Center for Computational Science (BCCS) is acknowledged for computing time.
[23]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ** (, ), chap. .
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we introduce a contact pseudo-metric structure on a tangent sphere bundle $T_\varepsilon M$. we prove that the tangent sphere bundle $T_{\varepsilon}M$ is $(\kappa, \mu)$-contact pseudo-metric manifold if and only if the manifold $M$ is of constant sectional curvature. Also, we prove that this structure on the tangent sphere bundle is $K$-contact iff the base manifold has constant curvature $\varepsilon$.'
address:
- |
Department of Pure Mathematics,\
Faculty of Mathematical Sciences,\
University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.
- |
Department of Pure Mathematics,\
Faculty of Mathematical Sciences,\
University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.
author:
- Narges Ghaffarzadeh
- Morteza Faghfouri
date: 'January 1, 2004'
title: 'On tangent sphere bundles with contact pseudo-metric structures'
---
Introduction
============
In 1956, S. Sasaki [@sasaki:bundle] introduced a Riemannian metric on tangent bundle $TM$ and tangent sphere bundle $T_1M$ over a Riemannian manifold $M$. Thereafter, that metric was called the Sasaki metric. In 1962, Dombrowski [@Dombrowski] also showed at each $Z\in TM,\, TM_Z=HTM_Z\oplus VTM_Z$, where $HTM_Z$ and $VTM_Z$ orthogonal subspaces of dimension $n$, called horizontal and vertical distributions, respectively. He defined an almost Kählerian structure on $TM$ and proved that it is Kählerian manifold if $M$ is flat. In the same year, Tachibana and Okumura [@tachibana:bundlecomplex] showed that the tangent bundle space $TM$ of any non-flat Riemannian space $M$ always admits an almost Kählerian structure, which is not Kählerian. Tashiro [@Tashiro:contactbundle] introduced a contact metric structure on the unit tangent sphere bundle $T_1M$ and prove that contact metric structure on $T_1M$ is $K$-contact iff $M$ has constant curvature 1, in which case the structure is Sasakian.
Kowalski [@Kowalski] computed the curvature tensor of Sasaki metric. Thus, on $T_1M,\, R(X,Y)\xi$ can be computed by the formulas for the curvature of $TM$.
In [@Blair:Contactmetricmanifoldssatisfyingnullitycondition], Blair et al. introduced $(\kappa,\mu)$-contact Riemannian manifolds and proved that, The tangent sphere bundle $T_{1}M$ is a $(\kappa, \mu)$-contact Riemannian manifold iff the base manifold $M$ is of constant sectional curvature $c$.
Takahashi [@Takahashi:SasakianManifoldWithPseud] introduced contact pseudo-metric structures. Recently, contact pseudo-metric manifolds have been studied by Calvaruso and Perrone [@Calvaruso.Perrone:ContactPseudoMtricManifolds; @Perrone:CurvatureKcontact] and authors of this paper [@GhaffarzadehFaghfouri] introduce and study $(\kappa, \mu)$-contact pseudo-metric manifolds.
In this paper, we suppose that $(M,g)$ is pseudo-metric manifold and define pseudo-metric on $TM$. Also, we introduce contact pseudo-metric structures $(\varphi,\xi,\eta,g_{cm})$ on $T_\varepsilon M$ and prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{R}(X,Y)\xi=c(4\varepsilon-(c+2))\{\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y\}-2\varepsilon c\{\eta(Y)hX-\eta(X)hY\}\end{aligned}$$ if and only if the base manifold $M$ is of constant sectional curvature. That is, the tangent sphere bundle $T_{\varepsilon}M$ is a $(\kappa, \mu)$-contact pseudo-metric manifold iff the base manifold $M$ is of constant sectional curvature. Also, The contact pseudo-metric structure $(\varphi,\xi,\eta,g_{cm})$ on $T_{\varepsilon}M$ is $K$-contact if and only if the base manifold $(M,g)$ has constant curvature $\varepsilon$.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $(M,g)$ be a pseudo-metric manifold and ${\nabla}$ the associated Levi-Civita connection and $R=[{\nabla},{\nabla}]-{\nabla}_{[,]}$ the curvature tensor. The tangent bundle of $M$, denoted by $TM$, consists of pairs $(x,u)$, where $x\in M$ and $u\in T_xM$,( i.e. $TM=\cup_{x\in M}T_xM$). The mapping $\pi:TM\to M, \pi(x, u)=x$ is the natural projection.\
The tangent space $T_{(x,u)}TM$ splits into the vertical subspace $VTM_{(x,u)}$ is given by $VTM_{(x,u)}:=\ker\pi_{*}\vert_{(x,u)}$ and the horizontal subspace $HTM_{(x,u)}$ with respect to ${\nabla}$: $$T_{(x,u)}TM=VTM_{(x,u)}\oplus HTM_{(x,u)}.$$ For every $X\in T_{x}M$, there is a unique vector $X^{h}\in HTM_{(x,u)}$, such that $\pi_{*}(X^{h})=X$. It is called the horizontal lift of $X$ to $(x,u)$. Also, there is a unique vector $X^{v}\in VTM_{(x,u)}$, such that $X^{v}(df)=Xf$ for all $f\in C^\infty(M)$. $X^{v}$ is called the vertical lift of $X$ to $(x,u)$. The maps $X\mapsto X^{h}$ between $T_{x}M$ and $HTM_{(x,u)}$, and $X\mapsto X^{v}$ between $T_{x}M$ and $VTM_{(x,u)}$ are isomorphisms. Hence, every tangent vector $\bar{Z}\in T_{(x,u)}TM$ can be decomposed $\bar{Z}=X^{h}+Y^{v}$ for uniquely determined vectors $X,Y\in T_{x}M$. The horizontal ( respectively, vertical) lift of a vector field $X$ on $M$ to $TM$ is the vector field $X^{h}$ (respectively, $X^{v}$ ) on $M$, whose value at the point $(x,u)$ is the horizontal (respectively, vertical) lift of $X_{x}$ to $(x,u)$.\
A system of local coordinate $(x^{1},\ldots,x^{n})$ on an open subset $U$ of $M$ induces on $\pi^{-1}(U)$ of $TM$ a system of local coordinate $(\bar{x}^{1},\ldots,\bar{x}^{n};u^{1},\ldots,u^{n})$ as follows: $\bar{x}^{i}(x,u)=(x^{i}\circ\pi)(x,u)=x^{i}(x), u^{i}(x,u)=dx^{i}(u)=ux^{i}$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$ and $(x,u)\in\pi^{-1}(U)$. With respect to the induced local coordinate system, the horizontal and vertical lifts of a vector field $X= X^{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}$ on $U$ are given by $$\begin{gathered}
X^{h}= (X^{i}\circ\pi)\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar{x}^{i}}-u^{b}((X^{a}\Gamma^{i}_{ab})\circ\pi)\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{i}},\label{0000}\\
X^{v}=(X^{i}\circ\pi)\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{i}},\label{0001}\end{gathered}$$ where $\Gamma^{i}_{jk}$ are the local components of ${\nabla}$, i.e., ${\nabla}_{\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{j}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{k}}=\Gamma^{i}_{jk}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}$. The span of the horizontal lifts at $t\in TM$ is called the horizontal subspace of $T_{t}TM$. For all $t\in TM$, the connection map $\mathcal{K}:TTM\to TM$ is given by $\mathcal{K}X_t^{h}=0 $ and $ \mathcal{K}X_{t}^{v}=X_{\pi(t)}$ [@Dombrowski].
From (\[0000\]) and (\[0001\]), one can easily calculate the brackets of vertical and horizontal lifts: $$\begin{gathered}
[X^{h},Y^{h}]=[X,Y]^{h}-v\{R(X,Y)u\},\label{0002}\\
[X^{h},Y^{v}]=({\nabla}_{X}Y)^{v},\label{0003}\\
[X^{v},Y^{v}]=0,\label{0004}\end{gathered}$$ for all $X,Y\in\Gamma(TM)$. We use some notation, due to M. Sekizawa ([@Sekizawa]). Let $T$ be a tensor field of type $(1,s)$ on $M$ and $X_{1},\ldots,X_{s-1}\in\Gamma(TM)$, the vertical vector field $v\{T(X_{1},\ldots,u,\ldots,X_{s-1})\}$ on $\pi^{-1}(U)$ is given by $$v\{T(X_{1},\ldots,u,\ldots,X_{s-1})\}:= u^{a}(T(X_{1},\ldots,\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{a}},\ldots,X_{s-1}))^{v}.$$ Analogously, one defines the horizontal vector field $h\{T(X_{1},\ldots,u,\ldots,X_{s-1})\}$ and $h\{T(X_{1},\ldots,u,\ldots,u,\ldots,X_{s-2})\}$ and the vertical vector field $v\{T(X_{1},\ldots$ $,u,\ldots,u,\ldots,X_{s-2})\}$. Note that these vector fields do not depend on the choice of coordinates on $U$. Let $(M,g)$ be a pseudo-metric manifold. On the tangent bundle $TM$, we can define a pseudo-metric $Tg$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0005}
Tg(X^{h},Y^{h})=Tg(X^{v},Y^{v})=g(X,Y)\circ\pi,\quad Tg(X^{h},Y^{v})=0\end{aligned}$$ for all $X,Y\in\Gamma(TM)$. We call it Sasaki pseudo-metric. Let $\tilde{{\nabla}}$ be the Levi-Civita connection of $Tg$. It is easy to check that for $X,Y\in\Gamma(TM)$ and $(x,u)\in TM$(see [@Kowalski] for more details): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0006}
\begin{split}
(\tilde{{\nabla}}_{X^{v}} Y^{v})&=0,\\
(\tilde{{\nabla}}_{X^{v}} Y^{h})&=\frac{1}{2}h\{R(u,X)Y\},\\
(\tilde{{\nabla}}_{X^{h}} Y^{v})&=({{\nabla}}_{X} Y)^{v}+\frac{1}{2}h\{R(u,Y)X\},\\
(\tilde{{\nabla}}_{X^{h}} Y^{h})&=({{\nabla}}_{X} Y)^{h}-\frac{1}{2}v\{R(X,Y)u\}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
The curvature of the unit tangent sphere bundle with pseudo-metric
==================================================================
Let $(TM,Tg)$ be the tangent bundle of $(M,g)$ endowed with its Sasaki pseudo-metric. We consider the hypersurface $T_{\varepsilon}M=\{(x,u)\in TM| g_{x}(u,u)=\varepsilon\}$, which we call the unit tangent sphere bundle. A unit normal vector field $N$ on $T_{x}M$ is the (vertical) vector field $N= u^{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{i}}=u^{i}(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}})^{v}$. $N$ is independent of the choice of local coordinates and it is defined globally on $TM$. We introduce some more notation. If $X\in T_{x}M$, we define the tangential lift of $X$ to $(x,u)\in T_{\varepsilon}M$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0007}
X^{t}_{(x,u)}=X^{v}_{(x,u)}-\varepsilon g(X,u)N_{(x,u)}.\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, the tangent space to $T_{\varepsilon}M$ at $(x,u)$ is then spanned by vectors of the form $X^{h}$ and $X^{t}$, where $X\in T_{x}M$. Note that $u^{t}_{(x,u)}=0$. The tangential lift of a vector field $X$ on $M$ to $T_{\varepsilon}M$ is the vertical vector field $X^{t}$ on $T_{\varepsilon}M$, whose value at the point $(x,u)\in T_{\varepsilon}M$ is the tangential lift of $X_{x}$ to $(x,u)$. For a tensor field $T$ of type $(1,s)$ on $M$ and $X_{1},\ldots,X_{s-1}\in\Gamma(TM)$, we define the vertical vector fields $t\{T(X_{1},\ldots,u,\ldots,X_{s-1})\}$ and $t\{T(X_{1},\ldots,u,\ldots,u,\ldots,X_{s-2})\}$ on $T_{\varepsilon}M$ in the obvious way.\
In what follows, we will give explicit expressions for the brackets of vector fields on $T_{\varepsilon}M$ involving tangential lifts, the Levi-Civita connection and the associated curvature tensor of the induced metric $\bar{g}$ on $T_{\varepsilon}M$.\
First, for the brackets of vector fields on $T_{\varepsilon}M$ involving tangential lifts, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
[X^{h},Y^{t}]=({\nabla}_{X}Y)^{t},\label{0008}\\
[X^{t},Y^{t}]=\varepsilon g(X,u)Y^{t}-\varepsilon g(Y,u)X^{t}.\label{0009}\end{gathered}$$ Next, we denote by $\bar{g}$ the pseudo-metric induced on $T_{\varepsilon}M$ from $Tg$ on $TM$.
The Levi-Civita connection $\bar{{\nabla}}$ of $(T_{\varepsilon}M,\bar{g})$ is described completely by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0010}
\begin{split}
\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{t}} Y^{t}&=-\varepsilon g(Y,u)X^{t},\\
\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{t}} Y^{h}&=\frac{1}{2}h\{R(u,X)Y\},\\
\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{h}} Y^{t}&=({{\nabla}}_{X} Y)^{t}+\frac{1}{2}h\{R(u,Y)X\},\\
\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{h}} Y^{h}&=({{\nabla}}_{X} Y)^{h}-\frac{1}{2}t\{R(X,Y)u\}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ for all vector fields $X$ and $Y$ on $M$.
This is obtained by an easy calculation using and the following equation $$\bar{{\nabla}}_{\bar{A}}\bar{B}=\tilde{{\nabla}}_{\bar{A}}\bar{B}-\varepsilon Tg(\bar{{\nabla}}_{\bar{A}}\bar{B},N)N,$$ for vector fields $\bar{A},\bar{B}$ tangent to $T_{\varepsilon}M$.
The curvature tensor $\bar{R}$ of $(T_{\varepsilon}M,\bar{g})$ is described completely by $$\begin{gathered}
\bar{R}(X^{t},Y^{t})Z^{t}=\varepsilon\{-\bar{g}(X^{t},Z^{t})Y^{t}+\bar{g}(Z^{t},Y^{t})X^{t}\},\label{0011}\\
\bar{R}(X^{t},Y^{t})Z^{h}=(R(X,Y)Z)^{h}-\varepsilon\{g(Y,u)h(R(X,u)Z)+g(X,u)h(R(u,Y)Z)\}\nonumber\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\frac{1}{4}h\{[R(u,X),R(u,Y)]Z\},\label{0012}\\
\bar{R}(X^{h},Y^{t})Z^{t}=-\frac{1}{2}(R(Y,Z)X)^{h}+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\{g(Y,u)h(R(u,Z)X)+g(Z,u)h(R(Y,u)X)\}\nonumber\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad-\frac{1}{4}h\{R(u,Y)R(u,Z)X\},\label{0013}\\
\bar{R}(X^{h},Y^{t})Z^{h}=\frac{1}{2}(R(X,Z)Y)^{t}-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}g(Y,u)t\{R(X,Z)u\}\nonumber\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad-\frac{1}{4}t\{R(X,R(u,Y)Z)u\}+\frac{1}{2}h\{({\nabla}_{X}R)(u,Y)Z\},\label{0014}\\
\bar{R}(X^{h},Y^{h})Z^{t}=(R(X,Y)Z)^{t}-\varepsilon g(Z,u)t\{R(X,Y)u\}\nonumber\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\frac{1}{4}t\{R(Y,R(u,Z)X)u-R(X,R(u,Z)Y)u\}\nonumber\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\frac{1}{2}h\{({\nabla}_{X}R)(u,Z)Y-({\nabla}_{Y}R)(u,Z)X\},\label{0015}\\
\bar{R}(X^{h},Y^{h})Z^{h}=(R(X,Y)Z)^{h}+\frac{1}{2}h\{R(u,R(X,Y)u)Z\}\nonumber\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad-\frac{1}{4}h\{R(u,R(Y,Z)u)X-R(u,R(X,Z)u)Y\}\nonumber\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+\frac{1}{2}t\{({\nabla}_{Z}R)(X,Y)u\}\label{0016}\end{gathered}$$ for all vector fields $X,Y$ and $Z$ on $M$.
The proof is made by using the following equation and equation (\[0010\]) for the covariant derivative, (\[0002\]), (\[0008\]) and (\[0009\]) for the brackets are explicitly calculated. $$\bar{R}(\bar{A},\bar{B})\bar{C}=\bar{{\nabla}}_{\bar{A}}\bar{{\nabla}}_{\bar{B}}\bar{C}-\bar{{\nabla}}_{\bar{B}}\bar{{\nabla}}_{\bar{A}}\bar{C}-\bar{{\nabla}}_{[\bar{A},\bar{B}]}\bar{C}.$$
The contact pseudo-metric structure of the unit tangent sphere bundle
=====================================================================
First, we give some basic facts on contact pseudo-metric structures. A pseudo-Riemannian manifold $(M^{2n+1},g)$ has a contact pseudo-metric structure if it admits a vector field $\xi$, a one-form $\eta$ and a $(1,1)$-tensor field $\varphi$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0017}
\begin{split}
&\eta (\xi)= 1,\\
&\varphi^2(X)=-X+\eta(X)\xi,\\
&g(\varphi X,\varphi Y)=g(X,Y)-\varepsilon\eta(X)\eta(Y),\\
&d\eta(X,Y) =g(X,\varphi Y),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\varepsilon=\pm1$ and $X,Y\in\Gamma(TM)$. In this case, $(M,\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ is called a contact pseudo-metric manifold. In particular, the above conditions imply that the characteristic curves, i.e., the integral curves of the characteristic vector field $\xi$, are geodesics.\
If $\xi$ is in addition a Killing vector field with respect to $g$, then the manifold is said to be a $K$-contact (pseudo-metric) manifold. Another characterizing property of such contact pseudo-metric manifolds is the following:\
geodesics which are orthogonal to $\xi$ at one point, always remain orthogonal to $\xi$. This yields a second special class of geodesics, the $\varphi$-geodesics.\
Next, if $(M^{2n+1},\varphi,\xi,\eta,g)$ is a contact pseudo-metric manifold satisfying the additional condition $N_{\varphi}(X,Y)+2d\eta(X,Y)\xi=0$ is said to be Sasakian, where $N_{\varphi}$ is the Nijenhuis torsion tensor of $\varphi$. In particular, one can show that the characteristic vector field $\xi$ is a Killing vector field. Hence, a Sasakian manifold is also a $K$-contact manifold(see [@Calvaruso.Perrone:ContactPseudoMtricManifolds; @Perrone:CurvatureKcontact] for more details). If a contact pseudo-metric manifold satisfying $R(X,Y)\xi= \varepsilon\kappa(\eta(Y )X -\eta(X)Y ) +\varepsilon \mu(\eta(Y )hX -\eta(X)hY )$, we call $(\kappa, \mu)$-contact pseudo-metric manifold, where $(\kappa ,\mu)\in \mathbb{R}^2$(see [@GhaffarzadehFaghfouri] for more details).\
Take now an arbitrary pseudo-metric manifold $(M,g)$. One can easily define an almost complex structure $J$ on $TM$ in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0018}
JX^{h}=X^{v},\quad JX^{v}=-X^{h}\end{aligned}$$ for all vector fields $X$ on $M$. From the definition (\[0005\]) of the pseudo-metric $Tg$ on $TM$, it follows immediately that $(TM,Tg,J)$ is almost Hermitian. Moreover, $J$ defines an almost Kählerian structure. It is a Kähler manifold only when $(M,g)$ is flat[@Dombrowski].\
Next, we consider the unit tangent sphere bundle $(T_{\varepsilon}M,\bar{g})$, which is isometrically embedded as a hypersurface in $(TM,Tg)$ with unit normal field $N$. Using the almost complex structure $J$ on $TM$, we define a unit vector field $\xi'$, a one-form $\eta'$ and a $(1,1)$-tensor field $\varphi'$ on $T_{\varepsilon}M$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0019}
\xi'=-JN,\quad JX=\varphi' X+\eta'(X)N.\end{aligned}$$ In local coordinates, $\xi'$, $\eta'$ and $\varphi'$ are described by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{0020}
\begin{split}
&\xi'=u^{i}(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}})^{h},\\
&\eta'(X^{t})=0,\quad\eta'(X^{h})=\varepsilon g(X,u),\\
&\varphi'(X^{t})=-X^{h}+\varepsilon g(X,u)\xi',\quad\varphi'(X^{h})=X^{t},
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $X,Y\in\Gamma(TM)$. It is easily checked that these tensors satisfy the conditions (\[0017\]) excepts or the last one, where we find $\bar{g}(X,\varphi' Y)=2 d\eta'(X,Y)$. So strictly speaking, $(\varphi',\xi',\eta',\bar{g})$ is not a contact pseudo-metric structure. Of course, the difficulty is easily rectified and $$\eta=\frac{1}{2}\eta',\quad\xi=2\xi',\quad\varphi=\varphi',\quad g_{cm}=\frac{1}{4}\bar{g}$$ is taken as the standard contact pseudo-metric structure on $T_{\varepsilon}M$. In local coordinates, with respect to induce the local coordinates $(x^{i},u^{i})$ on $TM$, the characteristic vector field is given by $$\xi=2u^{i}(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}})^{h},$$ the vector field $u^{i}(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}})^{h}$ is the well-known geodesic flow on $T_{\varepsilon}M$. Before beginning our theorems, we explicitly obtain the covariant derivatives of $\xi$ and $\varphi$. For a horizontal tangent vector field, we may use a horizontal lift again. Then $$\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{h}}\xi=\tilde{{\nabla}}_{X^{h}}\xi=-v\{R(X,u)u\}$$ and hence for any horizontal vector $X^{h}$ at $(x,u)\in T_{\varepsilon}M$, we have $$\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{h}}\xi=-v\{R(X,u)u\}=-t\{R(X,u)u\}.$$ For a vertical vector field $X^{v}$ tangent to $T_{\varepsilon}M$, we have $$\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{v}}\xi=\tilde{{\nabla}}_{X^{v}}\xi=-2\varphi X^{v}-h\{R(X,u)u\}.$$ Since $J(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}})^{h}=(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}})^{v}$, or in terms of tangential lifts of a vector $X$ on $M$, $$\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{t}}\xi=-2\varphi X^{t}-h\{R(X,u)u\}.$$ Comparing with $\bar{{\nabla}}_{X}\xi=-\varepsilon\varphi X-\varphi hX$ on $T_{\varepsilon}M$ for a vertical vector $V$ and a horizontal vector $X$ orthogonal to $\xi$, $hV$ and $hX$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{085}
hV=(2-\varepsilon)V-v\{R(\mathcal{K}V,u)u\}\quad\text{and}\quad hX=-\varepsilon X+h\{R(\pi_{*}X,u)u\}.\end{aligned}$$ Also for any tangent vector fields $X$ and $Y$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(\bar{{\nabla}}_{X}\varphi)Y=&\tilde{{\nabla}}_{X}JY-(\bar{{\nabla}}_{X}\eta')(Y)N+\eta'(Y)AX\\
&-\varepsilon\bar{g}(X,A\varphi Y)N-J(\tilde{{\nabla}}_{X}Y)-\varepsilon\bar{g}(X,AY)\xi'.\end{aligned}$$ We present two computations, one done in each manner.\
As before, for $X,Y$ horizontal vector fields, we suppose that they are horizontal lifts, and we have $$(\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{h}}\varphi)Y^{h}=\frac{1}{2}h\{R(u,X)Y\},$$ where we used the first Bianchi identity.\
For $Y^{v}=Y^{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial u^{i}}$ a vertical vector field tangent to $T_{\varepsilon}M$ and $X^{h}$ a horizontal tangent vector, we have $$(\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{h}}\varphi)Y^{v}=\frac{1}{2}t\{R(X,u)Y\},$$ where we used $$(\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{h}}\eta')(Y^{v})=\varepsilon\bar{g}(Y^{v},\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{h}}\xi')=-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}g(Y,R(X,u)u)=\frac{\varepsilon}{2}Tg(N,(R(X,u)Y)^{v}).$$ Similarly, we obtain $$(\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{v}}\varphi)Y^{h}=t\{R(X,u)Y\}-2\eta(Y^{h})X^{v},$$ $$(\bar{{\nabla}}_{X^{v}}\varphi)Y^{v}=\frac{1}{2}h\{R(X,u)Y\}+2\varepsilon g_{cm}(X,Y)\xi.$$
\[th:R\] Let $(\varphi,\xi,\eta,g_{cm})$ be a contact pseudo-metric structure on the tangent sphere bundle $T_{\varepsilon}M$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{R}
\bar{R}(X,Y)\xi=c(4\varepsilon-(c+2))\{\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y\}-2\varepsilon c\{\eta(Y)hX-\eta(X)hY\}\end{aligned}$$ if and only if the base manifold $M$ is of constant sectional curvature $c$.
Assume that the manifold $M$ is a pseudo-metric manifold of constant curvature $c$. Then from equations (\[0011\]-\[0016\]), for $X,Y$ orthogonal to $\xi$, we have $\bar{R}(X, Y)\xi=0$ and for a vertical vector $V$, we get $\bar{R}(V,\xi)\xi=c^{2}V$ and also, for a horizontal vector $X$ orthogonal to $\xi$, we obtain $\bar{R}(X,\xi)\xi=(4\varepsilon c- 3c^{2})X$. Moreover, from equations (\[085\]), $hV=(2-\varepsilon (1+c))V$ and $hX= \varepsilon (c- 1)X$. Thus for all $X,Y$ on $T_{\varepsilon}M$, the curvature tensor on $T_{\varepsilon}M$ satisfies $$\bar{R}(X,Y)\xi=c(4\varepsilon-(c+2))\{\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y\}-2\varepsilon c\{\eta(Y)hX-\eta(X)hY\}.$$ Conversely, if the contact pseudo-metric structure on $T_{\varepsilon}M$ satisfies the condition $$\bar{R}(X,Y)\xi=\varepsilon\kappa\{\eta(Y)X-\eta(X)Y\}+\varepsilon \mu\{\eta(Y)hX-\eta(X)hY\},$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{086}
\bar{R}(X,\xi)\xi=\varepsilon\kappa X+\varepsilon\mu hX,\end{aligned}$$ for any $X$ orthogonal to $\xi$. Now, for a vector $u$ on $M$, that $g(u,u)=\varepsilon$ define a symmetric operator $\psi_{u}:\langle u\rangle^{\perp}\to \langle u\rangle^{\perp}$ by $\psi_{u}X= R(X, u)u$. By placing the equation (\[085\]) in (\[086\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1}
\bar{R}(V,\xi)\xi=\varepsilon(\kappa+\mu(2-\varepsilon))V-\varepsilon\mu\, v\{\psi_{u}\mathcal{K}V\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Also using equations (\[0011\]-\[0016\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
\bar{R}(V,\xi)\xi=-v(R(R(u,\mathcal{K}V)u,u)u)=v\{\psi^{2}_{u}\mathcal{K}V\}.
\end{aligned}$$ From a comparison of equations and , the operator $\psi_{u}$ satisfies the equation $$\psi^{2}_{u}+\varepsilon\mu \psi_{u}-\varepsilon(\kappa+(2-\varepsilon)\mu)I=0.$$ In a similar way, for a horizontal $X$ orthogonal to $\xi$, $$\bar{R}(X,\xi)\xi=(\varepsilon\kappa-\mu)X+\varepsilon\mu\, h(\psi_{u}\pi_{*}X),$$ and, from equations (\[0011\]-\[0016\]), we get $$\bar{R}(X,\xi)\xi=h(4\psi_{u}\pi_{*}X-3\psi^{2}_{u}\pi_{*}X),$$ giving $$3\psi^{2}_{u}+(\varepsilon\mu-4)\psi_{u}+(\varepsilon\kappa-\mu)I=0.$$ Thus the eigenvalues $a$ of $\psi_{u}$ satisfy the two quadratic equations $$a^{2}+\varepsilon\mu a-(\varepsilon\kappa+(2\varepsilon-1)\mu)=0,\quad a^{2}+\frac{\varepsilon\mu-4}{3}a+\frac{\varepsilon\kappa-\mu}{3}=0.$$ If $\psi_{u}$ had two eigenvalues, these quadratics imply that $\mu=-2\varepsilon$ and $\kappa=3\varepsilon-2$. Because, $$\begin{aligned}
&\varepsilon\mu=\dfrac{\varepsilon\kappa-\mu}{3}, \text{ and } -(\varepsilon\kappa+(2\varepsilon-1)\mu)=\dfrac{\varepsilon\kappa-\mu}{3}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $a^{2}-2a-(3-2\varepsilon-2(2-\varepsilon))=0$ and so $a^{2}-2a+1=(a-1)^{2}=0$. Thus, we have $a=1$. So $a=1$ is now the only root and hence from $\psi_{u}X= R(X, u)u=X$ and $g(u,u)=\varepsilon$, $M$ is of constant curvature $c=\varepsilon$.
We can now rephrase Theorem \[th:R\] as the following result.
The tangent sphere bundle $T_{\varepsilon}M$ is $(\kappa, \mu)$-contact pseudo-metric manifold if and only if the base manifold $M$ is of constant sectional curvature $\varepsilon$ and $\kappa=3\varepsilon-2, \mu=-2\varepsilon$.
We now have the following theorem about the $K$-contact structure.
The contact pseudo-metric structure $(\varphi,\xi,\eta,g_{cm})$ on $T_{\varepsilon}M$ is $K$-contact if and only if the base manifold $(M,g)$ has constant curvature $\varepsilon$.
Using Theorem (3.3) of [@Perrone:CurvatureKcontact], since sectional curvature of all nondegenerate plane sections containing $\xi$ equals $\varepsilon$, therefore $T_{\varepsilon}M$ is $K$-contact and conversely.
And the other hand $T_{\varepsilon}M$ for $\varepsilon=+1$ is Sasakian, but when we put $\varepsilon=-1$, is not Sasakian manifold ( generally for every $X$ and $Y$ on $T_{\varepsilon}M$, we have $\kappa\neq\varepsilon$ and $(\bar{\nabla}_{X}\varphi)Y\neq g_{cm}(X,Y)\xi-\varepsilon\eta(Y)X$ ), so from [@Perrone:CurvatureKcontact] and [@GhaffarzadehFaghfouri], we have following results:
The contact pseudo-metric structure $(\varphi,\xi,\eta,g_{cm})$ on $T_{-1}M$ is not Sasakian.
Let $M$ be an $n$-dimensional pseudo-metric manifold, $n>2$, of constant sectional curvature $c$. The tangent sphere bundle $T_{\varepsilon}M$ has constant $\varphi$-sectional curvature $(-4c(\varepsilon-1)+ c^{2})$ if and only if $c=2\varepsilon\pm\sqrt{4+\varepsilon}$.
[10]{}
, [*Contact metric manifolds satisfying a nullity condition*]{}, Israel J. Math., 91 (1995), pp. 189–214.
, [*Contact pseudo-metric manifolds*]{}, Differential Geometry and its Applications, 28 (2010), pp. 615–634.
, [*On the geometry of the tangent bundle*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math., 210 (1962), pp. 73–88.
, [*On contact pseudo-metric manifolds satisfying a nullity condition*]{}. submited.
, [*Curvature of the induced [R]{}iemannian metric on the tangent bundle of a [R]{}iemannian manifold*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math., 250 (1971), pp. 124–129.
, [*Curvature of [$K$]{}-contact semi-[R]{}iemannian manifolds*]{}, Canad. Math. Bull., 57 (2014), pp. 401–412.
, [*On the differential geometry of tangent bundles of [R]{}iemannian manifolds*]{}, Tohoku Math. J. (2), 10 (1958), pp. 338–354.
, [*Curvatures of tangent bundles with [C]{}heeger-[G]{}romoll metric*]{}, Tokyo J. Math., 14 (1991), pp. 407–417.
, [*On the almost-complex structure of tangent bundles of [R]{}iemannian spaces*]{}, Tohoku Math. J. (2), 14 (1962), pp. 156–161.
, [*Sasakian manifold with pseudo-[R]{}iemannian metric*]{}, Tôhoku Math. J. (2), 21 (1969), pp. 271–290.
, [*On contact structures of tangent sphere bundles*]{}, Tohoku Math. J. (2), 21 (1969), pp. 117–143.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Existing xenon dark matter (DM) direct detection experiments can probe the DM-nucleon interaction of DM with a sub-GeV mass through a search for photon emission from the recoiling xenon atom. We show that LUX’s constraints on sub-GeV DM, which utilise the scintillation (S1) and ionisation (S2) signals, are approximately three orders of magnitude more stringent than previous xenon constraints in this mass range, derived from the XENON10 and XENON100 S2-only searches. The new LUX constraints provide the most stringent direct detection constraints for DM particles with a mass below 0.5 GeV. In addition, the photon emission signal in LUX and its successor LZ maintain the discrimination between background and signal events so that an unambiguous discovery of sub-GeV DM is possible. We show that LZ has the potential to reconstruct the DM mass with $\simeq20\%$ accuracy for particles lighter than 0.5 GeV.'
author:
- Christopher McCabe
bibliography:
- 'low.bib'
title: 'New constraints and discovery potential of sub-GeV dark matter with xenon detectors'
---
Introduction
============
Identifying the nature of dark matter (DM) remains one of the most compelling problems in astroparticle physics. Motivated by the weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) paradigm, DM direct detection experiments have traditionally concentrated on the 5 GeV to 10 TeV mass range. The non-detection of DM in this range has led to significant theoretical efforts focussing on lighter particles. Initially, sub-GeV DM was mainly considered in the context of the 511 keV gamma-ray anomaly observed by INTEGRAL [@Boehm:2003hm; @Boehm:2003bt; @Boehm:2003ha], but more recently, it has been recognised that sub-GeV DM is generic in many other scenarios, e.g. [@Pospelov:2007mp; @Hall:2009bx; @Hochberg:2014dra; @DAgnolo:2015ujb; @Pappadopulo:2016pkp; @DAgnolo:2017dbv].
This theoretical activity has motivated both new direct detection experiments for sub-GeV DM [@Essig:2015cda; @Hochberg:2015fth; @Hochberg:2016ntt; @Derenzo:2016fse; @Hochberg:2016ajh; @Hochberg:2016sqx; @Bunting:2017net; @Guo:2013dt; @Schutz:2016tid; @Knapen:2016cue; @Essig:2016crl], and new searches with existing experiments [@Pospelov:2008jk; @Essig:2011nj; @Essig:2012yx; @An:2014twa; @Lee:2015qva; @Bloch:2016sjj]. The major obstacle faced by low mass searches is that the energy deposited in a detector by sub-GeV DM is small. For instance, the maximum recoil energy imparted by DM (of mass ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}$) to a nucleus (with mass number $A$) in elastic scattering is $E^{\rm{max}}_{\rm{R}}\approx 0.1~\mathrm{keV} \cdot (131/A)\, ({m_{\mathrm{DM}}}/1~\mathrm{GeV})^2$. The nuclear recoil energy threshold of dual-phase xenon detectors $(A_{\rm{Xe}}\simeq131)$ is approximately $1$ keV, implying that they are limited to ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}\gtrsim3$ GeV. The lighter nuclei and lower energy thresholds employed in the CRESST [@Angloher:2015ewa; @Angloher:2015eza], DAMIC [@Aguilar-Arevalo:2016ndq], EDELWEISS [@Hehn:2016nll] and SuperCDMS [@Agnese:2015nto; @Agnese:2016cpb] detectors allow them to probe lower masses, with current exclusion limits reaching down to ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}\simeq 0.5$ GeV. Unfortunately, the push to a lower energy threshold often comes with the loss of good discrimination between background and DM events, limiting their ability to make an unambiguous discovery of sub-GeV DM.
Reference [@Kouvaris:2016afs] demonstrated that existing xenon detectors can probe sub-GeV DM through a new signal channel: a search for the irreducible photon emission from a polarised xenon atom, caused by the displacement of the nucleus and electron charges after the xenon nucleus recoils, and derived constraints from the XENON10 and XENON100 S2-only searches [@Angle:2011th; @Aprile:2016wwo]. In this $\mathrm{DM}+\mathrm{Xe}\to\mathrm{DM}+\mathrm{Xe}+\gamma$ inelastic scattering process with a photon in the final state, the maximum photon energy is $\omega^{\rm{max}}\approx 3~\mathrm{keV} \cdot ({m_{\mathrm{DM}}}/1~\mathrm{GeV})$. In this paper, we show that the LUX dual-phase xenon detector can also probe sub-GeV DM with the more powerful $\mathrm{S1}+\mathrm{S2}$ search, which is sensitive to photon energies $\omega\gtrsim0.3$ keV.[^1] We calculate the parameter space excluded with data from LUX’s two WIMP searches (WS2013 [@Akerib:2015rjg] and WS2014-16 [@Akerib:2016vxi]) and show that the LUX constraints are up to three orders of magnitude more sensitive than the XENON10 and XENON100 S2-only searches considered in Ref. [@Kouvaris:2016afs]. This is because the photon’s energy is large enough to produce detectable scintillation and ionisation charge signals, with the result that events from the fiducial volume, where the background is lower [@Undagoitia:2015gya], can be selected. Moreover, the good discrimination between background and signal events based on the scintillation and ionisation signals is retained. This further reduces the background rate and importantly, allows for an unambiguous detection of DM to be made. We demonstrate this explicitly for LZ [@Akerib:2015cja], where we calculate its sensitivity and show that an experiment under construction has the potential to accurately reconstruct the parameters of sub-GeV DM.
Photon emission scattering rate
===============================
The differential rate for a DM particle to undergo two-to-three scattering with a nucleus of mass ${m_{\mathrm{T}}}$ is $$\frac{d R}{ d \omega}= \frac{\rho_{\mathrm{DM}}}{{m_{\mathrm{T}}}{m_{\mathrm{DM}}}} \int_{v_{\rm{min}}}\!\!\!\! d^3 v v f(\mathbf{v}+\mathbf{v}_{\rm{E}}) \int_{E^-_{\rm{R}}}^{E^+_{\rm{R}}} \!\!\! d E_{\rm{R}} \frac{d^2 \sigma}{d \omega d E_{\rm{R}}},$$ where $\rho_{\rm{DM}}=0.3~\mathrm{GeV}/{\mathrm{cm}}^3$ is the local DM density and $f(\mathbf{v})$ is the DM velocity distribution in the Galactic frame, which we assume is a Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB) distribution with a cut-off at $v_{\rm{esc}}=544~\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}$ and most probable speed of $v_0=220~\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s}$. We boost from the Galactic to the Earth reference frame with $\mathbf{v}_{\rm{E}}$ [@McCabe:2013kea; @Lee:2013xxa]. Small deviations from a MB distribution are likely, as seen in numerical simulations, e.g. [@Bozorgnia:2016ogo; @Kelso:2016qqj; @Sloane:2016kyi], and predicted by Earth-scattering effects, e.g. [@Collar:1992qc; @Collar:1993ss; @Kavanagh:2016pyr], but we do not consider them in this work. The limits of integration are found from three-body kinematics, $E_{\rm{R}}^{\pm}= {\mu_{\mathrm{T}}}^2 v^2/{m_{\mathrm{T}}}\cdot \left[1-v_{\rm{min}}^2/(2v^2) \pm \sqrt{1- v_{\rm{min}}^2/v^2} \right]$, where $v_{\mathrm{min}}=\sqrt{2 \omega/{\mu_{\mathrm{T}}}}$ is the minimum DM speed required for a photon to have energy $\omega$, and ${\mu_{\mathrm{T}}}$ is the DM-nucleus reduced mass.
The photon emission cross-section (derived in Ref. [@Kouvaris:2016afs]) is $$\frac{d^2 \sigma}{d \omega d E_{\rm{R}}}=\frac{4 \alpha}{3 \pi}\frac{\left| f(\omega)\right|^2 }{ \omega} \frac{E_{\rm{R}}}{{m_{\mathrm{T}}}} \frac{d \sigma}{ d E_{\rm{R}}}\;,$$ where $\alpha$ is the fine-structure constant, $f(\omega)=f_1 (\omega)+i f_2 (\omega)$ are atomic form factors [@atomicff], and $d \sigma/d E_{\rm{R}}$ is the DM-nucleus cross-section for elastic scattering. The price to pay for photon emission is a factor $E_{\rm{R}}/{m_{\mathrm{T}}}$, resulting in a $\mathcal{O}(0.1~\mathrm{keV}/100~\mathrm{GeV})\simeq\mathcal{O}(10^{-9})$ suppression factor.
We parameterise the DM-nucleus cross-section as $$\frac{d \sigma}{d E_{\rm{R}}} = \frac{{m_{\mathrm{T}}}\, \sigma^0_{\rm{SI}}}{2 \mu_n^2 v^2} \,F^{\rm{SI}}_{\rm{T}}(E_{\rm{R}}) \,F_{\rm{med}} (E_{\rm{R}})\;,$$ where $\mu_n$ is the DM-nucleon reduced mass and $F^{\rm{SI}}_{\rm{T}}$ is the nuclear form factor. It is an excellent approximation to evaluate $F^{\rm{SI}}_{\rm{T}}$ at $E_{\rm{R}}=0$ keV. We focus on spin-independent (SI) interaction with equal interaction strength with protons and neutrons so $F^{\rm{SI}}_{\rm{T}}=A^2$ [@Vietze:2014vsa]. Finally, $F_{\rm{med}}(E_{\rm{R}})$ is a factor that depends on the mass of the particle mediating the interaction. In the heavy mediator limit, $m_{\rm{med}}\gg q$, where $q= \sqrt{2 {m_{\mathrm{T}}}E_{\mathrm{R}}}\sim3~\mathrm{MeV}\cdot ({m_{\mathrm{DM}}}/1~\mathrm{GeV})$ is the momentum transfer, $F_{\rm{med}}=1$ and hence, $\sigma^0_{\rm{SI}}$ is the usual DM-nucleon cross-section that is constrained in SI analyses. In the light mediator limit, $m_{\rm{med}}\ll q$, $F_{\rm{med}}=q_{\rm{ref}}^4/q^4$. In this case, $\sigma^0_{\rm{SI}}$ must be defined at a reference value of $q$; we take $q_{\rm{ref}}=1~\mathrm{MeV}$, the typical size of $q$ for ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}\lesssim1$ GeV.
LUX and LZ detector simulations \[sec:LUXLZ\]
=============================================
Dual-phase xenon detectors do not directly measure energy. Rather, they measure the ‘S1’ and ‘S2’ signals, proportional to the initial scintillation and ionisation charge respectively, produced by an energy deposition [@Chepel:2012sj].
The event rate in terms of the observable signals is $$\frac{d^2R}{d{\mathrm{S1}}\,d{\mathrm{S2}}} =\epsilon({\mathrm{S1}},{\mathrm{S2}})\int d \omega \, \frac{d R}{ d \omega} \,\mathrm{pdf}({\mathrm{S1}},{\mathrm{S2}}|\omega)\;,$$ where $\epsilon({\mathrm{S1}},{\mathrm{S2}})$ represent detection efficiencies and we determine $\mathrm{pdf}({\mathrm{S1}},{\mathrm{S2}}|\omega)$ with a Monte Carlo simulation of the detector. Our simulations are based on the Noble Element Simulation Technique (NEST) [@Szydagis:2011tk; @Szydagis:2013sih; @Lenardo:2014cva] and following Ref. [@Szydagis:2013sih], we assume that the electron and photon yields, $Q_y$ and $L_y$ respectively, from keV-energy depositions from beta particles and gamma rays are the same (collectively, electronic recoils). For an energy $E$, the mean S1 and S2 values are related to the yields through $\mathrm{S1}=g_1 L_y E$ and $\mathrm{S2}=g_2 Q_y E$, where $g_1$ and $g_2$ are proportionality (or ‘gain’) factors. Following theoretical arguments, we assume that the $\mathcal{O}(0.1)~\mathrm{keV}$ nuclear recoil associated with the $\mathrm{DM}+\mathrm{Xe}\to\mathrm{DM}+\mathrm{Xe}+\gamma$ inelastic scattering process does not produce an observable signal [@Sorensen:2014sla]. There are proposals to test this assumption with new low-energy calibration techniques [@Verbus:2016sgw].
First, we describe our simulation for electronic recoils (ERs), where our input is $Q_y$. Above 1.3 keV, we fit $Q_y$ to the central values of LUX’s tritium calibration data [@Akerib:2015wdi]. Below 1.3 keV, we fit to the central values from LUX’s calibration with $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ [@xe127]. There are no calibration data below 0.19 keV so we assume that $Q_y$ is zero below this energy. We self consistently determine $L_y$ through the relation $n_q/E=Q_y+L_y$, where $n_q=E/13.7~\mathrm{eV}$ is the total number of quanta from an energy $E$. Our $L_y$ agrees perfectly with LUX’s $L_y$ calibration data above 1.3 keV [@Akerib:2015wdi]. As with $Q_y$, we assume that $L_y$ is zero below 0.19 keV. Our yields are also in good agreement with data from the PIXeY xenon detector [@BoultonAPS; @Boulton:2017hub]. We include recombination fluctuations, generating the recombination probability $r$ and the fluctuations as described in Ref. [@Akerib:2016qlr] with parameters $\sigma_p=0.07$ and $\alpha=0.2$. Additional parameterisations of $Q_y$ are investigated in Appendices \[sec:signal\] and \[sec:effects\].
Second, we summarise our simulation for nuclear recoils (NRs). This is used to check that our simulations correctly reproduce published LUX NR results and also to calculate the $^8\rm{B}$ solar neutrino signal in LZ. As input, we use a $Q_y$ and $L_y$ parameterisation that fits LUX’s D-D calibration data [@Akerib:2016mzi] and assume the Lindhard model with $k=0.174$ [@Akerib:2016mzi]. We include Penning quenching as in Ref. [@Akerib:2016mzi], model the recombination probability following the Thomas-Imel model with parameters in Ref. [@Bailey], and again use $\sigma_p=0.07$ to model recombination fluctuations.
Unless stated otherwise, S1 and S2 refer to position corrected values, where S1 is normalised to the centre of the detector and S2 to the top of the liquid. We take into account the variation of $g_1$ with height within the detector (we ignore radial variations) using results in Ref. [@Dobi] for LUX and projections for LZ in Ref. [@Akerib:2015cja]. For LUX (LZ), we use an electron lifetime of 800 (3000) ms and an electron drift speed 1.5 mm/$\mu$s for both.
For LUX WS2013, we use the parameter values from Refs. [@Akerib:2015rjg; @Akerib:2016lao]: $g_1=0.117~\mathrm{phd}/\gamma$, $g_2=12.1~\mathrm{phd}/e^-$, an extraction efficiency of $49\%$; the S1 detection efficiency from Ref. [@Bailey]; we allow events that satisfy $\mathrm{S1}_{\mathrm{raw}}>1~\mathrm{phd}$, $\mathrm{S2}_{\rm{raw}}>165~\mathrm{phd}$; and compare against events measured with $\mathrm{radius}<18$ cm to set an exclusion limit.
![Main panels: Blue and red lines indicate, respectively, ER and NR bands (mean, 10% and 90% contours) from our simulations of LUX’s WS2013 and WS2014-16 WIMP searches. Squares and triangles at 2 phd intervals indicate the LUX published bands. Green circles show LUX’s measured events. Black contours show regions that contain 90% of DM events. The $\log_{10}\mathrm{S2}$ scale in each panel is different. Insets: Blue and red lines show the efficiency for event detection from ERs and NRs respectively. Black triangles show the published LUX NR efficiency. []{data-label="fig:S1S2"}](LUXWS13.pdf "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"}\
![Main panels: Blue and red lines indicate, respectively, ER and NR bands (mean, 10% and 90% contours) from our simulations of LUX’s WS2013 and WS2014-16 WIMP searches. Squares and triangles at 2 phd intervals indicate the LUX published bands. Green circles show LUX’s measured events. Black contours show regions that contain 90% of DM events. The $\log_{10}\mathrm{S2}$ scale in each panel is different. Insets: Blue and red lines show the efficiency for event detection from ERs and NRs respectively. Black triangles show the published LUX NR efficiency. []{data-label="fig:S1S2"}](LUXWS1416.pdf "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
LUX WS2014-16 was more complicated owing to the changing conditions throughout the run. We do not attempt to model the changing conditions with time or the spatially varying electric drift field. Instead we take a simplified approach and assume the average values from Ref. [@Akerib:2016vxi]: $g_1=0.1~\mathrm{phd}/\gamma$, $g_2=18.9~\mathrm{phd}/e^-$, an extraction efficiency of $73\%$; the S1 efficiency from Ref. [@Bailey] and the S2 efficiency from Ref. [@szydagisICHEP]; we allow events that satisfy $\mathrm{S1}_{\mathrm{raw}}>1~\mathrm{phd}$, $\mathrm{S2}_{\rm{raw}}>200~\mathrm{phd}$. We set an exclusion limit with events measured more than 1 cm from the radial fiducial volume boundary.
For LZ, we use parameter values recommended in Ref. [@Akerib:2015cja]: $g_2=50~\mathrm{phd}/e^-$, an extraction efficiency of $100\%$ and allow events that satisfy $\mathrm{S2}_{\rm{raw}}>250~\mathrm{phd}$. The S1 signal is the main determinant of the energy threshold so we show results taking the upper (lower) values of the range in Ref. [@Akerib:2015cja], namely $g_1=0.1 \,(0.05)~\mathrm{phd}/\gamma$, and allow events that satisfy $\mathrm{S1}>2 \, (3)$ phd.
Before presenting the limits on sub-GeV DM, we demonstrate that our simulations accurately reproduce published LUX results. First, we derive the efficiency as a function of energy for ERs and NRs, shown in the insets of Fig. \[fig:S1S2\], and compare against the LUX values (black triangles). Good agreement is found; within 5% above 2 keV for both runs. Below 2 keV, we slightly underestimate the published efficiencies, reaching an underestimation of 50% at 1.1 keV. Results for a direct comparison of the ER efficiency are not available so instead, we compare with the tritium calibration run [@Akerib:2015wdi], which had only slightly different parameters from WS2013 and WS2014-16. In the calibration run, the ER efficiency was 50% at 1.24 keV, consistent with 1.13 and 1.25 keV that we find for WS2013 and WS2014-16, respectively.
Lastly, in Fig. \[fig:S1S2\], we compare our ER and NR bands, indicated by the blue and red lines respectively, against the LUX bands, indicated by squares and triangles at 2 phd intervals (we use updated LUX WS2013 bands [@ShawIDM]). We find good agreement in both the central position and the width of the bands.
LUX constraints
===============
![The 90% C.L. exclusion limits on the SI DM-nucleon cross-section. LUX WS2013 (pink line) and WS2014-16 (purple line) limits are calculated with a cut-and-count (CC) method. The combined LUX WS2013+WS2014-16 limit (red) is calculated with a profile likelihood ratio (PLR) test. XENON100 (green line) and CRESST-II (blue line) provided the most stringent exclusion limits before this work. The projected LZ sensitivity for a $3\sigma$ or greater discovery is shown in black and grey for two LZ scenarios. The upper panel includes a constraint from Earth heating by DM annihilation (orange dashed line).[]{data-label="fig:EXlimits"}](limit_heavy.pdf "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"}\
![The 90% C.L. exclusion limits on the SI DM-nucleon cross-section. LUX WS2013 (pink line) and WS2014-16 (purple line) limits are calculated with a cut-and-count (CC) method. The combined LUX WS2013+WS2014-16 limit (red) is calculated with a profile likelihood ratio (PLR) test. XENON100 (green line) and CRESST-II (blue line) provided the most stringent exclusion limits before this work. The projected LZ sensitivity for a $3\sigma$ or greater discovery is shown in black and grey for two LZ scenarios. The upper panel includes a constraint from Earth heating by DM annihilation (orange dashed line).[]{data-label="fig:EXlimits"}](limit_light.pdf "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
We use two methods to derive constraints on the DM-nucleon cross-section from the WS2013 [@Akerib:2015rjg; @Akerib:2016lao] and WS2014-16 [@Akerib:2016vxi] WIMP searches.
The first method is a cut-and-count (CC) approach, the simplest and most conservative approach that treats all measured events as signal events. For each mass, we calculate the signal region that contains 90% of the DM events that pass all cuts. The black lines in Fig. \[fig:S1S2\] give examples of this region for different values of ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}$ in the heavy mediator limit. For ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}=0.1$ GeV, all of the DM events lie far below the ER band, where background events are expected to lie. For this mass, the mean S1 signal is below the S1 threshold so only the tail of the upward S1 fluctuations is measured. The S1 signal can fluctuate upwards in our simulation from the binomial modelling of the initial number of ions and excitons, the binomial modelling of the detection of photons by the photomultiplier tubes, the Gaussian resolution of the detector or finally, from the modelling of recombination fluctuations.[^2] As ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}$ increases, more of the DM contour overlaps the ER band because fewer upward S1 fluctuations are probed. The signal more closely follows the ER band but there is still a small offset. For clarity, we do not show the contours for a light mediator in Fig. \[fig:S1S2\]. They are similar but extend to slightly smaller S1 values e.g. to $\mathrm{S1}= 4.4\,(5.9)$ phd for ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}=0.6\,(1.0)$ GeV.
We count all of the observed events within the 90% DM contour and use Poisson statistics to set a 90% C.L. exclusion limit. This is shown as the pink and purple lines in Fig. \[fig:EXlimits\] for the WS2013 and WS2014-16 WIMP searches respectively. The kinks around ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}\sim0.3$ GeV occur as measured events suddenly enter the signal region.
The second more powerful method to derive a constraint on the DM-nucleon cross-section uses a profile likelihood ratio (PLR) test. This takes into account the S1 and S2 information of each event and allows for the results from WS2013 and WS2014-16 to be combined. Unlike the CC method, the background signal must be quantified. We adopt a simple model that assumes the ER background rate is flat in energy, while ignoring subdominant contributions from neutrons and $^{8}\mathrm{B}$ neutrinos. Additionally, for the WS2013 search we include a component for the decays of $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$, which contributed in WS2013 but not in WS2014-16. This simple model provides a good fit to LUX data [@Szydagis:2016few; @Akerib:2017uem] (a comparison is provided in Appendix \[sec:valid\]). The 90% C.L. combined PLR limit is calculated following Ref. [@Cowan:2010js] with an un-binned extended likelihood function [@Barlow:1990vc]. We follow the safeguard method in Ref. [@Priel:2016apy] to minimise the effect of background mismodelling. The amplitudes of the background components in each run are treated as a nuisance parameter. The 90% C.L. limit is shown as the red line in Fig. \[fig:EXlimits\]. It is similar to the CC limit at low mass, where the DM signal region is far from the background region. At higher mass, the PLR limit is significantly stronger. At ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}=1~\mathrm{GeV}$, the limit corresponds to 5.0 signal events in WS2014-16 (for heavy and light mediators).
In Fig. \[fig:EXlimits\], we also show 90% C.L. exclusion limits from CRESST-II [@Angloher:2015ewa] and XENON100’s S2-only analysis [@Aprile:2016wwo], and a constraint from Earth heating by DM annihilation [@Mack:2007xj] (which does not apply if DM annihilation does not occur). For CRESST-II, we use Lise’s public data [@Angloher:2017zkf] and calculate a limit with the maximum gap method [@Yellin:2002xd]. XENON100 observed a large number of events (13560) so we use a CC analysis with events in the range 80-1000 PE to set a limit. Our XENON100 limit is slightly weaker than in Ref. [@Kouvaris:2016afs] because we adopt the $Q_y$ used in our LUX analysis, which has a cut-off at 0.19 keV. Before this work, CRESST-II and XENON100 (S2-only) provided the most stringent direct detection constraints on the DM-nucleon cross-section in this mass range. The LUX limits are significantly stronger and already reach the principal reach projected in Ref. [@Kouvaris:2016afs]. This is because the displacement of signal and background regions, not previously considered, further reduces the background rate below the value considered in Ref. [@Kouvaris:2016afs].
LZ sensitivity projection
=========================
![Upper panel: Our simulation of the more sensitive LZ scenario. Blue and red lines indicate, respectively, ER and NR bands (mean, 10% and 90% contours). Black contours show regions that contain 90% of DM events while the orange contour contains 90% of $^8\mathrm{B}$ neutrino events. Green circles show simulated background and signal events from the star ($\bigstar$) DM benchmark, ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}=0.3$ GeV and $\sigma^0_{\rm{SI}}=10^{-33}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$. Lower panel: Two examples of parameter reconstruction for sub-GeV DM with LZ. The star ($\bigstar$) and triangle ($\blacktriangle$) symbols show the input mass and cross-section, corresponding to 24.6 and 21.4 expected signal events respectively.[]{data-label="fig:recon"}](LZ15tyr.pdf "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}\
![Upper panel: Our simulation of the more sensitive LZ scenario. Blue and red lines indicate, respectively, ER and NR bands (mean, 10% and 90% contours). Black contours show regions that contain 90% of DM events while the orange contour contains 90% of $^8\mathrm{B}$ neutrino events. Green circles show simulated background and signal events from the star ($\bigstar$) DM benchmark, ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}=0.3$ GeV and $\sigma^0_{\rm{SI}}=10^{-33}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$. Lower panel: Two examples of parameter reconstruction for sub-GeV DM with LZ. The star ($\bigstar$) and triangle ($\blacktriangle$) symbols show the input mass and cross-section, corresponding to 24.6 and 21.4 expected signal events respectively.[]{data-label="fig:recon"}](reconst.pdf "fig:"){width="0.97\columnwidth"}
The next generation of dual-phase detectors, namely LZ, XENON1T/XENONnT [@Aprile:2015uzo] and PandaX-II/PandaX-xT [@Cao:2014jsa], will be bigger than LUX while having a smaller background rate. We focus on sensitivity projections for LZ because it has the most detailed design and performance studies [@Akerib:2015cja; @Mount:2017qzi]. Within LZ’s fiducial volume, $^8\mathrm{B}$ (pp and $^7\mathrm{Be}$) solar neutrinos produce the dominant NR (ER) background events. Figure \[fig:recon\] (upper panel) shows a simulation of the events seen with the more sensitive LZ scenario that we consider ($g_1=0.1~\mathrm{phd}/\gamma$, $\mathrm{S1}\geq2~\mathrm{phd})$, together with the ER and NR efficiencies. Assuming a 5.6 tonne fiducial mass, 1000 days of data and the neutrino fluxes from Ref. [@Bergstrom:2016cbh], we find that 49.8 $^8\mathrm{B}$ events are expected. In the less sensitive scenario ($g_1=0.05~\mathrm{phd}/\gamma$, $\mathrm{S1}\geq3~\mathrm{phd})$, the ER and NR efficiencies (not shown) are shifted to higher energies. The ER (NR) efficiency is 1% at 0.94 (2.3) keV respectively, so that only 2.7 $^8\mathrm{B}$ events are expected.
We quantify LZ’s sensitivity by calculating the median cross-section for LZ to make a discovery at $3\sigma$ (or greater) significance. This is shown for the two LZ scenarios by the black and grey lines in Fig. \[fig:EXlimits\]. We use a PLR test and include a 2.5% (1%) uncertainty on the $^8\mathrm{B}$ ($\mathrm{pp}+^7\mathrm{Be}$) flux [@Bergstrom:2016cbh]. For both scenarios, these cross-sections correspond to approximately $5\,(15)$ expected signal events at ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}=0.3\, (1.0)$ GeV. For the more sensitive scenario, we also show the $\pm1\sigma \,(\pm2\sigma)$ containment region in green (yellow). The more sensitive LZ scenario results in a factor 20–50 improvement compared to LUX, while the less sensitive scenario leads to only a small improvement above ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}=0.3$ GeV.
For the more sensitive LZ scenario, we investigate the precision with which LZ can reconstruct the parameters of sub-GeV DM. Figure \[fig:recon\] (lower panel) shows examples of two reconstructions where a high-significance ($>5\sigma$) detection of DM is made. All of the signal and background events used in the reconstruction in the upper benchmark ($\bigstar$ DM benchmark) are displayed in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:recon\]. For both benchmarks, the mass is reconstructed with $\simeq20\%$ accuracy.
Summary
=======
Upcoming xenon detectors will provide opportunities to search for signals beyond the standard DM-nucleus interactions. Previous studies have investigated recoils induced from: solar neutrinos [@Baudis:2013qla; @Cerdeno:2016sfi], supernova neutrinos [@Chakraborty:2013zua; @Davis:2016dqh; @Lang:2016zhv], nuclear DM [@Hardy:2015boa; @Butcher:2016hic], products from DM annihilation [@Cherry:2015oca]; and inelastic nucleus scattering [@Baudis:2013bba; @McCabe:2015eia].
We have investigated photon emission from the recoiling atom, another non-standard signal that allows dual-phase xenon detectors to probe sub-GeV DM. We have demonstrated that the LUX constraints are approximately three orders of magnitude more constraining than the S2-only limits from XENON100, and extend to smaller masses than the CRESST-II limit. In addition, a future experiment such as LZ can accurately reconstruct the parameters of sub-GeV DM since dual-phase detectors maintain the discrimination between background and signal events.
C.M. thanks Jelle Aalbers, Gianfranco Bertone, Andrew Brown, Patrick Decowski, Thomas Edwards, Chamkaur Ghag, Achim Gutlein, Federica Petricca, Ludwig Rauch, Florian Reindl, Peter Sorensen and Matthew Szydagis for discussions and correspondence. C.M. gratefully acknowledges support from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO); and the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) Grant ST/N004663/1.
Signal models for electronic recoils \[sec:signal\]
===================================================
To aid the reproducibility of our results, we here provide the details of our signal generation model for electronic recoil (ER) events. We begin by introducing the general formalism before presenting assumptions specific to the model used in the main part of the paper. We then introduce two additional models based on the Thomas-Imel box model [@Thomas:1987zz]. The material discussed below only addresses the mean signal yields. We leave the details of our model for fluctuations to the main part of the paper.
The number of quanta $n_q$ for ER events, in terms of the number of photons $n_{\gamma}$ and electrons $n_e$, or in terms of the number of ions $n_{\rm{ion}}$ and excitons $n_{\rm{ex}}$, is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:nq}
n_q&=n_{\gamma}+n_{e}\\
&=n_{\rm{ion}}+n_{\rm{ex}}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $n_q = E/W$, $E$ is the energy and we take $W=13.7$ eV.
The number of electrons is related to the electron yield $Q_y$ (also referred to as the charge yield) by $n_e = Q_y E$. The starting point for our detector simulation for ERs takes $Q_y$ as input. We fit $Q_y$ to LUX’s tritium calibration data [@Akerib:2015wdi] above 1.3 keV, while below this, we fit to the central values from LUX’s low-energy calibration with $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ [@xe127]. These data points are shown by the blue and red data points in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:yields\], respectively. In addition, the yellow data points and lilac boxes in Fig. \[fig:yields\] show the low-energy calibration data taken with the PIXeY and neriX xenon detectors. The PIXeY data are from the decays of $^{37}\mathrm{Ar}$ [@BoultonAPS; @Boulton:2017hub], while the neriX data were taken at 190 V/cm and we show the dominant systematic uncertainty [@Goetzke:2016lfg]. We do not include the PIXeY or neriX data in our fits but they are consistent with the $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ data and tritium data.
![In descending order, the panels show the electron (or charge) yield $Q_y$, the photon (or light) yield $L_y$, the recombination probability $r$ and the ratio of excitons-to-ions $\alpha$. The upper panels also include LUX’s tritium and $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ calibration data (blue and red data points), neriX data (lilac boxes), and PIXeY’s $^{37}\mathrm{Ar}$ calibration data (yellow data points). The solid, dotted and dashed black lines show the different models that we consider. Model 1 was used to generate the results in the main part of the paper.[]{data-label="fig:yields"}](Qy2.pdf "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"} ![In descending order, the panels show the electron (or charge) yield $Q_y$, the photon (or light) yield $L_y$, the recombination probability $r$ and the ratio of excitons-to-ions $\alpha$. The upper panels also include LUX’s tritium and $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ calibration data (blue and red data points), neriX data (lilac boxes), and PIXeY’s $^{37}\mathrm{Ar}$ calibration data (yellow data points). The solid, dotted and dashed black lines show the different models that we consider. Model 1 was used to generate the results in the main part of the paper.[]{data-label="fig:yields"}](Ly2.pdf "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"} ![In descending order, the panels show the electron (or charge) yield $Q_y$, the photon (or light) yield $L_y$, the recombination probability $r$ and the ratio of excitons-to-ions $\alpha$. The upper panels also include LUX’s tritium and $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ calibration data (blue and red data points), neriX data (lilac boxes), and PIXeY’s $^{37}\mathrm{Ar}$ calibration data (yellow data points). The solid, dotted and dashed black lines show the different models that we consider. Model 1 was used to generate the results in the main part of the paper.[]{data-label="fig:yields"}](r.pdf "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"} ![In descending order, the panels show the electron (or charge) yield $Q_y$, the photon (or light) yield $L_y$, the recombination probability $r$ and the ratio of excitons-to-ions $\alpha$. The upper panels also include LUX’s tritium and $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ calibration data (blue and red data points), neriX data (lilac boxes), and PIXeY’s $^{37}\mathrm{Ar}$ calibration data (yellow data points). The solid, dotted and dashed black lines show the different models that we consider. Model 1 was used to generate the results in the main part of the paper.[]{data-label="fig:yields"}](alpha.pdf "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
The number of electrons is related to the number of ions through $$n_e = n_{\rm{ion}} (1-r)\;,$$ where $r$ is the fraction of ions that undergo recombination. From the sum rule in Eq. , we must have that $$\begin{aligned}
n_{\gamma}&=n_{\rm{ex}}+r n_{\rm{ion}}\\
&= n_{\rm{ion}}(r+\alpha) \label{eq:ngamma}\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced the parameter $\alpha=n_{\rm{ex}}/n_{\rm{ion}}$. Values for $\alpha$ used in the literature typically fall between $0.06$ and $0.2$ [@Chepel:2012sj].
Model 1: Interpolation through the data (used in the main part of the paper)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the model used in the main part of the paper, $Q_y$ is determined by tracing a line (on a log axis) through the central points of LUX’s tritium and $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ data points. This is shown by the black solid line in Fig. \[fig:yields\]. There is no physical basis behind this model and we include an unphysical cut-off in $Q_y$ at the energy of the lowest data point (0.19 keV). The photon yield $L_y$ (also referred to as the light yield) is then straightforwardly determined through the relation $1/W=Q_y+L_y$ \[a rearrangement of Eq. \]. The solid black line in the second panel from the top of Fig. \[fig:yields\] shows this parameterisation of $L_y$. It passes through the central values of $L_y$ from LUX’s tritium calibration data, shown by the blue data points. The lowest $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ data point in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:yields\] satisfies $Q_y\approx1/W$, which explains why $L_y$ tends to zero at approximately 0.19 keV.
From simple algebraic manipulation of Eqs. to , we can express the recombination probability $r$ as $$r=\frac{L_y-\alpha Q_y}{L_y+Q_y}\;.$$ At higher energies, we follow LUX and fix $\alpha=0.2$ [@Akerib:2016qlr]. Under these assumptions, $r>0$ for $E>1.1$ keV (see the solid line in the recombination panel in Fig. \[fig:yields\]). For energies smaller than this, we fix $r=0$ by requiring that $\alpha=L_y/Q_y$. With this approximation, $\alpha$ smoothly decreases from 0.2 to zero at approximately 0.19 keV (shown by the solid line in the bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:yields\]), as it must to ensure that $n_{\gamma}=0$ at approximately 0.19 keV \[cf. Eq. \].
Model 2: Thomas-Imel box model
------------------------------
The previous model was ad-hoc in that it was chosen to pass through the central value of the data points without any relation to a physically motivated model. In particular, the cut-off at approximately 0.19 keV is unphysical as it is more reasonable to expect that quanta are produced all the way to energies $\mathcal{O}(W)$. We therefore now explore the implications of a more physically motivated model of recombination: the Thomas-Imel box model [@Thomas:1987zz]. In this model $$r=1-\frac{\log(1+ \xi n_{\rm{ion}}) }{ \xi n_{\rm{ion}} }\;,$$ where $\xi$ is a free parameter.
This model for $r$ allows us to rewrite the charge yield as $$Q_y =\frac{1}{\xi E} \log \left(1+\frac{\xi E}{W (1+\alpha)} \right)\;.$$ In this case, by fixing $\xi$ and $\alpha$, we determine $Q_y$, $r$ and $L_y\,(=1/W-Q_y)$. We perform a $\chi^2$ fit to the tritium and $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ data below 10 keV to fit $\xi$ and $\alpha$, finding $\alpha=0.06$ and $\xi=0.0065$. The resulting values of $Q_y$, $L_y$, $r$ and $\alpha$ for this model are shown by the dotted lines in Fig. \[fig:yields\]. This model slightly underestimates (overestimates) the $Q_y$ $(L_y)$ low-energy data points.
Model 3: Thomas-Imel inspired model with energy-dependent coefficients
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The low-energy $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ and PIXeY data are consistent with $n_e \approx n_q$ (or equivalently $Q_y\approx 1/W\approx 73~e^-/\mathrm{keV}$), while in the Thomas-Imel model $Q_y\to 1/(W (1+\alpha))$ as $E \to 0$. Therefore to improve the fit with the $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ and PIXeY data, we require that $\alpha \to 0$ at low energy.
{width="0.66\columnwidth"} {width="0.66\columnwidth"} {width="0.66\columnwidth"}\
{width="0.66\columnwidth"} {width="0.66\columnwidth"} {width="0.66\columnwidth"}
We therefore modify the Thomas-Imel model to make the parameters in the Thomas-Imel model energy dependent at low energy. We define $\alpha=\alpha_0 \cdot\mathrm{erf}(\alpha_1 E)$ and $\xi = \xi_0 \cdot\mathrm{erf}(\xi_1 E)$. The justification for this parameterisation is simply to provide a way to smoothly force the parameters to zero as $E \to 0$ in order that the fit with the $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ and PIXeY data is improved. We perform a $\chi^2$ fit to obtain $\{\xi_0,\xi_1,\alpha_0,\alpha_1\}$. By construction, in this parameterisation $Q_y$ and $L_y$ now provide a good fit to the low-energy data points. Comparing the dashed and solid lines in Fig. \[fig:yields\], we see that Model 3 is similar to Model 1 but it avoids the cutoff at 0.19 keV in $Q_y$ and $L_y$, and the sharp transitions in $\alpha$ and $r$ at 1.1 keV.
Finally, we have also shown the $Q_y$ parameterisation adopted in the 2017 LZ technical design report (TDR) [@Mount:2017qzi] by the dot-dashed green line in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:yields\]. Both Model 1 and Model 3 closely resemble this parameterisation.
Exclusions limits and discovery potential with different signal models \[sec:effects\]
======================================================================================
We now explore the impact of the different signal models on the LUX exclusion limits and the LZ discovery potential. The results for Model 1 are presented in the main part of the paper so we here focus on the results for Model 2 and Model 3.
We first focus on the exclusion limits from LUX WS2013. In the upper panels of Fig. \[fig:limits\], we have recalculated the ER band (blue lines) and 90% signal regions for two values of the dark matter mass (${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}$). The NR model is the same across all plots. With Model 2, the ER band extends to lower $\mathrm{S2}$ values for small $\mathrm{S1}$ values compared to Model 1 and Model 3. Meanwhile, the dark matter signal regions show only minor changes. Therefore the discrimination between signal and background is not as high in Model 2. In Models 2 and 3, the ER efficiency extends to lower energies compared to Model 1 (a direct comparison is made in the inset of the upper right panel of Fig. \[fig:limits\]) because in these models $L_y$ is non-zero below 0.19 keV. The result of the higher efficiency at lower energies is that the LUX limits are more stringent for Models 2 and 3 at lower values of ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}$ (see the limit plot in upper right panel of Fig. \[fig:limits\]).
We next explore the discovery potential for the more sensitive LZ scenario. In the lower panels of Fig. \[fig:limits\], we have again recalculated the ER band (blue lines) and 90% signal regions for two values of the dark matter mass. We again find that the ER band in Model 2 extends to lower $\mathrm{S2}$ values for small $\mathrm{S1}$ values compared to the other models. The signal regions are again somewhat similar, although the effect of removing the cut-off at 0.19 keV is that the DM contours extend further into the $^{8}\mathrm{B}$ region. However the signal region for these values of ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}$ still lies between the $^{8}\mathrm{B}$ region and the ER band (where $pp$ neutrinos and other ER background events are expected to be detected). The lower right panel of Fig. \[fig:limits\] shows the median cross-section for LZ to make a discovery at $3\sigma$ (or greater) significance, while the inset shows a direct comparison of the ER efficiencies. For ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}\sim1~\mathrm{GeV}$, the different signal models result in similar sensitivity. The effect of removing the cut-off at 0.19 keV means that the efficiencies extend to small energies, while it allows the sensitivity of Models 2 and 3 to be enhanced with respect to Model 1 for ${m_{\mathrm{DM}}}\sim0.1~\mathrm{GeV}$.
Validation of the WS2013 background model \[sec:valid\]
=======================================================
![The black data points show the background events from LUX WS2013, together with the LUX Collaboration’s model (dotted black line). The yellow and blue lines show our background model, comprised of a flat component and a component from decays of $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$, respectively. Our simple model provides a good fit to the data.[]{data-label="fig:validS1S2"}](Valid_S1.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"}\
![The black data points show the background events from LUX WS2013, together with the LUX Collaboration’s model (dotted black line). The yellow and blue lines show our background model, comprised of a flat component and a component from decays of $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$, respectively. Our simple model provides a good fit to the data.[]{data-label="fig:validS1S2"}](Valid_S2.pdf "fig:"){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
![The median cross-section for LZ to make a discovery at $3\sigma$ (or greater) significance under different assumptions for the ER background rate. The solid line assumes that the ER background is dominated by pp and $^7\mathrm{Be}$ solar neutrinos, the assumption that was made in the main part of the paper. The dashed line assumes that the ER background is five times higher than the solar neutrino rate, allowing for an additional contribution from dispersed radionuclides. The higher background rate does not change any of our conclusions.[]{data-label="fig:ERback"}](ERback.pdf){width="0.99\columnwidth"}
The profile likelihood ratio (PLR) test requires a background model. We here show that the simple ER background model that we have used gives a good fit to published LUX results. In particular, the background count rate and LUX’s background model for WS2013 were published in their axion search paper [@Akerib:2017uem]. As in this work, only events measured with a radius smaller than 18 cm were considered. The measured data points and the LUX model are shown by the black data points and dotted black line in Fig. \[fig:validS1S2\], as a function of S1 and $\log_{10} \mathrm{S2}$ in the upper and lower panels, respectively.
For our model of the WS2013 background, we assume a flat (in energy) component and a component from decays of $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$, a cosmogenic isotope with a half-life of $\sim36$ days that decayed during WS2013 (by WS2014-16, this component had completely decayed away). Decays of $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ lead to ER depositions at 5.2 keV, 1.1 keV and 0.19 keV with branching ratios of 13.1%, 2.9% and 0.6% respectively (we do not include the higher-energy decays that make up the remainder of the branching ratios).
The result of a fit of our model to the data is shown in Fig. \[fig:validS1S2\]. The yellow and blue lines show the contributions from the flat component and the $^{127}\mathrm{Xe}$ component, respectively. In both panels, we see that this simple model provides a good fit to the LUX data. It is also in good agreement with the published LUX model. The largest difference occurs in the $\log_{10} \mathrm{S2}$ comparison (lower panel) where we see that our background is slightly displaced to higher S2 values compared to the LUX model. However, our model is still in good agreement with the data points.
Discovery potential with a higher background \[sec:pp\]
=======================================================
In the main part of the paper, we assumed that LZ’s ER background will be dominated by pp and $^7\mathrm{Be}$ solar neutrinos. For a $5600\times1000~\mathrm{kg\,day}$ exposure, we predict 252 events in the energy range from 1.5 to 6.5 keV, which is in good agreement with the value of 255 events predicted by the LZ Collaboration (LZ also include $^{13}\mathrm{N}$ solar neutrinos which could explain the small difference) [@Mount:2017qzi]. In order for the solar neutrino background to dominate, the background contribution from dispersed radionuclides (particularly radon, krypton and argon) must be sub-dominant. This was the assumption made in Ref. [@Akerib:2015cja]. However, a more recent estimate in Ref. [@Mount:2017qzi] suggests that the rate from dispersed radionuclides could in fact dominate, resulting in a total of 1244 events for a $5600\times1000~\mathrm{kg\,day}$ exposure in the energy range from 1.5 to 6.5 keV.
To assess the impact of a higher background on our LZ sensitivity projection, we recalculate the median cross-section for LZ to make a discovery at $3\sigma$ (or greater) significance assuming a background rate that is five times higher than the rate from only pp and $^7\mathrm{Be}$ solar neutrinos. This results in a total of 1260 events. The solar neutrino and radionuclide energy spectra are approximately flat in energy [@Schumann:2015cpa], so a simple rescaling of the pp and $^7\mathrm{Be}$ energy spectrum is a good approximation.
The resulting discovery cross-sections are shown in Fig. \[fig:ERback\] for the more sensitive LZ scenario. The black solid line shows the result in the main part of the paper, where the ER background is dominated by pp and $^7\mathrm{Be}$ solar neutrinos, while the black dashed line shows the result when the ER background is five times larger. At low masses, the dark matter signal region is far from the ER backgrounds so the result does not change. At higher masses where the impact of the ER background is most significant, the discovery cross-section is only about a factor of two higher. This is because the PLR method still has some discrimination power between signal and background owing to the slight displacement of signal and background. Thus our projections for LZ’s sensitivity are robust against reasonable variations in the background rate.
[^1]: The S1 and S2 signals are defined more carefully in Sec. \[sec:LUXLZ\].
[^2]: See Ref. [@Dobi] for an extended discussion on fluctuations in LUX.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
[Рутвиг Кампоамор-Штурсберг]{}\
[Universidad Complutense de Madrid]{}\
email: [email protected]
title: 'Разрешимые алгебры Ли, заданные произведением образующих, и некоторые их приложения'
---
[Аннотация]{}
[В настоящей работе мы обобщаем определение произведения образующими на класс разрешимых алгебр Ли. Мы исследуем число инвариантных функций коприсоединенного представления этих алгебр посредством уравнений Маурера-Картана и приводим некоторые приложения к структурам произведения на алгебрах.]{}
Введение
========
Разрешимые алгебры Ли составляют важный класс алгебр не только в связи с многочисленными приложениями к геометрии и механике, но также и для классификации полупрямых сумм алгебр Ли (как известно, полупростой случай классифицирован). В общем случае классификация не была проведена из-за отсутствия общих структур для разрешимых алгебр Ли (таких, как форма Киллинга). В настоящей работе мы исследуем разрешимые алгебры Ли специального вида, которые мы называем произведениями образующими. Будучи изначально определенной для нильпотентных алгебр, операция произведения образующими может быть определена и в случае разрешимых алгебр Ли. Это приводит к методу построения неразложимых алгебр Ли в больших размерностях.Мы исследуем также два приложения: инварианты коприсоединенного представления и структуры произведения на группах Ли (мы изучаем алгебры Ли групп Ли). Мы покажем, что произведения образующими открывают естественный способ изучения структур произведения и паракомплексных структур в произвольной размерности.
Произведение образующими разрешимых алгебр Ли
=============================================
Произведение образующими было изначально введено для нильпотентных алгебр для изучения систем весов. Введенные посредством графа весов, оно может быть охарактеризовано расширениями, что позволяет эффективно работать с уравнениями Маурера-Картана [@AC4]. Эта операция может быть обобщена на случай разрешимых алгебр Ли; в этом случае мы уже теряем наглядную интерпретацию посредством графов. Эта операция позволяет строить неразложимые алгебры Ли.
Как обычно, обозначим через $Z\left( \frak{g}\right)$ центр алгебры Ли $\frak{g}$, а через $b_{1}(\frak{g})$ — первое число Бетти, то есть размерность пространства $H_{1}(\frak{g},\mathbb{R})$.
Пусть $\frak{g}_{i}$ $\left( i=1,2\right) $ — разрешимые алгебры Ли, пусть $b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{i}\right) =\dim \left(
\frac{\frak{g}_{i}}{\left[ \frak{g}_{i},\frak{g}_{i}\right]
}\right) $. Тогда существует единственное центральное расширение $\frak{e}$ для $\frak{g}_{1}\oplus \frak{g}_{2}$, удовлетворяющее следующим условиям:
1. $b_{1}\left( \frak{e}\right) =b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right)
+b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) $
2. $\dim D^{1}\left( \frak{e}\right) =\dim D^{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) +\dim D^{1}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) +b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) $
3. $\dim D^{i}\left( \frak{e}\right) =\dim D^{i}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) +\dim D^{i}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) ,\;i\geq 2$
4. $\dim \,Z\left( \frak{e}\right) =\dim Z\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right)
+\dim Z\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) +b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right)
b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) .$
Доказательство — формально то же самое, как и в нильпотентном случае [@C2; @AC4], при этом убывающая центральная последовательность заменяется на производую последовательность. Фактически расширение определяется посредством коцикла $\varphi \in H^{2}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\oplus \frak{g}_{2},\mathbb{R}^{b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) b_{2}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) }\right) $, так что $$\varphi \left( \frak{g}_{1},D^{1}\frak{g}_{2}\right) =\varphi \left( D^{1}\frak{g}_{1},\frak{g}_{2}\right) =0.$$ Условие (1) подразумевает, что $$\dim _{\mathbb{R}}\left\{ \varphi \left( X,X^{\prime }\right) \;|\;X\in
\frak{g}_{1}-\left[ \frak{g}_{1},\frak{g}_{1}\right] ,\;X^{\prime }\in \frak{g}_{2}-\left[ \frak{g}_{2},\frak{g}_{2}\right] \right\} =b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) .$$ Без ограничения общности мы можем считать, что $\left\{
X_{1},..,X_{b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) }\right\} $ и $\left\{
X_{1}^{\prime },..,X_{b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) }^{\prime
}\right\} $ — минимальные наборы образующих для $\frak{g}_{1}$ и $\frak{g}_{2}$ соответственно. Если $\left\{ e_{1},..,e_{b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) }\right\} $ — канонический базис в $\mathbb{R}^{b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) b_{2}\left(
\frak{g}_{2}\right) }$, то мы можем выбрать такого представителя $\varphi $, для которого имеет место $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi \left( X_{i},X_{j}^{\prime }\right) &=&e_{\left( i-1\right)
b_{1}\left( g_{2}\right) +j},\;1\leq i\leq b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right)
,\;1\leq j\leq b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) \\
\varphi \left( X,X^{\prime }\right) &=&0\text{ при }X\in D^{1}\frak{g}_{1}\text{ или }X^{\prime }\in D^{1}\frak{g}_{2}\end{aligned}$$ Соответствующее расширение удовлетворяет всем требованиям теоремы.
Пусть $B_{i}$ — базис алгебры $\frak{g}_{i}$ ($i=1,2$). Тогда скобки Ли в алгебре $\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}$ представляют собой объединение скобок для алгебр $\frak{g}_{1}$ и $\frak{g}_{2}$ и, кроме того, скобок вида $[X,X^{\prime}]$ для всех образующих $X\in \frak{g}_{1}$ и $X^{\prime }\in
\frak{g}_{2}$. В силу уравнения Маурера-Картана, искомое расширение может быть получено добавлением к $b_{1}\left(
\frak{g}_{1}\right) b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) $ 2-формы вида $$d\eta _{ij}=\omega _{i}\wedge \omega _{j}^{\prime },$$ где $\omega _{i}$ (соотв. $\omega _{i}^{\prime }$) — форма, соответствующая образующей $X_{1}\in \frak{g}_{1}$ (соотв., $X_{2}\in \frak{g}_{2}$). Определим теперь произведение образующими следующим образом.
Произведение образующими $\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times
}\frak{g}_{2}$ представляет собой центральное расширение $\
\frak{g}_{1}\oplus \frak{g}_{2}$, определенное классом гомологий $\varphi $.
Если $\frak{g}_{i}$ — разрешимая алгебра Ли индекса $j_{i}$ при $i=1,2$, то $\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}$ — неразложимая алгебра Ли индекса $\max \left\{ j_{1},j_{2}\right\} $. В частности, $\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}=\frak{g}_{2}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{1}.$
То есть, расширение $\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}=\frak{g}_{2}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{1}$ является разрешимой алгеброй Ли.
Пусть $\frak{g}$ — разрешимая алгебра Ли. Алгебра $\frak{g}$ называется произведением образующими, если существуют подалгебры $\frak{g}_{1}$ и $\frak{g}_{2}$, такие что $\frak{g\simeq
g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}$.
Для любого $d\geq 4$ существует разрешимая алгебра Ли $d$-го порядка. Тогда существует пара $(\frak{g}_{1},\frak{g}_{2})$ (здесь $\frak{g}_{i}$ — подалгебра), т.ч. $\frak{g\simeq
g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}$.
Для любого $n\geq 3$ имеем разбиение $$n=\left( n-2\right) +1+1.$$ Пусть $\frak{r}_{n}$ — алгебра Ли, в которой скобка имеет вид $$\left[ X_{1},X_{j}\right] =X_{j},\;2\leq n-2$$ в базисе $\left\{ X_{1},..,X_{n-2}\right\} $. Алгебра Ли $\frak{r}_{n}$ — разрешима и не нильпотентна. Далее, $\dim
\frak{r}_{n}/\left[ \frak{r}_{n},\frak{r}_{n}\right] =1$. Если $L_{1}$ — абелева алгебра первого порядка, то произведение $\frak{r}_{1}\underline{\times }{L}_{1}$ представляет собой разрешимую алгебру $n$-го порядка (за исключением случая $n=3$, так как $\frak{r}_{3}=L_{1}$, следовательно $\frak{r}_{3}\underline{\times }{L}_{1}$ изоморфна алгебре Гейзенберга $\frak{h}_{1}$).
Если одна из алгебр $\frak{g}_{1}$ или $\frak{g}_{2}$ разрешима, то произведение этих алгебр также разрешима. Имеют место следующие свойства:
Пусть $\frak{g}$ — произведение образующими. Тогда
1. $\dim \left[ \frak{g},\frak{g}\right] \leq \dim \frak{g}-2$.
2. $\dim Z\left( \frak{g}\right) \geq 1.$
3. $\dim \frak{g}\geq 3.$
4. Если алгебра $\frak{g}$ разрешима и ненильпотентна, то существует разрешимая ненильпотентная подалгебра $\frak{g}_{1}$ и $\frak{g}_{2}$ такая, что $\frak{g\simeq g}_{1}\underline{\times
}\frak{g}_{2}$.
Принимая во внимание перечисленные выше структурные результаты о произведениях образующими, мы можем получить полную классификацию таких алгебр, опираясь на уже известную классификацию в низших размерностях. Приведем классификаицию в размерности семь с точностью до изоморфизма.
Пусть $\frak{g\simeq }$ $\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}$ — произведение образующими, и пусть $\left( d_{i},m_{i}\right) =\left( \dim \frak{g}_{i},b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{i}\right) \right) $ при $i=1,2$. Если $\dim \frak{g}=7$, то имеет место один из следующих случаев:
1. $\left( d_{1},m_{1}\right) =\left( 5,1\right) $, $\left(
d_{2},m_{2}\right) =\left( 1,1\right) $.
2. $\left( d_{1},m_{1}\right) =\left( 4,1\right) $, $\left(
d_{2},m_{2}\right) =\left( 2,1\right) $.
3. $\left( d_{1},m_{1}\right) =\left( 3,1\right) $, $\left(
d_{2},m_{2}\right) =\left( 3,1\right) $.
4. $\left( d_{1},m_{1}\right) =\left( 4,2\right) $, $\left(
d_{2},m_{2}\right) =\left( 1,1\right) $.
5. $\left( d_{1},m_{1}\right) =\left( 3,2\right) $, $\left(
d_{2},m_{2}\right) =\left( 2,1\right) $.
6. $\left( d_{1},m_{1}\right) =\left( 3,1\right) $, $\left(
d_{2},m_{2}\right) =\left( 2,2\right) $
7. $\left( d_{1},m_{1}\right) =\left( 3,3\right) $, $\left(
d_{2},m_{2}\right) =\left( 1,1\right) $.
В частности, если $b_{1}\left( \frak{g}\right) =4$, то алгебра $\frak{g}$ является нильпотентной.
Так как $\dim \left( \frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times
}\frak{g}_{2}\right) =d_{1}+d_{2}+m_{1}m_{2}$, дальнейшая классификация сводится к разбиению числа семь в сумму трех натруальных чисел. Учитывая $b_{1}\left(
\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\right) =b_{1}\left(
\frak{g}_{1}\right) +b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) =m_{1}+m_{2}$ и $\dim \frak{g}=7$, мы имеем $2\leq b_{1}\left(
\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\right) \leq 4$. Если $b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\right)
=2$, to $m_{1}=m_{2}=1$, и мы приходим к случаям 1.-3. Если $
b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\right)
=3$, мы имеем $$7=d_{1}+d_{2}+2.$$ Если $d_{1}=4$, то $d_{2}=1$, следовательно $m_{2}=1$, $m_{2}=2$. Мы приходим к случаю 4. Если $d_{1}=3$ и $d_{2}=2$, то либо $m_{1}=1$ и $m_{2}=2$, либо $m_{1}=2$ и $m_{2}=1$. Это приводит нас к случаям 5 и 6. Если $b_{1}\left(
\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\right) =4$, то $\frak{g}_{1}$ и $\frak{g}_{2}$ — абелевы алгебры, и произведение $\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}$ нильпотентно.
Для порядков $n\geq 8$ мы можем решать эту задачу, но так как разрешимые алгберы Ли размерностей $n\geq7$ не классифицированы (последняя известная размерность — шесть [@Mu4; @Tu]), результат не был бы окончательным.
Применение к инвариантам
========================
Инварианты коприсоединенного представления играют важную роль в теории представлений, а также во многих геометрических и физических приложениях (квантовые числа и ограничения представлений для моделей в ядерной и атомной физике).
Одним из стандартных методов для определения этих инвариантов является теория дифференциальных уравнений; она позволяет получать не только полиномиальные инварианты (связанные с операторами Казимира), но также и иррациональные функции, которые находят применение в теории интегрируемых гамильтоновых систем [@Pe; @Ber; @Tro]. Пусть $\left\{C_{ij}^{k}\right\}$ — структурный тензор алгебры Ли $\frak{g}$ в базисе $\left\{X_{1},..,X_{n}\right\} $. Пусть $$\widehat{X}_{i}=-C_{ij}^{k}x_{k}\partial_{x_{j}}$$ — представление алгебры Ли, где $\left[ X_{i},X_{j}\right] =C_{ij}^{k}X_{k}$ $\left( 1\leq i<j\leq
n,\;1\leq k\leq n\right) $. Аналитическая функция $F\left(
X_{1},..,X_{n}\right) $ на $\frak{g}^{*}$ является инвариантом коприсоединенного представления алгебры Ли $\frak{g}$ тогда и только тогда, когда $$\widehat{X}_{i}F\left( x_{1},..,x_{n}\right) =-C_{ij}^{k}x_{k}\partial_{x_{j}}F\left( x_{1},..,x_{n}\right) =0,\;1\leq i\leq n. \label{sys}$$ Общее число $\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}\right) $ решений (как полиномиальных, так и неполиномиальных) системы (\[sys\]) задается формулой $$\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}\right) =\dim\,\frak{g}-{\rm rank} \,\left(C_{ij}^{k}x_{k}\right),$$ где матрица $A(\frak{g})$ выражается по формуле: $$A(\frak{g})=\left(C_{ij}^{k}x_{k}\right),$$ в базисе $\left\{X_{1},..,X_{n}\right\} $. Эту формулу можно также интерпретировать с использованием уравнения Маурера-Картана следующим образом. Пусть $\mathcal{L}(\frak{g})=\mathbb{R}\left\{
d\omega_{i}\right\} _{1\leq i\leq \dim\frak{g}}$ — подпространство пространства $\bigwedge^{2}\frak{g}^{\ast}$, порожденное 2-формами $d\omega_{i}$. Так как $\dim\mathcal{L}(\frak{g})=\dim\left( \frak{g}\right) $ тогда и только тогда, когда $d\omega_{i}\neq0$ при всех $i$, то есть $\frak{g}=[\frak{g},\frak{g}]$, если $\omega=a^{i}d\omega_{i}$ — элемент общего положения в $\mathcal{L}(\frak{g})$, тогда существует $j_{0}\left( \omega\right) \in\mathbb{N}$, т.ч. $$\bigwedge^{j_{0}\left( \omega\right) }\omega\neq0,\quad \bigwedge
^{j_{0}\left( \omega\right) +1}\omega\equiv0.$$ Тогда $r\left( \omega\right) =2j_{0}\left( \omega\right)$, где $r\left( \omega\right)$ — ранг 2-формы $\omega$ [@C43]. Положим $$j_{0}\left( \frak{g}\right) =\max\left\{ j_{0}\left( \omega\right)
\;|\;\omega\in\mathcal{L}(\frak{g})\right\}.$$ Очевидно, что $j_{0}\left( \frak{g}\right) $ — числовой инвариант алгебры Ли $\frak{g}$. Короткое вычисление показывает, что $$\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}\right) =\dim\frak{g}-2j_{0}\left( \frak{g}\right) \label{Ca}.$$ Формула (\[Ca\]) важна для оценки числа инвариантов полупрямых произведений в том случае, когда общий метод уже не работает.
Для определения числа независимых инвариантов применим формулу (\[Ca\]), учитывая уравнения Маурера-Картана. Пусть $\frak{g}_{1}$ и $\frak{g}_{2}$ — разрешимые алгебры Ли и пусть $\left\{ C_{ij}^{k}\right\}$ (соответстсвенно $\left\{
\overline{C}_{lm}^{n}\right\} $) — структурный тензор алгебры $\frak{g}_{i}$ ($i=1,2$) в базисе $\left\{
X_{1},..,X_{d_{1}}\right\} $, соотв. $\left\{ X_{1}^{\prime
},..,X_{d_{2}}^{\prime }\right\} $. Уравнения Маурера-Картана имеют вид: $$\begin{aligned}
d\omega _{i} &=&0,\;1<i<m_{1} \label{MC1} \\
d\omega _{k} &=&-C_{ij}^{k}\omega _{i}\wedge \omega _{j},\;k\geq m_{1},\end{aligned}$$ для $\frak{g}_{1}$, при этом $$\begin{aligned}
d\omega _{i}^{\prime } &=&0,\;1<i<m_{2} \\
d\omega _{k}^{\prime } &=&-\overline{C}_{ij}^{k}\omega _{i}^{\prime }\wedge
\omega _{j}^{\prime },\;k\geq m_{2}. \label{MC4}\end{aligned}$$ для $\frak{g}_{2}$. Тогда уравнения для произведений $\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}$ имеют вид (15)-(18) i $$d\eta_{ij}=\omega_{i}\wedge\omega_{j}^{\prime},\quad 1\leq i\leq m_{1}, 1\leq j\leq m_{2}. \label{MC5}$$ Для всех $X_{i}$ (соответственно для $X_{i}^{\prime }$) $$X_{i}\lrcorner \,\omega _{j}=\delta _{ij}\;(\text{соотв.
}X_{i}^{\prime }\lrcorner \,\omega _{j}^{\prime }),$$ где $\lrcorner$ — внутренне произведение. Число $\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}\right)$ можно получить из максимального ранга элементов общего положения, задаваемого формулами (15)-(19). Приводимый ниже результат задает метод нахождения этого числа.
Пусть $\omega _{0}\in \mathcal{L}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) $, и пусть $\omega
_{0}^{\prime }\in \mathcal{L}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) $ — две формы, т.ч. $j_{0}\left( \omega _{0}\right) =j_{0}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) $ и $j_{0}\left( \omega _{0}^{\prime }\right) =j_{0}\left(
\frak{g}_{2}\right) $. Пусть $F\subset \left\{ 1,..,m_{1}\right\}
$ и $F^{\prime }\subset\left\{ 1,..,m_{2}\right\} $ — подмножества, т.ч.
1. $\forall \alpha \in F$ $\Rightarrow X_{\alpha }\lrcorner \,\omega
_{0}\equiv 0.$
2. $\forall \beta \in F^{\prime }\Rightarrow X_{\beta }^{\prime
}\lrcorner \,\omega _{0}^{\prime }\equiv 0$.
Тогда $$j_{0}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\right) =j_{0}\left(
\frak{g}_{1}\right) +j_{0}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) +j_{0}\left( \omega
\right) ,$$ где $$\omega =\sum_{\alpha \in F,\beta \in F^{\prime }}\omega _{\alpha }\wedge
\omega _{\beta }.$$ В частности, $$m_{1}m_{2}\leq \mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\right) \leq \mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) +\mathcal{N}\left(
\frak{g}_{2}\right) +\left( m_{1}m_{2}-2j_{0}\left( \omega \right) \right) .$$
Уравнния Маурера-Картана $\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times
}\frak{g}_{2}$ получаются из уравнений (15)-(18). Число независимых инвариантов выписывается по формуле $$\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\right) =\dim
\left( \frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\right) -2j_{0}\left(
\theta \right) ,$$ где $\theta \in \mathcal{L}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\right) $ — общая форма максимального ранга. Пусть $\alpha \in F$. Так как $\omega _{0}\in \mathcal{L}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) $, уравнение $X_{\alpha }\,\lrcorner \,\omega _{0}=0$ подразумевает, что $\left[ X,X_{\alpha }\right] =\psi ^{k}X_{k}\neq 0$ для всех $X\in \frak{g}_{1}$ (то есть, $d\omega _{k}$ не лежит в $\omega_{0}$). Легко видеть, что $$\omega _{0}+\omega _{0}^{\prime }+\sum_{\alpha \in F,\beta \in F^{\prime
}}\omega _{\alpha }\wedge \omega _{\beta }$$ имеет максималный ранг, так как $j_{0}\left( \omega _{0}\right) =j_{0}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) ,\;j_{0}\left( \omega _{0}^{\prime }\right) =j_{0}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) $ и $\omega \notin \mathcal{L}\left(
\frak{g}_{1}\right) + \mathcal{L}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) $. Тогда $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\right)
&=&\dim \frak{g}_{1}+\dim \frak{g}_{2}+m_{1}m_{2}-2\left( j_{0}\left( \omega
_{0}\right) +j_{0}\left( \omega _{0}^{\prime }\right) +j_{0}\left( \omega
\right) \right) \nonumber \\
&=&\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) +\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) +\left( m_{1}m_{2}-2j_{0}\left( \omega \right) \right) .\end{aligned}$$ $m_{1}m_{2}\leq \mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times
}\frak{g }_{2}\right) $ следует из того факта, что добавленные элементы являются центральными.
Если $\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) =\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) =0$, то $\mathcal{N}\left(
\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\right) =m_{1}m_{2}$.
В этом случае $\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) =\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) =0$, существуют $2$-формы $\omega _{0}\in \mathcal{L}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) $ и $\omega _{0}^{\prime }\in \mathcal{L}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) $, т.ч. $\dim \frak{g}_{1}=2j_{0}\left( \omega
_{0}\right) $ и $\dim \frak{g}_{2}=2j_{0}\left( \omega
_{0}^{\prime }\right) $. То есть, форма $\theta=\omega_{0}+\omega_{0}^{\prime}$ имеет ранг $\dim
\frak{g}_{1}+\dim \frak{g}_{2}$. Алгебра $
\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}$ содержит в точности $m_{1}m_{2}$ центральных элементов. Таким образом, форма $\theta$ имеет максимальный ранг.
Обратное, вообще говоря, неверно. Пусть $\frak{g}$ — алгебра Ли, задаваемая уравнениями $$\begin{aligned}
d\omega _{1} &=&\omega _{2}\wedge \omega _{3}+\omega _{1}\wedge \omega _{4}
\\
d\omega _{2} &=&\omega _{2}\wedge \omega _{4}-\omega _{2}\wedge \omega _{5}
\\
d\omega _{3} &=&\omega _{3}\wedge \omega _{5} \\
d\omega _{4} &=&d\omega _{5}=0\end{aligned}$$ Форма $\omega _{0}=d\omega _{1}$ удовлетворяет уравнению $j_{0}\left( \omega
_{0}\right) =j_{0}\left( \frak{g}\right) =2$, то есть $\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}\right) =1$. Тогда $\frak{g}\underline{\times }\frak{g}$ — разрешимая алгебра Ли 14-го порядка (так как $b_{1}\left(
\frak{g}\right) =2$), при этом уравнения Маурера-Картана имеют вид $$\begin{tabular}{lll}
$d\omega _{1}=\omega _{2}\wedge \omega _{3}+\omega _{1}\wedge \omega _{4};$
& $d\omega _{1}^{\prime }=\omega _{2}^{\prime }\wedge \omega _{3}^{\prime
}+\omega _{1}^{\prime }\wedge \omega _{4}^{\prime };$ & $d\eta _{1}=\omega
_{4}\wedge \omega _{4}^{\prime }$ \\
$d\omega _{2}=\omega _{2}\wedge \omega _{4}-\omega _{2}\wedge \omega _{5};$
& $d\omega _{2}^{\prime }=\omega _{2}^{\prime }\wedge \omega _{4}^{\prime
}-\omega _{2}^{\prime }\wedge \omega _{5}^{\prime };$ & $d\eta _{2}=\omega
_{4}\wedge \omega _{5}^{\prime }$ \\
$d\omega _{3}=\omega _{3}\wedge \omega _{5};$ & $d\omega _{3}^{\prime
}=\omega _{3}^{\prime }\wedge \omega _{5}^{\prime };$ & $d\eta _{3}=\omega
_{5}\wedge \omega _{4}^{\prime }$ \\
$d\omega _{4}=d\omega _{5}=0;$ & $d\omega _{4}^{\prime }=d\omega
_{5}^{\prime }=0;$ & $d\eta _{4}=\omega _{5}\wedge \omega _{5}^{\prime }$\end{tabular}$$ в базисе $\left\{ \omega _{1},..,\omega _{5},\omega _{1}^{\prime
},..,\omega _{5}^{\prime },\eta _{1},..,\eta _{4}\right\} $. Пусть $\theta =\alpha ^{i}d\omega _{i}+\beta ^{j}d\omega _{j}^{\prime
}+\gamma
^{k}d\eta _{k}\in \mathcal{L}\left( \frak{g}\underline{\times }\frak{g}\right) $ — элемент общего положения.Тогда $\bigwedge^{6}\theta
\equiv 0$ и $$\bigwedge^{5}\theta =\left( \alpha ^{1}\right) ^{2}\left( \beta ^{1}\right)
^{2}\gamma ^{4}\omega _{1}\wedge \omega _{2}\wedge \omega _{3}\wedge \omega
_{4}\wedge \omega _{5}\wedge \omega _{1}^{\prime }\wedge \omega _{2}^{\prime
}\wedge \omega _{3}^{\prime }\wedge \omega _{4}^{\prime }\wedge \omega
_{5}^{\prime }\neq 0$$ тогда и только тогда, кода $\alpha ^{1}\beta ^{1}\gamma ^{4}\neq
0$. Форма $\theta ^{\prime }=d\omega _{1}+d\omega _{1}^{\prime
}+d\eta _{4}$ имеет максимальный ранг, при этом $\mathcal{N}\left(
\frak{g}\underline{\times }\frak{g}\right) =4$. В частности, мы получаем, что если $F$ и $F^{\prime}$ не пусты, то этом $\omega
=d\eta _{4}$ удовлетворяет условию $j_{0}\left( \omega \right)
=1$, тогда $2\mathcal{N}\left( \frak{g}\right) -2j_{0}\left(
\omega \right) =0$. Кроме того, алгебра $\frak{g}\underline{\times
}\frak{g}$ имеет четыре оператора Казимира, в то же время $\frak{g}$ не имеет полиномиальных инвариантов (но лишь рациональные инварианты).
Приложения к структурам произведений
====================================
Приведем теперь некоторые приложения к дифференциально-геометрическим структурам на группах Ли. Эти конструкции позволяют получать некоторые новые алгебры Ли в произвольных размерностях, которые образуют новые классы, пополняющие известные случаи.
Пусть $E:\frak{g\rightarrow g}$, $E\neq \pm id$ — инволютивный автоморфизм алгебры $\frak{g}$. В этом случае автоморфизм $E$ задает структуру почти произведения. Говорят, что $E$ задает структуру произведения, если имеет место интегрируемость, т.е. если для любых $X,Y\in \frak{g}$ имеют место следующие тождества. $$E\left[ X,Y\right] =\left[ E\left( X\right) ,Y\right] +\left[ X,E\left(
Y\right) \right] -E\left[ E\left( X\right) ,E\left( Y\right) \right] .$$
Мы имеем разложение $$\frak{g=g}_{+}\oplus \frak{g}_{-}, \label{DD}$$ где $\frak{g}_{+}$ — собственное подпространство, соответствующее собственному значению $\lambda=1$, а $\frak{g}_{-}$ — собственное пространство, соответствующее собственному значению $\lambda=-1$. Если условие интегрируемости выполняется, то подпространства $\frak{g}_{+}$ и $\frak{g}_{-}$ являются подалгебрами. Такие структуры были изучены для различных типов алгебр Ли и классифицированы для алгебр Ли размерностей $n\leq 4$ [@Ov]. В настоящем разделе мы показываем, что произведения образующими дают новые нетривиальным примеры алгебр Ли, обладающие такой структурой; эти алгебры определяются в терминах своих подалгебр.
Пусть $\frak{g}_{i}$ $\left( i=1,2\right) $ — разрешимые алгебры Ли, и пусть $E_{i}$ $(i=1,2)$ — структура произведения для $i=1,2$. Пусть $E_{1}\left( X_{j}\right) =\varepsilon _{j}X_{j}$ при $1\leq j\leq n\,$, $\varepsilon _{j}=\pm 1$ в базисе $\left\{
X_{1},..,X_{n}\right\} $ (соотв. $E_{2}\left(
X_{j}^{\prime}\right) =\varepsilon _{j}X_{j}^{\prime}$ при $1\leq
j\leq m\,$, $\varepsilon _{j}=\pm 1$ в базисе $\left\{
X_{1}^{\prime},..,X_{n}^{\prime}\right\} $). Тогда $\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}$ является структурным произведением.
Без ограничения общности будем считать, что $X_{i}\left( 1\leq
i\leq b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{1}\right) \leq n\right) $, т.ч. $X_{i}\notin \left[ \frak{g}_{1},\frak{g}_{1}\right] $ (по аналогии со случаем $\frak{g}_{2}$). Пусть $\left[
X_{i},X_{j}^{\prime }\right] =Z_{ij}$ при $1\leq i\leq b_{1}(\frak{g}_{1}),1\leq j\leq b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{2}\right) $ и $E:\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}\rightarrow \frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}$ by $E|_{\frak{g}_{1}}=E_{1}$ — векторное отображение, т.ч. $E|_{\frak{g}_{1}}=E_{1}$ и пусть $E|_{\frak{g}_{2}}=E_{2}$. Кроме того, действие $E$ на новых элементах $Z_{ij}$ — диагонально. Так как $E_{1}$ и $E_{2}$ интегрируемы, при этом $\left[
\frak{g}_{1},D^{1}\frak{g}_{2}\right] =\left[ D^{1}\frak{g}_{1},\frak{g}_{2}\right] =0$, нам достаточно проверить условие интегрируемости лишь на парах $\left( X,X^{\prime }\right) \in \frak{g}_{1}\frak{\oplus
g}_{2}$ c $\left[ X,X^{\prime }\right] \neq 0$: Пусть $X=\alpha
^{i}X_{i}+\beta ^{j}Y_{j}
$ $\left( i\leq n\right) $ и $X^{\prime }=\gamma ^{k}X_{k}^{\prime}+\delta ^{l}Y_{l}^{\prime }$, где $Y_{i}\in \left[ \frak{g}_{1},\frak{g}_{1}\right] $ соответственно $Y_{i}^{\prime }\in \left[ \frak{g}_{2},\frak{g}_{2}\right] $. Тогда $$\begin{aligned}
&&E\left[ X,X^{\prime }\right] -\left[ E\left( X\right) ,X^{\prime }\right] -\left[ X,E\left( X^{\prime }\right) \right] +E\left[ E\left( X\right)
,E\left( X^{\prime }\right) \right] \nonumber \\
&=&\alpha ^{i}\gamma ^{k}E\left( Z_{ik}\right) -\alpha ^{i}\gamma ^{k}\left(
\varepsilon _{i}+\varepsilon _{k}\right) Z_{ik}+\alpha ^{i}\gamma
^{k}\varepsilon _{i}\varepsilon _{k}E\left( Z_{ik}\right) \nonumber \\
&=&\alpha ^{i}\gamma ^{k}\left\{ \left( 1+\varepsilon _{i}\varepsilon
_{k}\right) E\left( Z_{ik}\right) -\left( \varepsilon _{i}+\varepsilon
_{k}\right) Z_{ik}\right\}. \label{AT}\end{aligned}$$
Чтобы уравнение (28) обратилось в ноль, для всех пар $(i,k)$ нам нужно $E\left( Z_{ik}\right) =\lambda _{ik}Z_{ik}$ s $\lambda
_{ik}=\pm 1$. Имеют место два различных случая:
1. При $\left( i_{0},k_{0}\right) $ мы имеем $\varepsilon
_{i_{0}}+\varepsilon _{k_{0}}=0$. Тогда $1+\varepsilon
_{i_{0}}\varepsilon _{k_{0}}=0$, и мы можем положить $\lambda
_{i_{0}k_{0}}$ равным $1$ или $-1$.
2. При $\left( i_{0},k_{0}\right) $ имеем $\varepsilon
_{i_{0}}+\varepsilon _{k_{0}}\neq 0$. Тогда $sgn\left( \varepsilon
_{i_{0}}\right) =sgn\left( \varepsilon _{k_{0}}\right) $; таким образом, $2E\left( Z_{i_{0}k_{0}}\right) =\pm 2Z_{i_{0}k_{0}}$, поэтому $\lambda _{i_{0}k_{0}}=\pm 1$; знак выбирается в зависимости от $\varepsilon _{i_{0}}+\varepsilon _{k_{0}}$.
Действие $E$ на $Z_{ij}$ полностью определено в случае $\left(
\varepsilon _{i}+\varepsilon _{k}\right) \neq 0$. В остальных случаях мы можем выбрать знак для $\lambda_{ij}$. Для разложения (\[DD\]) мы имеем $$\begin{aligned}
\frak{g}_{+}^{E} &=&\frak{g}_{+}^{E_{1}}\oplus \frak{g}_{+}^{E_{2}}\oplus
\left\langle Z_{ij}\;|\;\lambda _{ij}=1\right\rangle \\
\frak{g}_{-}^{E} &=&\frak{g}_{-}^{E_{1}}\oplus \frak{g}_{-}^{E_{2}}\oplus
\left\langle Z_{ij}\;|\;\lambda _{ij}=-1\right\rangle\end{aligned}$$ Так как $E_{1}$ и $E_{2}$ интегрируемы, то $\frak{g}_{+}^{E}$ и $\frak{g}_{-}^{E}$ являются подалгебрами в $\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{2}$.
Рассмотрим теперь следующие алгебры Ли $\frak{r}_{4}$ и $\frak{r}_{4,0}$: $$\frak{r}_{4}:\;\left[ X_{0},X_{1}\right] =X_{1},\;\left[ X_{0}X_{2}\right]
=X_{1}+X_{2},\;\left[ X_{0},X_{3}\right] =X_{2}+X_{3}$$ в базисе $\left\{ X_{0},X_{1},X_{2},X_{3}\right\} $ и $$\frak{r}_{4,0}:\;\left[ X_{4},X_{5}\right] =X_{6},\;\left[ X_{4},X_{7}\right]
=X_{6}$$ в базисе $\left\{ X_{4},X_{5},X_{6},X_{7}\right\} $. Пусть произведение $\frak{r}_{4}\underline{\times }\frak{r}_{4,0}$. В базисе $\left\{ X_{0},..,X_{9}\right\} $ алгебра задается скобками $$\left[ X_{0},X_{4}\right] =X_{8},\;\left[ X_{0},X_{7}\right] =X_{9}.$$ и коммутационными соотношениями (31)-(32). Алгебры $\frak{r}_{4}$ и $\frak{r}_{4,0}$ имеют структуру $E_{1}$, соотв. $E_{2}$, где
$$\begin{aligned}
E_{1}\left( X_{i}\right) &=&X_{i},\;i=0,1;\;E_{1}\left( X_{i}\right)
=-X_{i},\;i=2,3 \\
E_{2}\left( X_{i}\right) &=&X_{i},\;i=4,5;\;E_{2}\left( X_{i}\right)
=-X_{i},\;i=6,7.\end{aligned}$$
Теперь определим $E:\frak{r}_{4}\underline{\times }\frak{r}_{4,0}\rightarrow \frak{r}_{4}\underline{\times }\frak{r}_{4,0}$ таким образом, что $E|_{\frak{r}_{4}}=E_{1},\;E|_{\frak{r}_{4,0}}=E_{2}$. Из предложения 6 следует, что $$E\left( X_{8}\right) =X_{8},\;E\left( X_{9}\right) =\lambda X_{9},$$ где $\lambda =\pm 1$. Если $ \lambda =1$, то мы получим структуру на $\frak{r}_{4}\underline{\times }\frak{r}_{4,0}$, т.ч. $\dim
\left( \frak{r}_{4}\underline{\times }\frak{r}_{4,0}\right)
_{+}=6,\;\dim
\left( \frak{r}_{4}\underline{\times }\frak{r}_{4,0}\right) _{-}=4$, в то время как выбор $\lambda =-1$ задает структуру с $\dim \left( \frak{r}_{4}\underline{\times }\frak{r}_{4,0}\right) _{+}=\dim \left( \frak{r}_{4}\underline{\times }\frak{r}_{4,0}\right) _{-}=5$.
Пусть $\frak{g}$ — алгебра Ли со структурой произведения $E$. Если $\dim \frak{g}_{+}=\dim \frak{g}_{-}$, то $E$ называют паракомплексной структурой на $\frak{g}$.
Пусть $\frak{g}$ — разрешимая алгебра Ли, для которой $\left\{
X_{1},..,X_{4m},..,X_{2n}\right\} $, так что $b_{1}\left(
\frak{g}\right) =4m$, и пусть $E$ — паракомплексная структура. Если
1. $X_{i}\notin D^{1}\frak{g}$ при $1\leq i\leq 4m,$
2. $X_{i}\in \frak{g}_{+}$ при $1\leq i\leq 2m$ and $X_{i}\in \frak{g}_{-}$ for $2m+1\leq i\leq 4m.$
3. $b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{+}\right) =b_{1}\left( \frak{g}_{-}\right) =2m.
$
то $\frak{g}_{+}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{-}$ допускает паракомплексную структуру.
Так как $E$ — паракомплексная структура, то размерность $\dim \frak{g}_{+}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{-}$ четна. Предложение 6 задает структуру произведения $E$ на $\frak{g}_{+}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{-}$. Ограничение на $\frak{g}_{+}$ и $\frak{g}_{-}$ является тождественным(соотв., антитождественным) отображением. Условием 2 (см. доказательство предложения 6) знак $E\left( \left[ X_{i},X_{j}\right] \right) $ $\left( 1\leq i\leq
2m,2m+1\leq j\leq 4m\right) $ определен быть не может. Из $4m^{2}$ элементов вида $[X_{i},X_{j}]$ сопоставим $2m^{2}$ элементам знак плюс, а остальным $2m^{2}$ элементам — знак минус. Поэтому $\dim \left( \frak{g}_{+}\underline{\times }\frak{g}_{-.}\right)
_{+}=\dim \left( \frak{g}_{+}\underline{\times
}\frak{g}_{-.}\right) _{-}=n+2m^{2}$.
Предыдущий пример показывает, что условие является достаточным, но не необходимым для существования комплексных структур на произведениях.
Автор выражает благодарность А.В.Чернавскому за приглашение на конференцию и В.О.Мантурову за ценные обсуждения и помощь.
[99]{}
J. M. Ancochea and R. Campoamor-Stursberg. Two step solvable Lie algebras and weight graphs, Tranf. Groups **7** (2002), 307-320.
J. M. Ancochea and R. Campoamor-Stursberg. Characteristically nilpotent Lie algebras of type $\frak{g}_{1}\underline{\times}\frak{g}_{2}$, Forum Math. **15** (2003), 299-307.
R. Campoamor-Stursberg. A graph theoretical determination of solvable complete rigid Lie algebras, Linear Alg. Appl. **372** (2003), 53-66.
J. M. Ancochea and R. Campoamor-Stursberg. Symplectic forms and products by generators, Comm. Algebra **[30]{}** (2002), 4235-4249.
Г.М.Мубаракзянов, О разрешимых алгебрах Ли, Известия ВУЗов. Математика. **32** (1963), 114-123.
P. Turkowski. Solvable Lie algebras of dimension six. J. Math. Phys. **31** (1990), 1344-1350.
А.Л. Переломов. Интегрируемые системы классической механики и алгебры Ли, РХД., Москва, 2002.
Д.В. Берзин, Инварианты коприсоединенного представления для алгебр Ли некоторого специального вида, УМН **51** (1996), 141-143.
В.В.Трофимов. Введение в геометрию многообразий с симметриями, изд. МГУ, 1989.
R. Campoamor-Stursberg. An alternative interpretation of the Beltrametti-Blasi formula by means of differential forms, Phys. Lett. A **327** (2004), 138-145.
A. Andrada, M.L. Barberis, I. Dotti, G. Ovando. Product structures on four dimensional solvable Lie algebras, available at xxx.lanl.gov/math.RA/0402234.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Driven vortex lattices interacting with quenched and thermal disorder are an ideal system in which to study the nonequilibrium phases and transitions that arise from the interplay of competing interactions [@Koshelev; @Giamarchi; @Brag-Balents-Scheidl; @Olson; @Higgins-Beasly; @Yaron; @Kes]. Transport measurements [@Higgins-Beasly], neutron scattering [@Yaron], and Bitter decoration experiments [@Kes] have provided strong evidence for transitions between different vortex dynamic phases, including creep, plastic flow, and ordered (elastic) flow. Theoretical work and simulations [@Koshelev] suggested that for a [*moving*]{} vortex lattice, at high velocities the effect of disorder can be represented via a shaking temperature $T_{sh}$, inversely proportional to the velocity. At high velocities $T_{sh}$ decreases below the melting temperature $T_{m}$, and the vortices reorder. $T_m$ of the ordered moving vortex lattice is near the equilibrium $T_m$ of the disorder-free stationary lattice. In the highly driven, solidified state, theoretical [@Giamarchi] work suggested that the vortex lattice forms a moving Bragg-glass (MBG), or a strongly anisotropic moving smectic (MS) or moving transverse glass (MTG) [@Brag-Balents-Scheidl]. In the MBG the vortices move in correlated channels with few defects, producing quasi-long range order. In the MS/MTG vortices move in uncorrelated channels, so although power law transverse order is present, the longitudinal order is short range only. Strongly anisotropic ordering, consistent with a MS/MTG, as well as more ordered phases, consistent with a MBG and vortex channeling, have been seen in simulations [@Olson] and Bitter decoration experiments [@Kes].
Despite the considerable work done in the case of random quenched disorder, the effects of thermal disorder and melting for the interesting case of a moving vortex lattice interacting with a [*periodic*]{} pinning substrate have been far less studied. Periodic pinning substrates in superconductors can be created with arrays of microholes [@Baert-holes] and magnetic dots [@Schuller]. In all such systems, the pin radius is smaller than the distance between pins, so that a moving vortex spends the largest fraction of its time in the unpinned area. A crucial difference from the random pinning case is that the effect of the periodic pinning cannot be represented by a shaking temperature. The same periodicity also induces true long range transverse or longitudinal order in the moving lattice.
We report a numerical study of the melting of moving vortices in square periodic pinning arrays. With no driving, the system with pinning melts at a [*higher*]{} temperature than the pin free system. For moving vortices at low temperatures, we observe a triangular lattice flowing in strict 1D correlated channels, with transverse and longitudinal long range order. The transverse order is greater than the longitudinal order, and the anisotropy increases with temperature. At higher temperatures near the melting temperature of the [*clean*]{} equilibrium system, we observe a transition to a moving smectic (MS) state, where transverse vortex wandering between channels occurs. At even higher temperatures near the melting temperature of the [*pinned*]{} equilibrium system, the moving smectic melts into a moving isotropic liquid (ML). We present the dynamic phase diagram and explain its features in terms of the pinned and unpinned equilibium melting transitions. We use finite temperature overdamped molecular dynamics simulations in two dimensions. ${\bf f}_{i} = {\eta}{\bf v}_{i} = {\bf f}_{i}^{vv} +
{\bf f}_{i}^{vp} + {\bf f}_{d}
+ {\bf f}_{i}^{T}$. We impose periodic boundary condition in $x$ and $y$. The force between vortices at ${\bf r}_{i}$ and ${\bf r}_{j}$ is ${\bf f}_{i}^{vv} = \sum^{N_{v}}_{j=1}
f_{0}A_{v}K_{1} (|{\bf r}_{i} - {\bf r}_{j}|/\lambda){\bf {\hat r}}_{ij}$, where $K_{1}(r/\lambda)$ is a modified Bessel function, $f_{0} = \Phi_{0}^{2}/8\pi^{2}\lambda^{3}$, $\lambda$ is the penetration depth and the parameter $A_{v}$ tunes the vortex-vortex interaction strength. For most of the results here $A_{v} = 1.0$. The driving force ${\bf f}_{d}$, representing a Lorentz force, is in the $x$ direction. The pinning is modeled as attractive parabolic traps of maximum strength $f_{p}$ and a range $r_{p}$ which is less than the distance between pins $a$. The thermal force $f_{i}^{T}$ has the properties $<f_{i}^{T}> = 0$ and $<f_{i}^{T}(t)f_{j}^{T}(t^{'})> = 2\eta k_{B}T\delta_{ij}\delta(t - t^{'})$. The temperature $T = (1/2\eta k_{B})(Af_{0})^{2}\delta t $ where $\delta t$ is the time step in the simulation and $A$ is the number we tune to vary $T$, with $f_{i}^{T}=Af_0$. We take $f_{0} = k_{B} = \eta = 1$ and use $\delta t = 0.04$. We explore the phase diagram by conducting constant $f_{d}$ or $T$ sweeps on the $f_{d}-T$ plane. Our model is most relevant to superconductors with perodic arrays of columnar defects or thin-film superdonctors where the vortices can be approximated as 2D objects. A realistic 3D model would be needed to address the exact nature of the liquid phase, such as whether it is a line liquid. In
=3.5in
this work we consider only the commensurate case where the number of vortices $N_{v}$ equals the number of pinning sites $N_{p}$. Results for the incommensurate cases will be presented elsewhere. The initial vortex positions are generated by simulated annealing with each pinning site capturing one vortex. For finite size scaling we analyze system sizes with $N_{v} \sim L^{2}$ for $N_{v} = 224$ to $N_{v}= 2112$.
We first establish the melting temperature in the pin free and pinned systems without external drive ($f_{d} = 0$) with the vortex displacements $d_{r} = <|({\bf r}(t) - {\bf r}(0))|^{2}>$, and the structure factor $S({\bf k}) = \frac{1}{L^{2}}\sum_{i,j}e^{i{\bf k}\cdot[{\bf r}_{i}(t) -
{\bf r}_{j}(t)]}. $ In the pinned system the vortex lattice has the same square symmetry as the pinning lattice. The melting temperature is determined from the simultaneous onset of diffusion and a drop in the peaks in $S(k)$. In Fig. 1 we show that the melting temperature $T_{m}$ is [*higher*]{} in the pinned system, with $T_{m}^{p} \approx 0.03$, than in the unpinned system, $T_{m}^{np} \approx 0.0058$. This is reasonable since at commensuration the pins stiffen the vortex lattice.
Next we explore the dynamic phases of the system. For $f_{p} = 0.22f_{0}$ the $T = 0$ depinning occurs at $f_{d} = 0.22f_{0}$. For fixed $f_{d} = 0.45$ we perform a $T$ sweep, and monitor $S({\bf k})$. Every 400 MD steps we measure the transverse displacements $d_{y} = <|y(T) - y(0)|^{2}>$ from the initial positions of the vortices at $T = 0$. For low drives the vortices form a pinned [*square*]{} vortex lattice. The pinned phase is defined by measuring $V_{x} = (1/N_{v})\sum^{N_{v}}_{i=1}{\bf v}_{i}\cdot{\bf {\hat x}}$. In the inset of Fig. 1 we show the typical $V_{x}$ versus $f_{d}$ curves for two different temperatures. The transition from the pinned to moving phases are marked by a jump in the $V_{x}$ at a well defined $f_{d}$. From $V_{x}$ versus $f_{d}$ curves we found little evidence for plastic or collective creep behaviour for temperatures below $T_{m}^{p}$; however, much longer time scales would be necessary to explore the creep behaviour.
Above some $T$ dependent driving force, we find that the vortices form a [*triangular*]{} lattice, with the principle lattice vector aligned with the direction of motion, since the vortices spend part of thier time between pins where
=3.5in
the vortex-vortex interaction dominates. In Fig. 2(a) we plot the transverse $S(k_{T})$ and longitudinal $S(k_{L})$ structure function peaks for increasing $T$. For low $T$, $S(k_{T})$ is only slightly larger than $S(k_{L})$. This anisotropy between the peaks becomes more pronounced as $T$ is increased. The ordering can be analyzed from the finite size scaling of the structure factor as $S(k)/L^{2} \sim L^{-\eta}$ [@Franz]. A solid with long range order will have $\eta = 0$ while a system with short range order such as a liquid will have $\eta = 2$. In the inset of Fig. 2(a), $S(k_{T})/L^{2}$ and $S(k_{L})/L^{2}$ (where $N_{v} \sim L^{2}$) are plotted for different system sizes in the low temperature regime ($T = 0.0025$). Both peaks scale as $\eta \approx 0$, indicative of long range order. Near $T = 0.0095$, which we label $T_{MS}$, $S(k_{L})$ drops precipitously, indicating complete loss of longitudinal order, while $S(k_{T})$ retains a significant finite value. Gradually $S(k_{T})$ drops to the level of $S(k_{L})$ near $T = 0.03$, which we label $T_{ML}$. In this $T > T_{MS}$ regime the longitudinal peak $S(k_{L})/L^{2}$ scales as $\eta = 1.95 \pm 0.03$, consistent with an $\eta = 2$ scaling behavior indicating the loss of longitudinal order. At this same temperature the transverse peak $S(k_{T})/L^{2}$ shows a $\sim L^{-0.0}$ form (triangles in upper inset of Fig. 2), indicating that long range transverse order is still present. The behavior of the two peaks for $T_{MS} < T < T_{ML}$ indicates the presence of a moving smectic phase. For $T> T_{ML}$ both $S(k_{L})$ and $S(k_{T})$ scale as $\sim L^{-2}$ as the system becomes an isotropic liquid. We label these three phases the moving crystal
=3.5in
‘(MC), the moving smectic (MS) and moving liquid phase (ML). $\eta$ has some temperature dependence near the transitions which we will examine elsewhere. In the inset to Fig. 2(b) we plot the fraction of 6-fold coordination number $P_{6}$ versus $T$ as obtained from the Voronoi construction. The proliferation of defects occurs at $T = T_{MS}$ as seen by the drop in $P_{6}$. In Fig.2(b) we plot the transverse displacement $d_{y}$. For $T < T_{MS}, $ $d_{y} \approx 0$ indicating that the vortices are moving in straight 1D channels. For $T \geq T_{MS}$, $d_{y}$ increases indicating that the onset of vortex wondering in the $y$ direction is correlated with the loss of longitudinal order and the proliferation of defects. To examine the individual vortex behavior in the different dynamic phases in Fig. 3 we plot snapshots of the vortex positions and trajectories for MC at $T = 0.0025$, MS at $T = 0.015$, and ML at $T = 0.035$. In the MC phase, the vortices form an ordered triangular lattice \[Fig.3(a)\], and move in correlated 1D paths \[Fig.3(b)\], which agrees
=3.5in
with the zero transverse wandering $d_{y} \approx 0$ in Fig. 2(b). As $T$ is increased in the MC phase the channel width increases; however, vortices [*do not cross*]{} from one channel to another. The pinning also induces the long-range order seen from the scaling of $S(k)$, whereas algebraic decay would be expected since the system is in 2D. In the MS phase, shown in Fig. 3(c), the vortices are much less ordered than in the MC phase; however, some order remains. The vortex trajectories in the MS phase, Fig. 3(d), reveal that although some channeling occurs along the pinning, there is considerable vortex motion [*between*]{} and [*across*]{} the channels. This interchannel vortex motion accounts for the increase of the transverse displacements, $d_{y}$, at the onset of the MS phase in Fig. 2(b). The residual vortex channeling accounts for the finite value of $S(k_{T})$ in the MS phase, but the vortex positions are uncorrelated between channels so there is no longitudinal order and the vortex lattice is highly defected. Since the residual channels have the same period as the pinning lattice the transverse scaling in $S(k)$ gives long range order. Finally in the ML phase, shown in Fig.3(e,f), the vortex positions are disordered and the channeling behavior is lost.
In Fig. 4 we present the central result of this work, the dynamic phase diagram as a function of $f_{d}$ and $T$ obtained from fixed drive increasing $T$ simulations (denoted by solid circles) and from fixed temperature increasing drive simulations (denoted by open circles and squares). The depinning line is determined from the pronounced upward curvature in the $V(I)$ curves or the onset of displacements. The MC-MS line is found from the saturation of $S(k_{L})$ to a minimum value as well as the onset of the transverse displacements. The MS-ML line is obtained from the point at which the transverse $S(k_{T})$ peak drops to a minimal value and exhibits a scaling of $\eta \approx 2$. The MS-ML line is roughly independent of drive above $f_{d} = 0.25f_{0}$. The MS line shows some curvature toward lower temperatures for drives near the depinning line. The MC-MS transition occurs a small amount [*above*]{} $T_{m}^{np} = 0.0058$ but approaches this value for the lower drives. The MS-ML transition line coincides with the pinned (zero driving value) melting temperature $T_{m}^{p}$. The pinned phase vanishes at $T_{m}^{p}$.
The onset of these different phases can be understood by considering that for higher drives the moving vortices spend a great part of their time [*outside*]{} the pinning sites because $r_{p} \lesssim a$. For temperatures above $T_{m}^{np}$ the vortices enter a molten state while moving [*between*]{} pinning sites since they are essentially moving in a clean system. In this melted state, the thermal fluctuations overcome the vortex-vortex interaction and the correlation of vortices in adjacent channels as well as the longitudinal order is lost. The vortices start diffusing at random, leading to a large increase in $d_{y}$. Unlike the case of random pinning, which induces an additional shaking temperature that effectively [*lowers*]{} the temperature at which the vortices disorder or melt, vortices moving in a periodic pinning array will [*not*]{} experience a shaking temperature. As long as $T$ is [*less*]{} than the melting temperature of the non-driven clean system $T_{m}^{np}$, at any drive the overall moving vortex lattice remains ordered. Further there is still a pinning effect in the transverse direction. This transverse pinning which causes the channeling has been seen in simulations with random pinning [@Olson] and is particularly large for simulations with periodic pinning arrays [@Reichhardt]. During the time the vortices are [*in*]{} the pinning sites they still feel a transverse pinning force until $T >T_{m}^{p}$, so some vortex channeling persists and finite transverse ordering appears. Above $T_{m}^{p}$ the pinning is no longer effective so channeling and transverse order are both lost.
A test of the above interpretation is that $T_{MS}$ is related to $T_{m}^{np}$. $T_{m}^{np}$ can be tuned by changing the vortex-vortex interaction prefactor $A_{v}$. As $A_{v}$ is lowered $T_{m}^{np}$ will also be lowered. In the inset of Fig. 4 we show the melting lines for the clean non-moving system and the moving system with pinning ($f_{d} = 0.45f_{0}$) for $T$ versus $A_{v}$. As $A_{v}$ is increased the $T_{m}^{np}$ and $T_{MS}$ lines increase at the same rate. This correlation is encouraging evidence for the above interpretation. For the stiffer lattices (high $A_{v}$) the MC phase is larger.
In summary, we have studied numerically the melting and dynamic phase diagram of a vortex lattice interacting with a square periodic pinning array. The melting temperature for the non-driven pinned system is higher than that for the equivalent clean system. For moving vortices at low $T$ the vortex lattice moves in correlated 1D channels and has long range order with some anisotropy between the longitudinal and transverse peaks. At a higher temperature there is a transition to a Moving Smectic phase where longitudinal order is lost while long-range transverse order remains. In the Moving Smectic phase the channel flow still persists but vortices diffuse between channels. At high temperatures the transverse order and channeling is also lost. The Moving Crystal-Moving Smectic transition corresponds roughly to the melting temperature of the zero drive clean system.
We thank C.J. Olson and R.T. Scalettar for useful discussions and critical reading of the manuscript. Funding provided by CLC/CULAR.
-[*Note Added*]{} After submission we became aware of the paper by V. Marconi and D. Dominguez [@Marconi] in which they also study the melting of moving vortex lattices intercting with a periodic substrate in a peroidc Josephson-juntion array in which we find several overlapping results. They, however, do [*not*]{} find a moving smectic phase which is due to their pinning being modeled as an egg-carton potential unlike our model in which the space between the pinned sites is essential for the smectic phase to occur.
A.E. Koshelev and V.M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 3580 (1994).
T. Giamarchi and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3408 (1996).
T. Giamarchi and P. Le Doussal, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 11 356 (1998); L. Balents, M.C. Marchetti, and L. Radzihovsky, [*ibid.*]{} [**57**]{}, 7705 (1998); S. Scheidl and V.M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. E [**57**]{}, 2574 (1998).
K. Moon, R.T. Scalettar, and G.T. Zimányi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2778 (1996); S. Ryu [*et al.*]{}, [*ibid.*]{} [**77**]{}, 5114 (1996); S. Spencer and H.J. Jensen, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 8473 (1997). D. Dominguez [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 2644 (1997); C. J. Olson, C. Reichhardt, and F. Nori, [*ibid.*]{} [**81**]{}, 3757 (1998). D. Dominguez, [*ibid.*]{} [**82**]{}, 181 (1999). A. Kolton [*et al.*]{}, [*ibid.*]{} [**83**]{}, 3061 (1999).
S. Bhattacharya and M.J. Higgins, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2617 (1993); M.C. Hellerqvist [*et al.*]{}, [*ibid.*]{} [**76**]{}, 4022 (1996); W. Henderson [*et al.*]{}, [*ibid.*]{} [**77**]{}, 2077 (1996).
U. Yaron [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**376**]{}, 753 (1995).
F. Pardo [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 2644 (1997). M. Marchevsky [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 531 (1997). F. Pardo [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**396**]{}, 348 (1998).
M. Baert [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3269 (1995); K. Harada [*et al.*]{}, Science [**271**]{}, 1393 (1996); A. Castellanos [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**71**]{}, 962 (1997); V. Metlushko [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**59**]{}, 603 (1999). L. Van Look [*et al.*]{}, [*ibid*]{}, [**60**]{}, R6998 (1999).
J.I. Martín [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 1929 (1997); [**83**]{}, 1022 (1999); D.J. Morgan and J.B. Ketterson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 3614 (1998); Y. Fasano [*et al.*]{}, to be published.
C. Reichhardt, C.J. Olson and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 2648 (1997); C. Reichhardt, C.J. Olson and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 6534 (1998).
M. Franz and S. Teitel, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 6551 (1995).
V. Marconi and D. Dominguez, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3061 (1999).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Introduction
============
The summation of Coulomb potentials over crystal lattices is a classical problem [@Glas80] important for determining the cohesive energy in crystals [@Tosi64] as well as for describing electronic properties there [@Harr75; @Ihm988]. Despite a long history of this subject ($\hspace{-3.5pt}$[@Khol01] and references therein) the question about the uniqueness of electrostatic properties in the bulk remains controversial. Indeed, it is well-known that every electrostatic task is defied by boundary conditions [@Jack62] and periodic boundary conditions are appropriate to the solution in the bulk [@Born12]. As a result, any electric field generated by polar unit cells is to be excluded as irrelevant to the bulk state [@Smit81; @Deem90]. Notwithstanding, as far as electrostatic potentials are concerned, an arbitrary constant potential could be formally added as an available periodic solution of Laplace’s equation [@Harr75; @Dahl65; @Redl75; @Zhan94]. Therefore, the absence of a constant potential in the original approach of Ewald [@Ewal21] is often treated as optional [@Harr75], whereas the wide-spread standpoint is that the electrostatic potentials are well defined by boundary conditions on open surfaces of crystals, but these potentials are undetermined to an additive constant in infinite crystals [@Klei81]. This claim is, however, at variance with at least the two physical statements: On the one hand, due to statistical arguments, the bulk state cannot be governed by surface ones [@Born54; @Grif68]. Furthermore, the actual charge distribution in the bulk of a crystal is to be in one-to-one correspondence with potentials it generates [@Spac81; @Gene87].
In the present paper we show that periodic boundary conditions defined properly are sufficient to make electrostatic potentials definite in the bulk. It means that periodic boundary conditions are as effective as boundary conditions on surfaces are. Moreover, the latter ones can then be reconstructed as relevant to real surfaces consistent with bulk states [@Tosi64; @Task79; @Wolf92].
Lattice summation as a convergent procedure
===========================================
In the general case of triclinic symmetry, let a crystal be described by primitive translation vectors ${{\bf a}}=a{{\bf e}}_a$, ${{\bf b}}=b{{\bf e}}_b$ and ${{\bf c}}=c{{\bf e}}_c$, where ${{\bf e}}_a$, ${{\bf e}}_b$ and ${{\bf e}}_c$ are the appropriate unit vectors, with the products $({{\bf e}}_a{{\bf e}}_b)=\cos\alpha$, $({{\bf e}}_b{{\bf e}}_c)=\cos\beta$ and $({{\bf e}}_c{{\bf e}}_a)=\cos\gamma$. In terms of a charge distribution $\rho({{\bf r}})$ contained in a unit cell parallelepiped, the direct lattice-sum contribution to the electrostatic potential at a reference point ${{\bf r}}$ can be written as $$\label{Aq1}
U_{\rm Cd}({{\bf r}})={\mathop{{\sum}'\!\!\!}}_i\int_V\frac{\rho({{\bf r}}')\:d{{\bf r}}'}{|{{{\bf R}_i}}+{{\bf r}}'-{{\bf r}}|} ,$$ where $i$ runs over the corresponding Bravais lattice specified by ${{{\bf R}_i}}$, the prime on the summation sign implies missing the singular contributions of the summand, the integration is over the unit-cell volume.
To make the result of summation in (\[Aq1\]) definite, the following conditions for the absolute convergence of (\[Aq1\]) are to be suggested [@Evje32; @Coog67]: $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\displaystyle\int_V}\rho({{\bf r}})\:d{{\bf r}}=0 ,\label{Aq2}\\
&&M_\mu\equiv{\displaystyle\int_V}r_\mu\rho({{\bf r}})\:d{{\bf r}}=0 , \label{Aq3}\\
&&G_{\mu\nu}\equiv{\displaystyle\int_V}r_\mu r_\nu\rho({{\bf r}})\:d{{\bf r}}=0
\quad\mbox{at}\quad\mu\neq\nu ,\label{Aq4}\\
&&G_{xx}=G_{yy}=G_{zz}=H ,\label{Aq5}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_\mu$ are Cartesian components of ${{\bf r}}$, $H$ is an arbitrary constant. If any initial $\rho^{\rm ini}({{\bf r}})$ is not subjected to (\[Aq3\])–(\[Aq5\]), provided that the neutrality condition (\[Aq2\]) holds, then we may modify $\rho^{\rm ini}({{\bf r}})$ as follows: $$\label{Aq6}
\rho({{\bf r}})=\rho^{\rm ini}({{\bf r}})+\sum_jq_j\delta({{\bf r}}-{{\bf r}}_j) ,$$ where $\delta({{\bf r}})$ is the Dirac delta function, $q_j$ are some fictitious point charges [@Evje32; @Fran50] located in the vicinity of the origin, ${{\bf r}}=0$, at points ${{\bf r}}_j$ connected by admissible lattice translations. The values of $q_j$ are constrained by $$\label{Aq7}
\sum_jq_j=0$$ so as to exclude the contribution of $q_j$ to the overall initial charge distribution upon combining $\rho({{\bf r}})$ attributed to neighbouring unit cells. It is significant that ten different charge species among $q_j$ are sufficient to fulfil (\[Aq3\])–(\[Aq5\]) and (\[Aq7\]). Thus, $H$ remains optional in (\[Aq5\]).
It is advantageous to consider a unit cell with the origin in its geometric centre. Then a compact distribution of $q_j$ is supplied by ${{\bf r}}_j$ belonging to the following set of vectors: ${{\bf 0}}$, $\pm{{\bf a}}$, $\pm{{\bf b}}$, $\pm{{\bf c}}$, $\pm{{\bf a}}\pm{{\bf b}}$, $\pm{{\bf b}}\pm{{\bf c}}$ and $\pm{{\bf c}}\pm{{\bf a}}$. Keeping in mind that $\rho^{\rm ini}({{\bf r}})$ is still contained in the unit-cell parallelepiped, $\rho({{\bf r}})$ can be connected with a parallelepiped that is the same in shape, but twice as large in size. It is convenient to adopt this parallelepiped as a new unit cell. Being additive, the potential of interest is then described by the sum of independent contributions of eight interpenetrating lattices composed of new unit cells each. Thus, it is conceptually sufficient to discuss the potential effect generated by a single lattice specified by (\[Aq1\])–(\[Aq5\]), provided that this lattice is still determined by the lattice parameters $a$, $b$ and $c$, as is verified later on.
Invariance of periodic boundary conditions
==========================================
To make the solution of interest determinate, we assume that the overall structure is composed of an integral number of unit cells restricted by planes which are parallel to the unit-cell faces and are specified by the vectors $\pm{{\bf A}}$, $\pm{{\bf B}}$ and $\pm{{\bf C}}$ relative to a central unit cell, where ${{\bf A}}=A{{\bf e}}_a$, ${{\bf B}}=B{{\bf e}}_b$ and ${{\bf C}}=C{{\bf e}}_c$ at $$\label{Aq8}
\frac{A}{a}=\frac{B}{b}=\frac{C}{c}\gg1 ,$$ so that the uniformity along each crystallographic direction is maintained. Periodic boundary conditions are then readily involved as imposed in such a way that each couple of remote parallel restricting planes merges, so that equal number of complete unit cells occur along each direction of ${{\bf e}}_a$, ${{\bf e}}_b$ and ${{\bf e}}_c$. In this event, the invariant character of periodic boundary conditions implies that each plane of merging may also occur somewhere within boundary unit cells, without changing the result. It is important that if planes of merging happen in intermediate positions specified by $0\leq f\leq1$ within boundary unit cells, without loss of generality, some instantaneous charge distributions are to be introduced on those planes so as to fulfil conditions (\[Aq2\]) and (\[Aq3\]) furnishing the convergence of the surface potential contributions. As a result, the contribution of any dipolar polarization along those planes can be eliminated, but dipolar moments normal to the planes in question are inevitable and contribute to the potential value in the interior [@Task79; @Lee980; @Hey281; @Coke83]. In the particular case of the $+{{\bf A}}$ plane one can show that the corresponding potential contribution takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Aq9}
{{\mit\Phi}}_{{{\bf A}}}(f)&=&\frac{{{\mit\Omega}}^2}{\sin\beta}\!\int_{-a/2}^{t(f)}\!
\!dt\!\!\int_{-b/2}^{b/2}\!\!dp\!\!\int_{-c/2}^{c/2}\!\!du\,
\rho(t,p,u)\nonumber\\
&&{}\times\Bigl[t(f)-t\Bigr]\sum\limits_{i\in\{{{\bf A}}\}}
\frac{R_i^{\bot{{\bf A}}}}{R_i^3} ,\end{aligned}$$ where in the triclinic co-ordinates ${{\bf r}}=t{{\bf e}}_a+p{{\bf e}}_b+u{{\bf e}}_c$, $t(f)=af-a/2$, $i$ runs over unit cells truncated by the boundary plane, with $R_i^{\bot{{\bf A}}}$, the component of ${{{\bf R}_i}}$ along an outward normal to this plane, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Aq10}
{{\mit\Omega}}&=&\bigl[1-\cos^2\alpha-\cos^2\beta-\cos^2\gamma\nonumber\\
&&{}+2\cos\alpha\;\cos\beta\;\cos\gamma\bigr]^{1/2} .\end{aligned}$$ Upon merging the $\pm{{\bf A}}$ planes, auxiliary charges on those planes cancel each other at a given $f$, but the aforementioned invariance of the boundary conditions is based on (\[Aq9\]) averaged over $f$, so that the effective potential generated by that couple of planes is to be specified as $$\label{Aq11}
\bar{{{\mit\Phi}}}_{{{\bf A}}}=\int_0^1\Bigl[{{\mit\Phi}}_{{{\bf A}}}(f)+{{\mit\Phi}}_{-{{\bf A}}}(1-f)\Bigr]df ,$$ where ${{\mit\Phi}}_{-{{\bf A}}}(f)$ follows from (\[Aq9\]) upon inversion of the co-ordinate system. Carrying out the integration over $f$ in (\[Aq11\]) and utilizing (\[Aq5\]), we obtain $$\label{Aq12}
\bar{{{\mit\Phi}}}_{{{\bf A}}}=\frac{H\sin\beta}{a{{\mit\Omega}}}\sum\limits_{i\in\{{{\bf A}}\}}
\frac{R_i^{\bot{{\bf A}}}}{R_i^3} .$$
Uniqueness of bulk potentials
=============================
The structural factor described by the sum in (\[Aq12\]) determines the potential at a large distance from the plane at hand. Therefore, it is independent of the discrete character of that sum [@Redl75; @Task79; @Coog67; @Hey281] and so can be represented in the following integral form $$\label{Aq13}
\sum\limits_{i\in\{{{\bf A}}\}}\frac{R_i^{\bot{{\bf A}}}}{R_i^3}=\frac{a{{\mit\Omega}}}{bc
\sin\beta}\int_{-b}^b dp\int_{-c}^c\frac{du}{W^3(a,p,u)} ,$$ where the scale transformation to the parameters of a unit cell is performed in agreement with (\[Aq8\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Aq14}
W(a,b,c)&=&\bigl(a^2+b^2+c^2+2ab\cos\alpha+2bc\cos\beta\nonumber\\
&&{}+2ca\cos\gamma\bigr)^{1/2} .\end{aligned}$$ Carrying out the integration in (\[Aq13\]) and substituting the result into (\[Aq12\]), we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Aq15}
\bar{{{\mit\Phi}}}_{{{\bf A}}}&=&\frac{H}{v}\Bigl[Y(a,\!b,\!c|\alpha,\!\beta,\!
\gamma)\!-\!Y(-a,\!b,\!c|\alpha,\!\beta,\!\gamma)\!\nonumber\\
&&{}-\!Y(a,\!-b,\!c|\alpha,\!\beta,\!\gamma)\!-\!
Y(a,\!b,\!-c|\alpha,\!\beta,\!\gamma)\Bigr] ,\end{aligned}$$ where $v=abc{{\mit\Omega}}$ is the volume of the unit cell, $$\begin{aligned}
&&Y(a,b,c|\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=\tan^{-1}\Bigl\{\bigl[bc\sin^2\!\beta
+ab{{\mit\Gamma}}(\gamma)\nonumber\\
&&\qquad{}+ca{{\mit\Gamma}}(\alpha)-a^2{{\mit\Gamma}}(\beta)\bigr]\bigl[a\;
{{\mit\Omega}}\;W(a,b,c)\bigr]^{-1}\Bigr\} ,\label{Aq16}\\
&&{{\mit\Gamma}}(\phi_1)=\cos\phi_1-\cos\phi_2\cos\phi_3 ,\label{Aq17}\end{aligned}$$ the parameters $\phi_j$ are the angles $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ in an arbitrary combination.
As a generalization of (\[Aq15\]), the total potential contribution associated with the $\pm{{\bf A}}$, $\pm{{\bf B}}$ and $\pm{{\bf C}}$ boundary planes after their merging takes the form $$\label{Aq18}
{{\mit\Phi}}_{\rm top}=\bar{{{\mit\Phi}}}_{{\bf A}}+\bar{{{\mit\Phi}}}_{{\bf B}}+\bar{{{\mit\Phi}}}_{{\bf C}},$$ where $\bar{{{\mit\Phi}}}_{{\bf B}}$ and $\bar{{{\mit\Phi}}}_{{\bf C}}$ are obtained from (\[Aq15\])–(\[Aq17\]) upon the cyclic interchanges ${{\bf A}}\to{{\bf B}}\to{{\bf C}}$, $a\to b\to c\to a$ and $\alpha\to\beta\to\gamma\to\alpha$ there. To proceed further, we remark that the angles $Y(a,b,c|\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$, $Y(b,c,a|\beta,\gamma,\alpha)$ and $Y(c,a,b|\gamma,\alpha,\beta)$ associated with $W(+a,+b,+c)$ and denoted as $\chi_j$ form a closed set with the property $$\label{Aq19}
\tan(\chi_1+\chi_2)\tan\chi_3=1 ,\qquad |\chi_j|<\pi/2 .$$ One can readily prove therefrom that $$\label{Aq20}
\chi^{+++}=\chi_1+\chi_2+\chi_3=\frac{\pi}{2} ,$$ where the sign combination specifying the arguments of $W(+a,+b,+c)$ is indicated as a superscript. Likewise, for the angles associated with $W(-a,+b,+c)$, $W(+a,-b,+c)$ and $W(+a,+b,-c)$ we get $$\label{Aq21}
\chi^{-++}=\chi^{+-+}=\chi^{++-}=-\frac{\pi}{2} .$$ Substituting (\[Aq20\]) and (\[Aq21\]) into (\[Aq18\]), we finally reach $$\label{Aq22}
{{\mit\Phi}}_{\rm top}=\frac{2\pi H}{v} .$$
On combining (\[Aq1\]) and (\[Aq22\]), the definite bulk potential field takes the form $$\label{Aq23}
U_{\rm b}({{\bf r}})=U_{\rm Cd}({{\bf r}})+{{\mit\Phi}}_{\rm top} .$$ Following Bethe [@Beth28], one can see that the value of $U_{\rm
Cd}({{\bf r}})$ averaged over a unit cell cancels the last term on the right-hand side of (\[Aq23\]), so that for the mean bulk potential we obtain $$\label{Aq24}
\bar{U}_{\rm b}=0 .$$ Hence, the bulk potential field $U_{\rm b}({{\bf r}})$ is independent of an optional parameter $H$ and has no uniform component, in agreement with the result of Ewald [@Ewal21].
Discussion
==========
It is significant that in a general case of (\[Aq6\]) the effect of eight sublattices mentioned above on the resulting ${{\mit\Phi}}_{\rm top}$ just compensates the increase of the unit-cell volume in each of them, so that relation (\[Aq22\]) is reproduced with the parameters attributed to the initial unit cell. It is also clear that the auxiliary fictitious charges introduced in (\[Aq6\]) vanish under periodic boundary conditions, so that real structural charges are of importance altogether. On the other hand, according to the above procedure of averaging, the issue (\[Aq7\]) turns out to be indifferent to the particular definition of a unit cell. As discussed in [@Khol01], the foregoing result may also be associated with the translational invariance as an integral property of the direct lattice sum (\[Aq1\]) within a special mode of summation. This circumstance was stressed by Ewald [@Ewal21] as desirable upon the definition of lattice sums as such.
Note that the potential $U_{\rm Cd}({{\bf r}})$ as a function of ${{\bf r}}$ is asymmetric if $H\neq0$. This is especially prominent in diatomic structures composed of point charges [@Evje32; @Fise92], but relation (\[Aq23\]) retrieves the symmetric result there.
For completeness, one can show that, in terms of (\[Aq23\]), the bulk Coulomb energy per unit cell takes the form $$\label{Aq25}
{{\cal E}}_{\rm b}=\frac{1}{2}\int_{V^{\rm ini}}\rho^{\rm ini}({{\bf r}})U_{\rm b}({{\bf r}})
\:d{{\bf r}},$$ which is invariant, though $\rho^{\rm ini}({{\bf r}})$ occupying a volume $V^{\rm ini}$ remains optional. According to [@Khol01], the variational derivative of ${{\cal E}}_{\rm b}$ with respect to $\rho^{\rm
ini}({{\bf r}})$ is then equal to $$\label{Aq26}
\frac{\delta{{\cal E}}_{\rm b}}{\delta\rho^{\rm ini}({{\bf r}})}=U_{\rm b}({{\bf r}})$$ that is the basic statement for determining $\rho^{\rm ini}({{\bf r}})$ in a self-consistent manner [@Gene87].
It is worth noting that relations (\[Aq22\]) and (\[Aq23\]) also describe the potential effect exerted by extended charges even if we deal with spherical electronic distributions in ions [@Khol01]. As a result, the potential asymmetry beyond the potential contribution of a point-charge lattice takes place as well. According to (\[Aq25\]), this fact results in the asymmetry of the concentration of vacancies of different ionic species [@Khol02] and so explains the $n$-type conductivity in intrinsic semiconductors such as ZnO or GaAs [@Goo269; @Oate95].
Note that the description based on (\[Aq1\])–(\[Aq7\]) and (\[Aq22\])–(\[Aq26\]) is quite general, with including the effect of the Lorentz field for polar unit cells as a particular case [@Kho201]. A subtle problem associated with the definition of a local polarization in ferroelectrics [@Vand93; @Orti94] can also be elucidated therefrom, as will be discussed elsewhere.
Conclusion
==========
Without loss of generality, the problem of summation of Coulomb potentials over crystal lattices is investigated in terms of absolutely convergent sums with an arbitrary choice of the charge distribution in a unit cell. The principal case of triclinic symmetry is considered. It is shown that periodic boundary conditions imposed in an invariant manner so as to exclude the influence of the particular choice of a unit cell are sufficient for determining the electrostatic potentials in the bulk as uniquely defined, with zero mean bulk potential value. A few direct consequences of the results obtained are pointed out.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I am grateful to Professor V. L. Ginzburg, Professor E. G. Maksimov and Professor V. G. Vaks for their encouragement of this work.
E-mail: [email protected] M. L. Glasser and I. J. Zucker, in: Theoretical Chemistry: Advances and Perspectives, edited by H. Eyring and D. Henderson (Academic Press, New York, 1980), Vol. 5, pp. 67–139. M. P. Tosi, in: Solid State Physics, edited by F. Seitz and D. Turnbull (Academic Press, New York, 1964) Vol. 16, pp. 1–120. F. E. Harris, in: Theoretical Chemistry: Advances and Perspectives, edited by H. Eyring and D. Henderson (Academic Press, New York, 1975), Vol. 1, pp. 147–218. J. Ihm, Rep. Prog. Phys. 51 (1988) 105. E. V. Kholopov, Preprint 2001-01 (Inst. of Inorg. Chem., Novosibirsk, 2001) (submitted to Philos. Mag. B). J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1962). M. Born and Th. von K[á]{}rm[á]{}n, Phys. Z. 8 (1912) 297. E. R. Smith, Proc. R. Soc. London A 375 (1981) 475. M. W. Deem, J. M. Newsam and S. K. Sinha, J. Phys. Chem. 94 (1990) 8356. J. P. Dahl, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 26 (1965) 33. A. Redlack and J. Grindlay, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 36 (1975) 73. X.-G. Zhang, W. H. Butler, J. M. MacLaren and J. van Ek, Phys. Rev. B 49 (1994) 13383. P. P. Ewald, Ann. Phys. F4 64 (1921) 253. L. Kleinman, Phys. Rev. B 24 (1981) 7412. M. Born and K. Huang, Dynamical Theory of Crystal Lattices (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1954).
R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. 176 (1968) 655. M. A. Spackman and R. F. Stewart, in: Chemical Applications of Atomic and Molecular Electrostatic Potentials, edited by P. Politzer and D. G. Truhlar (Plenum Press, New York, 1981), pp. 407–425. K. A. Van Genechten, W. J. Mortier and P. Geerlings, J. Chem. Phys. 86 (1987) 5063. P. W. Tasker, J. Phys. C 12 (1979) 4977. D. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68 (1992) 3315. H. M. Evjen, Phys. Rev. 39 (1932) 675. C. K. Coogan, Aust. J. Chem. 20 (1967) 2551. F. C. Frank, Philos. Mag. 41 (1950) 1287. W. W. Lee and S.-I. Choi, J. Chem. Phys. 72 (1980) 6164. D. M. Heyes and F. van Swol, J. Chem. Phys. 75 (1981) 5051. H. Coker, J. Phys. Chem. 87 (1983) 2512. H. Bethe, Ann. Phys. F4 87 (1928) 55. I. G. Fisenko and E. V. Kholopov, Phys. Status Solidi B 173 (1992) 515. E. V. Kholopov, Zh. Struc. Chim. (to be published). W. Van Gool and A. G. Piken, J. Mater. Sci. 4 (1969) 105. W. A. Oates, G. Eriksson and H. Wenzl, J. Alloys Comp. 220 (1995) 48. E. V. Kholopov, Preprint 2001-02 (Inst. of Inorg. Chem., Novosibirsk, 2001) (submitted to Philos. Mag. B). D. Vanderbilt and R. D. King-Smith, Phys. Rev. B 48 (1993) 4442. G. Ortiz and R. M. Martin, Phys. Rev. B 49 (1994) 14202.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We define a decomposition of link projections whose pieces we call atoroidal graphs. We describe a surgery operation on these graphs and show that all atoroidal graphs can be generated by performing surgery repeatedly on a family of well known link projections. This gives a method of enumerating and hence link projections by recomposing the pieces of the decomposition.'
author:
- Martin Bridgeman$^1$
date: 'October 15, 1994'
title: The Structure and Enumeration of Link Projections
---
c ø u
Introduction
============
The problem of enumeration of knots and links has always interested knot theorists. In this paper we introduce a method of enumerating link projections by first decomposing them into pieces called [*atoroidal graphs*]{}. We define surgery on these atoroidal graphs and show how they can be enumerated by performing surgery on a well known family of link projections. By recomposing these atoroidal graphs we can thus enumerate link projections. I have included an enumeration of atoroidal graphs to 12 crossings.
A link projection is given by a 4-valent planar graph $G$. To form a link we can replace each vertex of $G$ by a crossing. To enumerate links in this way we must first enumerate link projections. It was Kirkman’s success in enumerating link projections or [*polyhedra*]{} as he called them([@K1],[@K2]) that formed the basis of the knot tables of both Tait([@T]) and Little([@L1],[@L2]). In [@C], Conway introduced a notation which made it possible for him to enumerate knots to 11 crossings and links to 10 crossings in a single afternoon where before it had taken years. In his paper Conway defined a [*basic polyhedron*]{} to be a polyhedron with no bigon regions and showed that every link is obtained by replacing each vertex of a basic polyhedron by a rational tangle. These basic polyhedra are closely related to the atoroidal graphs defined in this paper and can be enumerated using the enumeration of atoroidal graphs described.
The decomposition of a link projection into atoroidal graphs is achieved by cutting the projection along certain non-trivial curves. We then define surgery on an atoroidal graph giving a new atoroidal graph with one more vertex. This gives a partial ordering on atoroidal graphs where $G_{1} \prec G_{2}$ if a surgery on $G_1$ results in $G_2$ and we show that a graph is initial if and only if it has no vertices of a given type. Using this we can list the initial objects and thus enumerate all atoroidal graphs by repeatedly performing surgery on these initial objects.
The motivation for the paper comes from orbifold theory and hyperbolic geometry but a background in these is not necessary here. For a reference see [@Th]. For readers interested, these aspects are laid out in the section on orbifolds.
I would like to thank Curt McMullen, Joe Christy, Rich Schwartz and especially my advisor Bill Thurston.
Decomposition
=============
Link Projections {#link-projections .unnumbered}
----------------
Given a link $L$ a general position projection of $L$ is a 4-valent graph $G$ embedded in $S^2$. As we are only considering such graphs we will use graph to mean a 4-valent graph embedded in $S^2$.
Let $G$ be a graph with vertex set $V$.
An [*n-curve*]{} of $G$ is a simple closed curve in $S^{2}-V$ intersecting $G$ n times.
Let $\a$ be an n-curve($n=0,2,4$) of $G$. Then $\a$ splits $S^2$ into two disks $D_{1},D_{2}$. We say a component $D_i$ is [*trivial*]{} if $D_{i} \cap G$ is either empty, a simple arc, two disjoint simple arcs or two arcs crossing at a single vertex(figure \[trivial024\]). If $\a$ has a trivial component then $\a$ is [*trivial*]{}. Otherwise $\a$ is called [*non-trivial*]{}.
A graph $G$ is [*irreducible*]{} all n-curves($n=0,2$) are trivial.
A graph $G$ is [*atoroidal*]{} if all n-curves($n=0,2,4$) are trivial.
Decomposition {#decomposition-1 .unnumbered}
-------------
If $\a$ is a non-trivial n-curve($n=0,2,4$) of $G$ then we can decompose $G$ along $\a$ into graphs $G_{1}$ and $G_{2}$ as follows. First cut along $\a$, this splits the sphere into two disks $D_{1},D_{2}$. To obtain the graph $G_i$ from $D_i$ we identify the boundary of $D_i$ to a single point. We say that $G$ decomposes into $G_{1}$ and $G_{2}$ along $\a$.
We now describe the decomposition of a link projection $G$ into atoroidal graphs. If all n-curves($n=0,2,4$) in $G$ are trivial the the decomposition is done. Otherwise decompose $G$ into $G_1$ and $G_2$ along a non-trivial n-curve($n=0,2,4$) where $n$ is chosen to be as small as possible. Now repeat the decomposition on the resultant graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$. It is obvious that this decomposition terminates.
The decomposition along non-trivial 0-curves is especially simple, corresponding to splitting a graph into its connected components and thus when dealing with connected graphs we only need concern ourselves with non-trivial 2-curves and 4-curves.
Structure of Atoroidal Graphs
=============================
Almost all Atoroidal Graphs are Hyperbolic {#almost-all-atoroidal-graphs-are-hyperbolic .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------
To investigate the type of possible we consider the cell division of $S^2$ given by $G$. We call the cells, faces of $G$ and a face $F$ is called an n-gon if it has n vertices of $G$ on its boundary. Any n-gon $F$ of $G$ gives a 2n-curve $\alpha_F$ by taking the boundary of a small neighborhood $N_F$ of $F$.
If $G$ has a 0-gon $F$ then $\alpha_F$ is a trivial 0-curve (i.e. it bounds a disk $D$ in $S^{2}-G$) as $G$ is irreducible. Attach a disk to the boundary of $N_F \Rightarrow G$ is just a jordan curve or the unknot projection(figure \[exceptions\]).
If $G$ has a 1-gon(monogon) $F$ then $\alpha_F$ is a trivial 2-curve as $G$ is irreducible. Attach a neighborhood of an arc to $N_F
\Rightarrow G$ is the graph having the form of the number 8 (figure \[exceptions\]).
If $G$ has a 2-gon(bigon) $F$ then $\alpha_F$ is a trivial 4-curve as $G$ is atoroidal. Attaching a neighborhood of a vertex to $N_F \Rightarrow G$ is the projection of the trefoil and attaching a neighborhood of two parallel arcs of $G$ to $N_F$ can be done in 2 ways to give two possible graphs but as can be seen in figure \[exceptions\] only one is also irreducible. Thus $G$ is either the trefoil projection or the Hopf link projection.
Apart from these 4 exceptional graphs all other have faces that are at least triangular and are called [*hyperbolic graphs*]{}.
Surgery {#surgery .unnumbered}
-------
Given any $G$ which has a face $F$ with greater than 3 vertices then we can perform [*surgery*]{} on $G$ to give another $G'$. We choose edges $e,e_1,e_2$ of $F$ with $e_1,e_2$ adjacent to $e$. $G'$ is obtained by pinching together $e_1,e_2$, i.e. take a simple arc $\alpha \subset F$ with endpoints in the interior of $e_1,e_2$ resp. and homotope $\alpha$ to a single point. The graph $G'$ obtained by performing surgery on $G$ has one more vertex than $G$(figure \[move\]).
$G'$ is atoroidal.
Let $\alpha'$ be an n-curve in $G'$ which decomposes $S^2$ into disks $D'_1,D'_2$. We can get $G$ back by splitting open the new crossing $v$ and as this splitting can be done in a small of $v$ and $\alpha'$ is outside such a neighborhood, we get an n-curve $\alpha$ in $G$ which splits $S^2$ into disks $D_1,D_2$. Note that $D'_i$ and $D_i$ are either the same or the former is obtained from the latter by pinching two edges together.
As $G$ is then $\alpha$ is trivial for $n=0,2,4$ and we can assume $D_1$ is trivial.
$n=0,2 \Rightarrow D'_1 = D_1$ as $D_1$ has at most one edge intersecting it so we haven’t enough edges to pinch $\Rightarrow D'_1$ trivial. $\Rightarrow \alpha'$ trivial.
$n=4 \Rightarrow D_1$ either of vertex or of two non-intersecting arcs of $G$. If $D_1$ is of vertex then the only edges that can be pinched are adjacent $\Rightarrow D'_1 = D_1 \Rightarrow
\alpha'$ trivial. If $D_1$ is of two parallel arcs $\Rightarrow D'_1 = D_1$ or $D'_1$ is obtained by pinching the parallel arcs of $D_1$ together $\Rightarrow D'_1$ is of a vertex $\Rightarrow \alpha'$ trivial $\Rightarrow G'$ is
Orbifolds
=========
This section explains how the work arises out of considering certain orbifolds associated with a link projection. In this setting the decomposition and surgery we define are the torus decomposition and dehn surgery on these orbifolds. An orbifold is a generalization of a manifold in which the space is locally modeled on $R^n$ modulo the action of a finite group. For example if a group $G$ acts properly discontinuously on a space $M$ then $M/G$ is an orbifold and is a manifold if the action is also free. For a reference on orbifolds see chapter 13 of [@Th].
Associated Orbifolds {#associated-orbifolds .unnumbered}
--------------------
We associate two orbifolds $O_{G}$ and $O'_{G}$ to a graph $G$ as follows. We consider $G$ as a graph siting on $S^2$ in $S^{3}$. Let $B$ be a ball in $S^3$ with boundary $S^2$ and $V$ be the vertex set of $G$. $O_{G}$ is a polyhedral orbifold with underlying space $X_{O_{G}} = B - V$, singular locus $\Sigma_{O_{G}} = S^{2} - V$ and 1-dimensional singular locus $\Sigma^{1}_{O_{G}} = G - V$. The 1-dimensional singular locus is marked with $D_{2}$ indicating that any point on it is modeled by $D^{3}/D_{2}$ where $D_{2}$ acts by two reflections in planes meeting in right angles. $O'_{G}$ has underlying space $X_{O_{G}'} = S^{3} - V$ and singular locus $\Sigma_{O_{G}'} = G - V$. Here the singular locus is 1-dimensional and is marked with $Z_{2}$ to indicate any point on it is modeled on $D^{3}/Z_{2}$ where $Z_{2}$ acts by rotation of order two.
$O_{G}'$ is the double of $O_{G}$ in the sense of orbifolds.
Decomposition and Surgery {#decomposition-and-surgery .unnumbered}
-------------------------
In [@B] we show that the torus decomposition on the orbifolds $O_{G}$ and $O'_{G}$ is the decomposition we’ve described on $G$. By Andreev’s theorem(see [@Th]) if $G$ is a hyperbolic graph then $O_G$ can be realized as an ideal hyperbolic polyhedron with all dihedral angles right angles. Taking the subgroup of orientation preserving elements of $\pi_{1}(O_{G})$ shows us that $O'_G$ can also be realized as a hyperbolic orbifold.
We show([@B]) that for any graph $G$ the double cover of $O'_G$ is a link compliment denoted by $L_G$ with one component for each vertex of $G$ and is a hyperbolic link complement iff $G$ is a hyperbolic graph. Also if $G'$ is obtained by surgery on $G$ then link complement $L_{G'}$ is obtained from $L_{G}$ by removing a simple closed curve, i.e. by [*dehn drilling*]{}.
Partial Ordering
================
Surgery gives a partial ordering $\prec$ by defining $G_1 \prec G_2$ iff $G_2$ is obtained by performing $r$ successive surgeries on $G_1, r=0,1,2,\ldots$ Note that surgery cannot be performed on any of the four exceptional and they are never the resultant graph of surgery, therefore they are isolated objects(both initial and final). Thus $\prec$ restricts to a p.o. on hyperbolic graphs. To study $\prec$ we show that the initial objects are a well known family of graphs and we can generate all by performing surgery on these initial objects.
After surgery has been performed on a graph to give a graph $G$ with a new vertex $v$. The vertex $v$ is a vertex of a triangle $T$ which has adjacent faces $F_1,F_2$ meeting at $v$ each being greater than triangular(figure \[local picture\]). A vertex with this local structure we call [*simple*]{}. To find a $\bar G$ s.t. $\bar G \prec G$ we might just look for a simple vertex $v$ and cut open at $v$(there is a unique way to cut open a simple vertex) but this doesn’t necessarily give an as the resultant may have non-trivial 4-curves(figure \[exception\]). What we will show is that if a graph has a simple vertex $v$ belonging to a triangle $T$ then the graph can be cut open at [*some*]{} vertex of $T$ to give an atoroidal graph. This implies that an initial object cannot have the any simple vertices. Before proving the stated result we will use it to show what the initial objects are.
Since the exceptions are isolated, they never arise in a sequence of surgeries and all other initial objects are hyperbolic. Let $G$ be a hyperbolic initial object(not one of the exceptions), calculating the euler number of the cell division of $S^2$ into faces of $G$ we see that $G$ has a triangular face $T_1$. As $G$ is initial, $T_1$ has two adjacent triangular faces $T_2^l,T_2^r$(figure \[borr\]). Again using the fact that $G$ is initial we have that $T_2^l,T_2^r$ both have a neighboring triangular face other than $T_1$ labeled $T^l_3,T^r_3$ respectively.
If $T_3^l = T_3^r$ then $G$ $\Rightarrow G$ is borromian ring projection. Also if $T^l_3,T^r_3$ have a common vertex then $G$ irreducible $\Rightarrow G$ is again the Borromian ring projection which we call $T_3$ (figure \[borr\]).
If $T^l_3,T^r_3$ are disjoint then each has a neighboring triangular face $T^l_4,T^r_4$ other than the previous faces $T^l_2,T^r_2$. These are unique as the face adjacent to both $T^l_3$ and $T^r_3$ is at least 4 sided. If now $T^l_4,T^r_4$ have a common vertex then using $G$ $\Rightarrow G$ is of the form given in figure \[t4\] which we call $T_4$.
Continuing this we get the collection of graphs $\{T_n\}_{n \ge 3}$(figure \[tn\]) which together with the exceptional are the initial objects of $\prec$ of which only $\{T_n\}_{n \ge 4}$ are non-terminal. Knowing the initial objects allows us enumerate all by performing surgery repeatedly.
Let $G$ be an with a simple vertex $v$ of triangle $T$ and let $G'$ be the graph obtained by cutting $G$ open at $v$. Let $e'_1,e'_2$ be the two edges of face $F'$ in $G'$ pinched to get $G$ then
[**1.**]{} $G'$ is irreducible.
[**2.**]{} Any non-trivial 4-curve $\alpha'$ of $G'$ intersects the face $F'$ in a single arc $\beta'$ which separates $e'_1,e'_2$.
As above let $e'_1,e'_2$ be the two edges of $F'$ pinched together to give $G$ with $e'$ the edge adjacent to both. If $\exists$ $N_{e'}$ of $e'$ s.t. $N_{e'} \cap \alpha'$ is empty $\Rightarrow$ can pinch $e'_1,e'_2$ in $N_{e'}$ with $\alpha'$ giving an n-curve $\a$ in $G$. If $n = 0,2,4$ then $\alpha$ is trivial and splits $S^2$ into two disks $D_1,D_2$ with $D_1$ trivial. Similarly $\alpha'$ splits $S^2$ into $D'_1,D'_2$ with either $D'_1 = D_1$ or $D'_1$ obtained from $D_1$ by cutting open a crossing. In either case this gives $D'_1$ trivial $\Rightarrow$ $\alpha'$ trivial.
Therefore every non-trivial n-curve ($n= 0,2,4$) must intersect $F'$ in an arc $\b'$ that has one endpoint on $e'$ and the other on another edge $e'_3$ of $F'$ with $e'_3 \neq e',e'_1,e'_2$.
If $n = 0$ then $\a'$ doesn’t intersect $G' \Rightarrow \a'$ trivial.
If $n = 2$ then $\a'$ only intersects $G'$ at the two endpoints of $\b'$. If we pinch $e'_1,e'_2$ together to get $G$ we can do so by either leaving $e'_1$ fixed and pulling $e'_2$ through $\a'$ or vise-versa. This gives 4-curves $\a^r,\a^l$ resp. in $G$ which are identical with $\a'$ outside a of the new vertex $v$ and either go right or left around $v$ as the curves approach $v$ from inside $T$(figure \[pinch\]). $G$ $\Rightarrow
\a^r$ is trivial $\Rightarrow \a^r$ splits $S^2$ into $D_1,D_2$ s.t. $D_1$ trivial. The region containing $v$ also contains another vertex of $T$ so it can’t be trivial. Therefore $D_1$ is the region containing vertex $v_2$ of $T$ and is of $v_2 \Rightarrow$ $v$ not simple as one of faces is bigon. This contradiction implies that $G'$ has no non-trivial 2-curves $\Rightarrow G'$ is irreducible.
If $n = 4 \Rightarrow \a' \cap F'$ consists of either 1 or 2 arcs. If it is 2 arcs $\b'_1,\b'_2$ then traversing around $\a'$ we have 4 connected arcs $\b'_1,\c'_1,\b'_2,\c'_2$. We can join endpoints of $\c'_1$ by another arc $\d'_1$ in $F'$ s.t. $\c'_1 \cup \d'_1$ is a 2-curve in $G' \Rightarrow$ trivial. If endpoints of $\c'_1$ belong to different edges then both components of $S^{2} - \c'_1 \cup \d'_1$ contain vertices which contradicts it being trivial. Therefore both $\c'_1,\c'_2$ are contained in adjacent faces to $F'$ and $\a'$ is of two parallel arcs of $G' \Rightarrow \a'$ trivial(figure \[oneint\]). Therefore any non-trivial 4-curve in $G'$ intersects $F'$ in a single arc $\b'$ separating the two edges pinched in $G'$ to obtain $G$
An n-curve $\a$ ($n \geq 4$) in $G$ is trivial iff either
$\bullet$ $\a$ is the of a of a vertex of $G$
or
$\bullet$ $\exists$ arc $\b$ intersecting $G$ at most once s.t. $\b \cap \a = \partial{\b}$ and $\partial{\b}$ splits $\a$ into $\a_1,\a_2$ each containing at least two points of $G$.
$\b$ is called a compression of $\a$.
If $G$ is then the only trivial 6-curves can easily shown to be those curves that split $S^2$ into two disks one of which has one of four types given in figure \[triv6\]. Disks of this kind bounding a 6-curve are called trivial.
If $\a'$ is a non-trivial 4-curve in $G'$ then associated with it are two non trivial 6-curves $\a^l,\a^r$ in $G$.
$\a'$ intersects $F'$ in a single arc $\b'$ separating edges $e'_1,e'_2$ and as before we can pinch $e'_1,e'_2$ together to get graph $G$. This can be done in two ways, either by fixing $e'_1$ and pushing $e'_2$ across $\b'$ or vise-versa. We get two 6-curves $\a^r,\a^l$ in $G$ both identical to $\a'$ outside a neighborhood of the new vertex $v$ and either going right or left around the vertex inside the of $v$ as before(figure \[pinch\]).
$\a^r$ splits $S^2$ into disks $D_1,D_2$ with $D_1$ containing vertices $v,v_1$ of $T$ and $D_2$ containing vertex $v_2$. Therefore if $D_1$ is trivial then it must be the same type as the fourth disk described in figure \[triv6\]. But then $\a'$ would bound a of a vertex of $G$ which contradicts $\a'$ non-trivial. If $D_2$ is trivial then it is either the same type as the third or fourth disk in figure \[triv6\]. If its the third type then as before $\a'$ would bound a of a vertex of $G$ which contradicts $\a'$ non-trivial. If it is the fourth type then adjacent face $F_2$ of $T$ would be a triangle contradicting $v$ being simple. Therefore $\a^r$ is non-trivial and similarly $\a^l$
If $G$ has a simple vertex $v$ of a triangle $T$ then either
$\bullet$ splitting open at $v$ gives an $G'$
or
$\bullet$ both other vertices $v_1,v_2$ of $T$ are simple and splitting at either gives an atoroidal graph.
If $G'$ is not $\Rightarrow \exists \a'$ non-trivial 4-curve in $G'$ and $\a^r,\a^l$ non-trivial 6-curves in $G$. Triangle $T$ has adjacent faces $F_1,F_2,F_3$ with both $F_1,F_2$ non-triangular as $v$ is simple. If $F_3$ was triangular then $\a^r$ splits $F_3$ in two, one piece containing just one vertex say $v_1$ and the other containing two. Therefore $\a^r$ takes a clockwise path about $v_1$ from $T$ through $F_3$. If instead we take an anticlockwise path $\a'$ gives us another 4-curve in $G'$ called $\bar{\a}'$(figure \[nottri\]). Since $\bar
{\a}'$ doesn’t intersect $e'$ then it is trivial. Therefore it splits $S^2$ into disks $\bar{D}'_1,\bar{D}'_2$ with $\bar{D}'_1$ trivial. $\a'$ splits $S^2$ into $D'_1,D'_2$ with $D'_1$ obtained from $\bar{D}'_1$ by crossing two adjacent ends so if $\bar{D}'_1$ is of two parallel arcs then $D'_1$ is of vertex and if $\bar{D}'_1$ is of vertex then $G'$ would contain a bigon. Therefore $F_3$ must be non-triangular and both $v_1$ and $v_2$ are simple.
If splitting at $v_1$ doesn’t give an then there is a non- trivial 4-curve $\a'_1$ in $G'_1$ and non-trivial 6-curves $\a^r_1$, $\a^l_1$ in $G$. Considering the 6-curves $\a,\a_1$, where $\a = \a^l$ and $\a_1 = \a^r_1$ we will show that they can be isotoped to intersect in only two points.Then by showing that they cannot intersect in the given way(figure \[setup\]) the theorem is proven.
Firstly we will show that $\a,\a_1$ can be isotoped to only intersect twice. If they intersect any more then $S^{2} - \a \cup \a_1$ contains at least four regions that are disks with boundary consisting of one arc of $\a$ and $\a_1$. As $\a \cup \a_1$ has 12 intersections with $G$ then each of these four regions cannot have boundaries being n-curves $n \geq 4$. Therefore one of these regions $D$ has $\c = \partial{D}$ either a trivial 0 or 2-curve and $\c = \b \cup \b_1$ where $\b,\b_1$ are arcs of $\a,\a_1$ resp.. If $\c$ is a 0-curve then either $D$ or $D^c$ is a trivial disk. If $D$ is trivial then can isotope to remove two intersections of $\a$ and $\a_1$ by pulling $\b$ through $\b_1$. If $D^c$ is trivial then any of the other 3 disks with boundary consisting of one arc of $\a$ and $\a_1$ are trivial and hence can reduce the number of intersections as in first case.
If $\c$ is a 2-curve then each of $\b,\b_1$ intersect $G$ as if say $\b$ didn’t then it would be a compression for $\a_1$ which contradicts $\a_1$ being non-trivial. Therefore either $D$ or $D^c$ is trivial i.e. a of an arc of $G$. If $D$ is trivial then can isotope by pulling $\b$ through $\b_1$ reducing number of intersections of $\a$ and $\a_1$. If $D^c$ is trivial then other 3 disks with boundary consisting of one arc of $\a$ and $\a_1$ cannot have boundaries being n-curves $n \geq 4$ as they can have a maximum of 10 intersections with $G$ between them. Therefore there is region $\bar{D}$ which either doesn’t intersect $G$ and thus we can isotope as before to reduce the number of intersections of $\a$ and $\a_1$ or is of an arc of $G$ which can also be isotoped as before.
So we can assume $\a$ and $\a_1$ intersect twice and divide $S^2$ into 4 disks. We label these disks $D_i,i = 1,\ldots,4$ where $D_1,D_2,D_3$ contain $v_1,v_2,v$ resp. and $\c^i = \partial{D_i}$. $\c^i$ is an $n_i$-curve where $\sum n_i = 24$ and $n_i \geq 4$. Also $\c^i = \b^i \cup \b^i_1$ where $\b^i,\b^i_1$ are arcs of $\a,\a_1$ resp.(figure \[setup\]). Note that the arcs $\b^i,\b^i_1$ have duplication with each of two arcs that $\a$ or $\a_1$ is divided repeated twice. This is for ease of labeling and can be thought of as the two sides of the same arc on $\a$ or $\a_1$.
[**Case 1:**]{}If $n_2 = 4$ then $D_2$ is a of $v_2$ and both $\b^2$ and $\b^2_1$ intersect $G$ twice otherwise we get a compression of $\a$ or $\a_1$. Therefore $\c^1$ is a 6-curve and inside $D_1$ is a 4-curve $\tilde{\c}^1$(figure \[cases\]). If it is boundary of of two parallel arcs of $G$ then this implies either $F_3$ is a bigon or $\a_1$ is a trivial 6-curve. If it is boundary of of a vertex then this would imply that $F_3$ was triangular. Therefore $n_2 \neq 4$.
[**Case 2:**]{}If $n_1 = 4$ then $\b^1_1$ intersects $G$ only twice as otherwise $\b^1$ is a compression of $\a_1$. Therefore $\c^4$ is a 6-curve and $D_4$ contains a 4-curve $\tilde{\c}^4$(figure \[cases\]). If it is boundary of of two parallel arcs of $G$ then this implies that either $F_1$ is a bigon or $\a$ is trivial 6-curve. If it is the boundary of of vertex then this implies that $F_1$ is triangular. Therefore $n_1 \neq 4$ and by symmetry $n_3 \neq 4$.
[**Case 3:**]{}If $n_4 = 4$ then $D_4$ must be of parallel arcs of $G$ which implies $F_1$ is a bigon(figure \[cases\]). Therefore $n_4 \neq 4$.
[**Case 4:**]{}Therefore $n_i = 6$ and each arc $\b^i,\b^i_1$ intersects $G$ exactly 3 times. Therefore $\tilde{\c}^1,\tilde{\c}^4$ are both 4-curves. If $\tilde{\c}^4$ is boundary of of two parallel arcs of $G$ then this implies either $F_1$ is a bigon or both $\a$ and $\a_1$ have compressions, contradicting them being non-trivial(figure \[cases\]). If $\tilde{\c}^4$ is boundary of a of a vertex then $F_1$ would be triangular. Therefore we have shown that there cannot exist 6-curves intersecting as $\a$ and $\a_1$ do $\Rightarrow$ if $\a$ exists (i.e. $G'$ isn’t atoroidal) $\Rightarrow \a_1$ can’t exist $\Rightarrow G'_1$ is atoroidal. Similarly $G'_2$ is atoroidal also
We have shown that the initial objects of $\prec$ are $\{T_n\}_{n \geq 3}$ along with the 4 exceptions. $T_n$ is the projection of the (3,n) torus link with the link having three components if 3 divides n and having one component otherwise. From this we see that $T_n$ has symmetries taking any directed edge of one of the non-triangular faces to any other. Therefore any surgery on $T_n$ gives the same graph which we call $T_n^{+}$.
If $T_n \prec G$ and $T_n \neq G$ ($n > 4$) then $T_{n-1} \prec G$.
If $T_n \prec G$ and $T_n \neq G$ then $T_n^+ \prec G$. As in figure \[t4\] we can pinch together edges of $T^l_2$ to $T^r_4$ to get $T_n^+$. Only one vertex of $T_1$ is simple so we cut open at that vertex first. This reduces the pinched $T_2^l$ to a triangle which has only one simple vertex which we now cut open(figure \[order\]). This resulting graph is $T_{n-1}^+$ so we have that $T_{n-1} \prec T_{n-1}^+ \prec T_n^+ \prec G$
Therefore if $C_n$ is the set of proper descendants of $T_n$(i.e. $T_n \not\in C_n$) then $$C_{4} \supseteq C_{5} \supseteq C_{6} \supseteq \cdots \supseteq C_{n}
\cdots$$
Enumeration
===========
We now have a way to enumerate atoroidal graphs up to any prescribed crossing number by performing surgery on the initial objects. Figure \[12crossings\] is the enumeration of atoroidal graphs up to 12 crossings. To enumerate prime link projections we need only recombine the atoroidal graphs as follows. We choose two atoroidal graphs $G_1$ and $G_2$ with vertices $v_1$ and $v_2$ respectively. Now take the compliment of a neighborhood of each vertex and attach their boundaries, making sure to match up the strands of the graphs. In recombining we do not use the first 3 exceptions as either they have no vertices or the compliment of a neighborhood of a vertex is trivial. To enumerate the basic polyhedra of Conway the trefoil projection is also not used as the compliment of a vertex is a bigon.
[99]{} M. Bridgeman [*Volume Increase under Dehn Drilling Operations.*]{} Phd. thesis Princeton June 1994 J. H. Conway [*An enumeration of knots and links, and some of their algebraic properties.*]{} Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra. (1970) T. P. Kirkman [*The enumeration, description and construction of knots of fewer than ten crossings.*]{} Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 32(1885) T. P. Kirkman [*The 364 unifilar knots of ten crossings enumerated and defined.*]{} Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 32(1885) C. N. Little [*Non-alternate $\pm$ knots, of order eight and nine.*]{} Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 35(1889) C. N. Little [*Alternate $\pm$ knots of order 11.*]{} Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 36(1890) P. G. Tait [*On knots I, II, III (1887, 1884, 1885).*]{} Scientfic Papers I W. P. Thurston [*The geometry and topology of three manifolds.*]{} Princeton Lecture Notes (1979)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $\mathfrak{Var}_k^G$ denote the category of pairs $(X,\sigma)$, where $X$ is a variety over $k$ and $\sigma$ is a group action on $X$. We define the Grothendieck ring for varieties with group actions as the free abelian group of isomorphism classes in the category $\mathfrak{Var}_k^G$ modulo a cutting and pasting relation. The multiplication in this ring is defined by the fiber product of varieties. This allows for motivic zeta-functions for varieties with group actions to be defined. This is a formal power series $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[\text{Sym}^n (X,\sigma)]t^n$ with coefficients in the Grothendieck ring. The main result of this paper asserts that the motivic zeta-function for an algebraic curve with a finite abelian group action is rational. This is a partial generalization of Weil’s First Conjecture. AMS Classifications: 11, 14, 19.'
address: 'Indiana University, 831 E. Third St., Bloomington, IN, 47405'
author:
- Justin Mazur
title: Rationality of motivic zeta functions for curves with finite abelian group actions
---
motivic zeta-functions ,K-theory ,Picard bundle ,equivariant bundles ,Weil conjectures ,invariant theory
Introduction
============
Let $X$ be a variety over a finite field $\mathbb{F}$ and let Sym$^n X$ be the $n^{\text{th}}$ symmetric power of $X$. B. Dwork’s proof of Weil’s First Conjecture states that the zeta-function $$Z_X (t) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} |\text{Sym}^n(X)(\mathbb{F})|t^n$$ is a rational function in t [@Dwo]. Kapranov attempted to generalize this result to a general field $k$, by using the Grothendieck ring for varieties over $k$ [@Ka]. Explicitly, let $K_0[\mathfrak{Var}_{k}]$ denote the ring of $\mathbb{Z}$-combinations of isomorphism classes of $k$-varieties modulo the cutting-and-pasting relation $$[X] = [Y] + [X \setminus Y]$$ for closed $k$-varieties $Y \subset X$. Kapranov asked whether the motivic zeta-function $$\zeta_X(t) = \sum_{i=0}^{\infty} [\text{Sym}^n(X)]t^n$$ is rational as a power series in the ring $K_0[\mathfrak{Var}_{k}]$. While Kapranov was able to prove this when X is a curve, this was shown not to hold for higher dimensional varieties by M. Larsen and V. Lunts [@Lu]. N. Takahashi then conjectured a generalization of this result for curves. He proposed that you could define a motivic zeta function for curves with finite cyclic group actions and that this motivic zeta function should be rational [@Tak].
In this paper, we will establish an improvement of this conjecture by proving the rationality of motivic zeta functions for curves with finite abelian group actions. Given an algebraic group $G$, we will construct the Grothendieck ring for varieties with $G$-actions in a way analogous to the construction of the Grothendieck ring for varieties. From this, we may define motivic zeta-functions and investigate their rationality. The main result of this paper is the following:
Let $G$ be a finite abelian group of order $r$, let $C$ be a non-singular projective curve over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic $0$ or of positive characteristic $p$ with $p \nmid r$, and let $\sigma : G\times C \rightarrow C$ be a group action on $C$. Then the motivic zeta function $$\zeta_{(C,\sigma)}(t) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} [\text{Sym}^n (C,\sigma)]t^n$$ is rational.
To prove this we study the Picard bundle, Sym$^n X$ over Pic$^n X$ with fiber $\mathbb{P}^{n-g}$. This is the projectivization of a vector bundle $E_n$ over Pic$^n X$. As $n$ gets large, we can factor out affine spaces inside of $E_n$ which have a group action given by the regular representation of $G$. This allows us to break the vector bundles $E_n$ into products in the Grothendieck ring for varieties with group actions. Ultimately, we are able to use this to break Sym$^n X$ into manageable pieces in the Grothendieck ring as well. This leads to representing the motivic zeta function as a rational function.
The Grothendieck ring for varieties with $G$-actions
====================================================
Let $G$ be a fixed algebraic group and let $\mathfrak{Var}^G_k$ denote the category of varieties with $G$-actions. The objects of this category are pairs $(X,\sigma)$, where $X$ is an object of the category of $k$-varieties ,$\mathfrak{Var}_k$, and $\sigma:G\times X\rightarrow X$ is an algebraic group action of $G$ on $X$. Morphisms of this category are $G$-equivariant variety morphisms.
The *Grothendieck group for varieties with G-actions* is a free abelian group modulo a single cutting and pasting relation given by $K_0(\mathfrak{Var}^G_k)=$ $$\frac{\bigoplus \mathbb{Z}\cdot(\text{isomorphism class in }\mathfrak{Var}^G_k)}{
\langle [X,\sigma] - [X\backslash Y,\sigma] - [Y,\tau] |
(Y,\tau)\text{ closed $G$-invariant subspace of }(X,\sigma) \rangle}.$$ We define multiplication by $$[X,\sigma][Y,\tau]:=[X\times Y,\sigma \times \tau]$$ with $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\sigma\times \tau : & G\times X\times Y & \rightarrow & X\times Y \\
& (g,x,y) & \mapsto & (\sigma(g,x),\tau(g,y)) \\
\end{array}$$ making $K_0(\mathfrak{Var}^G_k)$ into a ring called the *Grothendieck ring for varieties with G-actions*.
Now we can give the definition of a motivic zeta-function in this context.
Let $(X,\sigma)\in \mathfrak{Var}^G_k$ and define $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\bar{\sigma}: & G\times {\text{Sym}}^n(X) & \rightarrow & {\text{Sym}}^n(X) \\
& (g,\sum P_i) & \mapsto & \sum \sigma(g,P_i) \\
\end{array}.$$ Then define $${\text{Sym}}^n(X,\sigma):=({\text{Sym}}^n(X),\bar{\sigma})$$
Let $(X,\sigma)$ be an object of $K_0(\mathfrak{Var}^G_k)$. We define the *motivic zeta function of $(X,\sigma)$* by $$\zeta_{(X,\sigma)}(t):= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[{\text{Sym}}^n(X,\sigma)]t^n,$$ a formal power series in $K_0(\mathfrak{Var}^G_k)[[t]]$.
Rationality of motivic zeta-functions
=====================================
To investigate the rationality of motivic zeta-functions we must have an appropriate definition of rationality.
Given a commutative ring $A$, a power series $f(t)\in A[[t]]$ is *rational* if there exist polynomials $g(t), h(t) \in A[[t]]$ such that $f(t)$ is the unique solution of $g(t) x = h(t)$. That is $x$ can be written formally as $x = \frac{h(t)}{g(t)}$.
Before proving the main result of the paper, we will investigate the rationality of motivic zeta-functions for affine spaces with finite abelian group actions. We start with the affine line.
Let $G$ be a finite group and let $\lambda : G\times \mathbb{A}^1
\rightarrow \mathbb{A}^1$ be a $1$ dimensional linear representation of $G$ over an algebraically closed field $k$. Then $$\zeta_{(\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda)}(t)=
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[{\text{Sym}}^n(\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda)]t^n$$ is rational.
First notice that the following map $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi : & {\text{Sym}}^n \mathbb{A}^1 & \rightarrow & \mathbb{A}^n \\
& P_1 + \ldots + P_n & \mapsto & ( P_1 + \ldots + P_n, \sum_{i < j} P_i P_j, \ldots , P_1 P_2 \ldots P_n )
\end{array}$$ is an isomorphism using the elementary symmetric functions in $n$ variables. This means that in the Grothendieck ring for varieties with $G$-actions $$[{\text{Sym}}^n( \mathbb{A}^1,\lambda)]=[\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda][\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda^2]\ldots [\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda^n].$$ If the order of $G$ is $r$, then we also know that $\lambda^r=1$. Now we can see that $\zeta_{(\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda)}(t)$ is rational:
$$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{(\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda)}(t) & = & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[{\text{Sym}}^n(\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda)]t^n \\
& = & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left([\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda][\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda^2]\ldots [\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda^n]\right)t^n\\
& = & \sum_{k=0}^{r-1} \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} [\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda]\ldots[\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda^k] [{\text{Sym}}^r (\mathbb{A}^1, \lambda)]^n t^{k+n} \\
& = & \sum_{k=0}^{r-1} [\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda]\ldots[\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda^k]t^k \left( \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[{\text{Sym}}^r (\mathbb{A}^1, \lambda)]^n t^n \right) \\
& = & \frac{1}{1-[{\text{Sym}}^r
(\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda)]t}\left(\sum_{k=0}^{r-1}
[\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda]\ldots[\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda^k]t^k \right) .\end{aligned}$$
This allows us to prove the rationality of motivic zeta-functions for general affine spaces with finite abelian group actions.
Let $G$ be a finite abelian group of order $r$ and let $\sigma : G \times \mathbb{A}^k \rightarrow \mathbb{A}^k$ be a linear representation. Then $$\zeta_{(\mathbb{A}^k,\sigma)}(t)= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[{\text{Sym}}^n(\mathbb{A}^k,\sigma)]t^n$$ is rational.
Since $G$ is abelian and $k$ is algebraically closed we have that $$[\mathbb{A}^k,\sigma]=[\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_1]\ldots [\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_k] = [\mathbb{A}^k,(\lambda_1,\ldots , \lambda_k)],$$ where $\lambda_i$ are $1$ dimensional representations of $G$.
$[{\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^k,(\lambda_1,\ldots , \lambda_k))]= [{\text{Sym}}^n(\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_1)]\ldots [{\text{Sym}}^n(\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_k)]$.
Let $p: \mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{A}^{k-1} \rightarrow
\mathbb{A}^1$ be the projection map. This induces a map $p^*:
{\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{A}^{k-1}) \rightarrow {\text{Sym}}^n
(\mathbb{A}^1)$. B. Totaro proved in [@Go] that this map is a ${\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^{k-1})$ bundle on ${\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^1)$ with trivializations in the Zariski topology, giving us that $$[{\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^k)]= [{\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^1)][{\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^{k-1})]$$ in the Grothendieck ring for varieties.
This bundle is $G$-equivariant because the following diagram commutes: $$\xymatrix{
G \times {\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{A}^{k-1}) \ar[rr]^{(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_k)} \ar[d]^{id_G \times p^*} & & {\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^1 \times \mathbb{A}^{k-1}) \ar[d]^{p^*} \\
G \times {\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^1) \ar[rr]^{\lambda_1} & & {\text{Sym}}^n
(\mathbb{A}^1)}.$$
But since the action of $G$ on $\mathbb{A}^k$ reduces into $1$ dimensional subrepresentations, we see that $$[{\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^k,(\lambda_1,\ldots ,\lambda_k) )]= [{\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_1)][{\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^{k-1},(\lambda_2,\ldots ,\lambda_k))].$$ We continue this process inductively to get the desired result.
Now we prove that $\zeta_{(\mathbb{A}^k,\sigma)}(t)=
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[{\text{Sym}}^n(\mathbb{A}^k,\sigma)]t^n$ is rational just as we did when $k=1$. $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{(\mathbb{A}^k,\sigma)}(t) & = & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}[{\text{Sym}}^n(\mathbb{A}^k,\sigma)]t^n\\
& = & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} [{\text{Sym}}^n(\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_1)]\ldots [{\text{Sym}}^n(\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_k)] t^n\\
& = & \frac{1}{1- [{\text{Sym}}^n (\mathbb{A}^k,\sigma)]t} \left(
\sum_{l=0}^{r-1} \prod_{i=1}^k [\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_i] \ldots
[\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_i^l]t^l \right) .\end{aligned}$$
We now reach the main result of the paper: to prove the rationality of motivic zeta-functions for curves with finite abelian group actions. The remainder of this paper will dedicated to this proof.
\[thm:main\] Let $G$ be a finite abelian group of order $r$, let $C$ be a curve of genus $g$ over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic $0$ or of positive characteristic $p$ with $p
\nmid r$, and let $\sigma : G\times C \rightarrow C$ be a $G$ action on $C$. Then $\zeta_{(C,\sigma)}(t) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} [{\text{Sym}}^n
(C,\sigma)]t^n$ is rational.
Construction of a vector bundle associated to ${\text{Sym}}^n C$
================================================================
The first step in proving this is to construct a vector bundle $E_n$ with a fiber preserving group action $\sigma$ so that $$[\mathbb{P}(E_n,\sigma)] = [\text{Sym}^n (C,\sigma)] ,$$ as elements of the Grothendieck ring for varieties with $G$-actions.
Fix $n>2g-2$ and let $\mathcal{L}$ be the Poincaré (or universal) line bundle on $C\times {\text{Pic}}^n C$, with $\mathcal{L}|_{C\times \{[D]\} } \cong \mathcal{O}(D)$ as a line bundle on $C\times \{[D]\}$. If $p:C \times
{\text{Pic}}^n C \rightarrow {\text{Pic}}^n C$ is the projection map, $E_0 = p_*
\mathcal{L}$ is a vector bundle on ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ so that the projectivization of $E_0$ is the Picard bundle, i.e. the ${\mathbb{P}}^{n-g}$ bundle ${\text{Sym}}^n C$ on ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ [@Ar]. Note that to consider ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ as a variety it is identified with ${\text{Pic}}^0 C$, which is an abelian variety. Let $\varpi_0 : E_0 \rightarrow
{\text{Pic}}^n C$ denote this vector bundle. Given a point $[D]$ in ${\text{Pic}}^n
C$ we have that the fiber of this bundle over $[D]$ is given by $$\varpi_0^{-1}([D]) = H^0(C,{\mathcal{O}}(D)) .$$
Similarly for all positive integers $m$, we can construct a vector bundle on ${\text{Pic}}^{n+rm} C$ whose projectivization is ${\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} C$. Without loss of generality, assume there is a point $P\in C$ so that the orbit of $P$, $\{\sigma(g,P)\}=\{gP\}_{g\in G}$, is a set of $r$ distinct points of $C$. Take note that the curve $C$ does in fact have points because the field $k$ is algebraically closed. If there is no such point, then there is a maximal non-trivial normal subgroup $H$ of $G$ so that $\sigma$ factors through the quotient group $G/H$. If $\sigma' : G/H \times C \rightarrow C$ is this group action and $\zeta_{(C,\sigma ')}(t)$ is rational, then $\zeta_{(C,\sigma )}(t)$ must also be rational.
Using this point $P$, we define the following map for every $m$, $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi_m : & {\text{Pic}}^n C & \rightarrow & {\text{Pic}}^{n+rm} C \\
& [D] & \mapsto & [D + m \sum_{g\in G} \sigma(g,P)]
\end{array}.$$ This map is a $G$-equivariant isomorphism between ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ and ${\text{Pic}}^{n+rm} C$. For notational simplicity, from now on we will write $g\cdot P = \sigma(g, P)$ for an element of the group acting on a point $P$ of the curve. If $E_m$ is a vector bundle on ${\text{Pic}}^{n+rm} C$ whose projectivization is ${\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} C$, we define $\varpi_m : E_m \rightarrow {\text{Pic}}^n C$ as a vector bundle by composing with $\phi_m^{-1}$. $$\xymatrix{
E_m \ar[d] \ar[rd]^{\varpi_m} & \\
{\text{Pic}}^{n+rm} C \ar[r]^{\phi_m^{-1}} & {\text{Pic}}^n C }.$$ Given a point $[D]$ in ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ we have that the fiber of this bundle over $[D]$ is given by $$\varpi_m^{-1}([D]) = H^0 (C, {\mathcal{O}}(D + m \sum_{g\in G} g\cdot P)) .$$ Summarizing, we have defined a collection of vector bundles $E_m$ over ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ so that $$\mathbb{P}E_m \cong {\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} C.$$
Now we define a group action on these vector bundles which are compatible with the group actions on ${\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} C$. If $x$ is an element of the vector bundle $E_m$, then it is an element of the vector space $H^0(C,{\mathcal{O}}(D + m\sum g\cdot P))$ over some point $[D]$ in ${\text{Pic}}^n C$. Given this we define $\sigma_m : G\times E_m
\rightarrow E_m$ in the following way. Given $h$ in $G$ let $\sigma_h := \sigma(h, - ):C \rightarrow C$ be an automorphism of $C$. Then define $\sigma_m(h,f)=f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}}$, where $f$ is a global section of ${\mathcal{O}}(D+ m \sum g\cdot P)$. It is clear that this defines a group action on $E_m$.
The group action $\sigma_m: G\times E_m \rightarrow E_m$ preserves fibers of the vector bundle $\varpi_m: E_m \rightarrow {\text{Pic}}^n C$.
To prove this we must prove that the following diagram commutes: $$\xymatrix{
G \times E_m \ar[d]^{id_G \times \varpi_m} \ar[r]^{\sigma_m} & E_m \ar[d]^{\varpi_m} \\
G \times {\text{Pic}}^n C \ar[r]^{\tilde{\sigma}} & {\text{Pic}}^n C },$$ where $\tilde{\sigma}$ is the group action on ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ defined by $\tilde{\sigma}(h, \sum n_i P_i) = \sum n_i (h\cdot P_i)$.
If $f \in H^0(C, {\mathcal{O}}(D+ m \sum g\cdot P))$ and $h \in G$, then $\sigma_m(h,f)=f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}}$. We need to show that $f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}}$ is a global section of ${\mathcal{O}}(h\cdot D + m
\sum g\cdot P)$. We start by considering the divisor of $f$, say $(f) =
\sum P_i - \sum Q_i$, where each $P_i$ is a root of $f$ and each $Q_i$ is a pole of $f$. Now, we see that $$(f \circ \sigma_{h^{-1}}) = \sum h\cdot P_i - \sum h\cdot Q_i,$$ meaning that the zeros of $f \circ \sigma_{h^{-1}}$ are $h\cdot P_i$ and the poles are $h\cdot Q_i$. But since $f \in H^0(C, {\mathcal{O}}(D+ m \sum g\cdot P))$, we have that $$(f) + D+ m \sum_{g\in G} g\cdot P \geq 0,$$ so that $$\sum P_i - \sum Q_i + D+ m \sum_{g\in G} g\cdot P\geq 0.$$ But from this we get that $$\begin{aligned}
& & (f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}}) + h\cdot D + m \sum_{g\in G} g\cdot P \\
& = & \sum h\cdot P_i - \sum h\cdot Q_i + h\cdot D + m \sum_{g\in G} g\cdot P \\
& = & h\cdot \left(\sum P_i - \sum Q_i + D + m \sum_{g\in G} g\cdot P \right) \geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ because if $D'$ is an effective divisor then so is $h \cdot D'$. Therefore, $$\sigma_m(h,f)=f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}} \in H^0 (C, {\mathcal{O}}(h\cdot D + m \sum gP)).$$
From this we conclude that $E_m$ is a $(n-g+1+rm)$ dimensional vector bundle on ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ with a fiber preserving $G$ action on it.
This means that $E_m$ is a $G$-equivariant vector bundle on ${\text{Pic}}^n
C$. Now we would like to check that this group action is compatible with the $G$ action on ${\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} C$.
$ [ \mathbb{P}(E_m,\sigma_m) ] = [{\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} C, \overline{\sigma}]
.$
We must show that there is a $G$-equivariant isomorphism between $\mathbb{P}(E_m,\sigma_m)$ and $({\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} C, \overline{\sigma})$.
Let $[D]\in {\text{Pic}}^n C$, let $h\in G$, and let $f\in H^0(C,{\mathcal{O}}(D +
m\sum gP))$. Consider the map $$\begin{array}{cccc}
q: & H^0(C,{\mathcal{O}}(D + m\sum gP))\setminus \{0\} & \rightarrow & |D+ m\sum gP| \\
& f & \mapsto & (f)_0
\end{array},$$ where $(f)_0$ denotes the divisor of zeros of $f$. This map is onto and $q(f)=q(af)$ for all $a \in k^*$. Thus it induces a bijection between the projectivization of $H^0(C,{\mathcal{O}}(D + m\sum gP))$ and $|D+
m\sum gP|$. If $(f)_0= P_1 + \ldots P_l$, it is clear that $(\sigma_m(h,f))_0= hP_1 +\ldots +hP_l$, thus $q$ is $G$-equivariant. Therefore, we have a $G$-equivariant isomorphism between $\mathbb{P}E_m$ and ${\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} C$ with their respective $G$ actions.
Now that we have constructed equivariant vector bundles corresponding to the symmetric powers of $C$, we would like to find a way to relate these vector bundles to each other with the aim of proving rationality.
Relating the vector bundles $E_i$
=================================
Let $\tau$ be the regular representation of $G$, then as elements of $K_0(\mathfrak{Var}_k^G)$, $$[E_1,\sigma_1]=[E_0,\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^r,\tau].$$ \[prop:regular\]
To prove this we will construct an equivariant split short exact sequence of vector bundles of the form $$0\rightarrow E_0 \rightarrow E_1 \rightarrow F \rightarrow 0 .$$ This will be used to write the $n+r$ dimensional vector bundle $E_1$ as a direct sum of the $n$ dimensional vector bundle $E_0$ and an $r$ dimensional vector bundle $F$. When we pass to a trivialization of these vector bundles, $F$ will have a $G$ action given by the regular representation on $\mathbb{A}^r$.
An equivariant short exact sequence
-----------------------------------
First we construct a short exact sequence of sheaves on $C\times
{\text{Pic}}^n C$. Since $\{P\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C$ is a divisor on $C\times
{\text{Pic}}^n C$ we get that $$0 \rightarrow {\mathcal{O}}_{C\times {\text{Pic}}^n C}(-\{P\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C) \rightarrow {\mathcal{O}}_{C\times {\text{Pic}}^n C} \rightarrow {\mathcal{O}}_{\{P\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C} \rightarrow 0$$ is a short exact sequence. Thus we have the short exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow {\mathcal{O}}_{C\times {\text{Pic}}^n C}(-\sum_{g\in G}\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C) \rightarrow {\mathcal{O}}_{C\times {\text{Pic}}^n C} \rightarrow \bigoplus_{g\in G}{\mathcal{O}}_{\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C} \rightarrow 0.$$ Tensoring by ${\mathcal{O}}_{C\times {\text{Pic}}^n C}(\sum_{g\in G}\{gP\}\times
{\text{Pic}}^n C)$ we get $$0 \rightarrow {\mathcal{O}}_{C\times {\text{Pic}}^n C} \rightarrow {\mathcal{O}}_{C\times {\text{Pic}}^n C}(\sum_{g\in G}\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C) \rightarrow \bigoplus_{g\in G}{\mathcal{O}}_{\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C} \rightarrow 0.$$ If $\mathcal{L}$ is the Poincaré bundle on $C\times {\text{Pic}}^n C$, and we tensor this short exact sequence with $\mathcal{L}$ we get the following short exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow \mathcal{L} \rightarrow \mathcal{L} \otimes {\mathcal{O}}(\sum_{g\in G}\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C) \rightarrow \bigoplus_{g\in G} \mathcal{L}_{\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C} \rightarrow 0.$$ Finally if $p:C\times {\text{Pic}}^n C \rightarrow {\text{Pic}}^n C$ is the projection map, we apply $p_*$ to the short exact sequence to get that $$0 \rightarrow p_*\mathcal{L} \rightarrow p_*\left(\mathcal{L} \otimes {\mathcal{O}}(\sum_{g\in G}\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C)\right) \rightarrow \bigoplus_{g\in G} p_*\mathcal{L}_{\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C} \rightarrow 0$$ is a short exact sequence.
By definition, $E_0 = p_* \mathcal{L}$. Additionally, $$E_1 \cong p_*\left(\mathcal{L} \otimes {\mathcal{O}}(\sum_{g\in G}\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C)\right).$$ Indeed, the fiber of the bundle $p_*\left(\mathcal{L} \otimes {\mathcal{O}}(\sum_{g\in G}\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n
C)\right)$ over a point $[D]$ is the vector space $$H^0 ( C , {\mathcal{O}}(D) \otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_C} {\mathcal{O}}(\sum_{g\in G} gP)) \cong H^0 (C, {\mathcal{O}}(D + \sum_{g\in G} gP)),$$ just as with $E_1$. Therefore we may rewrite the above short exact sequence as $$0\rightarrow E_0 \rightarrow E_1 \rightarrow \bigoplus_{g\in G} p_*\mathcal{L}_{\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C} \rightarrow 0.$$
Now we want to consider this short exact sequence with groups acting on each of the vector bundles and prove that the maps are equivariant with respect to these actions. Recall that on $E_0$ and $E_1$ we have $G$ actions defined by the maps $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma_1$ respectively.
Since $\bigoplus_{g\in G} p_*\mathcal{L}_{\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C}$ is the direct sum of $r$ line bundles on ${\text{Pic}}^n C$, we have that $\bigoplus_{g\in G} p_*\mathcal{L}_{\{gP\}\times {\text{Pic}}^n C}$ is an $r$ dimensional vector bundle on ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ with the fiber over each $[D]$ isomorphic to the vector space $$\bigoplus_{g\in G} H^0 (C, {\mathcal{O}}(D) \otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_C} k_{g\cdot P} ),$$ where $k_{g\cdot P}$ denotes the skyscraper sheaf $k$ on $C$ at the point $g\cdot P$. To simplify notation, we will denote this vector bundle by $\varrho : F \rightarrow {\text{Pic}}^n C$.
Now we define a $G$ action on this vector bundle. Let $[D]\in {\text{Pic}}^n C$, $f \in H^0(C, {\mathcal{O}}(D) \otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_C} k_{g\cdot P} )$, and $h \in G$. The action $\rho : G\times F \rightarrow F$ is defined by $\rho(h,f)= f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}}$, where $\sigma_{h^{-1}}$ is the automorphism of $C$ defined by $h^{-1}$ in $G$. It is clear that given a section $f \in H^0(C, {\mathcal{O}}(D)
\otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_C} k_{g\cdot P} )$ over $[D]$, $f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}}$ is a section in $H^0(C, {\mathcal{O}}(h\cdot D) \otimes_{{\mathcal{O}}_C} k_{hg\cdot P} )$ over $[h\cdot D]$, thus this defines a fiber preserving group action on $F$.
$$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & E_0 \ar[r]^i & E_1 \ar[r]^q & F \ar[r] & 0}$$ is a $G$-equivariant short exact sequence of locally free sheaves on Pic$^n C$.
To show that the short exact sequence is also $G$-equivariant, we must show that the following diagram commutes: $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & G\times E_0 \ar[r]^{id_G\times i} \ar[d]^{\sigma_0} & G\times E_1 \ar[r]^{id_G\times q} \ar[d]^{\sigma_1} & G\times F\ar[r] \ar[d]^{\rho} & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & E_0 \ar[r]^i & E_1 \ar[r]^q & F \ar[r] & 0}.$$
The left square of this diagram commutes. Indeed, let $h\in G$ and $x\in E_0$. If $\varpi_0(x)=[D]$ in ${\text{Pic}}^n C$, we have that $x$ is a section $f \in H^0(C,{\mathcal{O}}(D))$. So we have $$\begin{aligned}
i \circ \sigma_0(h,f) & = & i\circ f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}}\\
& = & f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}},\end{aligned}$$ which means that $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_1\circ (id_G\times i) (h,f) & = & \sigma_1 (h,f)= f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}}\\
& = & i \circ \sigma_0(h,f),\end{aligned}$$ proving that $\sigma_1\circ (id_G\times i) = i \circ \sigma_0$.
The right square of this diagram also commutes. Indeed, let $h\in
G$ and $x\in E_1$. If $\varpi_1(x)=[D]$ in ${\text{Pic}}^n C$, we have that $x$ is a section $f \in H^0(c,{\mathcal{O}}(D+ \sum g\cdot P))$. First notice that $q: E_1 \rightarrow F$ is the evaluation map so that $q(f)$ is equal to the $r$-tuple $(f(g\cdot P))_{g\in G}$. So we have $$\begin{aligned}
q\circ \sigma_1 (h,f) & = & q (f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}})\\
& = & (f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}}(g\cdot P))_{g\in G},\end{aligned}$$ which means that $$\begin{aligned}
\rho \circ (id_G \times q)(h,f) & = & \rho (h, (f(gP))_{g\in G})\\
& = & (f\circ \sigma_{h^{-1}}(gP))_{g\in G}\\
& = & q\circ \sigma_1 (h,f),\end{aligned}$$ proving that $\rho \circ (id_G \times q) = q\circ \sigma_1 (h,f)$.
Next, we find an affine $G$-invariant open subset of ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ for which the vector bundles $E_0$, $E_1$, and $F$ are trivial over it. Let $U_0, U_1, U_2$ be an affine open subsets of ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ so that $\varpi_0^{-1}(U_0)\cong U_0\times \mathbb{A}^{n+1-g}$, $\varpi_1^{-1}(U_1)\cong U_1\times \mathbb{A}^{n+1-g + r}$, and $\varrho^{-1}(U_2)\cong U_2\times \mathbb{A}^r$. If $W = U_0 \cap
U_1 \cap U_2$, $W$ is an affine non-empty open subset of ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ and each of the above vector bundles are trivial over it. Note that $W$ is non-empty because ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ is an irreducible variety. Then let
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:trivial} U & = & \bigcap_{g\in G} g\cdot W\end{aligned}$$
which is non-empty and open because $G$ is finite and ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ is irreducible. This $U$ has all of our desired properties, it is an affine $G$-invariant open subset of ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ so that each of the vector bundles are trivial over it.
Restricting the equivariant short exact sequence to the vector bundles on $U$, we get a sequence of maps $$\xymatrix{
U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1} \ar[r]^{i} & U\times
\mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r} \ar[r]^{q} & U\times \mathbb{A}^r },$$ which corresponds to the following short exact sequence of free sheaves on Pic$^n C$ $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & E_0|_U \ar[r]^{i} & E_1|_U\ar[r]^{q} & F|_U \ar[r] &
0}.$$
A splitting for the short exact sequence
----------------------------------------
Our next step is to show that the above short exact sequence has a $G$-equivariant splitting. To do this we follow a variation of the proof of Maschke’s Theorem from basic linear representation theory.
Consider the projection map $P: U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r}
\rightarrow U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}$. This map is not $G$-equivariant, so we define an equivariant version of $P$. Define $P': U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r} \rightarrow U\times
\mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}$ with $$P'([D],x) = \frac{1}{r} \sum_{g\in G} \sigma_1(g^{-1},-)\circ P \circ \sigma(g,-)([D],x)$$ for all $[D]\in U$ and $x\in \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r}$, so that $$P' = \frac{1}{r}\sum_{g\in G} g^{-1}\cdot P \cdot g.$$ Addition makes sense here because $P'([D],x)=([D],x')$ for some $x' \in \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}$, meaning that this addition takes place in the vector space $\mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}$ over $[D]$ in $U$, and this map is clearly $G$-equivariant and onto. Notice that since the characteristic of the ground field $k$ does not divide the order of $G$, we have that $r$ is invertible in $k$, so that it makes sense to write $\frac{1}{r}$.
Next, define $$K = \left\{ ([D],x) \in U \times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r} : P'([D],x)=([D],0) \right\}.$$ This is a $G$-invariant closed subvariety of $U\times
\mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r}$. Indeed, this is a closed subvariety because it is given by a closed algebraic condition. It is $G$-invariant because given $([D],x)\in K$, $$P'\sigma_1(h,([D],x)) = \sigma_1(h,P'([D],x)) = \sigma_1(h,([D],0)),$$ and $\sigma_1(h,([D],0)) = ([h \cdot D],0)$ because the zero section of $H^0(C,{\mathcal{O}}(D+\sum g\cdot P))$ maps to the zero section of $H^0(C,{\mathcal{O}}(h\cdot D+
\sum g\cdot P)$ under precomposition with $\sigma_{h^{-1}}$, the action of $h$.
Furthermore, $K$ is an $r$ dimensional vector bundle on $U$ via the projection map $K \rightarrow U$. Indeed, the map $P': U\times
\mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r} \rightarrow U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}$ of trivial vector bundles is associated to a map $P'^*: \mathcal{F}
\rightarrow \mathcal{G}$ of locally free sheaves $F$ and $G$ associated to the respective vector bundles. The sheaf $ker P'^*$ is a locally free sheaf, which is associated to some vector bundle. But, because of the way $K$ was defined, $K$ is this vector bundle associated to $ker P'^*$. In particular, we see that $K$ is in fact a vector bundle. Additionally, let $[D]\in U$ and consider the linear transformation $P'_{[D]} : \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r}\rightarrow
\mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}$ with $P'_{[D]}(x)=x'$ where $P'([D],x)=([D],x')$. Since $P'_{[D]}$ is onto, we have that the kernel of $P'_{[D]}$ has dimension $r$. Therefore, the fiber of $K$ over $[D]$ is the $r$ dimensional vector space ker $P'_{[D]}$, meaning that $K$ is an $r$ dimensional vector bundle over $U$.
As we found a $G$-equivariant open affine $U$ for which all of the vector bundles are trivial over $U$, we shall redefine $U$ to include a trivialization for $K$ as well.
Now let us consider the equivariant map $$q: U\times
\mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r}\cong U\times \left( \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1} \oplus
\mathbb{A}^r\right) \rightarrow U\times \mathbb{A}^r.$$ From the exactness of this sequence we know that $q$ maps $U\times
\mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}$ to $U\times \{0\}$. This means that the restriction of $q$ to $U\times \mathbb{A}^r$ must be an equivariant isomorphism. In particular, we have the desired equivariant splitting for the short exact sequence. Simply define the splitting to be the inverse of $q$ restricted to $U\times \mathbb{A}^r$.
Summing up we have found a decomposition of $U\times
\mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r}$ into equivariant summands, i.e. $$U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r} \cong U\times \left( \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1} \oplus \mathbb{A}^r\right).$$
The regular representation of $G$
---------------------------------
Finally, we must analyze the vector bundle $F$. We will find that when restricted to the trivialization $U$, $F\cong U\times
\mathbb{A}^r$ is an equivariant isomorphism where the action of $G$ on $\mathbb{A}^r$ is the regular representation.
Let us examine the vector bundle $\varrho : F \rightarrow {\text{Pic}}^n C$ carefully. If we restrict our attention to $U=$ Spec $A$ in ${\text{Pic}}^n
C$ for some $k$-algebra $A$, we see that this vector bundle is associated to some $G$-equivariant $A$-module $M$ of rank $r$, because the vector bundle $\varrho : F \rightarrow {\text{Pic}}^n C$ preserves fibers under the action of $G$.
$M$ is isomorphic to $A\otimes_k k[G]$ as a $G$-equivariant $A$-module.
We start by investigating the $G$ action on the $A$-module $M$. Since $M$ is a $G$-equivariant $A$-module, we have the following property: $$g \cdot am = (g\cdot a)(g\cdot m) \text{ for all }a\in A, m\in M, g\in G.$$
Since the rank of $M$ is $r$ and the order of $G$ is $r$, we can let the set $\{x_g\}$ be a basis for $M$ so that $$M\cong \oplus_{g\in G} Ax_g.$$ We now compute the $G$ action on $M$.
$g\cdot x_{e} = x_{g}$.
Recall from the definition of $\rho :G\times F \rightarrow F$ that given a global section $f \in H^0(C, {\mathcal{O}}(D)\otimes k_{P})$, $\rho(g,f)=f\circ \sigma_{g^{-1}}$ is a global section in $H^0(C,{\mathcal{O}}(gD)\otimes k_{gP})$. This means that $$g\cdot x_{e} = a_g x_{g},\text{ for some }a_g\in A.$$ Also, since $$\begin{aligned}
x_e & = & (g^{-1}g) \cdot x_e\\
& = & g^{-1}\cdot (a_g x_g) \\
& = & (g^{-1}\cdot a_g)(g^{-1}\cdot x_g ) ,\end{aligned}$$ we know that $g^{-1}\cdot a_g$ must be invertible in $A$ with $$g^{-1}\cdot x_g = (g^{-1}\cdot a_g)^{-1} x_e .$$ Additionally, we know that the action of $g^{-1}$ on $A$ is a ring automorphism. Therefore, $a_g$ is invertible in $A$.
Thus, without loss of generality we may assume that $a_g=1$ for all $g\in G$. Indeed, the following map: $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi : & M=\bigoplus_{g\in G} Ax_g & \rightarrow & M=\bigoplus_{g\in G} Ax_g \\
& x_g & \mapsto & a_g^{-1}x_g
\end{array}$$ defines a $G$-equivariant $A$-module isomorphism.
Finally, we conclude that $$g\cdot x_{e} = x_{g}$$ as desired.
Let $g,h\in G$, and let $a\in A$. We can now compute the action of $g$ on a general element of $M$. $$\begin{aligned}
g\cdot (a x_h) & = & (g\cdot a)(g\cdot x_h )\\
& = & (g\cdot a) ((gh) \cdot x_e) \\
& = & (g\cdot a) x_{gh} \\
& = & (g\cdot a) x_{gh}.\end{aligned}$$
Consider the $G$-equivariant $A$-module, $A \otimes_k k[G]$, where $k[G]$ denotes the group ring $G$ over $k$. The $G$-action on this $A$-module is given as follows: $$g \cdot ( a \otimes h) = (g\cdot a) \otimes (gh).$$ From this, it is easy to see that the map $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi : & A \otimes_k k[G] & \rightarrow & M \\
& a\otimes g & \mapsto & a x_g
\end{array}$$ is a $G$-equivariant isomorphism of $A$-modules.
Using the isomorphism $\phi$, we have a $G$-equivariant isomorphism of schemes given by $$\phi^* :U \times_k \mathbb{A}^r \rightarrow \varrho^{-1}(U),$$ and as elements of $K_0( \mathfrak{Var}_k^G)$ we have $$[\varrho^{-1}(U),\rho] = [U,\tilde{\sigma}][ \mathbb{A}^r,\tau],$$ where $\tau$ denotes the regular representation of $G$.
We now return to our equivariant short exact sequence of free sheaves on Pic$^n C$ $$\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & E_0|_U \ar[r]^{i} & E_1|_U\ar[r]^{q} & F|_U \ar[r] &
0}.$$ Since this short exact sequence is split, we have an equiviariant isomorphism $$\varphi : U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r} \rightarrow U\times \left(\mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}\oplus \mathbb{A}^r\right).$$ We can define an isomorphism using $\varphi$ as follows: $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\psi : & U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r} & \rightarrow & U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}\times \mathbb{A}^r \\
& ([D],(x,y)) & \mapsto & ([D],x,y)
\end{array}.$$ Since this map is equivariant we may write $$[U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r},\sigma_1]= [U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^r,\tau]$$ as elements of $K_0( \mathfrak{Var}_k^G)$. Finally, recalling that $U$ is a trivialization for the vector bundles $\varpi_1:E_1
\rightarrow {\text{Pic}}^n C$ and $\varpi_0:E_0 \rightarrow {\text{Pic}}^n C$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
[ \varpi_1^{-1}(U),\sigma_1] & = & [U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r},\sigma_1]\\
& = & [U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^r,\tau]\\
& = & [\varpi_0^{-1}(U),\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^r,\tau].\end{aligned}$$
Application to the Grothendieck ring
------------------------------------
Finally we apply this local argument to the entirety of the vector bundles $E_0$ and $E_1$.
Consider $X = {\text{Pic}}^n C \setminus U$ a closed possibly reducible subvariety of ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ of dimension strictly less than $U$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
[E_1,\sigma_1] & = & [\varpi_1^{-1}(U),\sigma_1] + [\varpi_1^{-1}(X),\sigma_1]\\
& = & [U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r},\sigma_1] + [\varpi_1^{-1}(X),\sigma_1]\\
& = & [U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^r,\tau] +
[\varpi_1^{-1}(X),\sigma_1].\end{aligned}$$
If we can find a dense affine open $G$-invariant $W$ in $X$ so that the vector bundles $E_0$, $E_1$, and $F$ are trivial on $W$, we can repeat the argument above to break this sum in the Grothendieck ring down further.
First, we construct the open set $W$. Let $X_1,\ldots, X_m$ denote the distinct irreducible components of $X$. For each $X_i$ we may consider the vector bundles $E_0$, $E_1$, and $F$ on $X_i$. Let $U_i$ be open affine subsets of $X_i$ so that each of the vector bundles are trivial on $U_i$. Given $g\in G$, $g\cdot U_j \cap U_i$ is either empty or dense in $X_i$, so given $g\in G$ we define $$W_i^g = \bigcap_{\alpha \in N_i^g} g\cdot U_\alpha \subset X_i,$$ where $N_i^g = \{ \alpha \ | \ g\cdot U_{\alpha} \cap U_i \neq
\emptyset \} \subset \{1,2,\ldots,m\}$. Then define $$W_i = \bigcap_{g\in G} W_i^g \subset X_i.$$ Finally, we must make the $W_i$ disjoint. Notice that the intersections of the components $X_i$ are closed proper subvarieties of the $X_i$’s. To make these disjoint we simply subtract off the intersections of the $X_i's$ and the $G$ orbits of these closed subvarieties. Since $G$ is finite and the $X_i$ are distinct irreducible components, this is a finite collection of closed proper subvarieties. We define sets $W_i'$ to be the sets $W_i$ with these closed proper subvarieties removed. The $W_i'$ are still non-empty open affine subsets of $X_i$ with all of the desired properties. Now define $W = \cup W_i'$, which is affine, open, $G$-invariant, and a trivialization for the vector bundles $E_0$, $E_1$, and $F$.
We repeat the arguments of the previous subsection verbatim to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
[\varpi_1^{-1}(W),\sigma_1] & = & [W\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+r+1},\sigma_1]\\
& = & [W\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\sigma_0] [\mathbb{A}^r,\tau].\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have $[E_1,\sigma_1] $ $$\begin{aligned}
= & [U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^r,\tau] + [W\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\sigma_0] [\mathbb{A}^r,\tau] + [\varpi_1^{-1}(X\setminus W),\sigma_1] \\
= & [\mathbb{A}^r,\tau]\left( [\varpi_0^{-1}(U),\sigma_0]+[\varpi_0^{-1}(W),\sigma_0]\right) + [\varpi_1^{-1}(X\setminus W),\sigma_1]\\
= & [\mathbb{A}^r,\tau] [\varpi_0^{-1}(U \cup W),\sigma_0] +
[\varpi_1^{-1}(X\setminus W),\sigma_1],\end{aligned}$$ with $X\setminus W$ a closed subvariety of $X$ of dimension strictly less than $X$.
We can repeat this process until the closed subvariety we are left with is a finite collection of points, i.e. a 0 dimensional subvariety. Let $Y = \{ Q_1, \ldots, Q_m \}$ be this collection of points in ${\text{Pic}}^n C$. This leave us with the following formula in $K_0(\mathfrak{Var}_k^G)$: $$[E_1,\sigma_1] = [\mathbb{A}^r,\tau] [\varpi_0^{-1}({\text{Pic}}^n C \setminus Y),\sigma_0] + [\varpi_1^{-1}(Y),\sigma_1]$$ But again, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
[\varpi_1^{-1}(Y),\sigma_1] & = & [Y\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^r,\tau]\\
& = & [\varpi_0^{-1}(Y),\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^r,\tau].\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, since $Y$ is a finite collection of points we have that $Y$ is an affine $G$-invariant subvariety of ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ with $\varpi_1^{-1}(Y)\cong Y\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1+r}$. This means that we may still apply the previous subsections arguments to this case.
Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
[E_1,\sigma_1] & = & [\mathbb{A}^r,\tau] \left( [\varpi_0^{-1}({\text{Pic}}^n C \setminus Y),\sigma_0] + [\varpi_0^{-1}(Y),\sigma_0] \right) \\
& = & [\varpi_0^{-1}\left(({\text{Pic}}^n C \setminus Y)\cup Y\right),\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^r,\tau]\\
& = & [\varpi_0^{-1}({\text{Pic}}^n C),\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^r,\tau]\\
& = & [E_0,\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^r,\tau],
\end{aligned}$$ completing the proof of Lemma \[prop:regular\].
We can immediately conclude the following corollary, whose proof is obvious.
\[cor:regular\] Let $n > 2g-2$, let $\varpi_m : E_m \rightarrow
{\text{Pic}}^n C$ be the vector bundles described previously for $m \geq 0$, and let $\tau:G\times \mathbb{A}^r$ denote the regular representation of $G$. Then $[E_m,\sigma_m] =
[E_0,\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^r,\tau]^m$ as elements of $K_0(\mathfrak{Var}_k^G)$.
This allows to break up the vector bundles $E_m$ into $E_0$ and copies of regular representations of $G$ in the Grothendieck ring. This will give us the necessary tools to prove the rationality of the motivic zeta function once we find a way to apply this result to the projectivizations of $E_m$.
Relating the vector bundles $E_i$ to the Picard bundle
======================================================
Now we need to find a way to apply the above methods to the projectivizations of the vector bundle $E_m$, the symmetric power, ${\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} C$. To do this we will need to assume that the group $G$ is abelian. Notice that we have not needed this assumption until now.
Let $U$ be the open affine subset of ${\text{Pic }}^n C$ as defined above in equation \[eq:trivial\]. Recall that the vector bundle $E_m$ is trivial over $U$, so that we have an equivariant isomorphism $$\phi: \varpi_m^{-1}(U) \rightarrow (U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}) \times (\mathbb{A}^r)^m,$$ giving an equation in $K_0(\mathfrak{Var}_k^G)$ like that in Corollary \[cor:regular\], $$[\varpi_m^{-1}(U),\sigma_m ] = [U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\sigma_0] [\mathbb{A}^r,\tau]^m.$$
Since the group $G$ is abelian, the regular representation $\tau:
G\times \mathbb{A}^r \rightarrow \mathbb{A}^r$ can be reduced completely into 1 dimensional representations. That is to say there exists 1 dimensional representations $\lambda_1, \lambda_2,\ldots,
\lambda_r$ and an equivariant isomorphism $$\psi: \mathbb{A}^r \rightarrow (\mathbb{A}^1)^r ,$$ giving the following equation in $K_0(\mathfrak{Var}_k^G)$: $$[\mathbb{A}^r,\tau] = [\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_1][\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_2]\ldots [\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_r].$$
Defining $\Phi = (id_{\varpi_0^{-1}(U)} \times \psi) \circ \phi$, we get an equivariant isomorphism $$\Phi : \varpi_m^{-1}(U) \rightarrow (U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}) \times (\mathbb{A}^1)^{rm},$$ giving the following equation in $K_0(\mathfrak{Var}_k^G)$: $$[\varpi_m^{-1}(U),\sigma_m ] = [U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_1]^m[\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_2]^m\ldots [\mathbb{A}^1,\lambda_r]^m.$$
Since the fiber bundle $\pi'_m:{\text{Sym}}^{n+rm}C\rightarrow {\text{Pic}}^n C$ is the projectivization of the vector bundle $E_m$, $\Phi$ gives rise to an equivariant isomorphism $$\overline{\Phi} : \pi'^{-1}(U) \rightarrow U\times \mathbb{P}(\mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}\times \mathbb{A}^{rm})\cong U\times \mathbb{P}^{n+rm-g}.$$
A point in $\pi'^{-1}(U)$ can thus be represented as $$(u, [y_0:y_1:\ldots:y_{n-g}:x_{11}:x_{12}:\ldots :x_{1r}:x_{21}:\ldots :x_{rr}])$$ with $u\in U$, $y_i,x_{ij}\in k$. Also assume that for all $g\in
G$, $$\overline{\sigma}(g,(u,[y_i:x_{ij}])) = (u',[y_i':\lambda_i(g, x_{ij})]),$$ for some $u'\in U$, $y_i'\in k$, and where $\lambda_i$ are the 1 dimensional representations introduced above. We may make this assumption because the map $\Phi$ diagonalized the representation of $G$.
Let $X_{11}$ be a closed subset of $X:=U\times
\mathbb{P}(\mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}\times \mathbb{A}^{rm})$ defined by $\{x_{11}=0\}$. $X_{11}$ and $X\setminus X_{11}$ are both $G$-invariant because the action of $G$ acts diagonally on the $x_{ij}$. In the Grothendieck ring we get $$[\pi'^{-1}(U),\overline{\sigma}] = [X,\overline{\sigma}] = [X_{11},\overline{\sigma}]+ [X\setminus X_{11},\overline{\sigma}].$$
We would now like to get a clear picture of the two spaces $X_{11}$ and $X\setminus X_{11}$. The space $X_{11}$ is isomorphic to $U\times \mathbb{P}^{n+rm-g-1}$ and its coordinates are the same as $X$, but with the $x_{11}$ coordinate deleted.
To understand what $X\setminus X_{11}$ looks like we define an isomorphism $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\varphi : & X\setminus X_{11} & \rightarrow & U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1}\times \mathbb{A}^{rm-1} \\
& (u,[y_i:x_{ij}]) & \mapsto & (u,\frac{y_i}{x_{11}},\frac{x_{ij}}{x_{11}})
\end{array}.$$ The codomain is the familiar $\varpi_0^{-1}(U)\times
\mathbb{A}^{rm-1}\cong U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1} \times
\mathbb{A}^{rm-1}$. In order to insure that $\varphi$ is an equivariant isomorphism, we endow the codomain with an appropriate $G$ action. Therefore, in the Grothendieck ring, $$[X\setminus X_{11},\overline{\sigma}]$$ $$=[U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\otimes \sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^1,\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\otimes \lambda_1]^{m-1}[\mathbb{A}^1,\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\otimes \lambda_2]^m\ldots [\mathbb{A}^1,\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\otimes \lambda_r]^m .$$ The action $1/\lambda_1 \otimes \lambda_1$ is really the trivial action, and from now on we will write $1$ to denote the trivial group action.
The next step is to break up $X_{11}$ into pieces just as we did $X$. We let $X_{12}$ be the closed subset of $X_{11}$ defined by $\{x_{12}=0\}$. In the Grothendieck ring, we have that $$[X_{12},\overline{\sigma}] = [U\times \mathbb{P}^{n+rm-g-2},\overline{\sigma}]$$ and $$[X_{11}\setminus X_{12},\overline{\sigma}]$$ $$=[U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\otimes \sigma_0][\mathbb{A}^1,1]^{m-2}[\mathbb{A}^1,\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\otimes \lambda_2]^m\ldots [\mathbb{A}^1,\frac{1}{\lambda_1}\otimes \lambda_r]^m .$$
We can repeat this process $rm$ times, until we reach the following equation: $$[X,\overline{\sigma}] = [U\times \mathbb{P}^{n-g},\overline{\sigma}]$$ $$+\sum_{j=1}^{r} [U\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \sigma_0] \left(\sum_{i=1}^m [\mathbb{A}^1,1]^{m-i}\prod_{k = j+1}^r[\mathbb{A}^1,\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \lambda_{k}]^m\right) .$$
This brings us to an important claim which allows us to break up the space ${\text{Sym}}^{n+rm}C$ in the Grothendieck ring.
\[claim:symbreak\] $$[{\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} (C,\sigma)] = [{\text{Sym}}^n (C,\sigma)]$$ $$+\sum_{j=1}^{r} [E_0,\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \sigma_0] \left(\sum_{i=1}^m [\mathbb{A}^1,1]^{m-i}\prod_{k = j+1}^r[\mathbb{A}^1,\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \lambda_{k}]^m\right) .$$ Define $$\Omega_{ij} :=
[\mathbb{A}^1,1]^{m-i}\prod_{k = j+1}^r[\mathbb{A}^1,\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \lambda_{k}]^m,$$ which simplifies this equation to say $$[{\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} (C,\sigma)] = [{\text{Sym}}^n (C,\sigma)] + \sum_{j=1}^{r} [E_0,\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \sigma_0] \sum_{i=1}^m \Omega_{ij} .$$
This proof will follow the same strategy as appears in Section 5.4. Let $U_0=U$ in ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ be the open affine trivialization defined in this section. We have that $$[{\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} C,\overline{\sigma}] = [ \pi_m'^{-1}(U_0),\overline{\sigma}] + [\pi_m'^{-1}({\text{Pic}}^n C \setminus U_0),\overline{\sigma}].$$ Since $U_0$ is an open dense subset of ${\text{Pic}}^n C$, ${\text{Pic}}^n C
\setminus U$ is a closed subvariety of ${\text{Pic}}^n C$ of dimension strictly less than $U_0$. This variety may not be irreducible, so we construct a $G$-invariant dense open affine subset of ${\text{Pic}}^n C
\setminus U$ exactly as we did in Section 5.4, call this open set $U_1$. We may repeat previous arguments to conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
[\pi_m'^{-1}(U_1),\overline{\sigma}] & = & [U_1\times \mathbb{P}^{n+rm-g},\overline{\sigma}]\\
& = & [U_1\times \mathbb{P}^{n-g},\overline{\sigma}] + \sum_{j=1}^{r} [U_1\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \sigma_0] \sum_{i=1}^m \Omega_{ij} .\end{aligned}$$ Next we define a $G$-invariant open affine subset $U_2$ in the same way we defined $U_1$, whose compliment has even smaller dimension in ${\text{Pic}}^n C$. This process repeats $N$ times until we are left with a 0 dimensional variety, where this equation will still hold.
Since $$\sum_{k=0}^N [U_k] = [{\text{Pic}}^n C],$$ we compute that $[{\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} (C,\sigma)]$ $$\begin{aligned}
= & \sum_{k=0}^N [ \pi_m'^{-1}(U_k),\overline{\sigma} ] \\
= & \sum_{k=0}^N \left( [U_k\times \mathbb{P}^{n-g},\overline{\sigma}] + \sum_{j=1}^{r} [U_l\times \mathbb{A}^{n-g+1},\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \sigma_0] \sum_{i=1}^m \Omega_{ij} \right)\\
= & [{\text{Sym}}^n (C,\sigma)] + \sum_{j=1}^{r} [E_0,\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \sigma_0] \sum_{i=1}^m \Omega_{ij},\end{aligned}$$ completing the proof.
Rationality of the motivic zeta-function
========================================
Finally, we are left with proving the rationality of the power series. Let $n_i = 2g + i$ for $i = 1,2,\ldots , r$. Since $n_i > 2g-2$ for all $i$, we have that $[{\text{Sym}}^{n_i} C]=[{\text{Pic}}^{n_i} C][{\mathbb{P}}^{n_i - g}]$ in the Grothendieck ring for varieties.
Now we rewrite the motivic zeta-function for $(C, \sigma)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{(C,\sigma)}(t) & = & \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} [{\text{Sym}}^n (C,\sigma)]t^n \\
& = & \sum_{n=0}^{2g}[{\text{Sym}}^n (C,\sigma)]t^n + \sum_{i=1}^r t^{n_i} \left(\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} [{\text{Sym}}^{n_i+rm} (C,\sigma)] t^{rm} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Thus it suffices to prove the following claim.
$\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} [{\text{Sym}}^{n_i+rm} (C,\sigma)] t^{rm}$ is rational for each $n_i$.
For notational convenience let $n=n_i$. Using Claim \[claim:symbreak\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} [{\text{Sym}}^{n+rm} (C,\sigma)] t^{rm} & = & \sum_{m=0}^{\infty}[{\text{Sym}}^n (C,\sigma)]t^{rm} \\
& & +\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \sum_{j=1}^{r} [E_0,\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \sigma_0] \sum_{i=1}^m\Omega_{ij}t^{rm}.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that the first summand is rational. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}[{\text{Sym}}^n (C,\sigma)]t^{rm} & = & [{\text{Sym}}^n (C,\sigma)]t^r \sum_{m=0}^{\infty}t^m \\
& = & \frac{[{\text{Sym}}^n (C,\sigma)]t^r}{1-t}.\end{aligned}$$ We rewrite the second summand in the following way, $$\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\ \sum_{j=1}^{r} [E_0,\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \sigma_0] \sum_{i=1}^m\Omega_{ij}t^{rm} =
\sum_{j=1}^{r} [E_0,\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes
\sigma_0]\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \sum_{i=1}^m\Omega_{ij}t^{rm}.$$ It suffices to show that the following power series is rational $$\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \sum_{i=1}^m\Omega_{ij}t^{rm} \text{ for }j=1,2,\ldots, r.$$ This will be shown with the following series of equalities. $$\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \sum_{i=1}^m\Omega_{ij}t^{rm} = \sum_{m=1}^{\infty}\sum_{i=1}^m [\mathbb{A}^1,1]^{m-i}\prod_{k = j+1}^r[\mathbb{A}^1,\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \lambda_{k}]^m t^{rm}$$ $$=\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \left(1 + [\mathbb{A}^1,1] + \ldots + [\mathbb{A}^1,1]^{m-1}\right)\left(\prod_{k = j+1}^r[\mathbb{A}^1,\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \lambda_{k}]\right)^mt^{rm}.$$ Setting $\Omega = \prod_{k = j+1}^r[\mathbb{A}^1,\frac{1}{\lambda_j}\otimes \lambda_{k}]$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \sum_{i=1}^m\Omega_{ij}t^{rm} & = & \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \left(1 + [\mathbb{A}^1,1] + \ldots + [\mathbb{A}^1,1]^{m-1}\right)\Omega^mt^{rm} \\
& = & \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \Omega^mt^{rm} + [\mathbb{A}^1,1] \sum_{m=2}^{\infty} \Omega^mt^{rm} + [\mathbb{A}^1,1]^2 \sum_{m=3}^{\infty} \Omega^mt^{rm} + \ldots \\
& = & \Omega t^r\big( \sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\Omega^mt^{rm} + \Omega[\mathbb{A}^1,1]t^r\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\Omega^mt^{rm} + \\
& & \Omega^2[\mathbb{A}^1,1]^2 t^{2r}\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\Omega^mt^{rm}+\ldots \big) \\
& = & \Omega t^r \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} (\Omega t^r)^m \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} (\Omega [\mathbb{A}^1,1]t^r)^k \\
& = & \Omega t^r \left(\frac{1}{1 - \Omega t^r} \right)\left(\frac{1}{1- \Omega [\mathbb{A}^1,1] t^r}\right).\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof of the claim, which completes the proof of the main theorem.
Comments about a Generalization
===============================
The assumption that $G$ is abelian is unneeded for most of the proof of this theorem. For this reason, one can conjecture that this result generalizes to any finite group. I believe that the obstacle in proving the general result can be summed up with the following conjecture:
Let $V$ be a vector space over $k$, and let $\sigma$ be a linear action of $G$ on $V$. Then the power series $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\mathbb{P}( (V,\sigma)^{\oplus r} )t^r$$ is rational in the Grothendieck ring for varieties with group actions.
The techniques used to prove this conjecture could give us the necessary tools to apply Corollary \[cor:regular\] to the Picard bundle when the group is non-abelian. In the proof given above we used the fact that $G$ is abelian to diagonalize the group action on the extra part of the vector bundle. This allowed us to break up the Picard bundle in a nice way. If we could find another way to break up the Picard bundle, without diagonalizing the representation, we should be able to prove rationality using that method. This would result in a more general result.
Let $G$ be a finite group of order $r$, let $C$ be a non-singular projective curve over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic $0$ or of positive characteristic $p$ with $p \nmid r$, and let $\sigma : G\times C \rightarrow C$ be a group action on $C$. Then the motivic zeta function $$\zeta_{(C,\sigma)}(t) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} [\text{Sym}^n (C,\sigma)]t^n$$ is rational.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
I would like to thank my advisor, Valery Lunts, for helping me learn algebraic geometry from the ground up and for his constant guidance while working on my thesis from which this result comes.
[999]{}
E. Arbarello, M. Cornalba, P.A. Griffiths, J. Harris, Geometry of Algebraic Curves: Volume 1, Springer-Verlag New York, 1985, Chapter 7.2.1.
B. Dwork, On the rationality of the zeta function of an algebraic variety, American Journal of Mathematics (1960), Vol. 82, No. 3.
L. Goettsche, On the Motive of the Hilbert Scheme of Points on a Complex Surface, Math. Res. Lett. 8 (2001), no. 5-6, 613-627.
M. Kapranov, The elliptic curve in the S-duality theory and Eisenstein series for Kac-Moody groups, arXiv: math.AG/0001005 (2000).
M. Larsen, V. Lunts, Rationality Criteria for Motivic Zeta-Functions, Compos. Math. 140 (2004), no. 6, 1537-1560.
N. Takahashi, Motivic Zeta Functions of Varieties with $\mathbb{Z}$-actions(2006).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Due to their relevance in controller design, we consider the problem of determining the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain, passivity properties and conic relations of an input-output system. While, in practice, the input-output relation is often undisclosed, input-output data tuples can be sampled by performing (numerical) experiments. Hence, we present sampling strategies for discrete time and continuous time linear time-invariant systems to iteratively determine the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain, the shortage of passivity and the cone with minimal radius that the input-output relation is confined to. These sampling strategies are based on gradient dynamical systems and saddle point flows to solve the reformulated optimization problems, where the gradients can be evaluated from only input-output data samples. This leads us to evolution equations, whose convergence properties are then discussed in continuous time and discrete time.'
author:
- 'Anne Romer, Jan Maximilian Montenbruck, and Frank Allgöwer[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'bib\_TAC.bib'
title: 'Sampling Strategies for Data-Driven Inference of Input-Output System Properties'
---
Data-based systems analysis, Optimization, Machine Learning, Linear Systems, Identification for Control
Introduction
============
theory based on mathematical models is used in most existing control applications. While the theory for model-based control is quite elaborate, acquiring the mathematical model by first principles or identification of the plant can be time-consuming and highly dependent on expert knowledge. Hence, with the growing complexity of systems, acquiring the mathematical model becomes more and more challenging. At the same time, the amount of available data is growing rapidly due to increasing computational power and sheer size of storage. Hence, researchers from diverse backgrounds and fields are facing the challenges and chances arising from this phenomenon commonly known as big data. In recent years, this development has also attracted more and more attention in engineering applications, where data usually comprise probing input signals and probed output signals from experiments and simulations. One main question is hence, how can we best benefit from information in form of data in the state-of-the art automatic control theory?
Many existing approaches of what is called data-driven controller design are summarized in [@Hou2013], which strive to learn a controller directly from data without identifying a model first. In most approaches therein, however, stability for the closed-loop cannot be guaranteed or one needs to assume a certain controller structure beforehand. One complementary approach to the direct controller design from data is to learn and analyze certain system-theoretic properties from data first and leverage this knowledge to design a controller. In fact, properties such as the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain, the shortage of passivity and conic relations of the input-output behavior allow for the direct application of well-known feedback theorems for controller design, as shown for example in [@Zames1966; @Desoer1975]. Thus, by learning such system-theoretic properties from data, one is not bound to a controller structure beforehand and insights to the a-priori unknown system are obtained. Moreover, the approach can provide control theoretic guarantees for the closed-loop behavior.
There have been different approaches to learn certain system properties or, more generally, dissipation inequalities from input-output data tuples that are stored and available for analysis. In [@Montenbruck2016], the authors derive overestimates on the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain, the shortage of passivity and the cone containing all input-output samples based on finite, but densely sampled, input-output data. In [@Romer2017a], this approach is extended to a more general formulation of dissipation inequalities, where the ordering of the supply rates via the S-procedure allows for inference of system properties from only finite input-output data. However, to receive quantitative bounds on certain dissipation inequalities, these approaches generally introduce conservatism to account for yet unmeasured data points in the sense that they often could not verify a system property that the system did satisfy.
plot \[smooth cycle, tension=.9\] coordinates [(-.7,.75) (0,1) (.5,1.25) (1.25,-.75) (2,-1) (1.5,-2.4) (-1.2,-2.7) (-1.2,-.5)]{}; (2.35,-1) to\[bend left\] (4.5,-1); (3.4,-1) – (3.4,-1) node\[anchor=south,yshift=7\] [map]{}; (1,-2.8) – (1,-2.8) node\[anchor=west\] [$\mathcal{U}$]{}; (.25,-1.7) .. controls (.25,-1.1) and (.5,-1.7) .. (.5,-1.1); (.5,-1.1) – (.45,-1.2) – (.55,-1.2) – cycle; (.5,-1.1) circle (.08); (.25,-1.7) circle (.08);
(.5,.5 ) circle (.05); (.3,-.5) circle (.05); (-.6,-.7) circle (.05); (1,-1.2) circle (.05); (-.7,-1.7) circle (.05); (-.5,-2.7) circle (.05); (1.4,-2.3) circle (.05); (-.7,.4) circle (.05); (.25,-1.7) circle (.05); at (.25,-1.7) [$u_i$]{};
at (.5,-1.1) [$u^\star$]{};
If we assume, however, that additional (numerical) experiments can be performed, which is certainly the case in many application examples, then we can iteratively choose further data tuples in order to decrease conservatism and to obtain sharper bounds on the respective properties, as schematically illustrated in Fig. \[fig:smart\_sampling\].
Instead of finding the worst-case overestimate on input-output samples, we thus want to iteratively draw further input-output samples which allow us to converge to the true $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain, shortage of passivity, or minimal radius of a cone containing the input-output behavior. In fact, some results in this direction can be found in [@Wahlberg2010] and [@Rojas2012], where an iterative approach for determining the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain of discrete time linear time-invariant (LTI) systems is presented and discussed. Building upon this idea, the concept of sampling strategies for data-driven inference of passivity properties and conic relations were introduced in our prior work [@Romer2017b] and [@Romer2018b], respectively. In this paper, we present these approaches as a more general idea of the following form:
### Sampling strategy for inference of system properties {#sampling-strategy-for-inference-of-system-properties .unnumbered}
1. Formulate system property as optimization problem
2. Iteratively perform further (numerical) experiments
1. Calculate the gradient from input-output samples
2. Update the input along the (negative) gradient.
This general approach is schematically illustrated in Fig. \[fig:sampling2\].
(0,0) node\[draw,line width=1pt, inner sep=5pt,minimum size=12pt,text width=1.5cm,align=center\](H) [LTI]{}; (-2,0) node\[left,font=\] [$u_1$]{} – (H) ; (H) – (2,0) node\[right,font=\] [$y_1$]{}; (-1.7,0)–(-1.7,-.8); (-1.7,-.8) – (-1,-.8); (1.5,0)–(1.5,-.8); (1.5,-.8) – (1,-.8); (0,-.9) node\[draw,line width=.5pt, inner sep=1pt,minimum size=2pt,text width=1.3cm,text height = 0.2cm,align=center\](u) [compute $u_2$]{}; (-1,-1)–(-2.45,-1); (-2.45,-1) – (-2.45,-1.75) ;
(0,0) node\[draw,line width=1pt, inner sep=5pt,minimum size=12pt,text width=1.5cm,align=center\](H) [LTI]{}; (-2,0) node\[left,font=\] [$u_2$]{} – (H) ; (H) – (2,0) node\[right,font=\] [$y_2$]{}; (-1.7,0)–(-1.7,-.8); (-1.7,-.8) – (-1,-.8); (1.5,0)–(1.5,-.8); (1.5,-.8) – (1,-.8); (0,-.9) node\[draw,line width=.5pt, inner sep=1pt,minimum size=2pt,text width=1.3cm,text height = 0.2cm,align=center\](u) [compute $u_3$]{}; (-1,-1)–(-2.45,-1); (-2.45,-1) – (-2.45,-1.75) ;
(0,0) node\[draw,line width=1pt, inner sep=5pt,minimum size=12pt,text width=1.5cm,align=center\](H) [LTI]{}; (-2,0) node\[left,font=\] [$u_3$]{} – (H) ; (H) – (2,0) node\[right,font=\] [$y_3$]{}; (-1.7,0)–(-1.7,-.8); (-1.7,-.8) – (-1,-.8); (1.5,0)–(1.5,-.8); (1.5,-.8) – (1,-.8); (0,-.9) node\[draw,line width=.5pt, inner sep=1pt,minimum size=2pt,text width=1.3cm,text height = 0.2cm,align=center\](u) [compute $u_4$]{}; (-1,-1)–(-2.45,-1); (-2.45,-1) – (-2.45,-1.75) ;
(0,0) node\[draw,line width=1pt, inner sep=5pt,minimum size=12pt,text width=1.5cm,align=center\](H) [LTI]{}; (-2,0) node\[left,font=\] [$u_4$]{} – (H) ; (H) – (2,0) node\[right,font=\] [$y_4$]{}; at (0,-.65) [$\cdots$]{};
Outline
-------
The thrust of this work is to present a systematic approach to iteratively determine certain dissipation inequalities from input-output samples, where the input-output map remains undisclosed. More specifically, throughout this paper, we investigate the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain, the shortage of passivity and conic relations. We start in Sec. \[sec:discrete\] with discrete time LTI systems with a thorough analysis of continuous time optimization as well as the implications for the iterative scheme (discrete time optimization), where advanced sampling schemes can improve the convergence rate. While the general ideas have already been presented in [@Wahlberg2010; @Romer2017b] and [@Romer2018b], we are presenting stronger convergence results considering the shortage of passivity and conic relations. Furthermore, we introduce an improved iterative sampling strategy for both, the shortage of passivity and the cone with minimum radius. In Sec. \[sec:extensions\], we generalize the framework presented in Sec. \[sec:discrete\]. Firstly, we extend the general approach to continuous time LTI systems in Sec. \[sec:continuous\] leading us to evolution equations, whose convergence properties we then investigate. We then shortly summarize the extension to multiple input multiple output (MIMO) systems in Sec. \[sec:mimo\] as presented in [@Oomen2014] and [@Romer2018a] and additionally provide results on the robustness of the presented framework to measurement noise. Finally, we apply the introduced approaches to different simulation examples in Sec. \[sec:example\] including an oscillating system and a high dimensional system and end with a short conclusion in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\].
System Analysis for Discrete Time LTI Systems {#sec:discrete}
=============================================
Since our premise is to determine system properties from input-output data, one natural approach is the input-output framework introduced and presented for example in [@Zames1966] and [@Desoer1975]. Hence, we assume our system to be an operator that maps inputs $u$ to outputs $y$. In practical application, this input-output map is often undisclosed. However, we can perform simulations or experiments where we choose the input $u$ and measure the corresponding output $y$. We start with a single input single output (SISO) discrete time LTI systems $$\begin{aligned}
y(t) = \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} g_k u(t-k),
\label{eq:1}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_k$ denotes the impulse response sequence, $u$ is the input to the system and $y$ is the output of the system. For a given input sequence $u(t), t = 1, ..., n$ the input to output operator in can be written in matrix notation $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix} y(1)\\ \vdots \\ y(n) \end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix} g_0 & 0 & 0 & ... & 0 \\
g_1 & g_0 & 0 & ... & 0 \\
g_2 & g_1 & g_0 & ... & 0 \\
\vdots & & & \ddots & \vdots \\
g_{n-1} & g_{n-2} & ... & g_1 & g_0 \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} u(1)\\ \vdots \\ u(n) \end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:yGu}\end{aligned}$$ in the following denoted by $y = G u$ with $u, y \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $G \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$. The matrix $G$ representing the convolution operator for finite inputs $u \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is a lower triangular Toeplitz matrix. Note that we assume $u(t)=0$ for $t \leq 0$ and only consider causal, asymptotically stable systems. However, the ideas of [@Tanemura2019b] can be applied for converting the sampling strategies to closed-loop approaches where pre-stabilizing controllers enable the application to unstable systems.
$\mathcal{L}^2$-Gain {#sec:gain}
--------------------
The small-gain theorem, as for example presented in [@Zames1966], plays an important role in systems analysis, stability studies and controller design. With the knowledge of an upper bound on the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain of open loop elements, the stability of the closed-loop can be validated. The constant $\gamma$ is an upper-bound on the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain of a dynamical system if $$\begin{aligned}
\|y\| \leq \gamma \|u\|
\label{eq:gamma}\end{aligned}$$ holds for all input-output tuples $(u,y)$, where $u$ and $y$ are taken from some Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ of which $\langle \cdot, \cdot \rangle$ denotes the inner product and $\| \cdot \|$ the corresponding induced norm. A graphical interpretation of such a gain bound is depicted in Fig. \[fig:l2gain\].
(-3.75,0) – (3.75,0) ; at (3.75,0)[$u$]{}; (0,-2.2) – (0,2.2) ; at (0,2.2)[$y$]{}; (-3,-2.0) – (3,2.0); (-3,2.0) – (3,-2.0); (1.5,1.0) – (3\*2/3,1.0); (3\*2/3,1.0) – (3\*2/3,2.0\*2/3); at (3\*2/3,2.0\*7/12)[**$\gamma$**]{}; (0,0)– (-3,-2.0) – (-3,2.0) – cycle; (0,0)– (3,2.0) – (3,-2.0) – cycle;
For an iterative model-free approach to determine the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain $\gamma$, we formulate the definition into the optimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^2 = \sup_{\|u\|^2 \neq 0} \frac{\|y\|^2}{\|u\|^2}.
\label{eq:l2gain}\end{aligned}$$ For discrete time LTI systems as given in , the optimization problem in then reads $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^2 = \max_{\|u\|^2 \neq 0} \rho_1 (u) = \max_{\|u\|^2 \neq 0} \frac{u^\top G^\top G u}{\|u\|^2} ,
\label{eq:rayleigh1}\end{aligned}$$ where the term $\rho_1(u)$ is also referred to as the Rayleigh quotient. The Rayleigh quotient is a smooth function $\rho_1(u): \mathbb{R}^n \setminus \{0\} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that is scale-invariant since $\rho_1(u) = \rho_1(\alpha u)$ holds for all scalars $\alpha \neq 0$. Therefore, it is sufficient to consider the Rayleigh quotient on the unit sphere $S^{n-1} =\{ u \in \mathbb{R}^n | \|u\| = 1\}$. The critical points and critical values of $\rho_1$ are the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of $G^\top G$, respectively, as shown for example in [@Helmke1996]. Thus, the maximum value of the Rayleigh quotient is exactly the maximum eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ of the symmetric matrix $G^\top G$. This relation is also referred to as the variational characterization of eigenvalues or as the Courant-Fischer-Weyl principle.
Our first proposition recasts a results of [@Wahlberg2010] and states that the gradient of the Rayleigh quotient can in fact be computed by only sampling two input-output data tuples, which can be generated, for example, from simulations or experiments.
The gradient vector field of $\rho_1: S^{n-1} \rightarrow \operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \rho_1(u) = 2 G^\top G u - 2 \rho_1(u) u
\label{eq:grad1a}\end{aligned}$$ and can be computed by evaluating $u \mapsto Gu$ twice. \[prop:1a\]
We endow the unit sphere $S^{n-1}$ with the standard Riemannian metric, i.e. the Riemannian metric induced from the embedding $S^{n-1} \subset \mathbb{R}^n$. Hence, the gradient at $u \in S^{n-1}$ is uniquely determined by $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \rho_1(u)&=
\frac{2 G^\top G u \cdot u^\top u - 2 u^\top G^\top G u \cdot u}{(u^\top u)^2} \\
&=2 G^\top G u - 2 \rho_1(u) u.\end{aligned}$$ In order to compute $\nabla \rho_1(u)$ from evaluating $u \mapsto Gu$, we define the involutory permutation matrix $$\begin{aligned}
P = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & ... & 0 & 1 \\
0 & ... & 1 & 0 \\
\vdots & .^{.^{.}} & &\vdots \\
1 & ... & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ with $P = P^{-1}$. Note that the matrices $G$ and $G^\top$ are involutory conjugate since $PG^\top = GP$ holds. Hence, we can compose $G^\top u$ by ${G^\top u = PGPu}$. This finally leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \rho_1(u) = 2 P G P G u - 2 (u^\top P G P G u) u\end{aligned}$$ which only consists of operations we can perform by evaluating $u \mapsto Gu$.
In experiments or simulations, the term $PGPGu$ can be obtained by performing one (numerical) experiment $y = Gu$, applying the reversed output $PGu$ to $G$ in a second experiment and reversing the output again.
### $\mathcal{L}^2$-Gain - Continuous Time Solution
To find the maximum of the Rayleigh quotient, we employ a gradient dynamical system $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \tau} u(\tau) = \nabla \rho_1(u(\tau))
\label{eq:dyn_sys_1a}\end{aligned}$$ with $u(\tau) = \begin{pmatrix} u(\tau,1), ..., u(\tau,n) \end{pmatrix}$, along whose solutions $\rho_1$ increases monotonically, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:rhos\_illustration\](a). This leads us to the evolution equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \tau} u(\tau) = 2 G^\top G u(\tau) - 2 \rho_1(u(\tau)) u(\tau),
\label{eq:raydyn}\end{aligned}$$ also known as the Rayleigh quotient gradient flow. It is readily verified that the gradient flow leaves the sphere $S^{n-1}$ invariant [@Helmke1996]. On the sphere $S^{n-1}$, the Rayleigh quotient gradient flow is in fact equivalent to the so-called *Oja flow* $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \tau} u(\tau) =(u(\tau)^\top (G^\top G - u(\tau)^\top G^\top G u(\tau) I_n) u(\tau),
\label{eq:oja}\end{aligned}$$ defined in $\mathbb{R}^n$ [@Oja1982], with $I_n$ being the $n \times n$ identity matrix. The *Oja flow* is used, for example, in neural network learning theory as a means to determine the eigenvectors corresponding to the largest eigenvalues.
Assume ${ \lambda_1 > \lambda_{2} \geq ... \geq \lambda_n }$ for the eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ of $G^\top G$. For almost all initial conditions $u(0)$ with $\|u(0)\| = 1$, $\rho_1$ converges to $\gamma^2$, the squared $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain, along the solutions of . \[thm:1a\]
This result follows directly from Thm. 3.4 in [@Helmke1996].
Note that the convergence almost everywhere only excludes starting points in the union of eigenspaces of $G^\top G$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $\lambda_2,...,\lambda_n$, which is a nowhere dense subset of $S^{n-1}$.
3\[const plot, no marks, color=P, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T16.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=O, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T15.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=N, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T14.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=M, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T13.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=L, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T12.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=K, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T11.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=J, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T10.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=I, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T9.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=H, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T8.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=G, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T7.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=F, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T6.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=E, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T5.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=D, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T4.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=C, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T3.dat]{}; 3\[const plot, no marks, color=B, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T2.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=A, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T1.dat]{};
### $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-Gain - Discrete Time Solution
In an experimental setup, we can only iteratively determine the gradient from input-output data and hence, we extend the result to discrete time optimization. Generally, an iterative approach for maximizing $\rho_1$ in is to construct a sequence $(u_{k})_{k=1,2,...}$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:PDE\_disc\], such that ${ \rho_1(u_{k+1}) > \rho_1(u_{k}) }$ holds for all $k$ as depicted in Fig. \[fig:rhos\_illustration\](b). One standard tool in numerical linear algebra to construct such a sequence converging towards the dominant eigenvector and corresponding eigenvalue of a linear operator is the power method $$\begin{aligned}
u_{k+1} = \frac{G^\top G u_k}{\| G^\top G u_k \|}.
\label{eq:power_method}\end{aligned}$$ This method, which was amongst other methods proposed in [@Wahlberg2010], presents a possible approach for iteratively estimating the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain without any knowledge of an explicit expression of $G$, since we can retrieve the expression $G^\top G u_k$ for any $u_k \in \mathbb{R}^n$ by sampling two input-output samples $G u_k$ and $G^\top G u_k = P G P G u_k$. Hence, by iterative input-output sampling, we can apply the power method for finding the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain while the input-output operator remains undisclosed.
Let the largest eigenvalue of $G^\top G$ be unique. Then, for almost all initial conditions $u_0$ with $\|u_0\| = 1$, the sequence $(u_k)_{k=1,2,\dots}$ constructed by converges to the dominant eigenvector of $G^\top G$ and hence, $\rho_1$ converges to $\gamma^2$, the squared $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain, along this sequence.
With the scale-invariance of the Rayleigh quotient, the relevant information is contained in the direction of $u_k$. In other words, an iterate $u_k \in S^{n-1}$ represents the one-dimensional subspace $\{\beta u_k : \beta \in \mathbb{R} \}$. This links our approaches to optimizing over the real projective $(n{-}1)$-space, usually denoted by $\mathbb{RP}^{n{-}1}$. The real projective $(n{-}1)$-space is defined as the set of all lines through the origin in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. For further information, the interested reader is referred to [@Helmke1996].
To improve the convergence rate of , the application of the Lanczos method is introduced in [@Wahlberg2010]. In [@Rojas2012], Rojas et al. propose another approach to decrease the required input-output samples. Since $G$ is a lower triangular Toeplitz matrix, the matrix $ P G $ is symmetric and can be factorized into $ Q \Lambda Q^\top$ where $Q$ is an orthonormal matrix and $ \Lambda $ is a diagonal matrix with the eigenvalues of $PG$. With $G^\top G = P G P G = Q \Lambda Q^\top Q \Lambda Q^\top = Q \Lambda^2 Q^\top$, we hence find that the maximum absolute eigenvalue of $ P G $ is exactly the square root of the maximal eigenvalue of $G^\top G$. Hence, finding the $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-gain by applying the power method to the matrix $P G$ requires only one sample per iteration.
There is another well-known method that maximizes the Rayleigh quotient, namely the Rayleigh quotient iteration, which uses the iteration scheme $$\begin{aligned}
u_{k+1} = \frac{((G^\top G) - \rho_1(u_k)I_n)^{-1} u_k}{\|((G^\top G) - \rho_1(u_k)I_n)^{-1} u_k\|}.\end{aligned}$$ The Rayleigh quotient iteration has stronger convergence properties [@Batterson1989], but it cannot be applied in the present setting since we cannot compute the right hand side without explicit knowledge of $G$.
Passivity {#sec:pass}
---------
Besides the $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-gain, passivity is one of the key properties that can be exploited in order to analyze stability and design controllers, cf. [@Schaft2000]. The relevance of passivity for feedback control was recognized early, providing well-known feedback theorems for passive systems (cf. [@Zames1966] and [@Desoer1975]). We start with a general input-output definition of passivity [@Desoer1975]. A system that maps inputs $u$ to the outputs $y$ is said to be passive if $$\begin{aligned}
\langle y, u \rangle \geq 0
\label{eq:pas}\end{aligned}$$ holds for all input-output tuples $(u,y)$, where $u$ and $y$ are taken from some Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. For controller design, however, we are specifically interested to which extent a system is or is not passive. The shortage of passivity is defined as the smallest $s$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle y, u \rangle \geq -s \|y\|^2
\label{eq:sop}\end{aligned}$$ holds for all input-output tuples $(u,y)$. The system is said to be output strictly passive if $s<0$. A graphical illustration of output strict passivity is given in Fig. \[fig:shortage\].
(-3.75,0) – (3.75,0) ; at (3.75,0)[$u$]{}; (0,-2.2) – (0,2.2) ; at (0,2.2)[$y$]{}; (-3,-2.0) – (3,2.0); (1.5,1.0) – (3\*2/3,1.0); (3\*2/3,1.0) – (3\*2/3,2.0\*2/3); at (3\*2/3,2.0\*7/12)[**$-\frac{1}{s}$**]{}; (0,0)– (-3,-2.0) – (-3,0) – cycle; (0,0)– (3,2.0) – (3,0) – cycle;
For $s>0$, the shortage of passivity corresponds to the excess of passivity of a controller required to render the closed loop stable. For a more detailed description of passivity and its relevance for the application of well-known feedback theorems, the reader is referred to [@Zames1966], [@Schaft2000] and Chapter 6 of [@Desoer1975]. Another parameter to determine to which extent a system is or is not (input strictly) passive is the input-feedforward passivity index, for which a sampling strategy can be found in [@Romer2017b], extended in [@Tanemura2019]. While we only consider the shortage of passivity here in detail, input-strict passivity nicely fits into the general framework presented in this paper and the extensions and discussions in Sec. \[sec:extensions\] hence also hold for the input feedforward passivity parameter.
The shortage of passivity definition for discrete time LTI systems of the form reads $$\begin{aligned}
u^\top G u \geq -s u^\top G^\top G u,
\label{eq:sop_lti}\end{aligned}$$ which must hold for all admissible inputs $u$. Let us now assume that $g_0 \neq 0$. Consequently, the Toeplitz matrix $G$ has full rank and $G^{\top} G$ is positive definite. Reformulating the definition of the system property into an optimization problem, with $u^\top G u = \frac{1}{2} u^\top (G+G^\top) u$ due to the symmetry in quadratic terms, leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
s = - \min_{\|u\| \neq 0} \rho_2(u)
= - \min_{\|u\| \neq 0} \frac{1}{2}\frac{u^\top (G+G^\top) u}{u^\top G^\top G u}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:rho}\end{aligned}$$ The term $\rho_2$ here is also referred to as the generalized Rayleigh quotient, which is a smooth function ${\rho_2: \mathbb{R}^n \backslash \{0\} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}}$. This minimization problem represents a generalized eigenvalue problem, where the critical points and critical values of $\rho_2$ are the generalized eigenvectors $v_i$ and generalized eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ of the pair ${(\frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top),G^\top G)}$ [@Romer2017b] defined by $$\frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) v_i = \lambda_i G^\top G v_i, \quad i = 1, \dots, n
.$$ Therefore, we are searching for the smallest generalized eigenvalue of the generalized eigenvalue problem denoted by ${\lambda_n}$. With $s=-\lambda_n$, this allows to infer information on passivity ($s \leq 0$), output strict passivity ($s < 0$) and the shortage of passivity ($s > 0$).
Due to the scale invariance of the generalized Rayleigh quotient $\rho_2$, we consider the optimization problem on the sphere $S^{n-1}$. Our second proposition states that the gradient of the generalized Rayleigh quotient can be computed by only sampling three input-output tuples.
The gradient vector field of $\rho_2: S^{n-1} \rightarrow \operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla \rho_2(u) & = \frac{1}{\|G u\|^2} ((G+G^\top)u - 2\rho_2(u) G^\top G u)
\label{eq:grad2a} \\
& = \frac{Gu + PGPu}{\|Gu\|^2} - \frac{u^\top (Gu + PGPu)}{\|Gu\|^4} (PG)^2 u. \notag\end{aligned}$$ and can be computed by evaluating $u \mapsto Gu$ thrice. \[prop:1b\]
This result follows directly from [@Romer2017b], Lemma 2.
Computing the gradient vector field hence requires the three data samples $(u, Gu)$, $(u, PGPu)$, and $(u, (PG)^2 u)$ from three consecutive (numerical) experiments. For reasons of measurement noise, it is recommendable to calculate $\|Gu\|^2$ by $u^\top (PG)^2 u$ (cf. [@Wahlberg2010]).
### Passivity - Continuous Time Solution
In order to find the smallest generalized eigenvalue $\lambda_n$ and hence the shortage of passivity, we employ the gradient dynamical system $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \tau} u(\tau) &= - \nabla \rho_2(u(\tau)) \label{eq:dyn2} \\
&= \frac{1}{\|G u(\tau)\|^2} (2\rho_2(u(\tau)) G^\top G u(\tau) {-} (G{+}G^\top)u(\tau)) \notag\end{aligned}$$ along whose solutions $\rho_2$ decreases monotonically. By $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \tau} \| u(\tau) \|^2 &= 2 u(\tau)^\top \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \tau} u(\tau) \\
&= \frac{2}{\|G u(\tau)\|^2} \left( 2 \rho_2(u(\tau)) u(\tau)^\top G^\top G u(\tau) \right. \\[-1ex]
& \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad - u(\tau)^\top (G+G^\top) u(\tau) \left. \right) \\[1ex]
&= 2 \left( 2 \rho_2(u(\tau)) - 2 \rho_2(u(\tau)) \right) = 0\end{aligned}$$ we verified that leaves the sphere $S^{n-1}$ invariant.
When discussing convergence on the unit sphere, it is important to recall that there can never be only one critical point of any vector field on the unit sphere. The Euler characteristic is two for any even-dimensional sphere and zero for any odd-dimensional sphere [@Hirsch1976 Thm. 2.3]. Hence, almost global convergence, which excludes a nowhere dense subset of $S^{n-1}$, is the strongest convergence result possible for our vector field on the unit sphere.
Gradient flows of Morse-functions or more generally of Morse-Bott functions have, with the topological restrictions, strong convergence properties on manifolds. We say $\rho_2: S^{n-1} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a Morse-Bott function provided the following three conditions from [@Helmke1996 p. 21] are satisfied:
1. $\rho_2: S^{n-1} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ has compact sublevel sets.
2. $C(\rho_2) = \cup_{j=1}^{k} N_j$ with $N_j$ being disjoint, closed and connected submanifolds of $S^{n-1}$ and $\rho_2$ being constant on $N_j$, $j=1,\dots,k$.
3. $\ker \left( H_{\rho_2} (u) \right) = T_u N_j$, for all $u \in N_j$, $j=1,\dots,k$.
Here, $C(\rho_2)$ denotes the set of critical points of $\rho_2$, $H_{\rho_2} (u)$ denotes the Hessian of $\rho_2$ at $u$, $\ker \left( H_{\rho_2} (u) \right)$ denotes the kernel of the Hessian of $\rho_2$ at $u$ and $T_u N_j$ is the tangent space of $N_j$ at $u$.
Due to the strong convergence properties of gradient flows of Morse-Bott functions, we show in the following that $\rho_2: S^{n-1} \rightarrow \operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}$ is indeed a Morse-Bott function as defined above.
The generalized Rayleigh quotient $\rho_2$ on the unit sphere $S^{n-1}$ is a Morse-Bott function. \[lem:2b\]
Condition a) of the definition of a Morse-Bott function requires that for all $c \in \mathbb{R}$ the sublevel set $\{ u \in S^{n-1} | \rho_2(u) \leq c \}$ is a compact subset of $S^{n-1}$. Since $S^{n-1}$ is compact and $\rho_2$ is continuous, this is satisfied.
The critical points $C(\rho_2)$ are all $u \in S^{n-1}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) - \rho_2(u) G^\top G \right) u = 0,\end{aligned}$$ which are exactly the generalized eigenvectors of the matrix pair $(\frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top),G^\top G )$. All eigenvalues with geometric multiplicity one are hence isolated critical points.
If the generalized eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ has geometric multiplicity of $m$, then the solution of the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{1}{2} (G+G^\top) - \lambda_i G^\top G \right) u = 0\end{aligned}$$ is an $m$-dimensional linear subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and a closed connected submanifold $N_i$ of dimension $m-1$ on the unit sphere $S^{n-1}$. On this submanifold, $\rho_2(u) = \lambda_i$ for all $u \in N_i$. Therefore, condition b) is also satisfied. Finally, we need to show that also condition c) holds. According to the above discussion, $T_u N_j$ is contained in $\ker \left( H_{\rho_2} (u) \right)$ and we only have to show that $\ker \left( H_{\rho_2} (u) \right) \subseteq T_u N_j$ $\forall u \in N_j$. Hence, we start by calculating the Hessian $H$ of $\rho_2$ at the critical points.
Let $v_i \in C(\rho)$ be the generalized eigenvector corresponding to the generalized eigenvalue $\lambda_i$ of multiplicity $m$. Then the symmetric Hessian matrix of $\rho_2$ at $v_i$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\rho_2} (v_i)
= \frac{2}{\|G v_i\|^2} \left( \frac{1}{2}(G + G^\top) - \lambda_i G^\top G \right).\end{aligned}$$ In this case, the vector $v_i$ is an element of an $(m-1)$-dimensional submanifold $N_i$, and the nullspace of the Hessian $ H_{\rho_2} (v_i) $ is exactly the eigenspace corresponding to $\lambda_i$. Let $\psi \in T_{v_i} S^{n-1}$ have a normal component to the eigenspace $N_i$, but $\psi$ still lies in the kernel of the Hessian $ H_{\rho_2} (v_i) $. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_i G^\top G \psi - \frac{1}{2}(G + G^\top) \psi = 0\end{aligned}$$ must hold and hence $(\psi, \lambda_i)$ is a solution to the generalized eigenvalue problem and $\psi \in N_i$, which leads to a contradiction. Hence, the Hessian $H_{\rho_2} (v_i)$ has full rank in any direction normal to $N_i$ at any $v_i \in N_i$. We say that every critical point of $S^{n-1}$ belongs to a nondegenerate critical submanifold.
Altogether, we have shown that the generalized Rayleigh quotient $\rho_2$ is indeed a Morse-Bott function on the unit sphere $S^{n-1}$, which concludes the proof.
With this result, we find strong convergence guarantees for the generalized Rayleigh quotient flow, summarized in the following theorem.
Assume $\lambda_n < \lambda_{n-1} \leq \dots \leq \lambda_1$ for the generalized eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ of the matrix pair $\left( \frac{1}{2} (G + G^\top), G^\top G \right)$. For almost all initial conditions $u(0)$ with $\|u(0)\| = 1$, $\rho_2$ converges to $-s$, the shortage of passivity, along the solutions of . \[thm:1b\]
We start by showing that $\rho_2$ has two minima at the eigenvector $\pm v_n$ corresponding to the smallest eigenvalue $\lambda_n$. All other critical points are saddle points or maxima of $\rho_2$.
The linearization of on the unit sphere at any generalized eigenvector $v_i$ corresponding to the generalized eigenvalue $\lambda_i$, $i=1, \dots n$, reads $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} u(\tau) = \frac{2}{\|G v_i\|^2} \left( \lambda_i G^\top G - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) \right) u(\tau)&, \\ u(\tau)^\top v_i = 0&.\end{aligned}$$ To study the exponential stability of the critical points, we are now interested in the eigenvalues of the symmetric matrix $(\lambda_i G^\top G - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) )$ for all $i=1, \dots, n$ corresponding to the critical points $v_i$. Since $(\lambda_i G^\top G - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) )$ is a symmetric matrix, the eigenvalues of $(\lambda_i G^\top G - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) )$ in the tangent space $T_{v_i} S^{n-1}$ are all negative if and only if $$\begin{aligned}
u^\top \left(\lambda_i G^\top G - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) \right) u < 0 \quad \forall u \in T_{v_i} S^{n-1}.
\label{eq:cond}\end{aligned}$$
From the definition of critical points, we know $\lambda_i G^\top G v_i - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) v_i = 0$ for all $i=1, \dots, n$. Adding $\lambda_n G^\top G v_i$ to both sides reads $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_n G^\top G v_i - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) v_i = (\lambda_n - \lambda_i) G^\top G v_i.
\label{eq:pfthm2}\end{aligned}$$
Since $\frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top), G^\top G$ are symmetric matrices, there exists a basis for $\operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}^n$ of generalized eigenvectors, which are $G^\top G$-orthogonal (i.e. $v_i^\top G^\top G v_j = 0$, for $i \neq j$). Thus, every vector $u \in T_{v_i} S^{n-1}$ can be decomposed into a linear combination of these generalized eigenvectors $v_i$, $i=1, \dots, n$. Multiplying $v_i^\top$ on both sides of , we retrieve $$\begin{aligned}
v_i^\top \left( \lambda_n G^\top G - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) \right) v_i = (\lambda_n - \lambda_i) \|G v_i\|^2\end{aligned}$$ which is strictly less than zero for all $i \neq n$. With $u = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_i v_i$, where $\alpha_i \in \operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}$ for $i=1, \dots, n$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
u^\top \left( \lambda_n G^\top G - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) \right) u = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \alpha_i^2 (\lambda_n - \lambda_i) \|G v_i\|^2\end{aligned}$$ which is negative if at least one $\alpha_i \neq 0$ for any $i{=}1, \dots, n{-}1$. With condition , the eigenvalues of $(\lambda_n G^\top G - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) )$ in the tangent space $T_{v_n} S^{n-1}$ are hence all negative, and the critical points $\pm v_n$ are exponentially stable. Analogously, the definition of generalized eigenvalues yields $$\begin{aligned}
v_n^\top \left( \lambda_i G^\top G - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top)\right) v_n = (\lambda_i - \lambda_n) \|G v_n \|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Since we can always choose $\alpha \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $(v_n + \alpha v_i) \in T_{v_i} S^{n-1}$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
&(v_n + \alpha v_i)^\top \left( \lambda_i G^\top G - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top)\right) (v_n + \alpha v_i) \\
&= (\lambda_i - \lambda_n) \|G v_n \|^2,\end{aligned}$$ which is strictly greater than zero for all $i \neq n$. With condition , there therefore exists at least one positive eigenvalue of $(\lambda_i G^\top G - \frac{1}{2}(G+G^\top) )$ on the tangent space $T_{v_i} S^{n-1}$ for all $i \neq n$. Any critical point $v_i$ with $i \neq n$ is hence a saddle point or a maximum of $\rho_2$.
Due to the reasoning above, only the isolated critical points $\pm v_n$ can be attractors for . The union of generalized eigenspaces of the matrix pair $(\frac{1}{2} (G+G^\top), G^\top G)$ corresponding to the generalized eigenvalues $\lambda_1, \dots \lambda_{n-1}$ is a nowhere dense subset in $S^{n-1}$. With Lemma \[lem:2b\], $\rho_2$ is a Morse-Bott function and Prop. 3.9 from [@Helmke1996] applies. Therefore, every solution of the gradient flow converges as $t \rightarrow \infty$ to an equilibrium point, and hence, every solution of starting in the complement of the union of generalized eigenspaces corresponding to the generalized eigenvalues $\lambda_1, \dots \lambda_{n-1}$ will converge to either $v_n$ or $-v_n$. This completes our proof.
One other approach to investigate the generalized Rayleigh quotient $\rho_2$ is by performing a linear coordinate transform $y=Gu$. Since $G$ is full rank, there always exists an inverse transformation. Define ${T=G^{-\top} (G+G^\top) G^{-1}}$. By transformation, we retrieve the standard Rayleigh quotient $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_2(u)
&= \frac{1}{2}\frac{u^\top G^{T} G^{-\top}(G+G^\top)G^{-1} G u}{u^\top G^\top G u} = \frac{1}{2}\frac{y^\top T y}{y^\top y}\end{aligned}$$ with the symmetric matrix $T$, where the eigenvalues of $T$ correspond to the generalized eigenvalues $\lambda_i$ of the pair ${ (\frac{1}{2}(G + G^\top), G^\top G) }$. With $G$ unknown, however, this transformation cannot directly be used for an iterative scheme to determine the shortage of passivity.
### Passivity - Discrete Time Solution
In any application, we can only iteratively determine the gradient. We thus extend our results to discrete time optimization where we improve the convergence through exact line search. Generally speaking, discrete time minimization problems on manifolds can be approached by the general update formula $$\begin{aligned}
u_{k+1} = R_{u_k} (\alpha_k p_k)
\label{eq:update_general}\end{aligned}$$ where the search direction $p_k$ lies in the tangent space $T_{u_k}S^{n-1}$ and $\alpha_k$ denotes the step length. The mapping $R_{u_k}$ is also called a retraction mapping from the tangent space $T_{u_k}S^{n-1}$ to the manifold $S^{n-1}$ [@Absil2008]. Choosing $$\begin{aligned}
u_{k+1} &= R_{u_k} (\alpha_k p_k) = \frac{u_k+\alpha_k p_k}{\|u_k+\alpha_k p_k\|}
\label{eq:update}\end{aligned}$$ yields a valid retraction onto the sphere $S^{n-1}$ [@Absil2008], which is defined for all vectors that lie in a tangent space $T_{u}S^{n-1}$.
Let the search direction be the negative gradient $p_k = -\nabla \rho_2(u_k) \in T_{u_k}S^{n-1}$, which can be computed from data tuples according to Prop. \[prop:1b\]. There exist various approaches on how to choose the step size $\alpha_k$. Literature on this topic has a long history and goes back to [@Hestenes1951; @Hestenes1951b], where the convergence for (generalized) Rayleigh quotient iterations with fixed step size or optimized step sizes are investigated. In fact, even though the input-output map of the discrete time LTI system remains undisclosed, we can still perform a line search algorithm in the present setting. Minimizing $$\begin{aligned}
& 2 \rho_2(R_{u_k} (\alpha_k p_k)) = 2 \rho_2(u_k + \alpha_k p_k) \notag \\
&= \frac{u_k^\top (G {+} G^\top) u_k + 2 \alpha_k u_k^\top (G {+} G^\top) p_k + \alpha_k^2 p_k^\top (G {+} G^\top) p_k}{u_k^\top G^\top G u_k + 2 \alpha_k u_k^\top G^\top G p_k + \alpha_k^2 p_k^\top G^\top G p_k} \notag \\
&= \frac{\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ \alpha_k \end{pmatrix}^\top \begin{pmatrix} u_k^{\mathsmaller{\top}} (G{+}G^{\mathsmaller{\top}}) u_k & u_k^{\mathsmaller{\top}} (G{+}G^{\mathsmaller{\top}}) p_k \\ u_k^{\mathsmaller{\top}} (G{+}G^{\mathsmaller{\top}}) p_k & p_k^{\mathsmaller{\top}} (G{+}G^{\mathsmaller{\top}}) p_k \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ \alpha_k \end{pmatrix}}
{\begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ \alpha_k \end{pmatrix}^\top \begin{pmatrix} u_k^{\mathsmaller{\top}} G^{\mathsmaller{\top}} G u_k & u_k^{\mathsmaller{\top}} G^{\mathsmaller{\top}} G p_k \\ u_k^{\mathsmaller{\top}} G^{\mathsmaller{\top}} G p_k & p_k^{\mathsmaller{\top}} G^{\mathsmaller{\top}} G p_k \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ \alpha_k \end{pmatrix}}
\label{eq:linesearch}\end{aligned}$$ with respect to the step size $\alpha_k$ yields yet another generalized eigenvalue problem. Scaling the eigenvector that corresponds to the smaller eigenvalue such that the first entry equals one, the second entry denotes the optimized step size $\alpha_k^\star$. The optimized step size can again be computed by evaluating $u \mapsto Gu$ three additional times, without knowledge of $G$. We generalize in the following the main result from [@Tanemura2019], which shows for the input-feedforward passivity index that no additional input-output samples are required for finding the optimal step size. Similarly this also holds for the shortage of passivity via induction.
Given $(G{+}G^\top) u_k$, $G^\top G u_k$, $(G{+}G^\top) p_k$, $G^\top G p_k$ and $\alpha_k^\star$. Then the gradient $p_{k+1}$ and the optimal step size $\alpha_{k+1}^\star$ can be computed by evaluating $u \mapsto Gu$ thrice.
Since $(G+G^\top) u_{k+1} = (G+G^\top) u_{k} + \alpha_k^\star (G+G^\top) p_k$ and $G^\top G u_{k+1} = G^\top G u_{k} + \alpha_k^\star G^\top G p_k$ holds, $p_{k+1}$ can be computed without additional input-output tuples. With the additional data tuples $(p_{k+1}, G p_{k+1})$, $(P p_{k+1}, G P p_{k+1})$ and $(PG p_{k+1}, G PG p_{k+1})$ we can calculate the optimal step size $\alpha_{k+1}^\star$ via and at the same time also fulfill the requirement to apply this theorem at step $k+1$.
Conic Relations {#sec:conic}
---------------
In [@Zames1966], G. Zames introduces a feedback theorem on conic relations, which can be seen as a generalization of the small-gain theorem. In practice, an open-loop gain of less than one is often quite restrictive. With a linear shift in the feedback equation, however, a reduced gain product can often be obtained. This results in Zames’ Theorem which says that the closed-loop is bounded if the open loop can be factored into two, suitably proportioned, conic relations [@Zames1966].
A system that maps inputs $u$ to outputs $y$ is said to be confined to a conic region defined by the real constants $c$ and $r \geq 0$ if the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\| y - cu \| \leq r \|u\|
\label{eq:conic_relation}\end{aligned}$$ is satisfied for all input-output tuples $(u,y)$, where $u$ and $y$ are lying in some Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. The constant $c$ is also called the center parameter and the constant $r$ is also called the radius of the input-output map. In Fig. \[fig:cone\_plane\], a graphical interpretation of such a conic sector in the plane is depicted.
(-3.75,0) – (3.75,0) ; at (3.75,0)[$u$]{}; (0,-3) – (0,3.75) ; at (0,3.75)[$y$]{}; (-3.2\*6/6,-1.0\*6/6) – (3.2\*7/6,1.0\*7/6); (3.2\*7/12,1.0\*7/12) – (3.2\*7/12+0.3,1.0\*7/12); (3.2\*7/12+0.3,1.0\*7/12) – (3.2\*7/12+0.3,1.0\*7/12+0.1); at (3.2\*7/12+0.3,1.0\*7/12+0.05)[$c{-}r$]{}; (-1.2\*5/6,-3.8\*5/6) – (1.2,3.8); (1.2/2,3.8/2) – (1.2/2+0.3,3.8/2); (1.2/2+0.3,3.8/2) – (1.2/2+0.3,3.8/2+0.95); at (1.2/2+0.3,3.8/2+0.475)[$c{+}r$]{}; (0,0)– (3.2\*7/6,1.0\*7/6) – (1.2,3.8) – cycle; (0,0)– (-3.2\*6/6,-1.0\*6/6) – (-1.2\*5/6,-3.8\*5/6) – cycle; (-4.2/2 ,-3.8\*5/12-1/2) – (3.2\*7/12+0.6,1.0\*7/12+1.9); (3.2\*7/24+0.3,1.0\*7/24+.95) – (3.2\*7/24+0.3+0.3,1.0\*7/24+.95); (3.2\*7/24+0.3+0.3,1.0\*7/24+.95) – (3.2\*7/24+0.3+0.3,1.0\*7/24+.95+.3); at (3.2\*7/24+0.3+0.3,1.0\*7/24+.95+.15)[$c$]{};
Reformulating into an optimization problem yields $$\begin{aligned}
r^2 = \sup_{\|u\|^2 \neq 0} \; {c^2 + \frac{\|y\|^2 - 2 c \langle u,y \rangle}{\|u\|^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ With this maximization problem, we can find a valid radius $r$ corresponding to any center $c$ describing a cone that our input-output map is confined to. However, the goal is to find the transformation $\pm cI$ that minimizes the gain of the open-loop element, and hence, to find the minimum radius $r_{\min}$. Finding $r_{\min}$ can increase the set of controllers for which the closed-loop is bounded. Equivalently, minimizing the radius can offer higher robustness measures for a given stabilizing controller related to the gap metric. As presented in [@Sakkary1985] and [@Georgiou1990], the gap between the cones, to which the open-loop elements are confined, can be interpreted as a robustness measure.
Searching for the minimum radius $r_{\min}$ leads to $$\begin{aligned}
r_{\min}^2 = \inf_c \sup_{\| u \| \neq 0} \frac{\|y\|^2 - 2 c \langle u,y \rangle + c^2 \|u\|^2}{\|u\|^2},
\label{eq:conic_allg}\end{aligned}$$ which is a min-max optimization problem in the variables $c$ and $u$. Applying the standard Euclidean inner product with the input-output system description from , we can rewrite the optimization problem into $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
r_{\min}^2 & = \min_c \max_{\|u\| \neq 0} \rho_3(c,u) \\
& = \min_c \max_{\|u\| \neq 0} \frac{u^\top (G^\top G - c (G + G^\top) + c^2 I_n) u}{\|u\|^2}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:opt_prob}\end{aligned}$$ The term $\rho_3 : \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^n \backslash \{0\} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ in with $A(c) = G^\top G - c (G + G^\top) + c^2 I_n$ can again be referred to as a Rayleigh quotient. The Rayleigh quotient $\rho_3$ is a smooth function, which is scale-invariant in $u$. Therefore, we consider the Rayleigh quotient $\rho_3$ on the manifold $\mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1}$.
Due to the Courant-Fischer-Weyl principle, all critical points and critical values of $\rho_3$ for any given $c$ are the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of $A(c)$ respectively. More specifically, the maximum of the Rayleigh quotient for any given $c$ corresponds to the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ of $A(c)$. Hence, Eq. could also be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
r_{\min}^2 = \min_c \lambda_1 (A(c)).
\label{eq:eigvec}\end{aligned}$$ This reveals that we are searching for the minimization of the maximal eigenvalue of a symmetric matrix function. Our first result states, that is a strongly convex function with exactly one minimum.
The function $f_1: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with $c \mapsto \lambda_1 ( A(c))$ is strongly convex and has only one minimum, which is a global minimum. \[lem:1c\]
We start by separating $f_1(c) =
\lambda_1 (G^\top G - c (G + G^\top) ) + c^2$. While $c^2$ is a strongly convex function, we are further interested in $\lambda_1 (G^\top G {-} c (G {+} G^\top) )$. From [@Fletcher1985] Thm. A.1, the largest eigenvalue is convex and continuous in the space of symmetric matrices. Hence, the largest eigenvalue of an affine function of symmetric matrices $\lambda_1(G^\top G {-} c (G {+} G^\top) )$ is convex. Since $c^2$ is a smooth and strongly convex function and $\lambda_1 (G^\top G - c (G + G^\top) )$ is continuous and convex, their sum is strongly convex and continuous. Hence, the function $f_1: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ with $c \mapsto \lambda_1 ( A(c))$ has a global minimizer and no other local minima.
To find the minimal radius $r_{\min}$ from our min-max optimization problem without knowledge of $G$, our approach is again to apply a gradient-based optimization scheme. Therefore, our first proposition states that we can indeed retrieve the gradient of $\rho_3$ with respect to $c$ and $u$ from drawing input-output samples $(u,y)$ from simulations or experiments.
The gradients of $\rho_3: \mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1} \rightarrow \operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}$ in the first and second variable are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_c \rho_3(c,u) &= 2c - \frac{u^\top (G + G^\top) u }{ \|u\|^2}
\label{eq:conic_gradient1} \\
&= 2c - u^\top (G u + P G P u) \notag \\
\nabla_u \rho_3(c,u) &= \frac{2}{\|u\|^2} (A(c) - \rho_3(c,u) I_n) u \label{eq:conic_gradient2} \\
&= 2 ( P G P G u - c (G u + P G P u) ) \notag \\
& \quad - 2 u^\top (P G P G u - c (G u + P G P u) ) u, \notag\end{aligned}$$ and can be computed by evaluating $u \mapsto Gu$ thrice. \[prop:2c\]
This result follows directly from [@Romer2018b], Lemma 1.
### Conic Relations - Continuous Time Solution
To find the conic relation with minimal radius $r_{\min}$ for our unknown input-output system, we employ a gradient descent in the first variable $c$ and a gradient ascent in the second vector variable $u$ resulting in the saddle point dynamics given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \tau} c(\tau) = &{\;-} \nabla_c \rho_3(c(\tau),u(\tau))\\
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \tau} u(\tau) = & \phantom{\;-} \nabla_u \rho_3(c(\tau),u(\tau)).
\end{split}
\label{eq:conic_flow}\end{aligned}$$ The saddle point dynamics in leave the manifold $\mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1}$ invariant, since $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \tau} \| u(\tau) \|^2 &= 2 u(\tau)^\top \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \tau} u(\tau) \\
&= \frac{4}{\|u\|^2} u(\tau)^\top (A(c(\tau)) - \rho_3(c(\tau),u(\tau)) I_n) u(\tau) \\
&= 4 (\rho_3(c(\tau),u(\tau)) - \rho_3(c(\tau),u(\tau))) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The equilibrium points of are described by $u$ being an eigenvector $v_i$ of $A(c)$ and the corresponding $c = \frac{1}{2} u (G + G^\top) u$. With the analysis before, we are searching for $u^{\star}$ being the eigenvector corresponding to the maximum eigenvalue denoted by $u^{\star} = v_1 (A(c^\star))$ with $c^\star = \frac{1}{2} u^{\star \top} (G + G^\top) u^\star$, which then leads to the minimal radius $r^2_{\min} = \rho_3 ( c^\star, u^\star)$.
In the following theorem, we show that the tuple with the center $c^\star$ and input sample $u^\star$ corresponding to the minimal radius $r_{\min}$ is in fact a locally attracting equilibrium point of when $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ is a simple eigenvalue. When we minimize the maximal eigenvalue of a matrix function, however, we also need to consider the possibility that the solution to this optimization problem is an eigenvalue of geometric multiplicity two. In this second case, let $v_1(A(c^\star))$ and $v_2(A(c^\star))$ be the eigenvectors to the eigenvalue $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$. We choose $v_1(A(c^\star))$ such that $2c - v_1(A(c))^\top (G+G^\top) v_1(A(c)) = 0$ and $v_2(A(c^\star))$ consecutively such that $v_2(A(c^\star))^\top v_1(A(c^\star)) = 0$, which is always possible since $A(c)$ is a symmetric matrix. We formulate an additional assumption in the case that $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ is an eigenvalue of multiplicity two.
\[as:1\] With $v_1(A(c^\star))$ and $v_2(A(c^\star))$ as defined above, the following condition holds: $$\begin{aligned}
v_1(A(c^\star))^\top (G + G^\top) v_2(A(c^\star)) \neq 0.\end{aligned}$$
We will briefly discuss this technical assumption after the following theorem.
Assume that $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ is an eigenvalue
- with multiplicity one, or
- with multiplicity two and Assumption \[as:1\] holds.
Then the equilibrium point $(c^\star, u^\star)$ corresponding to the squared minimum radius $r_{\min}^2 = \rho_3 (c^\star, u^\star)$ is locally exponentially stable under the saddle point dynamics in . \[thm:1c\]
Linearizing around the critical point $(c^\star, u^\star) \in \mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1}$ yields the linearized system dynamics $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d} \tau} \begin{pmatrix} \delta c(\tau) \\ \delta u(\tau)
\end{pmatrix} = J(c^\star, u^\star) \begin{pmatrix} \delta c(\tau) \\ \delta u(\tau)
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ with $\delta c = c - c^\star$, $\delta u = u - u^\star$, and the Jacobian reads $$\begin{aligned}
J (c^\star, u^\star) = \begin{pmatrix}
- \nabla_{cc} \rho_3(c^\star, u^\star) & -\nabla_{cu} \rho_3(c^\star, u^\star) \\
\phantom{-} \nabla_{uc} \rho_3(c^\star, u^\star) & \phantom{-} \nabla_{uu} \rho_3(c^\star, u^\star)
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
- \nabla_{cc} \rho_3(c^\star, u^\star) &= -2 \\
-\nabla_{cu} \rho_3(c^\star, u^\star) &= 2\left( (G + G^\top)u^\star - (u^{\star \top} (G + G^\top) u^\star) u^\star \right)^\top\\
\nabla_{uc} \rho_3 (c^\star, u^\star) &= \nabla_{cu} \rho_3 (c^\star, u^\star)^\top\\
\nabla_{uu} \rho_3 (c^\star, u^\star) &= 2 \left( A(c^\star) - \rho_3(c^\star, u^\star) I_n \right) .\end{aligned}$$
Since any symmetric matrix possesses $n$ mutually orthogonal eigenvectors, the set of eigenvectors of the symmetric matrix $\frac{1}{2} \left( J(c^\star, u^\star) + J (c^\star, u^\star)^\top \right)$ given by $b_1 = (1,0_{n})$, $b_2 = (0,v_n)$, $b_3 = (0,v_{n-1})$, $\dots$, $b_{n} = (0,v_2)$, $b_{n+1} = (0,v_1)$ form an orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, where $v_i, i=1,\dots,n$ denote the eigenvectors of $A(c^\star)$. If $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ has multiplicity two, we choose the two eigenvectors spanning the eigenspace corresponding to $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ such that $v_1 = u^\star$ and $v_1^\top v_2 = 0$.
Recall that leaves the manifold $\mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1}$ invariant and hence, we are only interested in the Jacobian on the tangent space $T_{(c^\star, u^\star)} \left( \mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1} \right)$, which is spanned by the basis vectors $b_1$, $b_2$, $\dots$, $b_{n}$. By projecting the Jacobian matrix $J(c^\star, u^\star)$ onto the tangent space $T_{(c^\star, u^\star)} \left( \mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1} \right)$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star) =
\begin{pmatrix}
b_1 & \dots & b_{n}
\end{pmatrix}^\top
J(c^\star, u^\star)
\begin{pmatrix}
b_1 & \dots & b_{n}
\end{pmatrix} \\
= \begin{pmatrix}
-2 & * & * && \dots & * \\
* & (\lambda_n {-} \lambda_1) & 0 && \dots & 0 \\
* & 0 & \ddots && & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots && \ddots & & \vdots \\
* & 0 && & (\lambda_3 {-} \lambda_1) & 0 \\
* & 0 & & \dots & 0 & (\lambda_2 {-} \lambda_1) \\
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ which is of the general form $$\begin{aligned}
J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\phantom{-}N\phantom{^\top} & S \\
-S^\top & C
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ with $S = (2 v_1 ^\top (G + G^\top) v_n, \dots, 2 v_1 ^\top (G + G^\top) v_2 )$ and $N$ negative definite. The matrix $C$ is negative definite if the eigenvalue $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ is simple and negative semi-definite otherwise.
In the case that $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ is simple, choosing $P = I_{n}$ in $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}
N\phantom{^\top} & -S \\ S^\top & \phantom{-}C
\end{pmatrix} P + P
\begin{pmatrix}
\phantom{-}N\phantom{^\top} & S \\
-S^\top & C
\end{pmatrix}
= 2
\begin{pmatrix}
N & 0 \\ 0 & C
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ yields a negative-definite matrix. Applying Lyapunov’s theory for linear systems and the Hartman-Grobman theorem, this proves local exponential stability of $(c^\star, u^\star)$ in the case that $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ is simple.
In the case that $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ has multiplicity of two, we continue by applying the *Ky Fan* inequality ([@Bhatia1997], Prop. .5.3) to find that $$\operatorname{Re}\left( \lambda_i(J^\prime (c^\star, u^\star)) \right) \leq \lambda_1 \left( \frac{1}{2} \left( J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star) + J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)^\top \right) \right).$$ holds for all $i=1,\dots,n$. Since $\frac{1}{2} \left( J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star) + J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)^\top \right)$ denotes the symmetric part of the Jacobian on the tangent space $T_{(c^\star, u^\star)} \left( \mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1} \right)$, which is negative semidefinite, we know that $\operatorname{Re}\left( \lambda_i(J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)) \right) \leq 0$ for all $i=1,\dots,n$.
Furthermore, we need to exclude possible eigenvalues on the imaginary axis. Ostrowski and Schneider, in [@Ostrowski1962] Thm. 2, draw a connection between purely imaginary eigenvalues of a matrix $J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)$ and conditions on its symmetric part $\frac{1}{2} \left(J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star) + J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)^\top \right)$. Namely, if $\frac{1}{2} \left(J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)+ J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)^\top \right)$ is semidefinite and real, then the corresponding eigenvectors to $k=2m$ imaginary eigenvalues ($\pm i \alpha_1, \dots, \pm i \alpha_m$) of $J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)$ are in the nullspace of $\frac{1}{2} \left(J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star) + J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)^\top \right)$. If $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ has the multiplicity of two, we find that the symmetric part of the $J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)$, which reads $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
& \frac{1}{2} \left( J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star) + J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)^\top \right) \\ &=
\mbox{diag} \left( -2, \lambda_n-\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_3-\lambda_1, 0 \right),
\end{split}
\label{eq:symmetric_Jacobian}\end{aligned}$$ has only a one dimensional nullspace. Since any eigenvalues on the imaginary axis would correspond to an even number of eigenvectors that must lie in the nullspace of , we can conclude that $J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)$ has no purely imaginary eigenvalues.
Finally, we need to investigate possible zero eigenvalues. Rearranging rows of $J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}
-a & 0 & 0 & & \dots & 0 \\
* & (\lambda_n {-} \lambda_1) & 0 && \dots & 0 \\
\vdots & & \ddots& & & \vdots \\
* & && & (\lambda_3 {-} \lambda_1) & 0 \\
-2 & * & * && \dots & a \\
\end{pmatrix} \end{aligned}$$ with $a = v_2^\top (G+G^\top) u^\star$, which is a triangular matrix with non-zero entries on the diagonal if and only if $v_2^\top (G+G^\top) u^\star \neq 0$. This reveals that $J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)$ has full rank and therefore no zero eigenvalue under Assumption 1.
In summary, the linearization of the dynamics on the manifold $\mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1}$ at the equilibrium point $(c^\star, u^\star)$ lead to a Jacobian $J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star)$ with $\operatorname{Re} \left( \lambda_i (J^\prime(c^\star, u^\star) ) \right) < 0$. Hence, in the tangent space $T_{(c^\star, u^\star)} \left( \mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1} \right)$, the point $(c^\star, u^\star)$ is locally exponentially stable. This concludes our proof.
Let us further consider the case when the eigenvalue $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ is an eigenvalue of multiplicity two and Assumption 1 does not hold, i.e. $v_2^\top (G+G^\top) u^\star = 0$. This happens only if at least one of the two analytic eigenvalue functions $\tilde{\lambda}_{i=1,2}(c)$, from rearrangement of $\lambda_{i=1,2} (A(c))$ [@Rellich1969], that meet at $(c^\star,\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ has a vanishing gradient at $c^\star$. Since this an incredibly rare case, and Assumption 1 holds almost surely when $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ is an eigenvalue of multiplicity two, we do not want to go into more detail here and refer the interested reader to [@Rellich1969; @Mengi2014] for more details on eigenvalues of Hermitian matrix functions.
Furthermore, even in the technical case when Assumption 1 is not satisfied, we find that the Jacobian with regard to the directions normal to $v_1, v_2$, given by $b_1, \dots, b_{n-1}$, has again only eigenvalues with negative real parts, since $$\begin{aligned}
J^{\prime \prime} (c^\star, u^\star) &=
\begin{pmatrix}
b_1 & \dots & b_{n-1}
\end{pmatrix}^\top
J(c^\star, u^\star)
\begin{pmatrix}
b_1 & \dots & b_{n-1}
\end{pmatrix} \\
&= \begin{pmatrix}
-2\phantom{^\top} & S \\
-S^\top & \mbox{diag} \left( \lambda_n {-} \lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_3 {-} \lambda_1 \right) \\
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$
As a corollary to Thm. \[thm:1c\], we can show that the optimizer $(c^\star, u^\star)$ is a local min-max saddle point of $\rho_3$ via the Taylor series expansion given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_3(c,u^\star) &= \rho_3(c^\star,u^\star) + \nabla_{c} \rho_3 (c^\star, u^\star) \delta c \\
&+ \frac{1}{2} \nabla_{cc} \rho_3 (c^\star, u^\star) \delta c ^2 + \mathcal{O}(\delta c ^3),\\
\rho_3(c^\star,u) &= \rho_3(c^\star,u^\star) + \nabla_{u} \rho_3 (c^\star, u^\star) \delta u \\
&+ \frac{1}{2} \delta u ^\top \nabla_{uu} \rho_3 (c^\star, u^\star) \delta u + \mathcal{O}(\delta u ^3).\end{aligned}$$ From before, we know $\nabla_{u} \rho_3 (c^\star, u^\star) = \nabla_{c} \rho_3 (c^\star, u^\star) = 0$. With $\nabla_{uu} \rho_3 (c^\star, u^\star)$ positive semi-definite and $\nabla_{cc} \rho_3 (c^\star, u^\star)$ negative definite on the tangent space $T_{(c^\star, u^\star)} \left( \mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1} \right)$, the inequality $\rho_3(c^\star,u) \leq \rho_3(c^\star,u^\star) \leq \rho_3(c,u^\star)$ holds in a neighborhood of $(c^\star,u^\star)$, and hence, $(c^\star, u^\star)$ is in fact a locally exponentially stable local min-max saddle point of $\rho_3$ on the manifold $\mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1}$.
The structure of our Jacobian $J(c^\star, u^\star)$ relates the linearization of around the critical point $(c^\star, u^\star)$ to the well-known (linear) saddle point problems of the general form $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}
N & \phantom{-}S^\top \\ S & -C\phantom{^\top}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
x \\ y
\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}
f \\ g
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ that arise, for example, in the context of regularized weighted least-squares problems, from certain interior point methods in optimization, or from Lagrange functions with $C$ being a zero matrix [@Benzi2005].
### Conic Relations - Discrete Time Solution
Iterative approaches for the solution of saddle point problems have already been introduced in the book of Arrow, Hurwicz and Uzawa [@Arrow1958] and an article of Polyak [@Polyak1970]. In these references, iterative schemes consisting of simultaneous iterations in both variables and their convergence are discussed, addressing mainly the problem of finding the saddle point of a Lagrangian. One of the iterative approaches introduced in [@Arrow1958], Chapter 10, Sections 4-5, is the so-called *Arrow-Hurwicz* iteration which reads $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
c_{k+1} &= c_k - \alpha \nabla_c \rho_3(c_k, u_k) \\
u_{k+1} &= u_k + \alpha \nabla_u \rho_3(c_k, u_k).
\end{split}
\label{eq:arrow_hurwicz_it}\end{aligned}$$ In [@Romer2018b], it is shown along the lines of [@Polyak1970] that for a small enough step size $\alpha$, the method is locally convergent to $(c^\star, u^\star)$ and the modified *Arrow-Hurwicz* method [@Popov1980] is introduced as an expedient method to determine the minimal cone of an unknown input-output system.
The *Uzawa* iteration for general saddle point problems, also called the dual method, was presented by Uzawa in [@Arrow1958], Chapter 10. Here, the gradient iteration is only performed with respect to the input $u$, while the corresponding center $c$ is found by minimization of $\rho_3(c,u_k)$ with respect to $c$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\rho_3(c_{k+1}, u_k) &= \min_{c} \rho_3(c, u_k) \\
u_{k+1} &= u_k + \alpha \nabla_u \rho_3(c_k, u_k).
\end{split}
\label{eq:uzawa_it}\end{aligned}$$
For any given $u_k \in S^{n-1}$, $\rho_3(\cdot, u_k)$ is a strongly convex function with a global minimum at the critical point $c = 0.5 (u_k^\top (G + G^\top) u_k)$ (cf. Lemma \[lem:1c\]). With the results from Prop. \[prop:2c\], we can hence compute $\min_{c} \rho_3(c, u_k) = 0.5 u_k^\top (PGP u_k + G u_k)$ with two input-output tuples and $\nabla_u \rho_3(c_k, u_k)$ with one additional input-output tuple from (numerical) experiments. Hence, the iterative *Uzawa* iteration on the manifold $\mathbb{R} \times S^{n-1}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
c_{k+1} &= 0.5 u_k^\top (PGP u_k + G u_k) \\
u^\prime_{k+1} &= u_k + 2 \alpha ( P G P G u_k - c (G u_k + P G P u_k)) \\
& - 2 \alpha u_k^\top (P G P G u_k - c (G u_k + P G P u_k) ) u_k\\
u_{k+1} &= \frac{u^\prime_{k+1}}{\|u^\prime_{k+1}\|},
\end{split}
\label{eq:uzawa_iteration}\end{aligned}$$ with step size $\alpha$, where we applied again a valid retraction mapping from the tangent space $T_{(c_k,u_k)} (\operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}\times S^{n-1})$ to the manifold $\operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}\times S^{n-1}$ [@Absil2008].
Along the lines of [@Polyak1970], we show in the following that is locally convergent to $(c^\star, u^\star)$.
\[prop:1c\] Assume that $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ is an eigenvalue
- with multiplicity one, or
- with multiplicity two and Assumption \[as:1\] holds.
Then, there exists an $\bar{\alpha}$ such that for all $\alpha \in (0, \bar{\alpha})$ the method is locally convergent to $(c^\star, u^\star)$.
The local behavior of the *Uzawa* iteration is given by $$\begin{aligned}
e_{k+1} =
K(c^\star,u^\star)
e_{k}, \quad
e_k =
\begin{pmatrix}
c_{k}\\
u_{k}
\end{pmatrix} -
\begin{pmatrix}
c^\star\\
u^\star
\end{pmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
K(c^\star,u^\star) =
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & - \frac{1}{2} \nabla_{cu} \rho_3(c^\star, u^\star)\\
\alpha \nabla_{uc} \rho_3(c^\star, u^\star) & I_n + \alpha \nabla_{uu} \rho_3(c^\star, u^\star)
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ To improve readability, we denote $\nabla_{uc} \rho_3(c^\star, u^\star)$ by $S$ in the following.
Since the projection onto the manifold $\operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}\times S^{n-1}$ is a smooth retraction mapping from any tangent space onto the manifold, this projection preserves convergence properties of the algorithm [@Absil2008 Chapter 4]. Therefore, we are interested in the eigenvalues of $K(c^\star, u^\star)$ on the tangent space $T_{(c^\star,u^\star)} (\operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}\times S^{n-1})$ spanned by the vectors $b_1, \dots, b_n$.
The eigenvalue equation for the matrix $K(c^\star, u^\star)$ with the eigenvalue $\mu$ and the eigenvector $(c_e, u_e)$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
- \frac{1}{2} S^\top u_e &= \mu c_e \\
\alpha S c_e + (I_n + \alpha \nabla_{uu} \rho (c^\star,u^\star)) u_e &= \mu u_e, \\
u_e ^\top u^\star &= 0.\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying the first equation by $\alpha S$ and replacing $\alpha S c_e$ by the second equation yields $$\begin{aligned}
- & \frac{\alpha}{2} S S^\top u_e = \mu ((\mu-1) I_n - \alpha \nabla_{uu} \rho (c^\star,u^\star) ) u_e\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{\alpha}{2} \left( S S^\top - 2 \nabla_{uu} \rho (c^\star,u^\star) \right) u_e = \mu (1-\mu) u_e.\end{aligned}$$
If $u_e = 0$, then $\mu c_e = 0$. Since $(c_e,u_e) \neq 0$, and hence $c_e \neq 0$, we find $\mu = 0$ implying $| \mu | < 1$.
If $u_e \neq 0$, then $\mu (1-\mu)$ is an eigenvalue of the matrix $\frac{\alpha}{2} \left( S S^\top - 2 \nabla_{uu} \rho (c^\star,u^\star) \right)$, which is symmetric and positive definite in the tangent space $T_{(c^\star,u^\star)} (\operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}\times S^{n-1})$ if $\lambda_1(A(c^\star))$ is an eigenvalue of multiplicity one, or an eigenvalue of multiplicity two and Assumption 1 holds (cf. Thm. 3). Hence, we know that $\mu (1-\mu)$ is real and $$\begin{aligned}
0 < \mu (1-\mu) &\leq \alpha \left\| \frac{1}{2}S S^\top - \nabla_{uu} \rho (c^\star,u^\star) \right\|
\label{eq:smallerSStop}
\\ &\leq \frac{\alpha}{2} \| S S^\top \| + 2 \alpha \left( \lambda_1(A(c^\star))- \lambda_n(A(c^\star)) \right). \notag\end{aligned}$$
The term $\mu (1-\mu)$ being real implies $\operatorname*{Im}(\mu) = 0$, or $\operatorname*{Re}(\mu) = \frac{1}{2}$. With $\operatorname*{Im}(\mu) = 0$ and $\mu (1-\mu) > 0$, it follows directly that $| \mu | < 1$ must hold.
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\alpha} = \frac{1}{2 \| S S^\top - 2 \nabla_{uu} \rho (c^\star,u^\star) \| }.\end{aligned}$$
In the case $\operatorname*{Im}(\mu) \neq 0$ and hence $\operatorname*{Re}(\mu) = \frac{1}{2}$, we find $\mu (1-\mu) = \frac{1}{4} + \operatorname*{Im}^2(\mu) > \frac{1}{4} = \bar{\alpha} \left\| \frac{1}{2}S S^\top - \nabla_{uu} \rho (c^\star,u^\star) \right\|$. This, however, contradicts for all $\alpha < \bar{\alpha}$, and thus we have $\operatorname*{Im}(\mu) = 0$.
Altogether, this leaves us with eigenvalues $\mu$ with an absolute value strictly less than one whenever $\alpha < \bar{\alpha}$, and hence $(e_k) \rightarrow 0 $ whenever $e_0$ is small. Therefore, the method is locally convergent to $(c^\star, u^\star)$.
With this iterative approach for saddle point problems, we conclude this section of methods for discrete time linear systems to identify the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain, the shortage of passivity and the minimal cone that the input-output system is confined to. The presented analysis of possible approaches for data-driven inference of control theoretic system properties depicts the potential of this framework and builds the basis for extensions for robust gradient based methods or application to other classes of systems.
Generalizations and Extensions {#sec:extensions}
==============================
The previous section introduces a systematic approach to iteratively determine certain dissipation inequalities from input-output data and, moreover, provides a rigorous mathematical framework and hence also the foundation for generalizations and extensions. In this section, we start by introducing the necessary tools to evaluate also continuous time systems via iterative methods and show how a similar approach than in the previous section is applicable. Furthermore, we summarize how the presented results can also be applied to MIMO systems, discuss how measurement noise impacts the approach and present some insights into the convergence rate.
Continuous Time LTI Systems {#sec:continuous}
---------------------------
In this section, we consider SISO continuous time LTI systems $H: \mathcal{L}^2 \rightarrow \mathcal{L}^2$, where the set $\mathcal{L}^2$ denotes the square integrable functions. The input to output operator can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
y(t) = (g*u)(t) = \int \! g(t-\zeta) u(\zeta) \, \mathrm{d} \zeta
$$ where $g$ denotes the continuous time impulse response of the system, $u$ is the input to the system and $y$ is the output of the system. In the following, the convolution operator $u \mapsto g * u$ will be denoted by $u \mapsto C_g(u)$ for readability. Again, we assume $u(t)=0$ for $t < 0$.
For every bounded linear operator on a Hilbert space ${H: \mathcal{L}^2 \rightarrow \mathcal{L}^2}$, there exists a unique adjoint operator ${H^\star: \mathcal{L}^2 \rightarrow \mathcal{L}^2}$ defined by $\langle H(u), y \rangle = \langle u, H^\star(y) \rangle$, wherein $\|\cdot \| : \operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}\rightarrow \operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}$ denotes the $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-norm and $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle: \operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}\times \operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}\rightarrow \operatorname*{\mathbb{R}}$ denotes the $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-inner product. Let $\bar{g}(t) = g(-t)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\langle C_g(u), y \rangle
&= \int \! \int \! g(t-\zeta) u(\zeta) \, \mathrm{d}\zeta \, y(t) \, \mathrm{d}t \\
&= \int \! \int \! g(t-\zeta) y(t) u(\zeta) \, \mathrm{d}t \, \mathrm{d}\zeta
\\
&= \int \! u(\zeta) \int \! g(-(\zeta-t)) y(t) \, \mathrm{d}t \, \mathrm{d}\zeta
= \langle u , C_{\bar{g}}(y) \rangle\end{aligned}$$ verifies that $C_{\bar{g}}$ is the adjoint operator of $C_g$.
In the following, we iteratively search for the input ${u \in \mathcal{L}^2}$ corresponding to the operator gain $\gamma$, the shortage of passivity $s$ and conic relations, respectively, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:PDE\_cont\].
3\[no marks, color=P, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T16.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=O, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T15.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=N, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T14.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=M, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T13.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=L, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T12.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=K, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T11.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=J, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T10.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=I, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T9.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=H, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T8.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=G, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T7.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=F, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T6.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=E, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T5.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=D, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T4.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=C, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T3.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=B, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T2.dat]{}; 3\[no marks, color=A, line width = 1pt\] table [fig/T1.dat]{};
### $\mathcal{L}^2$-Gain {#mathcall2-gain}
For continuous time LTI systems we can reformulate the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain condition into $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\gamma^2 &= \sup_{ \|u\| \neq 0} \rho_1(u) = \sup_{ \|u\| \neq 0} \frac{1}{2} \frac{\langle C_g(u), C_g(u)\rangle}{\|u\|^2} \\
&= \sup_{ \|u\| \neq 0} \frac{\int \! \left( \int \! g(\zeta) u(t-\zeta) \, \mathrm{d}\zeta \, \right)^2 \, \mathrm{d}t}
{\int \! u^2(t) \, \mathrm{d}t}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_1: \mathcal{L}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a scale-invariant function, also referred to as the Rayleigh quotient.
We say that $\rho_1$ is Fréchet-differentiable in $\mathcal{L}^2$ if for every $u \in \mathcal{L}^2$ there exists a linear operator $D\rho_1(u)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{h \rightarrow 0} \frac{| \rho_1(u+h)-\rho_1(u) - D\rho_1(u)(h) |}{\|h\|} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ By the Riesz representation theorem, there is a unique ${\rho_1':\mathcal{L}^2 \rightarrow \mathcal{L}^2}$ such that $D\rho_1(u)(h) = \langle \rho_1'(u), h \rangle$ if $\rho_1$ is differentiable at $u$. $D\rho_1(u)$ is also called the dual of $\rho_1'(u)$. Without loss of generality, we consider $\rho_1$ on the unit sphere $S_{\mathcal{L}^2} = \{ u \in \mathcal{L}^2 | \|u\| = 1 \}$.
The Fréchet-derivative of $\rho_1$ on the unit sphere $S_{\mathcal{L}^2}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_1'(u) = 2 \left( C_{\bar{g}} \circ C_g \right) (u) - 2\rho_1(u) u .\end{aligned}$$ and can be computed by evaluating $u \mapsto C_g(u)$ twice. \[prop:2a\]
First, we claim that the Fréchet-derivative of $$\begin{aligned}
f(u) = \langle C_g(u) , C_g(u) \rangle\end{aligned}$$ is given by $f'(u) = 2 \left( C_{\bar{g}} \circ C_g \right) (u)$. By applying the presented definition $$\begin{aligned}
| f&(u+h)-f(u)- \langle f'(u), h \rangle | \\
=& | \langle C_g(u+h), C_g(u+h) \rangle \\
&- \langle C_g(u),C_g(u) \rangle
- 2 \langle \left( C_{\bar{g}} \circ C_g \right) (u), h \rangle|\\
= &|\langle C_g(h), C_g(h) \rangle| = \mathcal{O}(\|h\|^2)
\end{aligned}$$ we find that the claim is indeed true.
From the quotient rule follows $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_1'(u) &= \frac{2}{\|u\|^2} \left( \left( C_{\bar{g}} \circ C_g \right) (u) - \frac{\langle C_g(u), C_g(u) \rangle}{\langle u, u \rangle} u \right)\\
&=2 \left( C_{\bar{g}} \circ C_g \right) (u) - 2\rho_1(u) u .\end{aligned}$$
In order to calculate the Fréchet-derivative $\rho_1'(u)$ from two input-output tuples, we require $C_g(u)$ and $C_{\bar{g}} \circ C_g (u)$ from evaluating $u \mapsto C_g(u)$. Therefore, we rewrite the adjoint operator $$\begin{aligned}
C_{\bar{g}}(y)(t) &= \int \! g(-\zeta) y(t-\zeta) \, \mathrm{d}\zeta = \int \! g(\zeta) y(t+\zeta) \, \mathrm{d}\zeta
\\
&= \int \! g(\zeta) \bar{y}(-t-\zeta) \, \mathrm{d}\zeta
= C_{g}(\bar{y})(-t)\end{aligned}$$ to see that $\left( C_{\bar{g}} \circ C_g \right) (u) = C_{\bar{g}}(y) = \overline{C_{g}(\bar{y})} = \overline{C_{g}(\overline{C_g(u)})}$ holds, where the bar again denotes time-reversal.
Hence, even though we have no knowledge about the system but input-output information, we can construct the Fréchet-derivative $\rho_1'(u)$ from two input-output samples, namely $C_g(u)$ and $\left( C_{\bar{g}} \circ C_g \right) (u) = \overline{C_{g}(\overline{C_g(u)})}$ by time-reversing the output ${\overline{C_g(u)}(t) = C_g(u)(-t)}$, choosing it as yet another input and time-reversing the output again.
Similar to the discrete time case, we plan to maximize $\rho_1$ by a dynamical system that is now described by the evolution equation $\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} u(\tau) {=} \rho_1'(u(\tau))$ reading $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} u(\tau) {=} 2 \left( C_{\bar{g}} \circ C_g \right) (u(\tau)) {-} 2\rho_1(u(\tau)) u(\tau)
\label{eq:PDE} \end{aligned}$$ along whose solution $\rho_1$ increases monotonically. We can show that leaves the unit sphere $S_{\mathcal{L}^2}$ invariant: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \|u(\tau)\|^2
=& 2\langle u(\tau), \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} u(\tau) \rangle \\
=&4 \langle u(\tau), \left( C_{\bar{g}} \circ C_g \right) (u(\tau)) - \rho_1(u(\tau)) u(\tau) \rangle \\
=& 4 \rho_1(u(\tau)) - 4\rho_1(u(\tau))) = 0.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
The Rayleigh quotient $\rho_1(u(\tau))$ monotonically increases along the solutions of and converges for ${\tau \rightarrow \infty}$. \[prop:2a2\]
According to the Courant-Fischer-Weyl principle for self-adjoint operators we find an upper bound on $\rho_1$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\sup \sigma = \sup_{\|u\| \neq 0} \rho_1(u)\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ denotes the spectrum of the linear and bounded operator $u \mapsto C_g(u)$. This principle is also referred to as the Rayleigh-Ritz principle. Moreover, on the basis of the Fréchet-derivative of Prop. \[prop:2a\], we can conclude that $\rho_1(u(\tau))$ is a monotonically increasing function of $\tau$: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \rho_1(u(\tau))
{=}& \langle \rho_1'(u(\tau)), \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} u(\tau) \rangle
{=} \| \rho_1'(u(\tau)) \|^2 \geq 0.
\label{eq:2a_mono_decr}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $\rho_1(u(\tau))$ is monotonically increasing with $\tau$ and upper-bounded by the Rayleigh-Ritz principle stated above. By the monotone convergence theorem, $\tau \mapsto \rho_1(u(\tau))$ converges.
Another promising approach of maximizing $\rho_1$ could be to apply Temple’s inequality where an additional term can guarantee a lower bound on the infimum of $-\rho_1$ [@Harrell1978] and hence the supremum of $\rho_1$.
### Passivity {#passivity}
Similarly to the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain, the shortage of passivity can be studied by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
s &= -\inf_{ \|u\| \neq 0} \rho_2(u) = -\inf_{ \|u\| \neq 0} \frac{\langle u, C_g(u) \rangle}{\|C_g(u)\|^2}.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\langle u, C_g(u) \rangle = \langle C_g(u), u \rangle = \langle u , C_{\bar{g}}(u) \rangle$ holds by the definition of the adjoint operator, we rewrite $\rho_2$ into $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_2(u) = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\langle u, C_g(u) + C_{\bar{g}}(u) \rangle}{\|C_g(u)\|^2}.
\label{eq:spassive_continuous}\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_2: \mathcal{L}^2 \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a scale-invariant function also referred to as the generalized Rayleigh quotient. Without loss of generality, we consider $\rho_2$ on the unit sphere $S_{\mathcal{L}^2}$.
The Fréchet-derivative of $\rho_2$ on the unit sphere $S_{\mathcal{L}^2}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_2'(u) = \frac{1}{\| C_g(u) \|^2} \left( C_{\bar{g}}(u) {+} C_g(u) - 2 \rho_2(u) (C_{\bar{g}} \circ C_g)(u) \right)\end{aligned}$$ and can be computed by evaluating $u \mapsto C_g(u)$ thrice. \[prop:3b\]
The proof is analogous to the proof of Prop. \[prop:2a\].
To minimize $\rho_2$, we again consider the evolution equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} u(\tau) = - \rho_2'(u(\tau)) \label{eq:PDE_2}\end{aligned}$$ along whose solution $\rho_2$ decreases monotonically. We can show that leaves the unit sphere $S_{\mathcal{L}^2}$ invariant.
The generalized Rayleigh quotient $\rho_2$ monotonically decreases along the solutions of . \[prop:2b\]
On the basis of the Fréchet-derivative of Prop. \[prop:2b\], we can conclude that $\rho_2(u(\tau))$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $\tau$, cf. Eq. .
In case of conic relations, the gradients with respect to both variables $c \in \mathbb{R}$ and $u \in S_{\mathcal{L}^2}$ can also be obtained from evaluating $u \mapsto C_g(u)$ thrice for determining the cone with infimal radius that a continuous time system is confined to, analogously to the cases of gain and passivity as introduced before. More details are left out due to brevity.
Multiple Input Multiple Output Systems {#sec:mimo}
--------------------------------------
In this subsection, we shortly summarize how the presented approach can be extended to MIMO systems. In the cases of data-driven inference of the $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-gain and passivity properties, this extension to MIMO systems for discrete time LTI systems has been introduced in [@Oomen2014] and [@Romer2018a], respectively.
For simplicity we consider square MIMO systems, for which the input-output map for a given input sequence in matrix notation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}
y_{1} \\
y_{2} \\
\vdots\\
y_{m} \\
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
G_{11} & G_{12} & \cdots & G_{1m} \\
G_{21} & G_{22} & \cdots & G_{2m} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots\\
G_{m1} & G_{m2} & \cdots & G_{mm} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
u_{1} \\
u_{2} \\
\vdots\\
u_{m} \\
\end{pmatrix}
\label{eq:mimo}\end{aligned}$$ with $m$ inputs $u_1,...,u_m \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $m$ outputs $y_1,...,y_m\in \mathbb{R}^n$. In short notation, will be denoted by $Y = \Gamma U$ where $Y \in \mathbb{R}^{mn}$, $U \in \mathbb{R}^{mn}$ and $ \Gamma \in \mathbb{R}^{mn \times mn}$. For MIMO systems of the form , input-output system properties can again be formulated as optimization problems $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^2 &
= \max_{\|U\| \neq 0} \frac{ \| \Gamma U \|^2}{\|U\|^2}, \quad
s
= - \min_{\|U\| \neq 0} \frac{ U^\top \Gamma U }{\| \Gamma U\|^2}, \\
r_{\min}^2
& = \min_{c} \max_{\|U\| \neq 0} \frac{c^2 \|U\|^2 - 2c U^\top \Gamma U + \| \Gamma U \|^2}{\|U\|^2}.\end{aligned}$$ We hence retrieve the same optimization problems as in the SISO case with the same respective gradients , and with , which can be computed with the terms $U, \Gamma U, \Gamma^\top U$ and $\Gamma^\top \Gamma U$. The only difference to the iterative optimization problem in the SISO case is that in contrast to the Toeplitz matrix $G$, $\Gamma$ does not have Toeplitz structure and therefore $P \Gamma^\top \neq \Gamma P$. However, even though $\Gamma$ is not of Toeplitz structure anymore, we can still compute the gradients by evaluating $U \mapsto \Gamma U$ while $\Gamma$ remains undisclosed. Let $E^{ij}_m$ be the $m \times m$ matrix with zero entries everywhere except for the single entry $1$ at the $i$th row and $j$th column. Decomposing $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^\top U = \sum_{i,j=1}^{m} (E^{ij}_m \otimes P) \Gamma (E^{ij}_m \otimes P) U,\end{aligned}$$ with $\otimes$ denoting the Kronecker product, yields a constructive procedure to compute $\Gamma^\top U$ from $m^2$ input-output tuples. For all $i,j = 1, \dots, m$, we choose the $j^{th}$ component of $u$, viz. $u_j$, time-reverse it, apply it to the $i^{th}$ input of the system defined by $\Gamma$, measure only the $i^{th}$ output and time reverse it again.
Altogether, we hence require $m^2+1$ evaluations of $U \mapsto \Gamma U$ to compute $\nabla \rho_1(U)$, and $2m^2 +1$ evaluations to calculate $\nabla \rho_2(U)$ or $\nabla_c \rho_3(c,U)$ together with $\nabla_U \rho_3(c,U)$. However, any prior knowledge on the coupling of the MIMO system can significantly reduce the amount of required (numerical) experiments. In [@Romer2018a], the case of interconnected dynamical systems over graphs is considered, where certain assumptions on the communication topology lead to a significant reduction of the number of required data tuples.
Since the optimization problems are analogous to the SISO case and since we have shown that the gradient can be computed from (numerical) experiments, all convergence guarantees presented in this paper hold also for the MIMO case and can be extended along the lines of Sec. \[sec:continuous\] and Sec. \[sec:noise\].
Measurement noise {#sec:noise}
-----------------
The presented framework for determining system properties is based on gradient dynamical systems. Generally speaking, the iterative procedure hence inherits robustness properties of such approaches from classical results, e.g. from [@Polyak1987]. To be more specific, we evaluate the case where the output is corrupted by additive measurement noise $e$, ${e{=}\begin{pmatrix} e(1), ..., e(n) \end{pmatrix}^\top}$. Similar to [@Wahlberg2010], we consider white noise with zero mean and variance $\sigma_e^2$. For the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain, this implies that the data tuples of the experiments necessary for calculating the gradient read $(u_k, G u_k {+} e_{k,1})$, $(P (G u_k {+} e_{k,1}), G P G u_k {+} GP e_{k,1} {+} e_{k,2}) $, where $e_{k,1}, e_{k,2}$ is the measurement noise of the first and second experiment.
The gradient $\hat{\nabla} \rho_1(u_k)$ computed via Prop. \[prop:1a\] by evaluating $u_k \mapsto Gu_k + e_{k,j}$ twice ($j=1,2$), with $e_{k,j} = \begin{pmatrix} e_{k,j}(1), \dots, e_{k,j}(n) \end{pmatrix}^\top$, $e_{k,j}(i) \sim \operatorname{\mathcal{N}}\left( 0, \sigma_e^2 \right), \; i=1, \dots, n$, yields $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\nabla} \rho_1(u_k) = \nabla \rho_1(u_k) + \epsilon_k
\label{eq:noise_grad}\end{aligned}$$ with $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[\epsilon_k] = 0$ and variance $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[\|\epsilon_k\|^2 ] \leq c_G \sigma_e^2$, where $c_G$ is a system dependent constant.
Computing the gradient with the noise corrupted data $P (G u_k + e_{k,1}) \mapsto G P G u_k + GP e_{k,1} + e_{k,2}$ yields with $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_k {=} \frac{2}{\|u_k\|^2} \left( PGP e_{k,1} {+} P {e}_{k,2} {-} \frac{u_k^\top PGP e_{k,1} {+} u_k^\top P {e}_{k,2}}{\|u_k\|^2} u_k \right).\end{aligned}$$ The linearity of the expectation operator and $e_{k,1}(i), e_{k,2}(i) \sim \operatorname{\mathcal{N}}\left( 0, \sigma_e^2 \right)$ for $i=1, \dots, n$ directly leads to $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[\epsilon_k(i)] = 0,\; i=1,\dots,n$ as well as to an upper bound on $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[\|\epsilon_k\|^2 ] \leq c_G \sigma_e^2$, where $c_G$ is a constant depending on $G$.
Most importantly, this means that the gradient is unbiased. Similar results hold for the gradient of the input-strict passivity cost function (cf. [@Romer2017b]) and the gradients in , for conic relations. Exemplarily, we keep considering the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain and let $\lambda_1 \geq \dots \geq \lambda_n$ denote the eigenvalues of $G^\top G$.
The Rayleigh quotient $\rho_1: S^{N-1} \rightarrow R$ has the following characteristics:
- $\rho_1 \in \mathcal{C}^{\infty}$
- $\rho_1$ is locally strongly concave at $v_1$ with the concavity parameter $l = \lambda_{1} - \lambda_{2} > 0$ if and only if the largest eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ is simple
- $\nabla \rho_1$ is locally Lipschitz on the unit sphere with the Lipschitz constant $L=\lambda_1 - \lambda_n$.
The Rayleigh quotient $\rho_1: R^{n} \setminus\{0\} \rightarrow R$ is a smooth function [@Helmke1996], and hence $\rho_1: S^{n-1} \rightarrow R$ is smooth as well. Since the function $\rho_1$ is twice continuously differentiable, then $\rho_1$ is locally strongly concave with the parameter $l$ if and only if $H_{\rho_1}(v_1) \preceq -l I_n $. The computation of the Hessian reveals $H_{\rho_1}(v_1) = 2 (G^\top G - \lambda_1 I_n )$. By projection onto the tangent space $T_{v_1} S^{n-1}$ which is spanned by the orthonormal vectors $v_2, \dots, v_{n}$, we find $\begin{pmatrix} v_2 & \dots & v_{n} \end{pmatrix}^\top H_{\rho_1}(v_1) \begin{pmatrix} v_2 & \dots & v_{n} \end{pmatrix} = 2 \mbox{diag} \left( (\lambda_2{-}\lambda_1), \dots, (\lambda_{n}{-}\lambda_1) \right) \preceq (\lambda_{2}{-}\lambda_1) I_{n-1}$, and hence that $\rho_1$ is indeed locally strongly concave at $v_1$ on the manifold $S^{n-1}$ with the concavity parameter $l = \lambda_{1} - \lambda_2$. Since $\rho_1$ is twice differentiable and locally concave at $v_1$ on the unit sphere $S^{n-1}$, $\rho_1$ is locally Lipschitz with constant $L$ if and only if $H_{\rho_1}(v_1) \succeq -L I_n$. The results above then finally lead to $L = \lambda_1 - \lambda_n$, which concludes the proof.
Similar statements follow from Thm. \[thm:1b\] and Thm. \[thm:1c\] for $\rho_2$ and $\rho_3$. This leads directly to results from [@Polyak1987] which we state here for general gradient methods in the presence of noise.
([@Polyak1987 Ch. 4, Thm. 3]) Let $F(u)$ be strongly concave (with constant $l$) with a gradient satisfying a Lipschitz condition (with constant $L$). Furthermore, let $u_{k+1} = u_k + \alpha_k ( \nabla F(u_k) + \epsilon_k )$ be our updating scheme where the noise $\epsilon_k$ is random, independent, with $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[\epsilon_k] = 0$ and $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[\| \epsilon_k \|^2] \leq \sigma^2$.
1. Then there exists a $\bar{\alpha} > 0$ such that for $\alpha_k = \alpha$, $k=1,2,\dots$, with $0 < \alpha < \bar{\alpha}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[F(u^\star)-F(u_k)] \leq R(\alpha) + \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[F(u^\star)-F(u_0)] q^k\end{aligned}$$ where $q<1$, $R(\alpha) \rightarrow 0 $ as $\alpha \rightarrow 0$.
2. If $\alpha_k \rightarrow 0$, $\sum_{k= 0}^\infty \alpha_k = \infty$, then $\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[ \| u_k - u^\star \|^2 ] \rightarrow 0$.
3. Finally, if $\alpha_k = \alpha / k$, $\alpha > 1/(2l)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}[F(u^\star)-F(u_k)] \leq \frac{L \sigma^2 \alpha^2}{2(2l\alpha - 1)k} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{k}\right).\end{aligned}$$
With a suitably chosen step size $\alpha_k$, the iteration $$\begin{aligned}
u^\prime_{k+1} = u_k + \alpha_k \left(\nabla \rho_1(u_k) + \epsilon_k \right), \quad
u_{k+1} = \frac{u^\prime_{k+1}}{\|u^\prime_{k+1}\|}\end{aligned}$$ is hence locally convergent to $u^\star$ with $\rho(u^\star) = \gamma^2$ for small enough noise, and similarly for, e.g., the input-feedforward passivity index. Even if we do not have zero mean white noise on the measurement but only the information on a deterministic worst-case bound on $\epsilon$, [@Polyak1987 Ch. 4, Thm. 1] provides convergence guarantees for general gradient methods towards a neighborhood of the optimizer dependent on $\epsilon$.
The above analysis also give us an approach to determine local convergence rates. Applying [@Klerk2017 Thm. 1.5] for a fixed step size of $\alpha = \frac{2}{L+l}$ leads to a local convergence estimate of $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_1(u^\star) - \rho_1(u_k) \leq \frac{L}{2} \left( \frac{L-l}{L+l} \right)^{2k} \|u^\star - u_0\|^2.\end{aligned}$$ For the gradient method with exact line search (as it is possible without additional input-output tuples for the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain and the input-strict and output-strict passivity), we can apply [@Klerk2017 Thm. 1.2] to find the local convergence estimate of $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_1(u^\star) - \rho_1(u_k) \leq \left( \frac{L-l}{L+l} \right)^{2k} \left(\rho_1(u_0) - \rho_1(u^\star) \right).
\label{eq:conv_rate}\end{aligned}$$ More recently, [@Michalowsky2019] also provide design tools to tailor a gradient dynamical system to the required convergence rate and robustness (i.e., in [@Michalowsky2019], $H_2$-performance from noise to output/optimizer). Based on the results in Sec. \[sec:discrete\], one can hence design an iterative gradient scheme with specific local robustness and convergence guarantees, e.g., for determining the $\mathcal{L}^2$-gain. This framework even paves the way towards extending the presented approaches to (slightly) nonlinear systems if the influence of the nonlinearity can be bounded by a deterministic $\epsilon$, or alternatively can be described in terms of integral quadratic constraints in the setup of [@Michalowsky2019].
Example {#sec:example}
=======
In this section, we illustrate the applicability and the potential of the proposed methods with different examples, including an oscillator, a high-dimensional system and a comparison to system identification techniques.
$\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-gain and conic relations of a random system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We start with a randomly generated LTI system of order 20 (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Matlab</span> function *drss* with *rng(0)*), which has an $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-gain of $\gamma = 13.7$. The initial input $u_0 \in \mathbb{R}^{10^3}$ is $u_0 = \sin ( t )$, $t=1,\dots,10^3 $, normalized such that $\|u_0\| = 1$. We first apply the continuous time gradient dynamical system and saddle-point dynamics for finding the $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-gain as well as the tightest cone containing the input-output behavior via numerical integration in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Matlab</span> with the *ode15s* function. Secondly, we apply the presented iterative sampling schemes. In case of the $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-gain, we choose Algorithm 1 in [@Rojas2012]. For finding the tightest cone, we apply the *Uzawa* method (cf. Prop. \[prop:1c\]) with a step size of $\alpha = 0.002$. In all cases, the simulation results in Fig. \[fig:l2\_conic\] confirm the convergence guarantees provided in Sec. \[sec:discrete\]. Furthermore, allowing for conic relations instead of the $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-gain decreases the radius to $r_{\min} = 7.7$.
Shortage of passivity of an oscillating system
----------------------------------------------
We next consider the oscillator given by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\dot{x}(t) &= \begin{pmatrix} -0.1 & 1 \\ -1 & 0.1 \end{pmatrix} x(t) + \begin{pmatrix} 0\\1 \end{pmatrix} u(t) \\
y(t) &= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} x(t) + 0.01 u(t),
\end{split}
\label{eq:example}\end{aligned}$$ with $u(t)=0$ for $t<0$ and $H : u \mapsto y$ in the time interval $t \in [0,10]$. We simulate the model with a sampling time of $\Delta t = 0.01 \mbox{s}$. The true shortage of passivity of the system is $s^\star = 0.07$. We first apply the gradient dynamical system described in and then apply the iterative sampling scheme including the line search algorithm in . The initial input $u \in \mathbb{R}^{10^3}$ with $\|u_0 \| = 1$ is chosen to be the normed constant signal $u = (10 \sqrt{10})^{-1} (1, \dots, 1)$. The results illustrated in Fig. \[fig:sop\_sim\] show after seven iterations that the system is not (output strictly) passive. Even for a harmonic oscillator, we can approximate the shortage of passivity after only few iterations. However, very close to the true minimum of $\rho_2$, convergence becomes quite slow, which might be due to the fact that the generalized eigenvalues of the matrix pair $\frac{1}{2}(G^\top +G),G^\top G)$ are spread out, which is an indicator for slow convergence of steepest descent methods (cf. with $L \gg l$).
High-dimensional system
-----------------------
The third example is taken from the literature and can be found, for example, in [@Tran2017] and references therein[^2]. The SISO LTI model of order 84 describes the discretization of a partial differential equation (PDE) over a $7 \times 12$ grid, where the boundaries of interest lie on the opposite corners of a square. The example is listed as a benchmark example for model order reduction when the exact mathematical model is known. We simulate the trajectories with a sampling rate of $\Delta t = 5e^{-5}$ over $10^4$ steps. The true operator gain of the discrete time system is $\gamma = 10.8$ and the input feedfoward passivity index is $\nu = -0.07$. Furthermore, the measurements are subject to uniform multiplicative noise, i.e., $\tilde{y}_k=(1+\varepsilon_k)y_k$, with $\varepsilon_k(i)\in[-\bar{\varepsilon},\bar{\varepsilon}]$, $i=1,\dots,n$, $\bar{\varepsilon}>0.5$. For both, the $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-gain and input-strict passivity, we choose the initial input to be $u_0 = \sin ( t ) + 0.25$, $t=1,\dots,10^4$, normalized such that $\|u_0\| = 1$. We apply a gradient ascent and descent, respectively, with gradient information from noise corrupted data samples as discussed in Sec. \[sec:noise\] and we choose a fixed step size of $\alpha = 0.01$. The results are depicted in Fig. \[fig:Ex2\].
Despite the high level of noise, the presented approach converges quite fast towards (a neighborhood) of the true system property measure, generally speaking, which is well aligned with the discussions in Sec. \[sec:noise\].
As reference and further motivation, we apply simple system identification tools off the shelf to the first input-output pair. We choose the system identification <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Matlab</span> functions *ssest* (estimates state-space model and then refines the parameter values using the prediction error minimization approach), *ssregest* (estimates state-space model by reduction of regularized ARX model), and *n4sid* (estimates state-space model using subspace method) each for different assumptions on the system order as well as the suggested system order of $11$. After the model identification, we then determine the gain and the input feedforward passivity index with *norm($\cdot$,inf), getPassiveIndex($\cdot$,’input’)*, respectively. The result is summarized the table below. Note that for a system order of $100$ the system identification techniques required up to $1.3$ hours on an Intel i7, while the computational expenses of the sampling schemes are negligible small.
($\gamma^\star = 10.8$, $\nu^\star = -0.07$)
Thus we can see that standard system identification tools from one noise-corrupted input-output trajectory produced highly variable results, especially with respect to the input feedforward passivity index. While a more in-depth analysis and comparison of state of the art system identification techniques (cf. [@Ljung1999; @Ljung2008]) together with subsequent model analysis and the presented framework is part of future work, we want to emphasize that the presented iterative sampling scheme is particularly simple to apply and independent of the system order. Furthermore, it has an inherent robustness against noise and is even capable of providing guarantees, which are well-studied in the literature of gradient methods. Moreover, the presented method comes with great potential in (i) further developing and improving its scheme (e.g. to slightly nonlinear systems) and (ii) using the theoretical insights of the optimization problems to come up with other methods to determine system properties from data.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Due to their relevance in controller design, we presented a unified approach to iteratively determine the $\operatorname{\mathcal{L}^2}$-gain, passivity properties and the minimal cone that an LTI system is confined to, while the exact input-output behavior remains undisclosed. First, we formulated these control-theoretic property as optimization problems, where the gradients can be obtained from input-output data samples. To find the solution to the optimization problems, we applied gradient dynamical systems and saddle-point flows, respectively. This led to evolution equations, for which we investigated the convergence behavior also under the presence of measurement noise.
[^1]: A Romer, JM Montenbruck and F Allgöwer are with the Institute for Systems Theory and Automatic Control, University of Stuttgart. The authors thank the German Research Foundation (DFG) for support of this work within the German Excellence Strategy under grant EXC-2075, along with the Max Planck Research School (IMPRS) for Intelligent Systems for their support. For correspondence, [mailto:[email protected]]{}
[^2]: The authors of [@Tran2017] made their <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Matlab</span> files available on [http://verivital.com/hyst/pass-order-reduction/]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Nowadays, recommender systems (RSes) are becoming increasingly important to individual users and business marketing, especially in the online e-commerce scenarios. However, while the majority of recommendation algorithms proposed in the literature have focused their efforts on improving prediction accuracy, other important aspects of recommendation quality, such as diversity of recommendations, have been more or less overlooked. In the latest decade, recommendation diversity has drawn more research attention, especially in the models based on user-item bipartite networks. In this paper, we introduce a family of approaches to extract fabricated experts from users in RSes, named as the Expert Tracking Approaches (ExTrA for short), and explore the capability of these fabricated experts in improving the recommendation diversity, by highlighting them in a well-known bipartite network-based method, called the Mass Diffusion (MD for short) model. These ExTrA-based models are compared with two state-of-the-art MD-improved models HHP and BHC, with respect to recommendation accuracy and diversity. Comprehensive empirical results on three real-world datasets MovieLens, Netflix and RYM show that, our proposed ExTrA-based models can achieve significant diversity gain while maintain comparable level of recommendation accuracy.'
author:
- 'Ya-Hui An$^{1}$ and Qiang Dong$^{1}$ and Quan Yuan$^{1}$ and Chao Wang$^{2}$ [^1][^2]'
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
title: '**Improving Recommendation Diversity by Highlighting the ExTrA Fabricated Experts** '
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Recommender systems (RSes) are powerful tools of helping users confront the challenge of information overload, by uncovering users’ potential preferences on uncollected items and accordingly delivering personalized recommendation lists. Accuracy used to be regarded as the most important concern for RSes [@koren2008factorization; @sarwar2001item; @CaoDa2018AGR; @XiangnanHe2017BTRo; @ZhangFuzheng2016CKBE; @WangHongwei2018RPUP]. However, with the fast development of on-line e-commercial services, users’ satisfaction with RSes is not only related to recommendation accuracy, but also dependent on the diversity, which measures the personalization levels of recommendation results [@mcnee2006being; @BrynjolfssonErik2006Fntr; @fleder2009blockbuster; @gollapudi2009axiomatic; @zhou2010solving; @hurley2011novelty; @ashkan2015optimal; @belem2016beyond; @nguyen2018user]. However, people found that accuracy and diversity seem to be two sides of the seesaw: when one side rises, the other side falls [@zhou2010solving]. Recommending more popular items would result in high accuracy but low diversity, while recommending more niches would bring high diversity but low accuracy. Diffusion-based recommendation is a vital branch to solve this accuracy-diversity dilemma in recommender systems, which makes recommendations for users by simulating a basic physical dynamic process on the user-item bipartite network [@zhou2007bipartite; @zhou2010solving; @an2016diffusion; @nie2015information; @lu2011information; @liu2011information; @zeng2014uncovering]. The Mass Diffusion (MD) [@zhou2007bipartite] model is the pioneer of diffusion-based recommendation methods, which works as follows. Initially, each item collected by the target user is assigned one-unit resource. Then the resource is redistributed among all the items through a two-step allocation process on the user-item bipartite graph, first from each item averagely to its neighbor users, then from each user averagely to its neighbor items. MD can achieve more accurate recommendations than the traditional item-based Collaborative Filtering (CF) model [@zhou2007bipartite], although it can be categorized into a special case of CF with the RA similarity rather than the common Cosine or Jaccard similarity [@YuFei2016NraA]. Another model, called the Heat Conduction (HC) [@zhang2007heat], is a similar process, but allocating resource in a different way, which results in the exposure of more niches, however with rather low accuracy, thus, could not be applied alone in real RSes. Subsequently, Liu et al. [@liu2011information] proposed a biased heat conduction (BHC) model to enhance the accuracy of HC model; Zhou et al. [@zhou2010solving] integrated MD and HC methods together to generate a hybrid recommendation model, which improves accuracy and diversity simultaneously.
Clearly, a system producing more personalized results could satisfy different kinds of users, and meanwhile, facilitate the huge niche market. However, the difficulty therein lies in the lack of enough usage data of niche items for RSes to mine from. In this so-called cold-start scenarios, state-of-the-art HHP and BHC models will lose their performance advantages on accuracy and diversity as illustrated in Section \[sec:analysis\]. A straightforward way to solve this problem is to involve more side information, for example, [@wang2014improving] developed a content-based model that automatically extracts features from audio content, [@forsati2014matrix] exploited explicit trust and distrust (social) side information, and [@xie2016learning] combined matrix factorization with side information for click prediction of web advertisements.
However, there are many restrictions in the real application scenarios when accessing and utilizing side information. For example, it’s hard to acquire useful side information, and also, adding more side information aggravates the inefficiency of the RSes. Thus, in the point of view of practical applications for large scale online services, we propose to simply modify the first resource allocation step of the MD model, by assigning more resource to the fabricated expert users, instead of averagely to all the neighbor users of an item. These fabricated expert users are expected to have better capability to help the target user find relevant and diverse items. Then, the solution to the cold-start problem reduces to the approaches of extracting fabricated experts from users in the systems, dubbed as the *****pert ****acking ****pproaches*, (*ExTrA* for short), and the corresponding fabricated expert users are called ExTrA users, ExTrA experts, or just experts for short.
This paper focuses on improving the diversity with no or trivial accuracy loss. The straightforward candidates for ExTrA users are the highly-active users who collected many items, because they are good at discovering both popular and niche items. Yet, the long-tail phenomenon exists in the active levels of users, which means that most of the users are not that active in the system. Although the highly-active users will be more good at exploring both popular and niche items, it doesn’t mean that the low-active users could not help to achieve this goal. Let’s take the movie watching records of two persons as an example. John is a low-active user who collected only 3 movies: *Green Book(2018)*, *Jaws(1975)*, and *The Lobster(2015)*. Green Book is a 2018 Oscar movie, which is very famous and popular. Jaws is very famous, however, whose popularity have decayed over time in the time-aware data set. The Lobster has never been popular (in a generalized concept of popularity). Mary is a highly-active user who collected 1000 movies, which are all famous ones. Recommending Mary’s selections to most users would improve the accuracy of the system, but John can help people who have the same niche interests to find the wanted movie (The Lobster). Thus, the users who have collected many diverse items should also be recruited into the ExTrA users, and more resource should be assigned to these users in the first step of diffusion process of the MD model.
In this paper, our main contributions are three folded:
- We propose a family of fabricated expert extraction methods inspired by different intuitions, highlighting these experts may be helpful to improve the performance of many existing recommendation models.
- Comprehensive empirical results show that the ExTrA-based methods can achieve significant diversity improvement, while the recommendation accuracy is comparable with state-of-the-art HHP and BHC models.
- Our contribution is not proposing a better expert extraction approach for more accurate predictions, but aiming at highlighting the significance of the concept of experts in improving recommendation diversity of RSes.
Framework of ExTrA-based models {#key}
===============================
In this section, we first introduce the standard diffusion-based method, the MD model. Then, we present how to incorporate the ExTrA experts into the MD model, called ExTrA-based model. Finally, we tentatively explore what kinds of fabricated experts might help to improve the diversity when applied to the MD model.
The mass diffusion model
------------------------
In this paper, we use $u$,$v$ to denote users, and $i$, $j$ items. Let $A$ be a user-item matrix, where the value of element $a_{{u}{i}}$ in $A$ represents whether user $u$ has collected item $i$ ($a_{ui} = 1$) or not ($a_{ui}= 0)$. Let $U$ and $I$ represent the user and item sets respectively. For user $u$, we denote his/her active level (or degree) as $k_{u}$ ($u$ has collected $k_{u}$ items) and the popularity (or degree) of item $i$ as $k_{i}$ ($i$ has been collected by $k_{i}$ users). The user-item matrix can also be represented by a bipartite network, in which users and items are represented by nodes, user $u$ and item $i$ are connected by an edge iff the value of $a_{u i}$ is 1.
![(Color online) The resource assignment process for the MD model. The user (circle) in yellow is the target user and rectangles denote items. The red rectangles in (a) denote items with initial resource. The red circles/rectangles in (b), (c) and (d) denote users/items who receive resource from neighbor items/users. Following the resource transfer function, the final resource of candidate items ($i_1$, $i_2$ and $i_3$) are $0.28$, $0.28$ and $0.17$ in the MD model, and $0.30$, $0.31$ and $0.17$ for the MDEL model.[]{data-label="fig:ProbS"}](pictures/ProbS2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:ProbS\] shows an example for the resource assignment process for the MD model on a user-item bipartite graph. $u_3$ is the target user that needs recommendations and the candidates for $u_3$ are his/her uncollected items $i_2$, $i_3$ and $i_5$. Figure \[fig:ProbS\](a) shows the initial resource distribution, that the collected items $i_1$ and $i_4$ are assigned with resource of 1, and the other items are assigned with 0. In the first step (as shown in Figure \[fig:ProbS\](b) and Figure \[fig:ProbS\](c)), $i_1$ assigns its resource averagely to its connected users $u_1$ (1/3), $u_2$ (1/3) and $u_3$ (1/3), and $i_4$ to $u_3$ (1/2) and $u_4$ (1/2). In the next step, $i_2$ would obtain resource from $u_1$ and $u_2$, $i_3$ from $u_1$ and $u_4$, $i_5$ from $u_4$, the amount of resource are all assigned from each node averagely to all its neighbors. Note that, although the collected items $i_1$ and $i_4$ of the target user $u_3$ are not painted red in Figure \[fig:ProbS\](d), they would also get resource from the neighbor users, but as they are not candidates, we do not paint them in red color.
We then formulate this two-step resource redistribution process to an item-to-item transfer function, which writes as
$$\label{equation-MD}
trans(i,j) = \frac{1}{k_{j}}\sum\nolimits_{v\in U}{\frac{a_{v i}a_{v j}}{k_{v}}}$$
where $j$ is the collected item of the target user, $i$ is one of the candidate items, and the resource is transferred from $j$ to $i$. The total resource that $i$ would get is the sum of resource from all the collected items.
The ExTrA-based diffusion model
-------------------------------
In many applications, RSes involve side information, such as user profiles, item features, social trust information, or natural language comments, to help to predict which items the target user might prefer. For example, in news recommendation system, the latest news is usually more likely to be viewed than the earlier ones, then, in their RS models, they could set a time decay function to decrease the weights of news. However, incorporating extra information usually leads to the increase of computational cost, especially when involving complicated data processing techniques, such as natural language processing, image processing and computer vision. In our model, to demonstrate the significant effect of highlighting fabricated experts in the methods based on bipartite network structures, we do not involve any side information, instead, we extensively mine users’ tracks on items and extract those who have diverse item preferences.
To appropriately formulate one’s capability in finding diverse items, we first qualitatively figure out what features these specified experts might have as the example shown in Table \[tab:expert-feature\], corresponding to Figure \[fig:ProbS\].
------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --------------- ---------------- ----------- -----------
Users Active Normal Inactive Popular Normal Unpopular Expertise
($i_1$,$i_2$) ($i_3$, $i_4$) ($i_5$) Level
$u_1$ ${\surd}$ ${\surd}$ ${\surd}$ Higher
$u_2$ ${\surd}$ ${\surd}$ Normal
$u_3$ ${\surd}$ ${\surd}$ ${\surd}$ High
$u_4$ ${\surd}$ ${\surd}$ ${\surd}$ Highest
$u_5$ ${\surd}$ ${\surd}$ Low
------- ----------- ----------- ----------- --------------- ---------------- ----------- -----------
: Illustration of expertise level of users in Figure \[fig:ProbS\]. Active, Normal and Inactive are different levels of activeness. Popular, Normal and Unpopular are the popularity of items.[]{data-label="tab:expert-feature"}
At the very beginning, we believe that the active users who prefer selecting unpopular items (niches) have the best ability to improve the exposure of niches. To appropriately formulate it, Equation \[equation-expert-function-better\] is designed for extracting the experts who are active and could explore unpopular items (niches). If user $u$ have collected many unpopular items, his/her expertise level $e(u)$ will be the largest, otherwise, if $u$ have collected only a few popular items, $e(u)$ will be the smallest. Thus, $e(u)$ can evaluate the expertise level of users properly. Note that, we only improve the weights of expert users during the resource transfer process rather than pick these experts out from the bipartite graph [@zeng2014uncovering]. Thus, we could improve the diversity, without a cliff-style decrease of the accuracy which happens strikingly in model HC.
$$\label{equation-expert-function-better}
e(u) = \displaystyle{\sum\nolimits_{i\in I}}{\frac{a_{u i}}{k_i}}$$
Next we show how to incorporate the expertise level of users $e(u)$ into the resource transfer process. That is, in the first step, not assigning the resource of an item averagely to all its neighbor users, but proportional to the expertise values of neighbor users. For example, in Figure \[fig:ProbS\](b), the resource of $u_1$ received from $i_1$ is $\frac{e(u_1)}{e(u_1) + e(u_2) + e(u_3)}$, similar for $u_2$ and $u_3$. The final transfer function could be written as:
$$\label{equation-expert-final}
trans(i,j) = \frac{1}{k_{j}} {\sum\nolimits_{u\in U}}{a_{u i} a_{u j} N(e(u))},$$
where
$$\label{equation-expert-module}
N(e(u)) = (\frac{e(u)}{\sum_{v\in U}{a_{vj}e(v)}})^\lambda$$
represents the resource percentage that user $u$ will get from item $j$, with an adjustable exponential parameter $\lambda$.
We found that the $e(u)$ formula defined above does not work well for improving diversity. For the real-world data, most users would be inactive users, thus, this function has effect on only a small part of users, in other words, can distinguish only a few users with others. In this way, the overall performance improvement would not happen. Instead, we find that taking into consideration the average degree of selected items for a user will recruit more users (see Figure \[fig:user\_degree\_vs\_large\_eng:a\]). For example, if user $u$ and $v$ are both of degree 2, and user $u$ has selected one niche item and one popular item, but user $v$ has selected two niches. In the case of above $e(u)$, $u$ and $v$ would obtain almost the same expertise value. However, $u$ is clearly more capable of finding diverse items. Thus, we design another applicable $e(u)$ formula, which is defined as the average value of the popularity of collected items of users. This ass iffusion model with xperts collecting arge-degree items is short as [**MDEL**]{}. This kind of expert neighbors transfer resource to a larger range of items, from popular to unpopular ones (see Equation \[equation-expert-function-best\]).
$$\label{equation-expert-function-best}
e(u) = \frac{\displaystyle{\sum\nolimits_{i\in I}}{a_{u i}{k_i}}}{\displaystyle{\sum\nolimits_{i\in I}}{a_{u i}}}$$
Data sets for performance evaluation
------------------------------------
Hear we introduce three data sets used in this paper. MovieLens is the data set used in this subsection, which was collected by the GroupLens Research Project at the University of Minnesota and can be found at the website[^3]. The other two real-world datasets we will use in the later sections are Netflix and RYM. Netflix [@bennett2007netflix] is a randomly sampled subset of the huge data set provided by the Netflix company for the Netflix Prize[^4]. RYM is obtained by downloading publicly available data from the music ratings website[^5]. In this paper, we make use of nothing but the binary information whether there exists an interaction or explicit preference between a user and an item in the past. The datasets and experiment codes are released to facilitate the research community[^6].
In our experiments, each data set is randomly divided into two subsets: the training set $E^T$, and the probe set $E^P$. We name the dataset with the title and the percentage of training set. For example, on MovieLens, if the size of $E^T$ is $80\%$ and $E^P$ is $20\%$, we represent it as MovieLens($E^T$=80). Training set is treated as known information, which is also used for extracting the specific experts, and the testing set is used to evaluate the performance of different methods. The statistics of three datasets are presented in Table \[tab:datasets\].
Data set $\#users$ $\#items$ $\#links$ $\langle{k_u}\rangle$ $\langle{k_i}\rangle$
----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------------------- -----------------------
MovieLens 943 1,682 100,000 106 59.5
Netflix 10,000 5,640 701,947 70.2 124.5
RYM 33,762 5,267 675,817 20 128.3
: The basic statistics of three data sets, where $\#users$, $\# items$ and $\#links$ denote the number of users, items and edges, respectively; $\langle{k_u}\rangle$ and $\langle{k_i}\rangle$ are the average degrees of users and items. Degree of a user is the number of items the user collected, which is also defined as [**activeness**]{}. Degree of an item is the number of users that have collected the target item, which is defined as [**popularity**]{}.[]{data-label="tab:datasets"}
Primary effect of an ExTrA-based model {#sub:trade-off}
--------------------------------------
In this subsection, a simple experiment is conducted on the MovieLens data set to show the diversity-accuracy performance of the MDEL model, compared with the original MD model.
We compare the performance of MDEL and the standard MD models on MovieLens dataset, andthis comparison result is presented as the accuracy-diversity plot in Figure \[fig:accuracy-diversity-traseoff\]. The accuracy and diversity metrics we used here is described in Section \[subsec:metrics\]. Particularly, the first panel of Figure \[fig:accuracy-diversity-traseoff\] (MovieLens($E^T$=80)) shows that, compared to the standard MD method (red square), MDEL increases recommendation diversity from 162 to 716 ($\lambda$=0.9); however, the recommendation accuracy is dropped from 25.3% to 23.1%. In this case, diversity is gained 342% with a little loss of accuracy (8.7%), however, with a proper $\lambda$ (from 0.3 to 0.8), both the accuracy and diversity would be improved (when $\lambda=0.7$, $x = 464$ and $y = 27.7\%$). But in the other cold start dataset, MovieLens($E^T$=20), shown in the second panel of Figure \[fig:accuracy-diversity-traseoff\], despite the significant diversity gain from 396 to 1061 (+167.9%), such a significant accuracy loss (from 26.3% to 3.4%) would not be acceptable in most real-life personalized applications. Therefore, in real applications, the trade-off between accuracy and diversity by adjusting parameter $\lambda$ allows to achieve significant diversity gains while bounding accuracy loss, which depends on how much accuracy loss is tolerable in a given application.
Several other Expert extraction methods {#sec:additional}
=======================================
The above simple experiment on MovieLens shows that MDEL is effective for our objective. Next We will introduce several other Expert extraction methods inspired by different motivations, from simple to complicated ones, and check the distribution of expertise level for each method on three data sets. Finally, we will check their abilities of improving recommendation diversity when combined with the MD model.
First, we employ the most simple idea, that is to extract the most users as experts and apply it in the MD model, which is called [**MDActivity**]{}, and regard it as the baseline of other well-designed ExTrA-based models. Therefore, we simply use the activity level as the expertise level of users. MDActivity is formulated as:
- [**MDActivity: Active in History Data**]{}, i.e., the expertise for a user is the activity level of the user. More formally: $e(u) = \displaystyle{\sum\nolimits_{j\in I}{a_{u j}}},$
The distribution of $e(u)$ values of different users is shown in Figure \[fig:user\_degree\_vs\_activity:a\], which is a diagonal line.
Next we propose 3 delicately designed methods of extracting the experts, considering the Gini coefficient of popularity of collected item by the user ([**MDGini**]{}), the similarity of the user to all other users ([**MDSim**]{}), the similarity of the user to all other users divided by his/her activity level ([**MDSim2**]{}).
In economics, the Gini coefficient, sometimes called Gini index, or Gini ratio, is a measure of inequality of the income or wealth distribution of a nation’s residents. In MDGini, we use Gini coefficient of popularity of collected items as the expertise value of users in the process of diffusion, where higher Gini coefficient means more diverse item-popularity preference of one user:
- [**MDGini: Diversity of Preference**]{}, i.e, gini-coefficient of popularity of user’ selected items:
$e(u) = 2\sum\nolimits_{k=1}^{|I_u|}{[(\frac{|I_u|+1-i_k}{|I_u|+1})*(\frac{count(i_k)}{|I_u|})]}$, where $I_u$ is the item set that $u$ have selected, $k$ is the rank of item $i_k$, sorted by the popularity of items in an ascending order, count($i_k$) is the count of items that have the same rank in the rank list (which means that they have the same popularity).
The distribution of $e(u)$ values of different users for MDGini is shown in Figure 3(c).
MDEL, MDActivity and MDGini are three typical methods that extract features based on only each user’s collection records on popular/unpopular items. We already know that the classic item-based Collaborative Filtering (CF) method is based on the similarity between items, which treats users indistinguishably. Similarly, the MD model, in the first step of the resource diffusion, also assigns users connected with the same item with equal amount of resource. However, if we distribute the resource to users based on their similarity to the target user, neighbors who are more similar would obtain more resource. We call this ExTrA-based model as MDSim. The biggest difference of MDSim from MDActivity is that MDSim would recruit more users whose activity are in middle level, as shown in Figure \[fig:user\_degree\_vs\_sim:a\].
- [**MDSim: More Similar to Others**]{}, i.e., the expertise value of a user $u$ is the sum of cosine similarity to all the other users: $e(u) = \sum\limits_{v \in {\bf U}, v \ne u} \frac{|I_v \bigcap I_{u}|}{\sqrt{|I_v||I_{u}|}}$, where $I_{u}$ and $I_v$ are the item sets that user $u$ and $v$ have selected.
Based on MDSim, we further penalize the similarity between the active user pair to increase the importance of the similar but not that active users:
- [**MDSim2: More Similar to Inactive users**]{}, i.e., the similarity between the active users are penalized:
$e(u) = \sum\limits_{v \in {\bf U}, v \ne u} \frac{|I_v \bigcap I_{u}|}{(|I_v||I_{u}|)^2}$,
Figure \[fig:user\_energy\_dis\] presents the distribution of expertise level for each method on three data sets, with sharply different shapes. Cleartly, the distribution of expertise level against user activity for MDActivity is a diagonal line (Figure \[fig:user\_degree\_vs\_activity:a\]), which is used for comparing baseline with other models. From the macro perspective, the distribution of expertise are of different shapes in Figure \[fig:user\_energy\_dis\](a-e). Figure \[fig:user\_degree\_vs\_activity:a\], \[fig:user\_degree\_vs\_gini:a\] and \[fig:user\_degree\_vs\_sim:a\] show positive correlations between the expertise and user activity, while Figure \[fig:user\_degree\_vs\_large\_eng:a\] and \[fig:user\_degree\_vs\_sim2:a\] with negative correlations. This is because the effects of user activity are not that significant in MDEL and MDSim2. In the MD models, the user activity plays an important role in the resource transfer function. Thus, even with the similar distribution shape, the slope of expertise values for MDSim2 is sharper than MDEL, which would further weaken the effect of user activity and increase the effect of users with diverse selections, no matter they are active or not.
Next we tested these 5 ExTrA-based MD models on three datasets to see the effectiveness and robustness in improving the diversity, using the standard MD model as the baseline. the test is conducted on a fix sparsity ($E^T$=80) for each dataset. The performance of each proposed ExTrA-based method is measured in terms of F1-Score@K and Diversity-in-top-K (see Sec. \[subsec:metrics\]), and, since there is no criterion for the trade-off between accuracy and diversity, we empirically select some typical values of $\lambda$ (in order to save the space) to show the increasing/decreasing tendency for both accuracy and diversity in Table \[tab:final results\] for MovieLens($E^T$=80), Netflix($E^T$=80) and RYM($E^T$=80).
Datasets $\lambda$
----------------------- ----------- ------- ------ ------- ------ ----------- ---------- ------- ------ ----------- ----------
0.5 0.267 214 0.260 183 0.263 195 0.264 196 0.279 286
0.6 0.273 260 0.266 215 0.269 230 0.269 235 0.286 345
0.7 0.280 334 0.270 264 0.274 292 0.275 295 **0.287** **426**
**MD: (0.253, 162)** 0.8 0.277 464 0.247 357 0.272 399 0.271 414 0.281 650
0.9 0.231 716 0.202 550 0.227 595 0.224 619 **0.227** **911**
0.5 0.191 493 0.186 363 0.189 446 0.187 420 0.200 724
0.6 0.196 744 0.191 538 0.194 655 0.192 643 0.204 1120
0.7 0.202 1100 0.196 800 0.200 978 0.197 927 **0.209** **1625**
**MD: (0.184, 262)** 0.8 0.204 1503 0.193 1052 0.202 1314 0.200 1285 0.204 2101
0.9 0.155 1696 0.077 1111 0.145 1468 0.145 1433 **0.135** **2320**
0.5 0.154 4288 0.147 3524 0.155 3924 0.149 4037 0.150 4641
0.6 0.157 4574 0.148 3835 0.158 4205 0.152 4373 0.145 4809
0.7 0.158 4780 0.150 3994 **0.161** **4417** 0.154 4575 0.133 4932
**MD: (0.169, 2704)** 0.8 0.156 4841 0.147 4004 **0.161** **4518** 0.154 4653 0.113 4994
0.9 0.137 4807 0.123 3791 0.153 4491 0.143 4556 **0.066** **5000**
The overall performance is consistent with the trade-off of accuracy and diversity discussed in subsection \[sub:trade-off\]. As $\lambda$ changes from 0.5 to 0.9, the accuracy for each proposed methods follows the shape of first increasing and then decreasing, one except case is the MDSim2 on the RYM data set, which also follows the same shape if we show the result from $\lambda=0.1$ to $\lambda =0.9$. While, for MovieLens and Netflix, the diversity of each method keeps increasing, which is significantly improved, and for RYM, the improvement of diversity for each method is not significant, but still has a increasing shape. Therefore, choosing a proper $\lambda$ allows the system to improve both accuracy and diversity in some cases, or at least achieve a desired balance between accuracy and diversity.
In particular, if we compare the 5 ExTrA-based methods with the original MD model in the potential of diversity improvement and the ability to keep accuracy when improving diversity, on all three datasets, they show the similar performance ranking sequence : MDSim2 >MDEL >MDSim >MDGini >MDActivity >MD. MDSim2 gets the best overall performance, which achieves the best accuracy and diversity compared to all the other methods, MDEL is ranked the second best, MDSim and MDGini are similar to each other and ranked the third and fourth positions, and, MDActivity is the worst one but still much better than the original MD model.
Performance comparison with existing models {#sec:analysis}
===========================================
Two typical diffusion variant models
------------------------------------
We have evaluated the performance of the proposed 5 ExTrA-based methods with comparisons with the original MD model. To further validate the diversity performance of the ExTrA-based methods extensively, we will compare them with two state-of-the-art MD-improved models, HHP and BHC, which were proposed to improve simutaneously the diversity and accuracy and also work based on the history behavior data without involving any side-information. Note that, we could also apply the best expert extraction method to HHP and BHC, which could be named as HHPSim2 and BHCSim2, however, that would bring more computing cost because of introducing more parameters. Therefore, we only compare the ExTrA-based methods with standard HHP and BHC models to show the effectiveness of fabricated experts.
- HHP is a nonlinear hybrid of MD and HC models, which tries to solve the dilemma of accuracy and diversity and increases both the accuracy and diversity.
- BHC is a biased Heat Conduction model, which tries to reduce the bias that niche items absorb more resource than the popular ones, which leads to very poor accuracy in HC. This method compensates the resource absorbed by popular items in the last step of the resource propagation.
The performance of HHP and BHC on solving the dilemma of accuracy and diversity are significant, however, the performance would degrade when the dataset is very sparse. The performance of HHP and BHC, comparing with MD are shown in Table \[tab:netflix\]. We can see that, compared with MD, the diversity has been improved significantly for Netflix($E^T$=80). However, for the cold start dataset ($E^T$=20), although HHP and BHC still work, the improvement for accuracy (F1-Score@20) and diversity (Diversity@20), on Netflix($E^T$=20), degrades to some extent. For example, on Netflix($E^T$=80), the improvement percentage of Diversity@20 for HHP compared to MD is 590%, however $78\%$ on Netflix($E^T$=20). Note that, the values of Precision@20 on Netflix($E^T$=20) are larger than those on Netflix($E^T$=80), because of the size of probe data (for the same dataset, usually the larger is the size of probe set, the larger is the precision).
Data Methods $\lambda_{opt}$ Precision@20 Recall@20 F1-Score@20 Diversity@20
------ --------- ----------------- -------------- ----------- ------------- --------------
MD NA 0.140 0.269 0.184 262
HHP 0.8 0.161 0.299 0.209 1809
BHC 0.8 0.156 0.293 0.203 1454
MD NA 0.360 0.197 0.254 1708
HHP 0.3 0.369 0.202 0.261 3038
BHC 0.3 0.362 0.202 0.259 2244
Metrics of performance evaluation {#subsec:metrics}
----------------------------------
In the above, we measure the recommendation diversity by the total number of distinct items that are recommended across all users. It is necessary to measure whether each user gets a more diverse recommendation list. Thus, in this part, we also use two more metrics to measure the intra- and inter-list diversity. All the metrics that are used in this paper are list below:
- [**Accuracy:**]{} We assess the relevance of ranked items with [**Precision@K**]{}, [**Recall@K**]{} and [**F1-Score@K**]{}. Precision@K counts the number of hits among the top-K items of the recommendation list. Recall@K is the fraction of items (user likes) that have been retrieved over the total amount of relevant items. For real application scenario, users typically only see a few recommendations, thus, we set K as 10, 20, 30, 40, 50.
- [**Diversity-in-top-K:**]{} The diversity metric we use in Sec. \[sub:trade-off\] is called **Diversity-in-top-K**, which is defined as the total number of distinct items in the recommendation lists of all users of length $K$ [@adomavicius2011improving], also known as the Coverage diversity.
- [**Intra-Diversity:**]{} We also measure the recommendation diversity for a single user by intra-diversity (**intraD-I@K** for short) , which is based on a concept of intra-similarity defined as [@lu2011information]:
$$\label{equ_ii}
I_{u} (K) = \frac{1}{K(K-1)} \sum\limits_{i\not= j, i,j\in I_u(K)} s_{ij},$$
where $ s_{ij}$ is the similarity between items $i$ and $j$, which in our case is represented by the cosine similarity. The average value of $I_{u} (K)$ on all users is the system’s intra-similarity. A good recommendation algorithm is expected to give fruitful recommendations and has the ability to guide or help the users to exploit their potential interest fields, and thus leads to a lower intra-similarity, i.e., higher intra-diversity. We assign the value of one minus $intra-similarity$ to the final value of intraD-I@K.
- [**Inter-Diversity:**]{}Besides intra-diversity, the inter-diversity (also known as aggregative diversity), which considers the difference between the recommendation lists of each user pair, should be taken into consideration. Here we use hamming distance (**HD@K** for short) to evaluate it. Borrowing inspiration from the hamming distance between two strings [@Zhou_2008], the diversity is calculated in a similar way:
$$\label{equ_ij}
HD_{u,v} (K) = 1 -\frac{q_{uv}}{K},$$
where $q_{uv}$ is the number of common items in the top $K$ positions of both lists of user $u$ and user $v$. Clearly, if user $u$ and $v$ receive the same recommendation list, $HD_{uv}(K)$ = 0, while if their lists are completely different, $HD_{uv}(K)$ = 1. Averaging $HD_{uv}(K)$ over all pairs of active users in the probe set, we obtain the hamming distance $HD@K$ of the whole system, where greater value means better personalization of users’ recommendation lists.
Diversity comparison with existing models
-----------------------------------------
In Sec.III, we measure recommendation diversity as the total number of distinct items that are being recommended across all users, then one could possibly argue that, this kind of diversity could be easily improved by recommending more newly-released items. Thus, here we further evaluate the intra-diversity and inter-diversity of ExTrA-based models, measured by intraD-I@K and HD@K, respectively. The overall performance of diversity for all the methods on three datasets (MovieLens($E^T$=80), Netflix($E^T$=80), and RYM($E^T$=80)) are shown in Figure \[fig:overall-performance\].
From Table \[tab:final results\], we inferred that, as $\lambda$ changed from $0.5$ to $0.9$, the accuracy followed the shape of first increasing, and then decreasing, and the diversity of all the proposed methods keep increasing. Apparently, the intra-diversity (intraD-I@20) and inter-diversity (HD@20) in Figure \[fig:overall-performance\] show the same trends, one except case is the MDSim2 on MovieLens for intra-diversity. Figure \[fig:subfig:b\] shows the comparison results of the proposed 5 ExTrA-based methods with the state-of-the-art methods HHP and BHC for intra-diversity, we could easily find out that on Netflix and RYM, MDSim2 model shows the best overall performance, which is followed by HHP. The MDEL, BHC, MDGini and MDSim models have almost the same performance and their performance are ranked after HHP. The MDActivity is the worst one but still much better than MD (see Sec.III). For the inter-diversity, the performance of the 7 methods on three datasets are consistent with the above discussions.
Effect of Sparsity of data sets
-------------------------------
Figure \[fig:sparsity\] shows the performance of proposed 5 ExTrA-based methods and 2 state-of-the-arts methods on data sets of different sparsity, $E^T$=20 and $E^T$=80. Firstly, we focus on data sets of $E^T$=80 (\[fig:spr:a\]). For all 3 datasets, MDSim2 shows the best performance, HHP is a little lower than MDSim2, and the performance of BHC are all close to MDEL. But in the real applications, some recommendation systems often suffer the problem of cold start problem (which is simulated by sparse data in our case). Our proposed methods are based on extracting different features of users, thus, whether each of them could keep effective in the cold start scene? To answer this question, we test these methods on three datasets, which simulates the cold start problem: MovieLens($E^T$=20), Netflix($E^T$=20) and RYM($E^T$=20). The performance of these models on sparse datasets are shown in Figure \[fig:spr:a\]. The performance of diversity for all the 7 methods on data sets of $E^T$=20 are similar with the performance on data sets of $E^T$=80, which confirms that our proposed methods are robust in the cold start condition.
Effect of Recommendation Length
-------------------------------
Figure \[fig:rec-length\] shows the performance comparison of the best-performed MDSim2 model on Diversity-in-top-K, intraD-I@K and HD@K on Netflix($E^T$=80) with different values of $K$. We observe that, with any recommendation length $K$, the tendency of performance are similar with the change of $\lambda$. In Figure \[fig:len:a\], from left to right, Diversity-in-top-K for five values of $K$ have a similar shape: monotonically increasing; for intraD-I@K in Figure \[fig:len:c\], the tendency is keeping increasing, but in particular, the performance gaps between intraD-I@10 and intraD-I@50 have narrowed from $\lambda$ = 0.7 to $\lambda$ = 0.8. It is not hard to understand this result with reference to Table \[tab:final results\], as a large number of new items are added to the recommendation lists, from $1100$ to $1503$, it would affect the dis-similarity within each user’s recommendation list. The results in Figure \[fig:len:e\] show that the longer is the recommendation length, the lower is the hamming distance. Therefore, when selecting recommendation length in real applications, it is not the truth that longer is better. It depends on what kind of measurement and the selection of $\lambda$.
Relationship with some related Works {#sec:related-works}
====================================
Users’ satisfaction with recommendation results depends not only on prediction accuracy, but also on some other aspects of the recommendation quality such as diversity of the recommendation lists. So far, some works have been conducted for the objective of increasing recommendation diversity, which could be divided into the intra-diversity and the inter-diversity (also known as aggregate diversity). The intra-diversity describes the diversity of the items in a user’s recommendation list, thus, increasing the diversity means avoiding over specialization of items in a recommendation list. Strategies developed so far for increasing the intra-diversity mostly calculate the quality of an item based on its dissimilarity to the items that are already added into this user’s recommendation list. The inter-diversity describes the dissimilarity between recommendation lists for each pair of users in the system. At present, there are many works on addressing how to improve the diversity of recommender systems in different application areas. Wu et al. [@WuHao2014Oiar] introduced a simple yet elegant method to address this challenge from the aggregate perspective in folksonomy-based social systems. Belem et al. [@10.1145/2801130] considered three factors, the relevance, explicit topic diversity, and novelty conjointly in tag recommendations. Wu et al. [@WuWen2018Prdb] took into account users’ personality and proposed a generalized, dynamic personality-based greedy re-ranking approach to improve the personalized diversity in web applications. Yu et al. [@YuTing2019RwdA] proposed an adaptive trust-aware recommendation model to improve the trade-off strategy of accuracy and diversity by studying the trust relationships among users, which could balance and adapt individual and aggregate diversity measures.
All these works utilize side information, more or less. However, there are many constraints in the real application scenarios when utilizing side information. Thus, in the following, we will describe the efforts that increase the diversity of recommender systems by improving the exposure of niches in the diffusion-based model without introducing more side information. There are two lines of research that try to fulfill this task.
The first line improves the diffusion process on the bipartite network particularly for the exposure of niche items [@zhou2007bipartite; @zhou2010solving; @liu2011information; @lu2011information; @nie2015information; @an2016diffusion]. The second line of research tries to extract core users from all users in the system [@zeng2014uncovering; @cao2016identifying] and rely on only these core users instead of all the users to generate recommendations.
Zhou et al. [@zhou2010solving] designed a nonlinear hybrid model of heat-spreading (HeatS, also known as HC) and ProbS (also known as MD), called Hybrid of HeatS and ProbS (HHP), which achieves significant improvements in both accuracy and diversity. Both of HC and MD work by assigning collected items of the target user an initial level of “resource”, and then redistribute it via a transformation function from an item to another item via common users. The recommendation list is obtained by sorting the uncollected items according to the obtained resource in descending order. The difference between MD and HC is that, the niche items that to be recommended in HC would actively absorb more resource from common users than the niches that passively receive averagely allocated resource in MD. In this way, niche items are pushed to the head of recommendation lists and very popular items are rejected in HC. In MD, the popular items are generally assigned more resource. As a result, the candidate items in HC are mostly niches, which leads to high diversity but very low accuracy and on the contrary, MD with high accuracy but low diversity. By a non-linear hybrid of HC and MD, HHP balances the resource distribution during the process of resource assignment and improve the diversity without losing accuracy. Another effective method modified delicately from original HC, named Biased Heat Conduction (BHC) [@liu2011information], also makes a good trade-off on accuracy and diversity. The recommendation procedure for BHC is the same with HC, but in the second step from users to candidate items, the resource absorbed by niche candidates are decreased by a manually tuned parameter. Further statistical analysis on the recommendation lists in this paper show that the items with large or small degrees are all recommended frequently in BHC, but large-degree items are recommended more frequently in MD and small degree items are recommended more frequently in HC. It suggests that BHC could simultaneously identify the public and personalized tastes of users, resulting in better performance than the standard HC algorithm.
The other line of research on bipartite graph tries to extract core users from the system. Zeng et al. [@zeng2014uncovering] found that in each online system there exists a group of core users who carry more useful information for recommendation. They designed core user extraction methods in the individual level and the system level respectively that could enable the recommender systems to achieve $90\%$ of the accuracy of the standard procedure by utilizing only $20\%$ of the users to generate recommendations. In practical applications, the most time-consuming process for this work is to extract core users, which could be calculated offline that enables the online recommendation process efficient. Cao et al. [@cao2016identifying] proposed to identify core users based on trust relationships and interest similarity to acquire more accurate recommendations. In this work, the trust and interest similarity between all user pairs are calculated and sorted first, and two strategies based on frequency and weight of location are used to select core users. One method is called frequency-based strategy, namely, to select users who appear the largest number of times in all other users’ nearest neighbor list. The other one is rank-based strategy, which selects users who have the highest weight of location in all other users’ nearest neighbor list. The results show that core users usually appear in many users’ top-K neighbor lists with small ranking numbers. They got the similar conclusion with Zeng’s study that the core users usually carry more useful information for recommendation, and the RSes can make use of only core users to achieve satisfactory recommendation accuracy.
Our proposed ExTrA-based methods try to enhance the role of fabricated experts in discovering niche items and thus fall into the latter research line mentioned above. In contrast to the other approaches of this line, however, it does not require any semantic metadata (which is often not available or incomplete) but calculates the expertise of a user based on the history data. Also, it utilizes all the users instead of only core users, but highlights the weights of core users compared with other users. Thus, it is not a hybrid but a new diffusion-based approach. The first research line reconstructs the network based on the diffusion characteristics to push niche items from the long tail to the head to improve the diversity of the RSes, which is in line with our purpose. However, we put our emphasis on the roles of user nodes in the bipartite graph rather than the edges, which means that when using the ExTrA-based methods to calculate the predicted preferences for a user-item pair, these reconstructed approaches (HHP, BHC et al.) can also benefit from it.
Conclusions and Future Works {#sec:conclusion}
============================
In this paper, we introduce a family of approaches to extract fabricated experts from all users in recommender systems, and highlight them in the mass diffusion model. Comprehensive empirical experiments witness the significant diversity improvement brought by the proposed methods, with no or trivial accuracy loss of recommendation results. Note that, some delicately designed expert discovering methods might obtain better performance than our proposed ones, however, our motivation is not proposing the best expert extraction approach for more accurate and diverse predictions, but aiming at highlighting neighbor users’ different capability of recommending relevant and personalized items to the target user.
This work might shed light on several interesting directions for the future research. First, additional expert selection criteria should be explored for the given application domains. This may introduce more side information and also more sophisticated techniques (for example, knowledge graph-based methods [@WangHongwei2018RPUP]) depending on the specific applications, which comes with possibly significant increase in computational complexity. Second, although the MD model is a special case of memory-based Collaborative Filtering (CF) with the RA similarity [@YuFei2016NraA], to explore the limitations of the proposed methods, the usefulness of highlighting the fabricated experts should be checked for the model-based CF (such as the matrix factorization models), and the memory-based CF models with common similarity measures, such as the Cosine similarity and the Jaccard similarity. Third, improvement of recommendation diversity when recommending for a group of users (instead of individual users) [@CaoDa2018AGR] also constitutes interesting topics for the future research.
Acknowledgements
================
This research is funded by UESTC Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant No.: ZYGX2016J196.
[^1]: $^{1}$CompleX Lab, School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China
[^2]: $^{2}$School of Electrical Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China
[^3]: https://grouplens.org/datasets/movielens/
[^4]: www.netflixprize.com
[^5]: www.RateYourMusic.com
[^6]: https://github.com/anyahui120/ExTRA-Expert-track-based-Recommendation-Algorithm
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For superconducting quantum processors consisting of low anharmonicity qubits such as transmons we give a complete microwave description of the system in the qubit subspace. We assume that the qubits are dispersively coupled to a distributed microwave structure such that the detunings of the qubits from the internal modes of the microwave structure are stronger than their couplings. We define “qubit ports” across the terminals of the Josephson junctions and “drive ports” where transmission lines carrying drive signals reach the chip and we obtain the multiport impedance response of the linear passive part of the system between the ports. We then relate interaction parameters in between qubits and between the qubits and the environment to the entries of this multiport impedance function: in particular we show that the exchange coupling rate $J$ between qubits is related in a simple way to the off-diagonal entry connecting the qubit ports. Similarly we relate couplings of the qubits to voltage drives and lossy environment to the entries connecting the qubits and the drive ports. Our treatment takes into account all the modes (possibly infinite) that might be present in the distributed electromagnetic structure and provides an efficient method for the modeling and analysis of the circuits.'
author:
- 'Firat Solgun^1^, David P. DiVincenzo^2,3^ and Jay M. Gambetta^1^'
date: 'December 21st, 2017'
title: Simple Impedance Response Formulas for the Dispersive Interaction Rates in the Effective Hamiltonians of Low Anharmonicity Superconducting Qubits
---
Introduction
============
Superconducting circuits are a promising platform for the realization of quantum computers. Operated at microwave frequencies they include Josephson junctions for the non-linearity needed to obtain qubit modes without introducing significant loss. Coherence times of the superconducting qubits have been improved by several orders of magnitude in the last two decades and the Transmon qubit [@Koch-Transmon; @Zombie-paper-Gambetta] (and its several variations [@Xmon; @Dicarlo]) has now become the superconducting qubit of choice in many groups around the world due to its simplicity of design and its superior coherence. Fidelities of the single qubit gates are now routinely below [@Martinis-Nature; @Sarah-Single-Qubit] and those of the two-qubit gates are at the fault-tolerance threshold levels required by the surface code [@Martinis-Nature; @Sarah-CR; @Maika-Parity]. The challenge now is to scale the circuits up while maintaining and improving further the qubit coherence times and gate fidelities [@Nick]. Many important engineering problems however arise in the design of larger multi-qubit devices such as signal crosstalk and qubit-qubit crosstalk which show the need for better models/tools to understand and improve the operation of the superconducting quantum processors.
Several methods have been used to model and study the physics of superconducting qubit circuits. The Jaynes-Cummings model [@Jaynes-Cummings] originally introduced in quantum optics has routinely been applied to the study of the so-called circuit-QED architecture [@Blais-xQED; @Wallraff] in which superconducting qubits are coupled to readout resonators for their control and readout and two-qubit gate operations are mediated by the bus resonators. Readout and bus resonators are typically designed to be detuned away from the qubits to operate in the so-called dispersive regime. In that regime one can eliminate the resonators up to desired order in the bare qubit-resonator couplings and get an effective description of the system in the qubit subspace. However calculation of the dispersive quantities such as the exchange coupling or Purcell decay rates [@Controlling; @Spontaneous; @Emission; @-; @Houck] of the qubits with the single mode Jaynes-Cummings model showed significant discrepancy with the experimental measurements and attempts to include higher harmonics of the resonators with multi-mode extensions of the Jaynes-Cummings model failed due to divergence issues [@Bourassa-Multi-Mode-circuit-QED]. [@Gely-Adrian-Solano] showed the convergence of the Lamb shift in the specific case of a Josephson junction atom coupled to a multimode resonator in the Rabi model. More recently [@Adrian-Long] studied the convergence of the bare couplings between the superconducting qubits and multimode resonators in various general coupling configurations.
Combination of lumped element circuit quantization methods [@Devoret-Les-Houches; @BKD; @Burkard] with classical circuit synthesis techniques [@Foster; @Brune; @Newcomb] resulted in “blackbox quantization” methods [@BBQ-Yale; @Brune-Quantization; @Solgun] which allowed extraction of the parameters in the quantum Hamiltonian models of the superconducting circuits from the electromagnetic finite-element simulations. The simulations correspond to the linear passive part of the circuits which is usually a distributed microwave structure as seen looking into the ports defined across the Josephson junctions. Although such an approach allows an accurate treatment of very general structures consisting possibly of multiple microwave modes simulation of large multi-qubit devices might quickly become computationally demanding.
Following a similar approach we show here that for superconducting processors consisting of low anharmocity qubits like transmons the dispersive interaction parameters such as exchange coupling and Purcell decay rates of the qubits and their coupling to the voltage drives are related in a simple way to the microwave impedance response functions as seen at the “qubit ports” and “drive ports”. This reduces a large portion of the design of multi-qubit superconducting devices into a classical microwave engineering problem (up to the assumptions and approximations we are making here) and allows one to avoid any numerical multi-mode block-diagonalization or fitting of electromagnetic finite-element simulations over a range of frequencies which are both expensive if not prohibitive computational procedures.
We propose the following effective Hamiltonian to desribe a multi-qubit superconducting device consisting of low anharmonicity qubits coupled to each other and to the external world through a linear passive distributed microwave structure:
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{H}}/\hbar & = & \stackrel[i=1]{N}{\sum}\omega_{i}\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{i}+\frac{\delta_{i}}{2}\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{i}(\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{i}-1)+\underset{i,j}{\sum}J_{ij}(\hat{b}_{i}\hat{b}_{j}^{\dagger}+\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{j})+\stackrel[i=1]{N}{\sum}\stackrel[d=1]{N_{D}}{\sum}\varepsilon_{id}(\hat{b}_{i}-\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger})V_{d}\nonumber \\
& + & \underset{i,k}{\sum}\chi_{ik}\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{i}\hat{a}_{k}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{k}+\stackrel[k=1]{M}{\sum}\omega_{R_{k}}\hat{a}_{k}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{k}+\frac{\chi_{kk}^{(R)}}{2}\hat{a}_{k}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{k}(\hat{a}_{k}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{k}-1)+\underset{k,k'}{\sum}J_{kk'}^{\left(R\right)}(\hat{a}_{k}\hat{a}_{k'}^{\dagger}+\hat{a}_{k}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{k'})\label{eq:Hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$
where we have $N$ qubit modes and $M$ resonator modes represented as Duffing oscillators in the harmonic oscillator basis and $N_{D}$ voltage drives. In the first line we have terms corresponding to the qubit subspace: $\hat{b}_{i}^{(\dagger)}$ is the annihilation(creation) operator of the qubit mode $i$ of frequency $\omega_{i}$ and anharmonicity $\delta_{i}$. In the second line we have the resonator terms: $\hat{a}_{k}^{(\dagger)}$ is the annihilation(creation) operator of the resonator mode $k$ with frequency $\omega_{R_{k}}$ and anharmonicity (or self-Kerr) $\chi_{kk}^{(R)}$ (We will be using the terms “resonator” and “internal mode” interchangibly below to refer to the microwave modes of the distributed linear passive structure the qubits are connected to). Such an approximate description in the harmonic basis is valid for qubits with low anharmonicity $\delta_{i}\ll\omega_{i}$ such as transmons. Qubit modes $i$ and $j$ are coupled to each other at exchange coupling rate $J_{ij}$ and the only remaining interaction between the qubit and resonator modes are the dispersive energy shifts $\chi_{ik}$’s.
We show that the exchange coupling rate $J_{ij}$ between qubit modes $i$ and $j$ in such an effective description is a simple function of the impedance response defined between the
$$J_{ij}=-\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}{L_{i}L_{j}}}\mathrm{Im}\left[\frac{Z_{ij}\left(\omega_{i}\right)}{\omega_{i}}+\frac{Z_{ij}\left(\omega_{j}\right)}{\omega_{j}}\right]\label{eq:The-impedance-formula-for-J}$$
where $\omega_{i}$ is the frequency of the qubit $i$ given by $\omega_{i}=\omega_{J_{i}}-\frac{E_{C}^{(i)}/\hbar}{1-E_{C}^{(i)}/(\hbar\omega_{J_{i}})}$ with $\omega_{J_{i}}=1/\sqrt{L_{J_{i}}C_{i}}$ and $E_{C}^{(i)}=\frac{e^{2}}{2C_{i}}$ being the charging energy of the qubit $i$ of total shunt capacitance $C_{i}$. $L_{i}$ and $L_{j}$ are the “qubit inductances” corresponding to the qubits $i$ and $j$, respectively; related to the bare junction inductances $L_{J_{i}}$’s by $L_{i}=L_{J_{i}}/(1-\frac{2E_{C}^{(i)}}{\hbar\omega_{i}}$) such that $\omega_{i}=1/\sqrt{L_{i}C_{i}}$. $Z_{ij}\left(\omega\right)$ is the $\left(i,j\right)$-entry of the multiport impedance matrix
$$\varepsilon_{id}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{i}}{2\hbar L_{i}}}\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}(\omega_{i})\right]\frac{e^{i\theta_{d}}C_{p(d)}}{\sqrt{1+\omega_{d}^{2}Z_{0}^{2}C_{p(d)}^{2}}}\label{eq:epsilon-matrix}$$
where $\theta_{d}=\frac{\pi}{2}-\arctan(\omega_{d}Z_{0}C_{p(d)})$ and $Z_{i,p(d)}(\omega_{i})$ is the entry of the multiport impedance matrix connecting the drive port(with port index $p(d)$) corresponding to the voltage source $V_{d}$ ( to the qubit port $i$ evaluated at the frequency $\omega_{i}$ of qubit $i$; $\omega_{d}$ is the frequency of the voltage source $V_{d}$(assuming a single tone sinusoidal signal), $Z_{0}$ is the characteristic impedance of the drive lines which is typically $Z_{0}=50\Omega$ and $C_{p(d)}$ is the shunting capacitance of the drive port corresponding to the voltage source $V_{d}$
$$\frac{1}{T_{1}^{i,d}}=\frac{2}{L_{i}}\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}\left(\omega_{i}\right)\right]^{2}\frac{\omega_{i}^{2}Z_{0}C_{p(d)}^{2}}{1+\omega_{i}^{2}Z_{0}^{2}C_{p(d)}^{2}}$$
We note here that all the dispersive rates of qubit-qubit interactions and of interactions of qubits with the external electronics are functionals of the the multiport impedance function $\mathbf{Z}(\omega)$ and bare junction inductances $L_{J_{i}}$’s since the shunting capacitances $C_{i}$’s of the qubit ports are related to the residue $\mathbf{A}_{0}$ of $\mathbf{Z}(\omega)$ at DC as given in Eq. (Same argument applies to the shunt capacitances $C_{p(d)}$’s of the drive ports) and the qubit frequencies $\omega_{i}$’s and anharmonicities $\delta_{i}$’s are functions of qubit shunt capacitances and bare junction inductances.
\[sec:Derivation-of-J-couplings\]Derivation of the Formula for the Exchange Coupling Rates between the Qubits
=============================================================================================================
Assuming we have $N$ Josephson junctions in the circuit we define the $N\times N$ multiport impedance matrix $\mathbf{Z}$ seen looking into qubit ports defined across the junction terminals ($\mathbf{Z}$ has to be evaluated without shunting the ). Neglecting all the losses we can write the following partial fraction expansion for the imaginary part of $\mathbf{Z}\left(\omega\right)$ as a function of the frequency variable $\omega$ [@Newcomb]
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{Z}_{I}\left(\omega\right) & = & \mathrm{Im}\left[\mathbf{Z}\left(\omega\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{\mathbf{A}_{0}}{\omega}+\stackrel[k=1]{M}{\sum}\frac{\mathbf{A}_{k}\omega}{\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}-\omega^{2}}+\mathbf{A}_{\infty}\omega\label{eq:Partial-Fraction-Expansion}\end{aligned}$$
where $\omega_{R_{k}}$’s are the frequencies of the internal modes corresponding to readout and bus resonators and $\mathbf{A}_{k}$’s are rank-1 real symmetric $N\times N$ matrices for $1\leq k\leq M$. Although we have truncated the part corresponding to internal modes to $M$ terms as we will see below the formula in Eq. stays valid in the limit of an infinite number of modes $M\rightarrow\infty$ (more generally one can think of the multiport impedance expansion in Eq. as being corresponding to any distributed electromagnetic structure seen by the junctions).
Starting with the expansion in Eq. we can synthesize a lossless multiport lumped element circuit [@Newcomb]
$$\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{Q}^{T}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{Q}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\Phi}^{T}\mathbf{M}_{0}\mathbf{\Phi}-\stackrel[i=1]{N}{\sum}E_{J_{i}}\cos\left(\varphi_{J_{i}}\right)\label{eq:initial-Hamiltonian}$$
where $\mathbf{\Phi}=\left(\Phi_{J_{1}},\ldots,\Phi_{J_{N}},\Phi_{R_{1}},\ldots,\Phi_{R_{M}}\right)^{T}$ being the flux coordinate vector. $\varphi_{J_{i}}$ is the phase of the junction $i$ related to the flux across it by the Josephson relation $\Phi_{J_{i}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi}_{0}}{2\pi}\varphi_{J_{i}}$, for $1\leq i\leq N$. $\Phi_{R_{k}}$ is the flux across the inductor of the internal mode $k,$ $1\leq k\leq M$. $E_{J_{i}}$ is the Josephson energy of junction $i$ related to its inductance $L_{J_{i}}$ by $E_{J_{i}}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi}_{0}}{2\pi}\right)^{2}\frac{1}{L_{J_{i}}}$. The capacitance matrix $\mathbf{C}$ is given by
$$\mathbf{C}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{C}_{0} & -\mathbf{C}_{0}\mathbf{R}^{T}\\
-\mathbf{R}\mathbf{C}_{0} & \mathbf{1}_{M\times M}+\mathbf{R}\mathbf{C}_{0}\mathbf{R}^{T}
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:Capacitance-matrix}$$
where $\mathbf{C}_{0}$ is diagonal with entries $\left(C_{1},\ldots,C_{N}\right)$, $C_{i}$ being the total capacitance shunting the junction $i$. This is a valid physical assumption since it corresponds to having no direct electrostatic dipole-dipole interaction between junction terminals. Such an assumption will keep our discussion simple although the case of non-diagonal $\mathbf{C}_{0}$ will not change any of the results.
$\mathbf{R}$ is a $M\times N$ matrix generating the couplings between qubits and internal modes. $\mathbf{R}$ consists of row vectors $r_{k}=\left(r_{k1}\ldots r_{kN}\right)$ with $r_{k}^{T}r_{k}=\mathbf{A}_{k}$. $\mathbf{M}_{0}$ matrix is diagonal with entries $\left(1/L_{1},\ldots,1/L_{N},1/L_{R_{1}},\ldots,1/L_{R_{M}}\right)$ where $L_{R_{k}}=1/\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}$ for $1\leq k\leq M$. Here we replaced the Josephson junction $i$ with the qubit inductance $L_{i}$ such that $1/\sqrt{L_{i}C_{i}}=\omega_{i}$.
We do a capacitance rescaling [@Brito] $\mathbf{\Phi}_{J}\rightarrow\mathbf{C}_{0}^{1/2}\mathbf{\Phi}_{J}$ to transform the capacitance matrix $\mathbf{C}$ as follows
$$\mathbf{C}\rightarrow\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{1}_{N\times N} & -\mathbf{C}_{0}^{1/2}\mathbf{R}^{T}\\
-\mathbf{R}\mathbf{C}_{0}^{1/2} & \mathbf{1}_{M\times M}+\mathbf{R}\mathbf{C}_{0}\mathbf{R}^{T}
\end{array}\right)$$
and $\mathbf{M}_{0}$ transforming into the diagonal matrix with entries $(\omega_{1}^{2},\ldots,\omega_{N}^{2},\omega_{R_{1}}^{2},\ldots,\omega_{R_{M}}^{2})$. At this point
We then apply the transformation
$$\mathbf{T}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{1}_{N\times N} & \mathbf{C}_{0}^{1/2}\mathbf{R}^{T}\\
\mathbf{0}_{M\times N} & \mathbf{1}_{M\times M}
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:T-transformation}$$
to reduce the capacitance matrix to identity
$$\mathbf{C}\rightarrow\mathbf{T}^{T}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{T}=\mathbf{1}$$
Then $\mathbf{M}_{0}$ transforms to $\mathbf{M}_{1}$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{M}_{1} & = & \mathbf{T}^{T}\mathbf{C}_{0}^{-1/2}\mathbf{M}_{0}\mathbf{C}_{0}^{-1/2}\mathbf{T}\nonumber \\
& = & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{\Omega}_{J}^{2} & \mathbf{\Omega}_{J}^{2}\mathbf{C}_{0}^{1/2}\mathbf{R}^{T}\\
\mathbf{R}\mathbf{C}_{0}^{1/2}\mathbf{\Omega}_{J}^{2} & \mathbf{\Omega}_{R'}^{2}
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:M1-matrix}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{\Omega}_{R'}^{2}=\mathbf{\Omega}_{R}^{2}+\mathbf{R}\mathbf{C}_{0}^{1/2}\mathbf{\Omega}_{J}^{2}\mathbf{C}_{0}^{1/2}\mathbf{R}^{T}$, $\mathbf{\Omega}_{J}$ is diagonal with entries $\left(\omega_{1},\ldots,\omega_{N}\right)$, $\omega_{i}=1/\sqrt{L_{i}C_{i}}$ for $1\leq i\leq N$ and $\mathbf{\Omega}_{R}$ is diagonal with entries $\left(\omega_{R_{1}},\ldots,\omega_{R_{M}}\right)$.
We now block-diagonalize $\mathbf{M}_{1}$ by applying a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation to get
$$\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{1}=\exp\left(-\mathbf{S}\right)\mathbf{M}_{1}\exp\left(\mathbf{S}\right)\label{eq:block-diagonal-M1}$$
where $\mathbf{S}$ is skew-symmetric and $\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{1}$ block-diagonal which can be computed up to desired order in the bare couplings using Eqs. (B.12) and (B.15) in [@Winkler]. We note that since this transformation is unitary it will keep the capacitance matrix identity such that we have the following block-diagonal Hamiltonian in the final frame
$$\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{q}^{T}\boldsymbol{q}+\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\phi}^{T}\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{1}\boldsymbol{\phi}+\mathcal{O}(\varphi_{J}^{4})\label{eq:block-diagonal-hamiltonian}$$
where the final coordinate fluxes $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ are related to the initial coordinates $\mathbf{\Phi}$ by
$$\mathbf{\Phi}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{\Phi}_{J}\\
\mathbf{\Phi}_{R}
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{C}_{0}^{-1/2} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{1}
\end{array}\right)\mathbf{T}\exp(\mathbf{S})\boldsymbol{\phi}$$
and $\mathcal{O}(\varphi_{J}^{4})$ term standing for higher order nonlinear corrections giving anharmonicities and dispersive shifts between modes calculated in Appendix .
Using Eq. (B.15c) in [@Winkler], to second order in the bare couplings
$$\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{1}\right)_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k}{\sum}\left(\mathbf{M}_{1}\right)_{ik}\left(\mathbf{M}_{1}\right)_{kj}\left[\frac{1}{\omega_{i}^{2}-\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}}+\frac{1}{\omega_{j}^{2}-\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}}\right]\label{eq:M1-tilde-ij}$$
where again $i$ and $j$ are qubit labels and $k$ labels internal modes. $\left(\mathbf{M}_{1}\right)_{ik}$ is the $\left(i,k\right)$-th entry of the matrix $\mathbf{M}_{1}$ and from Eq. we have
$$\left(\mathbf{M}_{1}\right)_{ik}=\omega_{i}^{2}C_{i}^{1/2}r_{ki}\label{eq:Mik}$$
Noting again $r_{k}^{T}r_{k}=\mathbf{A}_{k}$ we can write
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(\mathbf{M}_{1}\right)_{ik}\left(\mathbf{M}_{1}\right)_{kj} & = & \omega_{i}^{2}\omega_{j}^{2}C_{i}^{1/2}C_{j}^{1/2}r_{ki}r_{kj}\nonumber \\
& = & \omega_{i}^{2}\omega_{j}^{2}C_{i}^{1/2}C_{j}^{1/2}\left(\mathbf{A}_{k}\right)_{ij}\end{aligned}$$
Hence we can re-write Eq.
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{1}\right)_{ij} & = & \frac{1}{2}\underset{k}{\sum}\omega_{i}^{2}\omega_{j}^{2}C_{i}^{1/2}C_{j}^{1/2}\left[\frac{\left(\mathbf{A}_{k}\right)_{ij}}{\omega_{i}^{2}-\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}}+\frac{\left(\mathbf{A}_{k}\right)_{ij}}{\omega_{j}^{2}-\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}}\right]\nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{1}{2}\omega_{i}^{2}\omega_{j}^{2}C_{i}^{1/2}C_{j}^{1/2}\mathrm{Im}\left[\frac{Z_{ij}(\omega_{i})}{\omega_{i}}+\frac{Z_{ij}(\omega_{j})}{\omega_{j}}\right]\end{aligned}$$
Quantizing the system by introducing the annihilation and creation operators for the qubit modes in the final frame by $\hat{\phi}_{i}=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar Z_{i}}{2}}(\hat{b}_{i}+\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger})$ for $1\leq i\leq N$ and noting that the characteristic impedance $Z_{i}$ for the qubit mode $i$ is $Z_{i}=1/\omega_{i}$ in that frame
$$\begin{aligned}
J_{ij} & = & \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{Z_{i}Z_{j}}\left(\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{1}\right)_{ij}\nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}{L_{i}L_{j}}}\mathrm{Im}\left[\frac{Z_{ij}\left(\omega_{i}\right)}{\omega_{i}}+\frac{Z_{ij}\left(\omega_{j}\right)}{\omega_{j}}\right]\end{aligned}$$
$J_{ij}$ in the above formula is in the units of radians per second. We note that this formula takes into account all the modes(possibly infinite) that might be present in the electromagnetic structure coupling the qubits.
Example 1: Two transmons coupled through a single mode $LC$ resonator bus
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:2-Q-1-bus\]Example circuit of two transmons capacitively coupled through a single mode bus. Both transmons have the same shunting capacitance $C_{q}$ and the same coupling capacitances $C_{c}$ to the bus.](figs/2-tranmon-1-single-mode-bus)
In this section we will apply the formula in Eq. $\eqref{eq:The-impedance-formula-for-J}$ for the $J$-coupling rate derived in the previous section to the simple circuit of two transmons coupled through a lumped $LC$ resonator as shown in Fig. and compare it to the expression derived in [@Jay-Juelich]:
$$J=\frac{g_{1}g_{2}\left(\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}-2\omega_{r}\right)}{2\left(\omega_{1}-\omega_{r}\right)\left(\omega_{2}-\omega_{r}\right)}\label{eq:Jpert}$$
where $g_{1}$, $g_{2}$ are couplings of qubits $1,2$ to the bus, $\omega_{1}$, $\omega_{2}$ and $\omega_{r}$ are qubit and resonator frequencies; respectively.
The circuit in Fig. has the following Hamiltonian
$$H=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{Q}^{T}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{Q}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\Phi}^{T}\mathbf{M}_{0}\mathbf{\Phi}-E_{J_{1}}\cos\left(\varphi_{1}\right)-E_{J_{2}}\cos\left(\varphi_{2}\right)$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{C} & = & \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
C_{q}+C_{c} & 0 & -C_{c}\\
0 & C_{q}+C_{c} & -C_{c}\\
-C_{c} & -C_{c} & C_{r}+2C_{c}
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:C-2-Q-1-B}\end{aligned}$$
$\mathbf{M}_{0}$ diagonal with entries $\left(0,0,1/L_{r}\right)$ and the coordinate vector $\mathbf{\Phi}=(\Phi_{J_{1}},\Phi_{J_{2}},\Phi_{r})^{T}$ holds the fluxes across the inductive branches. Typically $C_{c}\ll C_{q}\ll C_{r}$ holds so that we can approximately write
$$\mathbf{C}^{-1}\cong\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1/C_{q} & \frac{C_{c}^{2}}{C_{q}^{2}C_{r}} & \frac{C_{c}}{C_{q}C_{r}}\\
\frac{C_{c}^{2}}{C_{q}^{2}C_{r}} & 1/C_{q} & \frac{C_{c}}{C_{q}C_{r}}\\
\frac{C_{c}}{C_{q}C_{r}} & \frac{C_{c}}{C_{q}C_{r}} & 1/C_{r}
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:Cinv-2-Q-1-B}$$
so that we have
$$\begin{aligned}
g_{1} & = & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{Z_{1}Z_{r}}}\frac{C_{c}}{C_{q}C_{r}}\\
g_{2} & = & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{Z_{2}Z_{r}}}\frac{C_{c}}{C_{q}C_{r}}\end{aligned}$$
where $Z_{i}=\sqrt{L_{i}/C_{q}}$ and $Z_{r}=\sqrt{L_{r}/C_{r}}$. We note here that although there is no direct electrostatic dipole coupling between qubits in Eq. a mediated coupling $J_{0}$ appears in Eq. . As we will see below the magnitude of $J_{0}$ is non-negligible compared to $J$ in Eq. hence one should compute $J+J_{0}$ for the total exchange coupling rate as we did in Fig. . We note that
$$\begin{aligned}
J_{0} & = & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{Z_{1}Z_{2}}}\frac{C_{c}^{2}}{C_{q}^{2}C_{r}}\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{2}{\omega_{r}}g_{1}g_{2}\label{eq:J0}\end{aligned}$$
We now apply the impedance formula for the $J$-coupling in Eq. to the circuit in Fig. . We need to first compute the two-port impedance matrix between the ports shunted by Josephson junctions. This can be done by an $ABCD$-matrix analysis [@Pozar], for example. One then gets
$$\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{12}\left(\omega\right)\right]=\frac{C_{c}^{2}L_{r}\omega/\left(C_{q}+C_{c}\right)}{C_{q}\left(1-\omega^{2}/\omega_{r}^{2}\right)+C_{c}\left(1-2\omega^{2}/\omega_{qr}^{2}-\omega^{2}/\omega_{r}^{2}\right)}$$
where $\omega_{r}=1/\sqrt{L_{r}C_{r}}$ and $\omega_{qr}=1/\sqrt{L_{r}C_{q}}$. We note that in actual devices $C_{q}\ll C_{r}$ hence $\omega_{r}\ll\omega_{qr}$. We can then neglect the term $-2\omega^{2}/\omega_{qr}^{2}$ appearing in the denominator compared to the term $-\omega^{2}/\omega_{r}^{2}$ such that
$$\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{12}\left(\omega\right)\right]\cong\frac{C_{c}^{2}L_{r}\omega}{\left(C_{q}+C_{c}\right)^{2}\left(1-\omega^{2}/\omega_{r}^{2}\right)}$$
Noting also $C_{c}\ll C_{q}$ we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{12}\left(\omega\right)\right] & \cong & \frac{C_{c}^{2}L_{r}\omega}{C_{q}^{2}\left(1-\omega^{2}/\omega_{r}^{2}\right)}\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{1}{2}\frac{C_{c}^{2}L_{r}\omega_{r}\omega}{C_{q}^{2}}\left(\frac{1}{\omega_{r}-\omega}+\frac{1}{\omega_{r}+\omega}\right)\label{eq:ImZ12-exp}\end{aligned}$$
hence by Eq.
$$\begin{aligned}
J^{\left(Z\right)} & =-\frac{1}{8}\frac{\sqrt{\omega_{1}\omega_{2}}}{\sqrt{L_{1}L_{2}}}\frac{C_{c}^{2}L_{r}\omega_{r}}{C_{q}^{2}}\left(\frac{1}{\omega_{r}-\omega_{1}}+\frac{1}{\omega_{r}-\omega_{2}}+\right.\nonumber \\
& +\left.\frac{1}{\omega_{r}+\omega_{1}}+\frac{1}{\omega_{r}+\omega_{2}}\right)\label{eq:JZ}\end{aligned}$$
where we used the superscript $Z$ to indicate the application of the impedance $J$-coupling formula in Eq. .
If we interpret the first two terms inside the paranthesis in Eq. as the RWA-terms we can write
$$\begin{aligned}
J_{RWA}^{\left(Z\right)} & =- & \frac{1}{8}\frac{\sqrt{\omega_{1}\omega_{2}}}{\sqrt{L_{1}L_{2}}}\frac{C_{c}^{2}L_{r}\omega_{r}}{C_{q}^{2}}\left(\frac{1}{\omega_{r}-\omega_{1}}+\frac{1}{\omega_{r}-\omega_{2}}\right)\nonumber \\
& = & \left(\frac{\omega_{1}\omega_{2}}{\omega_{r}^{2}}\right)\frac{g_{1}g_{2}\left(\omega_{1}+\omega_{2}-2\omega_{r}\right)}{2\left(\omega_{1}-\omega_{r}\right)\left(\omega_{2}-\omega_{r}\right)}\nonumber \\
& = & \left(\frac{\omega_{1}\omega_{2}}{\omega_{r}^{2}}\right)J\label{eq:JZ-RWA}\end{aligned}$$
We note here that the standard expression for the exchange coupling $J$ in Eq. is obtained with a RWA; this is why we only kept the first two terms inside the paranthesis in Eq. and defined $J_{RWA}^{\left(Z\right)}$ in Eq. .
We now compare the formulas obtained above in Fig. with the following set of realistic parameter values $g_{1}=g_{2}=100\,MHz$, $\omega_{1}=2\pi(4.90\,GHz)$ and $\omega_{2}=2\pi\left(5.10\,GHz\right)$, $\delta_{1}=\delta_{2}=-340\,MHz$.
![\[fig:compare-formulas-plot\]Comparison of $J$-coupling expressions $J^{\left(Z\right)},$ $J_{RWA}^{\left(Z\right)}$, $J$ and $J$+$J_{0}$ for bus frequency $f_{r}$ ranging from $5.5\,GHz$ to $10\,GHz$ for the circuit in Fig. with the following set of parameter values $g_{1}=g_{2}=100\,MHz$, $\omega_{1}=2\pi(4.90\,GHz)$ and $\omega_{2}=2\pi\left(5.10\,GHz\right)$, $\delta_{1}=\delta_{2}=-340\,MHz$. Vertical axis is $J$-coupling rate in $MHz$.](figs/fig1-J)
Example 2: Scaling of $J$ coupling rates in a multi-qubit device
----------------------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:2x8-device\]2x8 device connectivity: 16 qubits are arranged in 2 rows. Nodes respresent the qubits while edges linking the qubits represent buses. There are two qubits connected to each bus and there is a total of $22$ buses.](figs/2by8_2QbyBUS)
![\[fig:2x8-device-4QbyBus\]2x8 device with four qubits per bus arrangement. Scaling of the $J$ couplings over the lattice is compared to the arrangement in Fig. . Crossed links represent bus resonators each connected to 4 qubits and there are $7$ buses in total.](figs/2by8_4QbyBUS)
In this section we apply the impedance formula in Eq. for the exchange couplings $J_{ij}$ to the multi-qubit device shown in Fig. to calculate the decay of $J$ over the chip. This is a simplified model of an actual multi-qubit device recently released by IBM in its online cloud environment for quantum computing: IBM Q Experience [@IBM-Q-Experience]. The device consists of $16$ qubits arranged in two rows and connected to each other by $22$ bus resonators with two qubits per bus. To compare we also apply the impedance formula for $J$ coupling to the arrangement shown in Fig. where we have four qubits on each bus. We model each bus as a simple $LC$ resonator at $6.30\,GHz$ capacitively coupled to qubits. Using realistic parameter values corresponding to a real device fabricated at IBM we obtain the decay plots in Fig. which confirm exponential decay of $J$ couplings over the chips.
![\[fig:2by8-J-scaling-plot\]Exponential decay of the $J_{1k}$ coupling rate for $k=2,\ldots8$ as measured from the first qubit $Q_{1}$ to the right in the upper rows in Figs. and as a function of qubit index $k$. $J_{12}$ is $-4.9\,MHz$ and $-6.1\,MHz$ in the devices in Figs. and , respectively.](figs/J-scaling-2by8-paper-bigger-k)
\[sec:Voltage-couplings\]Couplings of the Qubits to the Voltage Drives
======================================================================
Qubits are coupled to room temperature electronics for their readout and control. Readout and control signals pass through several amplification/attenuation stages as they travel through different stages in a dilution fridge. In between these stages they are carried over transmission lines like coaxial cables or the lines on a printed circuit board. We will content ourselves here with modeling this coupling mechanism simply by voltage sources driving the quantum chip through transmission lines(which we assume to be inifinite in extent to keep things simple here and represent them simply by resistors $Z_{0}$’s) as shown in Fig. . This circuit is an augmented version of the multiport canonical circuit in Fig. where $N_{D}$ “drive ports” are added. The drive ports are defined at positions where drive lines reach the chip (see Appendix for more details on how to define the drive ports in an 3D finite-element electromagnetic simulator). They are connected to transmission lines of characteristic impedance $Z_{0}$ (typically $Z_{0}=50\Omega$) which in turn are shunted by the voltage sources $V_{d}$ for $1\leq d\leq N_{D}$. Such a simple circuit model will allow us to derive expressions for the couplings $\varepsilon_{id}$ of the qubits to voltage drives in this section. A similar analysis in Section will allow us to compute Purcell loss rates of the qubit modes due to their coupling to the drive lines.
As we show in Appendix the circuit in Fig. has the following Hamiltonian given in Eq. in the final block-diagonalized frame corresponding to $\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{1}$ in Eq.
$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left(\boldsymbol{q}-\mathbf{C}_{q}*\mathbf{V}_{V}\right)^{T}\left(\boldsymbol{q}-\mathbf{C}_{q}*\mathbf{V}_{V}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\phi}^{T}\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{1}\boldsymbol{\phi}+\mathcal{O}(\boldsymbol{\varphi}_{J}^{4})$$
where the $(N+M)\times N_{D}$ matrix $\mathbf{C}_{q}$ gives the coupling of the voltage sources $\mathbf{V}_{V}=(V_{1},\ldots,V_{N_{D}})$ to the charge degrees of freedom $\boldsymbol{q}$ of the circuit. After quantizing this Hamiltonian by introducing the harmonic mode operators $\hat{q}_{i}=-i\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2Z_{i}}}(\hat{b}_{i}-\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger})$ for the qubit modes and computing the projection of $\mathbf{C}_{q}$ onto the qubit subspace one obtains the following drive term acting in the qubit subspace
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{id}^{D} & = & i\sqrt{\frac{\hbar\omega_{i}}{2L_{i}}}\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}(\omega_{i})\right]\frac{C_{p(d)}V_{d}(\hat{b}_{i}-\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger})}{1+i\omega_{d}Z_{0}C_{p(d)}}\label{eq:HD-id}\end{aligned}$$
from which we get
$$\varepsilon_{id}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{i}}{2\hbar L_{i}}}\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}(\omega_{i})\right]\frac{e^{i\theta_{d}}C_{p(d)}}{\sqrt{1+\omega_{d}^{2}Z_{0}^{2}C_{p(d)}^{2}}}\label{eq:eps-ij}$$
for the coupling matrix $\varepsilon_{id}$ appearing in the Hamiltonian in Eq. and giving the coupling of the qubit modes to the voltage drives. Here $\theta_{d}=\frac{\pi}{2}-\arctan(\omega_{d}Z_{0}C_{p(d)})$ and $Z_{i,p(d)}$ is the impedance entry connecting the qubit port $i$ to drive port(with port index $p(d)$) corresponding to the voltage source $V_{d}$. $C_{p(d)}$ is the total capacitance shunting the $d$-th drive port, $\omega_{d}$ is the frequency of the signal driving the qubit $j$ and $Z_{0}$ is the characteristic impedance of the drive lines (typically $Z_{0}=50\Omega$). The last factor in Eq. is just a voltage division factor giving how much of the drive voltage $V_{d}$ is seen across the $d$-th drive port. The factor $\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}(\omega_{i})\right]$ gives on the other hand the classical crosstalk.
\[sec:The-Classical-cross-talk\]The classical crosstalk and the location of the drive ports
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We define the classical crosstalk as the unwanted drive the qubit $i$ experiences when we excite the device only the drive line of the qubit $j$. For the purpose of understanding the classical cross-talk we will be only interested in the relative magnitudes of the voltages seen by different qubits and according to the analysis in Appendix
$$X_{ij}=20\mathrm{log}_{10}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Im}[Z_{i,d(j)}(\omega_{i})]}{\mathrm{Im}[Z_{j,d(j)}(\omega_{j})]}\right)\label{eq:Classical-crosstalk-formula}$$
is a good measure of the classical cross-talk in units of $dB$. Here $Z_{i,d(j)}(\omega_{i})$ is the impedance entry connecting the drive port $d(j)$ of the qubit $j$ to the qubit port $i$.
Although we have already stated in the previous sections that we defined the drive ports where the drive lines reach the chip we give a more precise description here on how we choose the locations of the drive ports. As the drive signals travel over the transmission lines towards the chip they will eventually reach the transition region (before launching onto the chip) where they will no longer see a constant impedance but a discontinuity off which some portion of the signal will be reflected back. Ideally one would like to define the drive ports at positions where this discontinuity first starts to appear. The exact positions can be determined with a TDR (time-domain reflectometry) measurement/simulation for example. In the absence of TDR information one can make a safe choice by keeping the drive ports far enough from the chip boundary. In electromagnetic finite-element simulators such ports will typically be defined as wave ports on the planes (perpendicular to the direction of propagation) in the cross-sections of the drive lines. Such a choice for the drive ports will include any crosstalk happening in the transition region (such as a spurious chip boundary mode [@Wirebond-Crosstalk-Martinis] for example) in our crosstalk measures defined above. See Appendix for more details on how to define the drive ports in electromagnetic finite-element simulators.
Example: Classical crosstalk in a multi-qubit device
----------------------------------------------------
![\[fig:2x8-device-model-with-drives\]Top: Augmented 2x8 device model with readout resonators and drive ports added. Readout resonators are represented with edges linking qubits $Q_{k}$’s to their drive ports $P_{k}$’s. Bottom: How much of the drive voltage leaks into other qubits in the upper row in the 2x8 multi-qubit device on the top figure above when only the qubit $Q_{1}$ is excited through its drive port $P_{1}$: classical crosstalk decays exponentially as a function of distance from the qubit $Q_{1}$ to the right in the first row of the circuit in the figure on the top. ](figs/2by8_2QbyBUS_with_drives "fig:")\
![\[fig:2x8-device-model-with-drives\]Top: Augmented 2x8 device model with readout resonators and drive ports added. Readout resonators are represented with edges linking qubits $Q_{k}$’s to their drive ports $P_{k}$’s. Bottom: How much of the drive voltage leaks into other qubits in the upper row in the 2x8 multi-qubit device on the top figure above when only the qubit $Q_{1}$ is excited through its drive port $P_{1}$: classical crosstalk decays exponentially as a function of distance from the qubit $Q_{1}$ to the right in the first row of the circuit in the figure on the top. ](figs/xtalk_2by8_drives "fig:")
In this section we augment our model for the 2x8 multi-qubit device by adding the readout resonators and the drive ports as shown on the left in Fig. and apply the the formula in Eq. to evaluate the cross-talk in the device. We plot $X_{1k}$ which gives the crosstalk between the drive line of the qubit $Q_{1}$ and the other qubits on the first row in Fig. as a function of the qubit label $k=2,\ldots,8$ in Fig. .
\[sec:Purcell-rates\]Purcell Loss Rates of The Qubit Modes
==========================================================
Qubits are coupled to external electronics for their readout and control. In Section \[sec:Voltage-couplings\] we analyzed couplings of the qubits to voltage drives. The same coupling mechanism causes relaxation of the excitations in the qubit modes which is called the “Purcell Loss”. In this section we compute rates for the Purcell loss of the qubit modes we identified in the earlier sections.
As in Section the coupling of the qubits to external electronics is modeled with the idealized circuit model in Fig. and we will use the same coupling matrices of the formalism in [@Burkard] that we calculated in Appendix for the drive couplings. We have $N_{D}$ baths corresponding to tranmission lines of characteristic impedances $Z_{0}$’s driving the qubits as shown in Fig. . Assuming couplings of qubits to the lines are small, to first order in these couplings, we will assume that $T_{1}$ rates can be computed separately for each bath. The total rate will then be the sum of rates due to each line.
We start by noting that when we have only the bath due to the drive line of the voltage source $V_{d}$ with port index $p(d)$ $\mathbf{C}_{D}$ defined in Eq. is a scalar $C_{p(d)}$ for $1\leq d\leq N_{D}$. Hence $\bar{\mathbf{m}}$ in Eq. is
$$\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{d}=-C_{p(d)}\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{0}_{N\times1}\\
\mathbf{v}_{d}
\end{array}\right)$$
where $\mathbf{v}_{d}=(\begin{array}{ccc}
v_{1d} & \ldots & v_{Md}\end{array})^{T}$ is the $d$-th column of the matrix $\mathbf{V}$ corresponding to the drive line with port index $p(d)$. After the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation by Eq.
$$m_{id}=C_{p(d)}\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}\left(\omega_{i}\right)\right]/\sqrt{L_{i}}\label{eq:mij-final-frame}$$
where $m_{id}$ is the coupling of the bath due to the $d$-th drive line to the qubit mode $i$.
We need to now compute the spectral densities of the baths corresponding to the transmission lines. $\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{Z}\left(\omega\right)$ matrix defined in Eq. is also a scalar in the case of a single bath corresponding to the $d$-th drive line and is given by
$$\bar{C}_{Z,d}\left(\omega\right)=-\frac{i\omega Z_{0}}{1+i\omega C_{p(d)}Z_{0}}$$
Kernel of the bath due to the $d$-th drive line is given in Eq. (35) of [@Burkard] as
$$K_{d}\left(\omega\right)=\frac{\bar{C}_{Z,d}\left(\omega\right)}{1+\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{d}^{T}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{d}\bar{C}_{Z,d}\left(\omega\right)}$$
The term $\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{d}^{T}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{d}$ can be evaluated in the final frame using Eq. and noting that $\mathbf{C=1}$ in the final frame. Hence
$$\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{d}^{T}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{d}=C_{p(d)}^{2}\underset{i}{\sum}\left(\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}\left(\omega_{i}\right)\right]\right)^{2}/L_{i}$$
The spectrum of the bath is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
J_{d}\left(\omega\right) & = & -\mathrm{Im}\left[K_{d}\left(\omega\right)\right]\nonumber \\
& = & \frac{\omega Z_{0}}{1+\omega^{2}Z_{0}^{2}\left(C_{p(d)}+\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{d}^{T}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{d}\right)^{2}}\nonumber \\
& \simeq & \frac{\omega Z_{0}}{1+\omega^{2}Z_{0}^{2}C_{p(d)}^{2}}\end{aligned}$$
assuming $\left(\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{j}^{T}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{j}\right)/C_{p(d)}\ll1$ which holds for typical parameter values and frequencies.
Finally $T_{1}$ rate of the qubit mode $i$ due to the $d$-th drive line can be calculated using Eq. (44) of [@Burkard]
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{T_{1}^{i,d}} & = & \frac{4}{\hbar}\left|\left\langle 0\right|m_{id}\mathbf{\hat{Q}}_{i}\left|1_{i}\right\rangle \right|^{2}J_{d}\left(\omega_{i}\right)\coth(\frac{\hbar\omega_{i}}{2k_{B}T})\end{aligned}$$
which can be simplified assuming $\coth(\frac{\hbar\omega_{i}}{2k_{B}T})\simeq1$ for the typical chip temperatures as
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{T_{1}^{i,d}} & =\frac{4}{\hbar}\left|\left\langle 0\right|m_{id}\mathbf{\hat{Q}}_{i}\left|1_{i}\right\rangle \right|^{2}J_{d}\left(\omega_{i}\right)\nonumber \\
& =\frac{2}{L_{i}}\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}\left(\omega_{i}\right)\right]^{2}\frac{\omega_{i}^{2}Z_{0}C_{p(d)}^{2}}{1+\omega_{i}^{2}Z_{0}^{2}C_{p(d)}^{2}}\label{eq:T1-exp-long-1}\end{aligned}$$
![\[fig:Transmon-readout-line\]Example circuit of a Transmon qubit coupled to a readout resonator which in turn coupled to external drive line of characteristic impedance $Z_{0}$. $C_{d}$ is the shunt capacitance of the drive port.](figs/Q-coupled-to-Z0-Cd-Vd)
To see that Purcell rates $\frac{1}{T_{1}^{i,d}}$’s are independent of the drive port shunt capacitances $C_{p(d)}$’s we workout $Z_{i,p(d)}(\omega_{i})$ for the example circuit shown in Fig. . Assuming $C_{r}\gg C_{\kappa}$, $C_{q}\gg C_{c}$ and $C_{d}\gg C_{\kappa}$ one can show that
$$\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{12}(\omega)\right]\simeq\frac{\left(\frac{C_{c}C_{\kappa}}{C_{q}C_{d}}\right)L_{r}\omega}{1-(\omega/\omega_{r})^{2}}\label{eq:Z12-example}$$
with $\omega_{r}=1/\sqrt{L_{r}C_{r}}$ and port $1$ being defined across the Josephson junction and port $2$ across $C_{d}$. So that the Purcell rate $\frac{1}{T_{1}^{i,j}}$ derived in Eq. gives
$$\begin{aligned}
1/T_{1} & =\frac{2}{L_{q}}\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{12}\left(\omega_{q}\right)\right]^{2}\frac{\omega_{q}^{2}Z_{0}C_{d}^{2}}{1+\omega_{q}^{2}Z_{0}^{2}C_{d}^{2}}\nonumber \\
& =\frac{2}{L_{q}}\left(\frac{C_{c}C_{\kappa}}{C_{q}C_{r}}\right)^{2}\frac{(\omega_{q}/\omega_{r})^{4}}{\left[1-(\omega_{q}/\omega_{r})^{2}\right]^{2}}\left(\frac{Z_{0}}{1+\omega_{q}^{2}Z_{0}^{2}C_{d}^{2}}\right)\label{eq:T1-Cd}\end{aligned}$$
where $\omega_{q}$ is the qubit frequency and $L_{q}$ qubit inductance. The expression in the Eq. above will be independent of $C_{d}$, the total shunt capacitance of the drive port, in the limit of $\omega_{d}^{2}Z_{0}^{2}C_{d}^{2}\ll1$ which holds for typical parameter values in the actual experiments.
One can similarly calculate coupling of the qubit to the voltage source $V_{d}$ using Eqs. and to get
$$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon_{12} & =e^{i\theta_{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{q}}{2\hbar L_{q}}}\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{12}(\omega_{q})\right]C_{d}\nonumber \\
& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\hbar Z_{q}}}\left(\frac{C_{c}C_{\kappa}}{C_{q}C_{r}}\right)\frac{(\omega_{q}/\omega_{r})^{2}}{1-(\omega_{q}/\omega_{r})^{2}}\left(\frac{e^{i\theta_{2}}}{\sqrt{1+\omega_{d}^{2}Z_{0}^{2}C_{d}^{2}}}\right)\end{aligned}$$
where $\theta_{2}=\frac{\pi}{2}-\arctan(\omega_{d}Z_{0}C_{d})$ and $Z_{q}=\sqrt{L_{q}/C_{q}}$. Above expression for the coupling $\varepsilon_{12}$ of the qubit to its voltage source $V_{d}$ will be again independent of $C_{d}$ in the limit of $\omega_{d}^{2}Z_{0}^{2}C_{d}^{2}\ll1$ which holds for typical parameter values.
\[sec:Anharmonicities-Chi-shifts\]Expressions for the Qubit Anharmonicities and the Dispersive Shifts in the Resonator Frequencies
==================================================================================================================================
In this section we derive expressions for the anharmonicity $\delta_{i}$ of the qubit mode $i$ and dispersive shift $\chi_{ik}$ in the frequency $\omega_{R_{k}}$ of the resonator mode $k$ due to qubit mode $i$ using the results of Appendix . Anharmonicities and dispersive shifts are generated by the nonlinear terms in the expansion of the junction potentials.
From the term $H_{\beta}$ in Eq. in the expansion in Eq. originally given in [@BBQ-Yale] we note the following
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{i} & = & -12\beta_{iiii}\\
\chi_{ik} & = & -24\beta_{iikk}\end{aligned}$$
Using the expression for $\beta_{pp'qq'}$ in Eq. and Eqs. and we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{i} & = & -E_{C}^{(i)}\left(\frac{\omega_{J_{i}}}{\omega_{i}}\right)^{2}\label{eq:lambda-anharmonicity}\\
\chi_{ik} & = & -2E_{C}^{(i)}\left(\frac{\omega_{J_{i}}^{2}}{\omega_{i}\omega_{R_{k}}}\right)r_{ki}^{2}C_{i}\left(\frac{\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}}{\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}-\omega_{i}^{2}}\right)^{2}\end{aligned}$$
From Eq. we note
$$r_{ik}=\frac{2g_{ik}}{\sqrt{C_{i}\omega_{i}\omega_{R_{k}}}}$$
Hence
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{ik} & = & -2E_{C}^{(i)}\left(\frac{\omega_{J_{i}}^{2}}{\omega_{i}\omega_{R_{k}}}\right)\left(\frac{4g_{ik}^{2}}{\omega_{i}\omega_{R_{k}}}\right)\left(\frac{\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}}{\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}-\omega_{i}^{2}}\right)^{2}\nonumber \\
& = & 8\delta_{i}\left(\frac{g_{ik}\omega_{R_{k}}}{\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}-\omega_{i}^{2}}\right)^{2}\label{eq:chi-shift}\end{aligned}$$
Conclusion & Outlook
====================
We have analyzed superconducting quantum processors consisting of low anharmonicity transmon qubits. We have shown that the exchange coupling rates between qubits is related in a simple way to the off-diagonal entry of the multiport impedance matrix connecting the qubit ports evaluated at qubit frequencies. Qubit ports are defined across the Josephson junctions. Similarly coupling of the qubits to their drives and Purcell relaxation rates of the qubit modes are related to the entry of the multiport impedance matrix connecting the qubits and the drive ports. This gives a complete microwave description of the system in the qubit subspace. The formulas requiring only evaluation at qubit frequencies(no need for frequency sweeps and fitting) make modeling and simulation of the chips much more efficient.
Simple relations of the qubit exchange coupling rates and the couplings of the qubits to the voltage drives to the impedance response allow application of microwave engineering techniques to improve the performance of the two-qubit gates. One application could be to use microwave coupler or filtering structures to shape the response profile to reduce unwanted terms in two-qubit gates.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank Easwar Magesan and Hanhee Paik for useful discussions and Salvatore Olivadese for support with microwave simulations. DD acknowledges support from Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) under contract W911NF-16-0114.
Appendix
========
\[sub:Derivation-of-the-Hamiltonian\]Derivation of the Hamiltonian for the Canonical Multiport Cauer Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any multiport lossless impedance response can be synthesized with the canonical Cauer circuit shown in Fig. . The Cauer circuit consists of $N$ “qubit ports” on the left shunted by the Josephson junctions in our case and $M$ internal modes synthesized as parallel $LC$ tank circuits on the right. Couplings between the ports and the internal modes are mediated by the multiport Belevitch transformers (see [@Newcomb] for details). A purely capacitive stage (upper right) provides total shunt capacitances of the junctions. In the most general form shown in Fig. there is a purely inductive stage shown in the lower right corner. This stage is responsible of the purely inductive energy storage in the system. However in most of the physical situations arising with distributed electromagnetic structures this stage will be absent since any distributed inductor will always have a finite parasitic capacitance. For cases where such a stage is really necessary the degrees of freedoms associated with it can be eliminated with a Born-Oppenheimer analysis [@Brito].
The synthesis of the canonical Cauer circuit in Fig. proceeds as follows: first we do the eigendecomposition of the residue at DC $\mathbf{A}_{0}$ in Eq. $$\mathbf{A}_{0}=\mathbf{U}\mathbf{C}_{0}^{-1}\mathbf{U}^{T}\label{eq:A0-C0}$$ where $\mathbf{U}$ is the $N\times N$ orthonormal matrix holding the eigenvectors of $\mathbf{A}_{0}$ and $\mathbf{C}_{0}$ is the diagonal matrix with entries $\left(C_{1},\ldots,C_{N}\right)$, inverses of eigenvalues of $\mathbf{A}_{0}$. Entries of $\mathbf{U}$ are the turns ratios of the multiport Belevitch transformer corresponding to the purely capacitive stage in Fig. . In the case of no direct electrostatic interaction between the qubit port terminals $\mathbf{U}$ will be simply the identity matrix.
For the internal modes of frequency $\omega_{R_{k}}=1/\sqrt{L_{R_{k}}C_{R_{k}}}$ we choose a characteristic impedance of $Z_{0}=1/\omega_{R_{k}}$ that will make all $C_{R_{k}}=1$ for $1\leq k\leq M$. There is a freedom in the choice of this characteristic impedance; this choice should have no effect on the physical coupling rates. With this choice we have $L_{R_{k}}=1/\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}$. Then with $\mathbf{A}_{k}$’s being rank-1 matrices [@DDV] and with our choice of $C_{R_{k}}=1$
$$\mathbf{A}_{k}=r_{k}^{T}r_{k}$$
where $r_{k}$ is the row-vector $r_{k}=(r_{k1},\ldots,r_{kN})$ for $1\leq k\leq M$. $r_{k}$’s constitute rows of turn ratios of the multiport Belevitch transformer matrix $\mathbf{R}$ connecting the internal modes to the ports.
The final purely inductive stage can be synthesized in a similar way to the purely capacitive DC stage with a eigendecomposition of the $\mathbf{A}_{\infty}$ matrix
$$\mathbf{A}_{\infty}=\mathbf{T}^{T}\mathbf{L}_{\infty}\mathbf{T}$$
with $\mathbf{T}$ being the orthonormal matrix holding the eigenvectors and the diagonal matrix $\mathbf{L}_{\infty}$ holding the inductances $(L_{1}^{\infty},\ldots,L_{N}^{\infty})$.
Using the lumped element circuit quantization method in [@Burkard] together with a technique to handle multiport Belevitch transformers [@Solgun] we can identify the degrees of freedom in the Cauer circuit in Fig. and write an equation of motion. The effective fundamental loop matrix defined in Eq. (21) of [@Burkard] is
$$\mathbf{F}_{C}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{U}\\
-\mathbf{R}\mathbf{U}
\end{array}\right)$$
The Hamiltonian is
$$\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{Q}^{T}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\mathbf{Q}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\Phi}^{T}\mathbf{M}_{0}\mathbf{\Phi}-\stackrel[i=1]{N}{\sum}E_{J_{i}}\cos\left(\varphi_{J_{i}}\right)\label{eq:Cauer-Hamiltonian}$$
where $\mathbf{\Phi}=(\Phi_{J_{1}},\ldots,\Phi_{J_{N}},\Phi_{R_{1}},\ldots,\Phi_{R_{M}})^{T}$ being the flux coordinate vector. $\varphi_{J_{i}}$ is the phase of the junction $i$ related to the flux across it by the Josephson relation $\Phi_{J_{i}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi}_{0}}{2\pi}\varphi_{J_{i}}$, for $1\leq i\leq N$. $\Phi_{R_{k}}$ is the flux across the inductor of the internal mode $k,$ $1\leq k\leq M$. $E_{J_{i}}$ is the Josephson energy of junction $i$ related to its inductance $L_{J_{i}}$ by $E_{J_{i}}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi}_{0}}{2\pi}\right)^{2}\frac{1}{L_{J_{i}}}$. The capacitance matrix $\mathbf{C}$ is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{C} & =\mathbf{F}_{C}\mathbf{C}_{0}\mathbf{F}_{C}^{T}+\mathbf{C}_{R}\nonumber \\
& =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{U}\mathbf{C}_{0}\mathbf{U}^{T} & -\mathbf{U}\mathbf{C}_{0}\mathbf{U}^{T}\mathbf{R}^{T}\\
-\mathbf{R}\mathbf{U}\mathbf{C}_{0}\mathbf{U}^{T} & \mathbf{C}_{R}+\mathbf{R}\mathbf{U}\mathbf{C}_{0}\mathbf{U}^{T}\mathbf{R}^{T}
\end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$
The capacitance matrix becomes
$$\mathbf{C}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{C}_{0} & -\mathbf{C}_{0}\mathbf{R}^{T}\\
-\mathbf{R}\mathbf{C}_{0} & \mathbf{1}_{M\times M}+\mathbf{R}\mathbf{C}_{0}\mathbf{R}^{T}
\end{array}\right)$$
in the absence of direct electrostatic dipole interactions between the ports since $\mathbf{U}$ is the identity matrix in that case and with our choice of $\mathbf{C}_{R}=\mathbf{1}_{M\times M}$ for the capacitances of the internal modes.
$\mathbf{M}_{0}$ is the diagonal matrix holding the inverses of the inductances of the internal modes on its diagonal
$$\mathbf{M}_{0}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\mathbf{0}_{N\times N} & & & \mathbf{0}\\
& 1/L_{R_{1}}\\
& & \ddots\\
\mathbf{0} & & & 1/L_{R_{M}}
\end{array}\right)$$
\[sub:Derivation-of-the-classical-drive-cross-talk-appendix\]
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this appendix we augment the canonical Cauer circuit in Fig. by including the drive lines as shown in Fig. . We added $N_{D}$ drive lines hence $N_{D}$ more ports. Drive line for the qubit $i$ consists of the voltage source $V_{d(i)}$ driving the transmission line of characteristic impedance $Z_{0}$ whose other end is connected to the drive port $d(i)$ (Here we are assuming that $d(i)$ is the index number of the drive port corresponding to the qubit $i$). Synthesis of such a circuit from an impedance matrix $\mathbf{Z}(\omega)$ proceeds as described in the previous section, this time with $N+N_{D}$ ports.
Again using the method in [@Burkard] we obtain the following Hamiltonian for the augmented Cauer circuit in Fig.
$$\mathcal{H}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{Q}-\mathbf{C}_{Q}\ast\mathbf{V}_{V})^{T}\mathbf{C}^{-1}(\mathbf{Q}-\mathbf{C}_{Q}\ast\mathbf{V}_{V})+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\Phi}^{T}\mathbf{M}_{0}\mathbf{\Phi}-\stackrel[i=1]{N}{\sum}E_{J_{i}}\cos\left(\varphi_{J_{i}}\right)\label{eq:Augmented-Cauer-Hamiltonian}$$
$\mathbf{\Phi}=\left(\Phi_{J_{1}},\ldots,\Phi_{J_{N}},\Phi_{R_{1}},\ldots,\Phi_{R_{M}}\right)^{T}$ is the flux coordinate vector. The capacitance matrix $\mathbf{C}$ is given by $$\mathbf{C}=\mathbf{F}_{C}\mathbf{C}_{S}\mathbf{F}_{C}^{T}+\mathbf{C}_{R}$$ where $\mathbf{C}_{S}$ is the diagonal matrix holding the total shunt capacitances seen at the ports
$$\mathbf{C}_{S}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{C}_{0} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{C}_{D}
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:Cs-matrix}$$
where $\mathbf{C}_{0}$ and $\mathbf{C}_{D}$ are $N\times N$ and $N_{D}\times N_{D}$ diagonal matrices holding total capacitances shunting the qubit and drive ports, respectively such that
$$\mathbf{C}_{0}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
C_{1} & & \mathbf{0}\\
& \ddots\\
\mathbf{0} & & C_{N}
\end{array}\right)$$
$$\mathbf{C}_{D}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
C_{N+1} & & \mathbf{0}\\
& \ddots\\
\mathbf{0} & & C_{N+N_{D}}
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:Cd-def}$$
where capacitances $(C_{1},\ldots,C_{N},C_{N+1},\ldots,C_{N+N_{D}})$ are shown in Fig.\[fig:Cauer-circuit-with-drives\] in the purely capacitive stage coupled to the rest of the circuit with the multiport Belevitch transformer $\mathbf{U}$. $\mathbf{C}_{R}$ is again the identity matrix in the resonator subspace and neglecting any electrostatic dipole interaction between the ports (i.e. $\mathbf{U}=\mathbf{1}$) the fundamental loop matrix $\mathbf{F}_{C}$ is given by
$$\mathbf{F}_{C}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{1}_{N\times N} & \mathbf{0}_{N\times N_{D}}\\
-\mathbf{R} & -\mathbf{V}
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:FC-drives}$$
where $\mathbf{F}_{C}$, $\mathbf{R}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ are $(N+M)\times(N+N_{D})$ , $(M\times N)$ and $(M\times N_{D})$ matrices, respectively. Matrices $\mathbf{R}$ and $\mathbf{V}$ are multiport Belevitch transformer matrices (with turn ratio entries $r_{ki}$ and $v_{kd}$ as shown in Fig. for $1\leq k\leq M$, $1\leq i\leq N$ and $1\leq d\leq N_{D}$) mediating the couplings of the internal modes to the qubits and the voltage sources, respectively. The diagonal matrix $\mathbf{M}_{0}$ again holds the inverses of the inductances of the internal modes on its diagonal
$$\mathbf{M}_{0}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\mathbf{0}_{N\times N} & & & \mathbf{0}\\
& 1/L_{R_{1}}\\
& & \ddots\\
\mathbf{0} & & & 1/L_{R_{M}}
\end{array}\right)$$
$$\mathrm{\mathbf{C}}_{V}=\mathbf{F}_{C}\mathbf{C}_{S}\mathbf{F}_{VC}^{T}\label{eq:CV-DC-part}$$
where the loop matrix $\mathbf{F}_{VC}$ is given by
$$\mathbf{F}_{VC}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{0}_{N\times N} & \mathbf{1}_{N\times N_{D}}\end{array}\right)\label{eq:FVC-FZC-kappa-no-direct-dipole-assumption}$$
$\mathcal{C}_{V}(\omega)$ is given in Eq. (7.25) of [@Solgun] which is an extension of to AC voltage sources
$$\mathcal{C}_{V}(\omega)=\bar{\mathbf{m}}\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{Z}\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{V}^{T}\label{eq:CV}$$
where from Eqs. (7.19-7.21) in [@Solgun]
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mathbf{m}} & = & \mathbf{F}_{C}\mathbf{C}_{S}\mathbf{F}_{ZC}^{T}\label{eq:mbar}\\
\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{V} & = & \mathbf{F}_{VC}\mathbf{C}_{S}\mathbf{F}_{ZC}^{T}\\
\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{Z}(\omega) & = & -i\omega\mathbf{Z}_{0}\left[\mathbf{1}+i\omega\mathbf{F}_{ZC}\mathbf{C}_{S}\mathbf{F}_{ZC}^{T}\mathbf{Z}_{0}\right]^{-1}\label{eq:CZ-bar}\end{aligned}$$
Here $\mathbf{F}_{ZC}=\mathbf{F}_{VC}$ given in Eq. and $\mathbf{Z}_{0}$ is the $N_{D}\times N_{D}$ matrix giving the multiport impedance seen at the drive ports looking into the environment away from the chip and is simply the diagonal matrix consisting of diagonal entries $Z_{0}$’s.
$$\mathbf{F}_{ZC}\mathbf{C}_{S}\mathbf{F}_{ZC}^{T}=\mathbf{C}_{D}\label{eq:Ck-def}$$
we write
$$\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{Z}(\omega)=-i\omega\mathbf{Z}_{0}\left[\mathbf{1}+i\omega\mathbf{C}_{D}\mathbf{Z}_{0}\right]^{-1}$$
We now work out $\bar{\mathbf{m}}$ using Eqs. , , , and noting $\mathbf{F}_{ZC}=\mathbf{F}_{VC}$
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mathbf{m}} & = & \mathbf{F}_{C}\mathbf{C}_{S}\mathbf{F}_{ZC}^{T}\nonumber \\
& = & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{1} & \mathbf{0}\\
-\mathbf{R} & -\mathbf{V}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{C}_{0} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{C}_{D}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{1}\end{array}\right)^{T}\nonumber \\
& = & \left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{0}\\
-\mathbf{V}\mathbf{C}_{D}
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:mbar-worked-out}\end{aligned}$$
Applying the capacitance rescaling $\mathbf{\Phi}_{J}\rightarrow\mathbf{C}_{0}^{1/2}\mathbf{\Phi}_{J}$ and the transformation in Eq. to $\bar{\mathbf{m}}$ in Eq.
$$\bar{\mathbf{m}}\rightarrow\mathbf{T}^{t}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{C}_{0}^{-1/2} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{1}
\end{array}\right)\bar{\mathbf{m}}$$
we get
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mathbf{m}} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{1} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{R}\mathbf{C}_{0}^{1/2} & \mathbf{1}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{C}_{0}^{-1/2} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{1}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{0}\\
-\mathbf{V}
\end{array}\right)\mathbf{C}_{D}\nonumber \\
& = & \left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{0}\\
-\mathbf{V}\mathbf{C}_{D}
\end{array}\right)\label{eq:mbar-before-Schr-Wollf}\end{aligned}$$
We note that $\bar{\mathbf{m}}$ is unaffected by this transformation.
$$\mathrm{\mathbf{C}}_{V}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{0}\\
-\mathbf{V\mathbf{C}}_{D}
\end{array}\right)$$
Noting
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{V} & = & \mathbf{F}_{VC}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{F}_{ZC}^{T}\nonumber \\
& = & \mathbf{F}_{ZC}\mathbf{C}\mathbf{F}_{ZC}^{T}\nonumber \\
& = & \mathbf{C}_{D}\end{aligned}$$
we can write Eq. as
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}_{V}(\omega) & = & \bar{\mathbf{m}}\bar{\mathbf{C}}_{Z}\bar{\mathbf{m}}_{V}^{T}\nonumber \\
& = & \left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{V}
\end{array}\right)\widetilde{\mathbf{C}}_{Z}(\omega)\end{aligned}$$
where we defined the $N_{D}\times N_{D}$ matrix
$$\widetilde{\mathbf{C}}_{Z}\left(\omega\right)=i\omega\mathbf{C}_{D}\mathbf{Z}_{0}\left[\mathbf{1}+i\omega\mathbf{C}_{D}\mathbf{Z}_{0}\right]^{-1}\mathbf{C}_{D}$$
We have one final step to do, that is to apply the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation $\mathcal{C}_{V}(\omega)$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{\mathbf{C}}_{V} & \rightarrow & \exp(-\mathbf{S})\mathrm{\mathbf{C}}_{V}\\
\mathcal{C}_{V}(\omega) & \rightarrow & \exp(-\mathbf{S})\mathcal{C}_{V}(\omega)\end{aligned}$$
Using Eqs. (B.4) and (B.12a) of [@Winkler] and noting block structures of matrices $\mathbf{S}$, $\mathrm{C}_{V}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{V}(\omega)$ we first define the following $(N+M)\times N_{D}$ matrix $\mathbf{D}$ having the $\left(i,d\right)$-th entry $D_{id}$ in the qubit subspace:
$$\begin{aligned}
D_{id} & = & \left[\exp(-\mathbf{S})\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{0}\\
-\mathbf{V}
\end{array}\right)\right]_{id}\nonumber \\
& = & -\underset{k}{\sum}\left(\mathbf{M}_{1}\right)_{ik}\frac{v_{kd}}{\omega_{i}^{2}-\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}}\nonumber \\
& =- & \omega_{i}^{2}C_{i}^{1/2}\underset{k}{\sum}\frac{r_{ki}v_{kd}}{\omega_{i}^{2}-\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}}\nonumber \\
& = & -\omega_{i}^{2}C_{i}^{1/2}\underset{k}{\sum}\frac{[\mathbf{A}_{k}]_{i,p(d)}}{\omega_{i}^{2}-\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}}\nonumber \\
& = & \omega_{i}C_{i}^{1/2}\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}(\omega_{i})\right]\nonumber \\
& = & \mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}\left(\omega_{i}\right)\right]/\sqrt{L_{i}}\label{eq:D_ij-equation}\end{aligned}$$
where $v_{kd}$ is the $\left(k,d\right)$-th entry of $\mathbf{V}$ for $1\leq k\leq M$ and $1\leq d\leq N_{D}$. In the third line above we used Eq. to replace $\left(\mathbf{M}_{1}\right)_{ik}$ with $\omega_{i}^{2}C_{i}^{1/2}r_{ki}$ and in the fourth line $[\mathbf{A}_{k}]_{i,p(d)}=r_{ki}v_{kd}$ where $[\mathbf{A}_{k}]_{i,p(d)}$ is the entry of the residue matrix $\mathbf{A}_{k}$ in the impedance expansion in Eq. for the circuit in Fig. connecting the qubit port $i$ to drive port (with port index $p(d)$) corresponding to the voltage source $V_{d}$. Hence $\mathbf{C}_{Q}$ transforms to
$$\mathbf{C}_{Q}\rightarrow\mathbf{C}_{q}=\mathbf{D}\left(\mathbf{C}_{D}-\widetilde{\mathbf{C}}_{Z}(\omega)\right)\label{eq:Cq}$$
Then one can write the following Hamiltonian in the final frame corresponding to $\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{1}$ in Eq.
$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left(\boldsymbol{q}-\mathbf{C}_{q}*\mathbf{V}_{V}\right)^{T}\left(\boldsymbol{q}-\mathbf{C}_{q}*\mathbf{V}_{V}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\phi}^{T}\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{1}\boldsymbol{\phi}+\mathcal{O}(\boldsymbol{\varphi}_{J}^{4})\label{eq:Hamiltonian-drive-final-frame}$$
with the $(N+M)\times N_{D}$ matrix $\mathbf{C}_{q}$ giving the couplings of the voltage drives $\mathbf{V}_{V}$ to the momentum degrees of freedom $\boldsymbol{q}$ in the final frame. After quantization by introducing $\hat{q}_{i}=-i\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2Z_{i}}}(\hat{b}_{i}-\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger})$ and noting that the characteristic impedance $Z_{i}$ of the qubit mode $i$ is $Z_{i}=1/\omega_{i}$ we get the drive term on qubit $i$ due to voltage source $V_{d}$
$$H_{id}^{D}=i\sqrt{\frac{\hbar\omega_{i}}{2}}\left[\mathbf{C}_{q}(\omega_{d})\right]_{i,d}V_{d}(\hat{b}_{i}-\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger})$$
where $\left[\mathbf{C}_{q}(\omega_{d})\right]_{i,d}$ is $(i,d)$-th entry of $\mathbf{C}_{q}$ evaluated at the frequency $\omega_{d}$ (We assumed that $V_{d}$ is a single-tone sinusoidal voltage drive at frequency $\omega_{d}$). In the case of zero off-chip crosstalk $\widetilde{\mathbf{C}}_{Z}$ is diagonal and using Eqs. and we have
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{id}^{D} & = & i\sqrt{\frac{\hbar\omega_{i}}{2L_{i}}}\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}(\omega_{i})\right]\frac{C_{p(d)}V_{d}(\hat{b}_{i}-\hat{b}_{i}^{\dagger})}{1+i\omega_{d}Z_{0}C_{p(d)}}\end{aligned}$$
where $C_{p(d)}$ is the $d$-th diagonal entry of $\mathbf{C}_{D}$. We note here that $\varepsilon_{id}$ in Eq. is
$$\varepsilon_{id}=i\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{i}}{2\hbar L_{i}}}\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}(\omega_{i})\right]\left(\frac{C_{p(d)}}{1+i\omega_{d}Z_{0}C_{p(d)}}\right)$$
which can be also written as
$$\varepsilon_{id}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{i}}{2\hbar L_{i}}}\mathrm{Im}\left[Z_{i,p(d)}(\omega_{i})\right]\frac{e^{i\theta_{d}}C_{p(d)}}{\sqrt{1+\omega_{d}^{2}Z_{0}^{2}C_{p(d)}^{2}}}$$
with $\theta_{d}=\frac{\pi}{2}-\arctan(\omega_{d}Z_{0}C_{p(d)})$.
One can then define the following quantity (in units of $dB$) as a measure of classical on-chip cross-talk on qubit $i$ while driving qubit $j$
$$\begin{aligned}
X_{ij} & = & 20\mathrm{log}_{10}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\omega_{i}L_{J_{j}}}{\omega_{j}L_{J_{i}}}}\right)+20\mathrm{log}_{10}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Im}[Z_{i,d(j)}(\omega_{i})]}{\mathrm{Im}[Z_{j,d(j)}(\omega_{j})]}\right)\nonumber \\
& \simeq & 20\mathrm{log}_{10}\left(\frac{\mathrm{Im}[Z_{i,d(j)}(\omega_{i})]}{\mathrm{Im}[Z_{j,d(j)}(\omega_{j})]}\right)\end{aligned}$$
In the definition of the above crosstalk measure we neglected and junction inductances assuming similar values.
\[sub:Definition-of-the-ports-in-HFSS\]Defining the Qubit Ports and the Drive Ports in the 3D Finite-Element Electromagnetic Simulators
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the main text we described in words how to define the qubit ports and the drive ports. In this appendix we illustrate the definition of the ports with the help of the 3D model of a 7-Qubit device in HFSS [@HFSS] as shown in Fig. (HFSS is a high-frequency finite-element electromagnetics simulator). The device consists of a quantum chip (shown in light blue in the middle) packaged together with a PCB (Printed Circuit Board) supporting transmission lines carrying the drive and readout signals to/from the chip. The metallization of the PCB is shown in orange and the dielectric of the PCB is shown in burgundy color in Fig. . For the definition of the drive ports we choose a bounding box enclosing the quantum chip and some part of the PCB. The boundaries of the box should be chosen far enough from the chip. As we stated in the main text the exact position of this boundary can be determined with a TDR (Time-Domain Reflectometry) experiment/simulation. Ideally we would like to put the boundary at the location where signals traveling in the transmission lines of the PCB start to see a change in the constant impedance of the transmission lines. This happens where the signals enter the discontinuity region between the PCB and the chip. The drive ports are usually defined as wave ports in HFSS to which it is assumed that a constant impedance transmission line is connected. An example of a drive port is shown in the sub-figure (d) in Fig. as the magenta rectangle on one of the side surfaces of the bounding box shown in sub-figure (b) in Fig. .
Qubit Ports are defined as lumped ports in HFSS. This is shown in sub-figures (e) and (f) in Fig. . The qubit port is the small magenta square shown in sub-figure (f) in Fig. . HFSS puts a differential excitation between the edges of this square touching the junction terminals.
Expansion of the junction potentials\[sub:Expansion-of-the-junction-potentials\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qubit anharmonicities and dispersive shifts between the modes are obtained after including the nonlinear terms in the junction potentials. For this we use the normal ordered expansion as given in Eq. (16) of [@BBQ-Yale]: $$H=H_{0}+H_{\gamma}+H_{\beta}+\mathcal{O}(\hat{\varphi}_{J}^{6})\label{eq:Yale-normal-ordered-expansion}$$ with
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{\gamma} & = & -\underset{pp'}{\sum}\gamma_{pp'}(2\hat{a}_{p}^{\dagger}a_{p'}+\hat{a}_{p}\hat{a}_{p'}+\hat{a}_{p}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{p'}^{\dagger})\label{eq:H-omega}\\
H_{\beta} & = & \underset{pp'qq'}{-\sum}\beta_{pp'qq'}(6\hat{a}_{p}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{p'}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{q}\hat{a}_{q'}+4\hat{a}_{p}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{p'}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{q}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{q'}+4\hat{a}_{p}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{p'}\hat{a}_{q}\hat{a}_{q'}+\hat{a}_{p}\hat{a}_{p'}\hat{a}_{q}\hat{a}_{q'}+\hat{a}_{p}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{p'}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{q}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{q'}^{\dagger})\label{eq:H-beta}\end{aligned}$$
where $H_{0}$ is the linearized part of the Hamiltonian obtained after replacing the junctions with linear inductors, $p$, $p'$, $q$, $q'$ are the labels of the harmonic modes in the basis defined by $H_{0}$ and $\hat{a}_{p}(\hat{a}_{p}^{\dagger})$ is the annihilation(creation) operator of the mode $p$. This expansion was originally done in [@BBQ-Yale] in a diagonal frame whereas here we will expand in the block-diagonalized frame corresponding to the matrix $\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{1}$ in Eq. . That is the linearized Hamiltonian $H_{0}$ in our case is the linear part of the Hamiltonian given in Eq.
$$H_{0}=\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{q}^{T}\boldsymbol{q}+\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\phi}^{T}\widetilde{\mathbf{M}}_{1}\boldsymbol{\phi}$$
In that frame the capacitance matrix is unity and the coordinate vector holds the flux variables $\boldsymbol{\phi}=(\phi_{1}\ldots\phi_{N+M})$. The first $N$ coordinates correspond to qubit modes and the last $M$ coordinates correspond to the resonator modes(or internal modes). $\boldsymbol{q}$ is the vector of momenta conjugate to coordinates $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ . The flux operators $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ of the modes in the final frame can be related to the fluxes $\mathbf{\Phi}$ in the initial frame by the total coordinate transformation
$$\mathbf{\Phi}=\left(\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{\Phi}_{J}\\
\mathbf{\Phi}_{R}
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{C}_{0}^{-1/2} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{1}
\end{array}\right)\boldsymbol{\alpha}\boldsymbol{\phi}$$
where $\boldsymbol{\alpha}=\mathbf{T}\exp(\mathbf{S})$; matrices $\mathbf{C}_{0}$, $\mathbf{T}$, $\mathbf{S}$ are defined in the text in Eqs. , and , respectively. In particular
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\Phi}_{J} & = & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{C}_{0}^{-1/2} & \mathbf{0}_{N\times M}\end{array}\right)\boldsymbol{\alpha}\boldsymbol{\phi}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{\Phi}_{J}=(\Phi_{J_{1}}\ldots\Phi_{J_{N}})^{T}$ is the vector of fluxes across the Josephson junctions. Hence
$$\Phi_{J_{i}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{C_{i}}}\left[\stackrel[j=1]{N}{\sum}\alpha_{ij}\phi_{j}+\stackrel[k=1]{M}{\sum}\alpha_{i,k+N}\phi_{k}\right]$$
where indices $i$, $j$ label qubit modes and $k$ labels resonator modes with $1\leq i,j\leq N$ and $1\leq k\leq M$. The $(N+M)\times(N+M)$ matrix $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ has the entries
$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{ii} & = & 1-\mathrm{Im}[Z_{ii}^{(AC)}(\omega_{i})]/Z_{i}\label{eq:alpha-ii-exp}\\
\alpha_{ij} & = & -\mathrm{Im}[Z_{ij}(\omega_{i})]/Z_{i}\\
\alpha_{i,k+N} & = & r_{ki}C_{i}^{1/2}\left(\frac{\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}}{\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}-\omega_{i}^{2}}\right)\label{eq:alpha-ik-exp}\end{aligned}$$
In the dispersive regime we have $\left|\mathrm{Im}[Z_{ii}^{(AC)}(\omega_{i})]/Z_{i}\right|\ll1$ hence $\alpha_{ii}\simeq1$, $\left|\alpha_{ij}\right|=\left|\mathrm{Im}[Z_{ij}(\omega_{i})]/Z_{i}\right|\ll1$ for $1\leq i,j\leq N$ and $\left|\alpha_{i,k+N}\right|=\left|r_{ki}C_{i}^{1/2}\left(\frac{\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}}{\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}-\omega_{i}^{2}}\right)\right|\ll1$ for $1\leq k\leq M$ hence we can treat $\alpha_{ij}$ and $\alpha_{i,k+N}$’s as small parameters. $\mathrm{Im}[Z_{ii}^{(AC)}(\omega_{i})]=\stackrel[k=1]{M}{\sum}\frac{\left[A_{k}\right]_{ii}\omega_{i}}{\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}-\omega_{i}^{2}}$ is the AC part of $\mathrm{Im}[Z_{ii}(\omega_{i})]$.
Similarly resonator fluxes $\mathbf{\Phi}_{R}=(\Phi_{R_{1}},\ldots,\Phi_{R_{M}})$ in the initial frame can also be related to the flux coordinates $\boldsymbol{\phi}$ in the final frame
$$\Phi_{R_{k}}=\stackrel[i=1]{N}{\sum}\alpha_{k+N,i}\phi_{i}+\phi_{k}\label{eq:resonator-fluxes}$$
where
$$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{k+N,i} & = & r_{ki}C_{i}^{1/2}\left(\frac{\omega_{i}^{2}}{\omega_{i}^{2}-\omega_{R_{k}}^{2}}\right)\end{aligned}$$
and $\alpha_{k+N,k+N}=1$ for $1\leq k\leq M$ by Eq. .
The expression for the coefficients $\beta_{pp'qq'}$ is given in [@BBQ-Yale] as
$$\beta_{pp'qq'}=\stackrel[s=1]{N}{\sum}\frac{e^{2}}{24L_{J}^{(s)}}\xi_{sp}\xi_{sp'}\xi_{sq}\xi_{sq'}$$
where $L_{J}^{(s)}$ is the inductance of the $s^{th}$ junction. In our case $\xi_{sp}=\alpha_{sp}/\sqrt{\omega_{p}}$ after the introduction of mode operators as $\hat{\phi}_{p}=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar Z_{p}}{2}}(\hat{a}_{p}+\hat{a}_{p}^{\dagger})$ in the final frame with characteristic impedance $Z_{p}=1/\omega_{p}$ one gets
$$\beta_{pp'qq'}=\stackrel[s=1]{N}{\sum}\frac{E_{C}^{(s)}}{12}\omega_{J_{s}}^{2}\left(\omega_{p}\omega_{p'}\omega_{q}\omega_{q'}\right)^{-1/2}\alpha_{sp}\alpha{}_{sp'}\alpha{}_{sq}\alpha_{sq'}\label{eq:beta-expression}$$
where $E_{C}^{(s)}=\frac{e^{2}}{2C_{s}}$ and $\omega_{J_{s}}=1/\sqrt{L_{J_{s}}C_{s}}$.
$\gamma_{pp'}$ is given in [@BBQ-Yale] as
$$\gamma_{pp'}=6\stackrel[q=1]{N+M}{\sum}\beta_{qqpp'}$$
We observe that $\gamma_{pp}$ is of order $E_{C}^{(s)}$. Since $E_{C}^{(s)}$ is already small compared to qubit frequencies we will be only interested in the first order expansion of $\gamma_{pp'}$ in the small parameters $\alpha_{ij}$’s and $\alpha_{i,k+N}$’s. Then we can write the diagonal entries as
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{ii} & \simeq & 6\beta_{iiii}\nonumber \\
& \simeq & \frac{E_{C}^{(i)}\omega_{J_{i}}^{2}}{2\omega_{i}^{2}}\alpha_{ii}^{2}\end{aligned}$$
The off-diagonal entry $\gamma_{ij}$ between qubit modes $i$ and $j$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{ij} & \simeq & 6(\beta_{iiij}+\beta_{jjij})\nonumber \\
& \simeq & \frac{E_{C}^{(i)}\omega_{J_{i}}^{2}}{2\omega_{i}}\frac{\alpha_{ii}\alpha_{ij}}{\sqrt{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}}+\frac{E_{C}^{(j)}\omega_{J_{j}}^{2}}{2\omega_{j}}\frac{\alpha_{jj}\alpha_{ji}}{\sqrt{\omega_{i}\omega_{j}}}\end{aligned}$$
The off-diagonal entry $\gamma_{ik}$ between the qubit mode $i$ and the resonator mode $k$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{ik} & \simeq & 6\beta_{iiik}\nonumber \\
& \simeq & \frac{E_{C}^{(i)}\omega_{J_{i}}^{2}}{2\omega_{i}}\frac{\alpha_{ii}\alpha_{i,k+N}}{\sqrt{\omega_{i}\omega_{R_{k}}}}\end{aligned}$$
And the diagonal resonator entries $\gamma_{kk}\simeq0$ to first order in $\alpha_{ij}$ and $\alpha_{i,k+N}$’s. Hence we can write
$$\boldsymbol{\gamma}=\sqrt{\mathbf{z}}\boldsymbol{\alpha}^{T}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\sqrt{\mathbf{z}}\label{eq:gamma-matrix}$$
where $\boldsymbol{\Lambda}$ is the $(N+M)\times(N+M)$ diagonal matrix with entries $\frac{E_{C}^{(i)}\omega_{J_{i}}^{2}}{2\omega_{i}}$’s for $1\leq i\leq N$ and zero otherwise, that is
$$\boldsymbol{\Lambda}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{E_{C}^{(1)}\omega_{J_{1}}^{2}}{2\omega_{1}} & & & \mathbf{0}\\
& \ddots\\
& & \frac{E_{C}^{(N)}\omega_{J_{N}}^{2}}{2\omega_{N}}\\
\mathbf{0} & & & \mathbf{0}_{M\times M}
\end{array}\right)$$
and $\sqrt{\mathbf{z}}$ is the diagonal matrix holding the square roots of the characteristic impedances $Z_{i}=1/\omega_{i}$ of the modes in the final frame
$$\sqrt{\mathbf{z}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1/\sqrt{\omega_{1}}\\
& \ddots\\
& & 1/\sqrt{\omega_{N+M}}
\end{array}\right)$$
$H_{\gamma}$ in Eq. can then be written as
$$H_{\gamma}=-\underset{pp'}{\sum}\gamma_{pp'}(2\hat{a}_{p}^{\dagger}a_{p'}+\hat{a}_{p}\hat{a}_{p'}+\hat{a}_{p}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{p'}^{\dagger})=-\frac{1}{2}\hat{\boldsymbol{\phi}}^{T}\boldsymbol{\gamma}'\hat{\boldsymbol{\phi}}$$
where
$$\boldsymbol{\gamma}'=\left(\frac{4}{\hbar}\right)\sqrt{\mathbf{z}}^{-1}\boldsymbol{\gamma}\sqrt{\mathbf{z}}^{-1}$$
Using Eq.
$$\boldsymbol{\gamma}'=\left(\frac{4}{\hbar}\right)\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}^{T}\boldsymbol{\Lambda}\boldsymbol{\mathbf{\alpha}}$$
Then one can show that $H_{\gamma}$ when transformed back to the original frame becomes
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{\gamma} & = & -\frac{1}{2}\boldsymbol{\phi}^{T}\boldsymbol{\gamma}'\boldsymbol{\phi}\nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{2}{\hbar}\boldsymbol{\phi}^{T}\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}^{T}\boldsymbol{\varLambda}\mathbf{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\boldsymbol{\phi}\nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{2}{\hbar}\mathbf{\mathbf{\Phi}}^{T}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{C}_{0}^{1/2} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{1}
\end{array}\right)\boldsymbol{\varLambda}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{C}_{0}^{1/2} & \mathbf{0}\\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{1}
\end{array}\right)\mathbf{\mathbf{\Phi}}\nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{\Phi}_{J}^{T}\mathbf{L}_{0}^{-1}\mathbf{\Phi}_{J}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathbf{L}_{0}$ is a diagonal inductance matrix
$$\mathbf{L}_{0}=\mathbf{L}_{J}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\frac{\hbar\omega_{1}}{2E_{C}^{(1)}} & & \boldsymbol{0}\\
& \ddots\\
\boldsymbol{0} & & \frac{\hbar\omega_{N}}{2E_{C}^{(N)}}
\end{array}\right)$$
Now if we write the initial Hamiltonian $H_{0}$ by adding and subtracting the term $H_{\gamma}$ as
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{0} & = & H_{0}+H_{\gamma}-H_{\gamma}\nonumber \\
& = & H'_{0}-H_{\gamma}\end{aligned}$$
where $H'_{0}=H_{0}+H_{\gamma}$. So instead of starting our treatment with $H_{0}$ if we start with an initial linear Hamiltonian $H'_{0}$ we would cancel out the term $H_{\gamma}$ that is generated by the non-linearities. This requires an update of the junction inductances in the initial frame as follows
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{L}_{J}^{-1} & \rightarrow & \mathbf{L}_{J}^{-1}-\mathbf{L}_{0}^{-1}\end{aligned}$$
That is
$$L_{J_{i}}^{-1}\rightarrow L_{J_{i}}^{-1}\left(1-\frac{2E_{C}^{(i)}}{\hbar\omega_{i}}\right)$$
Hence we can write the equation for $\omega_{i}$
$$\omega_{i}^{2}=\omega_{J_{i}}^{2}\left(1-\frac{2E_{C}^{(i)}}{\hbar\omega_{i}}\right)$$
or if we put $r=\frac{E_{C}^{(i)}}{\hbar\omega_{J_{i}}}$ and $x=\omega_{i}/\omega_{j}$
$$x^{2}=\left(1-2r/x\right)$$
In the limit of small anharmonicities $r\ll1$ the solution is $x=1-r/(1-r)$ or
$$\omega_{i}=\omega_{J_{i}}-\frac{E_{C}^{(i)}/\hbar}{1-E_{C}^{(i)}/(\hbar\omega_{J_{i}})}\label{eq:qubit-freq-solution}$$
[10]{} J. Koch, T. M. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007).
Gambetta J. M., Murray C. E., Fung Y. K. K., McClure D. T., Dial O., Shanks W., Sleight J. and Steffen M., IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 27 1700205 (2016).
R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, Y. Chen, Y. Yin, B. Chiaro, J. Mutus, C. Neill, P. OMalley, P. Roushan, J. Wenner, T. C. White, A. N. Cleland, and John M. Martinis Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 080502 (2013).
D. Ristè, C.C. Bultink, M.J. Tiggelman, R.N. Schouten, K.W. Lehnert, and L. DiCarlo, Nature Communications 4, 1913 (2013).
R. Barends, J. Kelly, A. Megrant, A. Veitia, D. Sank, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, J. Mutus, A. G. Fowler, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, C. Neill, P. O’Malley, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, A. N. Korotkov, A. N. Cleland, John M. Martinis Nature 508, 500-503 (2014).
Sarah Sheldon, Lev S. Bishop, Easwar Magesan, Stefan Filipp, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta Phys. Rev. A 93, 012301 (2016).
Sarah Sheldon, Easwar Magesan, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta Phys. Rev. A 93, 060302(R) (2016).
Maika Takita, A.D. Córcoles, Easwar Magesan, Baleegh Abdo, Markus Brink, Andrew Cross, Jerry M. Chow, and Jay M. Gambetta Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 210505 (2016).
Nicholas T. Bronn, Vivekananda P. Adiga, Salvatore B. Olivadese, Xian Wu, Jerry M. Chow, David P. Pappas, arXiv:1709.02402.
E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Proceedings of the IEEE 51, 89 (1963).
Alexandre Blais, Ren-Shou Huang, Andreas Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf Phys. Rev. A 69, 062320 (2004).
A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.- S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature (London) 431, 162 (2004).
A. A. Houck, J. A. Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, Jens Koch, J. M. Gambetta, D. I. Schuster, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 080502, (2008).
Jerome Bourassa, Jay M. Gambetta, and Alexandre Blais, Multi-mode circuit quantum electrodynamics,, Abstract Y29.00005, APS March Meeting, Dallas, 2011.
Mario F. Gely, Adrian Parra-Rodriguez, Daniel Bothner, Ya. M. Blanter, Sal J. Bosman, Enrique Solano, Gary A. Steele, Phys. Rev. B 95, 245115 (2017).
A. Parra-Rodriguez, E. Rico, E. Solano, I. L. Egusquiza, arXiv:1711.08817.
Michel H. Devoret, in Quantum fluctuations, Les Houches, Elsevier, Amsterdam, (1997).
G. Burkard, R. H. Koch, and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. B 69, 064503 (2004).
Guido Burkard, Phys. Rev. B 71, 144511, (2005).
Foster, R. M., A reactance theorem, Bell Systems Technical Journal, vol.3, no. 2, pp. 259267, November 1924.
O. Brune, Synthesis of a finite two-terminal network whose driving-point impedance is a prescribed function of frequency, Doctoral thesis, MIT, 1931.
Robert W. Newcomb, *Linear Multiport Synthesis*, McGraw-Hill, 1966.
S. E. Nigg, H. Paik, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, S. Shankar, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, R. J. Schoelkopf, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 240502 (2012).
Firat Solgun, David W. Abraham, and David P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. B 90, 134504, (2014).
Firat Solgun and David P. DiVincenzo, Annals of Physics, Vol. 361, pp. 605-669, October 2015.
Although [@Newcomb] considers general full-rank matrices which would correspond to having multiple degenerate internal modes we argue that in real physical systems small couplings will remove any such degeneracy.
David M. Pozar, *Microwave Engineering*, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 2005.
D. P. DiVincenzo, Frederico Brito, and Roger H. Koch, Phys. Rev. B 74, 014514 (2006).
Roland Winkler, *Spin-Orbit Coupling Effects in Two-Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems*, STMP 191, 201-205, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2003.
J. Wenner, M. Neeley, Radoslaw C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, Erik Lucero, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, A. N. Cleland, John M Martinis Superconductor Science and Technology 24, 065001 (2011).
IBM Q Experience, https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/.
Ansys HFSS (High Frequency Structural Simulator), http://www.ansys.com.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Let $\Lambda X$ be the free loop space on a simply connected finite $CW$-complex $X$ and $\beta_{i}(\Lambda X;\Bbbk)$ be the cardinality of a minimal generating set of $H^{i}(\Lambda X;\Bbbk)$ for $\Bbbk$ to be a commutative ring with unit. The sequence $
\beta_{i}(\Lambda X;\Bbbk) $ grows unbounded if and only if $\tilde {H}^{\ast}(X;\Bbbk)$ requires at least two algebra generators. This in particular answers to a long standing problem whether a simply connected closed smooth manifold has infinitely many geometrically distinct closed geodesics in any Riemannian metric.
address: |
A. Razmadze Mathematical Institute\
Department of Geometry and Topology\
M. Aleksidze st., 1\
0193 Tbilisi, Georgia
author:
- Samson Saneblidze
title: On the homology theory of the closed geodesic problem
---
Introduction
============
Let $Y$ be a topological space, let $\Bbbk$ be a commutative ring with unit, and assume that the $i^{th}$-cohomology group $H^{i}(Y;\Bbbk)$ of $Y$ is finitely generated as a $\Bbbk$-module. We refer to the cardinality of a minimal generating set of $H^{i}(Y;\Bbbk),$ denoted by $\beta_{i}(Y;\Bbbk),$ as the *generalized* $i^{th}$*-Betti number* *of* $Y.$ Let $\Lambda X$ denote the free loop space, i.e., all continuous maps from the circle $S^1$ into $X.$ In [@Gromoll-Meyer] Gromoll and Meyer proved the following
[**Theorem.**]{} *Let $X$ be a simply connected closed smooth manifold of dimension greater than 1 and let $\Bbbk$ be a field of characteristic zero. If the Betti numbers $\beta_{i}(\Lambda X;\Bbbk) $ grow unbounded, then $X$ has infinitely many geometrically distinct closed geodesics in any Riemannian metric.*
In fact, the proof of the theorem easily shows that the statement remains to be true for the Betti numbers $\beta_{i}(\Lambda
X;\Bbbk) $ with respect to any field $\Bbbk,$ too. Thus, this result has motivated a question, the ’closed geodesic problem’, to find simple criteria which imply that the Betti numbers $\beta_{i}(\Lambda X;\Bbbk) $ are unbounded. Below we state such criteria in its most general form in the following
\[bettiF\] Let $X$ be a simply connected space and $\Bbbk$ a commutative ring with unit. If $H^{\ast}(X;\Bbbk)$ is finitely generated as a $\Bbbk$-module and $H^{\ast}(\Lambda X;\Bbbk)$ has finite type, then the generalized Betti numbers $\beta_{i}(\Lambda X;\Bbbk) $ grow unbounded if and only if $\tilde
{H}^{\ast}(X;\Bbbk)$ requires at least two algebra generators.
Theorem \[bettiF\] was proved by Sullivan and Vigué-Poirrier [@Sul-Vigue] over fields of characteristic zero, and then it was conjectured for $\Bbbk$ to be a field of positive characteristic. A number of papers [@ziller], [@Lsmith], [@mcClearyGot], [@mcClearyLNM], [@mcCleary-ziller], [@Roos], [@Halp-Vigue], [@Ndombol-Thomas] deals with this conjecture but it remained to be open for $X$ to be a finite $CW$-complex and $\Bbbk$ a finite field.
Here we prove Theorem \[bettiF\]. More precisely, it is a consequence of the following more general algebraic fact: Let $A=\{ A^{i} \},i\in {\mathbb Z},$ be a torsion free graded abelian group such that $A$ is an associative Hirsch algebra and the bar construction $BA$ is a Hirsch algebra [@saneFiltered]; this in particular means that $A$ is an (associative) graded differential algebra (dga) endowed with higher order operations $E=\{E_{p,q}\}$ and $E'=\{E'_{p',q'}\}$ such that $E$ induces an associative product $\mu_{E}$ on the bar construction $BA$ converting it into a dg Hopf algebra, and, similarly, $E'$ induces a product $\mu_{E'}$ (not necessarily associative) on the double bar construction $B^2A.$ (A major component of $E'$ is a binary product $E'_{1,1}$ on $A$ measuring the non-commutativity of the operation $E_{1,1};$ note that in the topological setting of $A$ such a binary product is just provided by Steenrod’s cochain $\smile_2$-product.) Below the algebra $A$ is referred to as a *special* Hirsch algebra. Let $A_{\Bbbk}=A\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\Bbbk.$
We have the following theorem whose proof appears in Section \[theorem\]:
\[varsigma\] Assume that $H^{\ast}(A_{\Bbbk})$ is finitely generated as a $\Bbbk$-module and that the Hochschild homology $HH_*(A_{\Bbbk})$ has finite type. Let $\varsigma_{i}(A_{\Bbbk})$ denote the cardinality of a minimal generating set of $HH_i(A_{\Bbbk}).$ Then the integers $
\varsigma_{i}(A_{\Bbbk})$ grow unbounded if and only if $\tilde{H}^*(A_{\Bbbk})$ requires at least two algebra generators.
Let $C^{\ast}(X;\Bbbk)=C^{\ast}(\operatorname{Sing}^{1}X;\Bbbk)/C^{>0}
(\operatorname{Sing}\,x\,;\Bbbk)$ in which ${\operatorname{Sing}}^{1}
X\subset{\operatorname{Sing}}X$ is the Eilenberg 1-subcomplex generated by the singular simplices that send the 1-skeleton of the standard $n$-simplex $\Delta^{n}$ to the base point $x$ of $X.$ Theorem \[bettiF\] is deduced from Theorem \[varsigma\] by setting $A_{\Bbbk}=C^{\ast}(X;\Bbbk)$: Indeed, $C^{\ast}(X;\Bbbk)$ is a special Hirsch algebra ([@baues], [@KScubi]) and there is the isomorphism $HH_*(C^*(X;\Bbbk))\approx H^*(\Lambda X;\Bbbk)$ ([@Jones], [@saneFREE]). When $\tilde {H}^*(A_{\Bbbk})$ requires at least two algebra generators, we construct two infinite sequences in the Hochschild homology $HH_*(A_{\Bbbk})$ and take all possible products of their components to detect a submodule of $HH_*(A_{\Bbbk})$ at least as large as the polynomial algebra $\Bbbk[x,y].$ The construction of these sequences is in fact based on the notion of a formal $\infty$-implication sequence [@saneBetti] that generalizes W. Browder’s notion of $\infty$-implications [@browder]. As in [@saneBetti], we use a filtered Hirsch model of $A_{\Bbbk}$ this time to construct a small model for the Hochschild chain complex of $A_{\Bbbk}$ and then to reduce the chain product [@saneFREE] on this model inducing the aforementioned product on $HH_*(A_{\Bbbk}).$ While the constructions of the sequences in our both papers are similar, here is an essential exception that we have to detect a desired sequence in the kernel of the canonical homomorphism $HH_*(A_{\Bbbk})\rightarrow H^*(BA_{\Bbbk})$ (corresponding to $i^*:H^*(\Lambda X;\Bbbk)\rightarrow H^*(\Omega X;\Bbbk)$ for $i:
\Omega X \hookrightarrow \Lambda X $); also some technical details are simplified.
Though the author has been considered several special cases of Theorem \[bettiF\] during the last two decades but it was just recently the integer coefficients come into play: In particular, the filtered Hirsch model over the integers controls the subtleties when dealing with the Bockstein homomorphism in question.
I am grateful to Edward Fadell for discussing about the subject and in particular for pointing out the paper [@Sul-Vigue] when the author was visiting the Heidelberg University at the beginning of 90’s.
Some preliminaries and conventions
==================================
We adopt some basic notations and terminology of [@saneFiltered]. We fix a ground commutative ring $\Bbbk$ with unit and let $\mu>0$ denote the smallest integer such that $\mu\kappa=0$ for all $\kappa\in\Bbbk.$ When such a positive integer does not exist, we assume $\mu=0.$ Let $A^*=\tilde{A}\oplus \Bbbk$ be a supplemented dga. In general $A^*$ may be graded over the integers ${\mathbb Z}.$ Assuming $A$ to be associative, the (reduced) bar construction $BA$ is the tensor coalgebra $T(\bar A),\ \bar A=
s^{-1}\tilde A,$ with differential $d_{BA}=d_{1} +d_{2} $ given for $[\bar a_{1}|\dotsb|\bar
a_{n}] \in T^{n}(\bar A)$ by $$d_{1}[\bar a_{1}|\dotsb|\bar a_{n}]=-\sum_{1\leq i\leq n} (-1)^{\epsilon^a_{i-1}}[\bar
a_{1}|\dotsb|\overline{d_{A}(a_{i})}|\dotsb|\bar a_{n}]$$ and $$d_{2} [\bar a_{1}|\dotsb|\bar a_{n}]=- \sum_{1\leq i<n} (-1)^{\epsilon^a_{i}}[\bar
a_{1}|\dotsb|\overline{a_{i}a_{i+1}}|\dotsb|\bar a_{n}],$$ where $\epsilon^x_{i}=|x_{1}|+\cdots +|{x_{i}}|+i.$ An associative dga $A$ equipped with multilinear maps $E=\{E_{p,q}\}_{p+q>0},$ $$E_{p,q}:A^{\otimes p}\otimes A^{\otimes q}\to A, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ E_{1,0}=Id=
E_{0,1},\ E_{p>1,0}= 0=E_{0,q>1},$$ of degree $1-p-q$ is a *Hirsch* algebra if $E$ lifts to a dg coalgebra map $\mu_{E}:BA\otimes BA \rightarrow BA.$ A basic ingredient of $E$ is the binary operation $\smile_1:=E_{1,1}$ measuring the non-commutativity of the $\cdot$ product on $A$ by the formula $$d(a\smile_1 b)- da\smile_1 b +(-1)^{|a|} a\smile_1 db= (-1)^{|a|}ab -(-1)^{|a|(|b|+1)}ba.$$ Given a Hirsch algebra $(A, \{E_{p,q}\})$ with $H=H(A),$ there is its filtered Hirsch model $$\label{fhmodel}
f:(RH,d_{h})\rightarrow(A,d_{A})$$ in which $\rho: (RH,d)\rightarrow H$ is a multiplicative resolution of the commutative graded algebra (cga) $H:$ As a module each row of $R^*H^*$ for $m\in {\mathbb Z}$ $$\cdots \overset{d}{\rightarrow}R^{-2}H^m\overset{d}{\rightarrow} R^{-1}H^m \overset{d}{\rightarrow} R^0H^m\overset{\rho}{\rightarrow} H^m$$ represents a free resolution of a $\Bbbk$-module $H^m.$ As an algebra $R^*H^*=T(V^{*,*})$ is a (bi)graded tensor algebra with $$V^{*,*}= \mathcal{E}^{*,*}\oplus U^{*,*}= \mathcal{E}^{*,*} \oplus \mathcal{T}^{*,*}\oplus {\mathcal M}^{*,*};$$ the module $V^{0,*} ={\mathcal M}^{0,*}$ corresponds to a choice of multiplicative generators of $H,$ while ${\mathcal M}^{-1,*}$ to relations among them which is not a consequence of that of the commutativity of the algebra $H,$ and then ${\mathcal M}^{-r,*}$ for $r\geq 2$ is defined by the syzygies. The module ${\mathcal E}^{<0,*}$ just corresponds to the commutativity relation in $H$ and is formed by the products under all operations $E_{p,q}$ on $RH.$ In particular, $$V^{-1,*}=\mathcal{E}^{-1,*}\oplus {\mathcal M}^{-1,*}$$ where $\mathcal{E}^{-1,*}$ is formed by the products $a\smile_1 b$ for $a,b\in R^0H^*,$ while ${\mathcal M}^{-1,*}\neq 0$ for $H$ to be a non-free cga (e.g. $\dim H^* <\infty$ and $H^{ev}\neq 0;$ see (\[relation\])–(\[power\]) below). The module ${\mathcal T}$ is determined by the $\cup_2$-product that measures the non-commutativity of the $\smile_1$-product, so that its first non-trivial component ${\mathcal T}^{-2,*}$ contains the products $a\cup_2 b$ for $a,b\in V^{0,*}.$ More precisely, $(RH,d)$ is also endowed with Steenrod’s type binary operation, denoted by $\smile_2,$ so that the (minimal) Hirsch resolution $(RH,d)$ can be viewed as a special Hirsch algebra with $E=\{E_{p,q}\}$ and $E'$ consisting of a single operation $\smile_2:=E'_{1,1}.$ In particular, the relationship between $a\cup_2b$ and $a\smile_2b$ for $a,b\in {\mathcal V}$ with $da,db\in V,\,$ where ${\mathcal V}$ is a basis of $V,$ is given by $$a\smile_2b=\left\{\begin{array}{llll}
a\cup_2b, & a\neq b, \\
2 a \cup_2a,& a=b ;
\end{array}
\right.$$ thus $d(a\cup_2 a)=a\smile_1a $ for $a$ to be of even degree. ($a\cup_2a=0$ for an odd dimensional $a\in RH.$) Regarding the differential $d_h$ on $RH,$ we have $$d_{h}=d+h,\ \ \ h=h^{2}+\cdots+h^{r}+\cdots,\ \ \ h^{r}:R^{p}H^{q}\rightarrow R^{p+r}H^{q-r+1}.$$ Given $r\geq 2,$ the map $h^r|_{R^{-r}H}:R^{-r}H\rightarrow R^0H$ is referred to as the *transgressive* component of $h$ and is denoted by $h^{tr}.$ The perturbation $h$ is extended as a derivation on ${\mathcal E}$ so that $h^{tr}({\mathcal E})=0.$
Furthermore, if $A$ is also a special Hirsch algebra in (\[fhmodel\]), we can simply choose $h$ and $f$ such that $$\label{cup2}
h^{tr}(a\cup_2b)=0 \ \ \text{for}\ \ a\neq b \ \ \text{in}\ \ {\mathcal V}.$$ Just to achieve this equality in $(RH,d_h),$ we have in fact evoked the product $\mu_{E'}$ on $B^2A$ (cf. [@saneFiltered Proposition 4]).
A Hirsch resolution $(RH,d)$ is *minimal* if $$d(u)\in \mathcal{E}+\mathcal{D}+\kappa_u\!\cdot\!V\ \ \text{for}\ \ u\in U$$ where ${\mathcal{D}^{\ast,\ast}}\subset R^{\ast}H^{\ast}$ denotes the submodule of decomposables $RH^{+}\!\cdot RH^{+}$ and $\kappa_u\in\Bbbk$ is non-invertible; for example, $\kappa_u\in {\mathbb Z}\setminus \{-1,1\}$ when $\Bbbk=\mathbb{Z}$ and $\kappa_u=0$ for all $u$ when $\Bbbk$ is a field.
In the sequel $A$ denotes a torsion free special Hirsch ${\mathbb Z}$-algebra, while $A_{\Bbbk}=A \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\Bbbk$ and $H_{\Bbbk}=H(A_{\Bbbk}).$ Assume $(RH,d)$ is minimal and let $RH_{\Bbbk }=RH\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\Bbbk;$ in particular, $RH_{\Bbbk}=T(V_{\Bbbk})$ for $V_{\Bbbk}=V\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\Bbbk.$ When $\Bbbk$ is a field of characteristic zero, $H_{\Bbbk}=H\otimes \Bbbk$ and $\rho_{\Bbbk}=\rho\otimes1:RH_{\Bbbk}\rightarrow H_{\Bbbk}$ is a Hirsch resolution of $H_{\Bbbk},$ which is *not* minimal when $\operatorname{Tor}H\neq0$. Assuming $A$ is ${\mathbb Z}$-algebra in (\[fhmodel\]) we obtain a Hirsch model of $(A_{\Bbbk},d_{A_{\Bbbk}})$ as $$f_{\Bbbk}=f\otimes1:(RH_{\Bbbk},d_{h}\otimes1)\rightarrow (A_{\Bbbk},d_{A_{\Bbbk}}).$$
Small Hirsch resolution {#small}
-----------------------
In practice it is convenient to reduce the Hirsch resolution $RH$ at the cost of the module ${\mathcal E}.$ Here we define such a small resolution $R_{\tau}H$ (compare with $R_{\varsigma}H$ in [@saneFiltered]). Namely, let $$R_{\tau}H=RH/ J_{\tau}$$ where $J_{\tau}\subset RH$ is a Hirsch ideal generated by $$\begin{gathered}
\hspace{-0.1in}\{ E_{p,q}(a_1,...,a_p;a_{p+1},...,a_{p+q}),\,
dE_{1,2}(a_1;a_2, a_3),\,
dE_{2,1}(a_1,a_2; a_3),\, a\cup_2 b,\,d(a\cup_2b) \\
|\, (p,q)\neq(1,1),\,
a,b\in {\mathcal V}, \, a\neq b\}
\end{gathered}$$ where $a_i\in RH$ unless $i=p+q$ for $p\geq 2$ and $q=1$ in which case $a_{p+1}\in {\mathcal V}.$ Since $d: J_{\tau}\rightarrow J_{\tau},$ we get a Hirsch algebra surjection $g_{\tau}:(RH,d){\rightarrow} (R_{\tau}H,d)$ so that a resolution map $\rho: RH \rightarrow H$ factors as $$\rho: (RH,d)\overset{g_{\tau}}{\longrightarrow} (R_{\tau}H,d) \overset{\rho_{\tau}}{\longrightarrow} H.$$ By definition we have $h:{\mathcal E}\rightarrow {\mathcal E};$ this fact together with (\[cup2\]) implies $h: J_{\tau}\rightarrow J_{\tau}.$ Thus $g_{\tau}$ extends to a quasi-isomorphism of Hirsch algebras $$g_{\tau}:(RH,d_h)\rightarrow (R_{\tau}H,d_h).$$
We have that the Hirsch algebra structure of $(R_{\tau}H,d_h)$ is given by the $\smile_1$-product satisfying the following two formulas. The (left) Hirsch formula: For $a,b,c\in R_{\tau}H,$ $$\label{hirsch1}
c\smile _{1}ab=(c\smile _{1}a)b+(-1)^{(|c|+1)|a|}a(c\smile _{1}b)$$ and the (right) generalized Hirsch formula: For $a,b\in R_{\tau}H$ and $c\in V_{\tau}$ with $d_h(c)=\sum c_1\cdots c_q,\,c_i\in V_{\tau},$ $$\label{hirsch2} ab\smile_1 c=\left\{\!\!\begin{array}{llll} a(b\smile_1 c)+
(-1)^{\varepsilon_1}
(a\smile_1 c)b, & q=1,\vspace{5mm}\\
a(b\smile_1 c)+(-1)^{\varepsilon_1}(a\smile_1 c)b\vspace{1mm}\\
\hspace{0.62in} +\underset{1\leq i<j\leq q}{\sum}(-1)^{\varepsilon_2}\,c_1\cdots c_{i-1}(a\smile_1 c_i)c_{i+1}\vspace{1mm}\\
\hspace{1.5in}\cdots c_{j-1}(b\smile_1 c_{j})c_{j+1}\cdots c_q, & q\geq 2, \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ $\varepsilon_1=|b|(|c|+1),\, \varepsilon_2=(|a|+1)(\epsilon^c_{i-1}+i+1)+(|b|+1)(\epsilon^c_{j-1}+j+1).$
1\. Formula $(\ref{hirsch2})$ can be thought of as a generalization of Adams’ formula for the $\smile_1$-product in the cobar construction [@adams-hopf1 p.36] from $q=2$ to any $q\geq 2.$
2\. We just pass from $RH$ to $R_{\tau}H$ to have formulas $(\ref{hirsch1})$–$(\ref{hirsch2})$ therein; more precisely, we use them together with the commutativity of $a\smile_1b$ for $a,b\in V_{\tau}$ to build the sequence given by $(\ref{even})$ below.
Cohomology operation $\mathcal{P}_1$
------------------------------------
Let $\mu\geq 2.$ Given an element $a\in A_{\Bbbk}$ and the integer $n\geq 2,$ take (the right most) $n^{th}$-power of $\bar{a}\in \bar{A}_{\Bbbk}\subset BA_{\Bbbk}$ under the $\mu_E$ product on $BA_{\Bbbk}$ and then consider its component in $\bar{A}_{\Bbbk}.$ Denote this component by $s^{-1}(a^{\uplus n}) $ for $a^{\uplus n}\in A_{\Bbbk}.$ The element $a^{\uplus n}$ has the form $$a^{\uplus n}=a^{\smile_1n }+ Q_n(a),$$ where $Q_n(a)$ is expressed in terms of $E_{1,k}$ for $1<k <n$ so that $Q_2(a)=0,$ i.e., $a^{\uplus 2}=a^{\smile_1 2}.$ In particular, if $E_{1,k}=0$ for $k\geq 2$ (e.g. $A_{\Bbbk}$ is a homotopy Gerstenhaber algebra (HGA)), then $a^{\uplus n}=a^{\smile_1 n }.$
Let $p\geq 2$ be the smallest prime that divides $\mu.$ Define the cohomology operation $\mathcal{P}_1$ on $H_{\Bbbk}$ as follows.
For $p$ odd: $$\hspace{-0.23in} \mathcal{P}_1: H_{\Bbbk}^{2m+1}\rightarrow H^{2mp+1}_{\Bbbk},\ \ \ [a] \rightarrow
\left[\frac{\mu}{p}a^{\uplus p}\right],$$
for $p=2:$ $$\hspace{1.1in}\mathcal{P}_1: H_{\Bbbk}^{m}\rightarrow H^{2m-1}_{\Bbbk},\hspace{0.4in} [a]\rightarrow
\left[\frac{\mu}{2}a\smile_1\! a\right],\ \ \ \, da=0,\ a\in \!A_{\Bbbk}.$$ Since $a\smile_1a$ is a cocycle in $A_{\Bbbk}$ for an even dimensional cocycle $a$ independently on the parity of $p,$ we also set $\mathcal{P}_1[a]=[a\smile_1a]$ for $p$ odd and $\mu\geq 0;$ obviously, $\mathcal{P}_1[a]=0.$ Let $\mathcal{P}^{(m)}_1$ denote the $m$-fold composition $\mathcal{P}_1\circ \cdots\circ \mathcal{P}_1.$ Given $x\in H_{\Bbbk},$ let $\nu\geq 0$ be the smallest integer such that $\mathcal{P}^{(\nu+1)}_1( x)=0.$ The integer $\nu$ is referred to as *$\smile_1$-height* of $x.$
small model for the Hochschild chain complex
============================================
Given an associative dga $C,$ its (normalized) *Hochschild chain complex* $\Lambda C$ is $C\otimes {B}C$ with differential $d_{{\Lambda C}}$ defined by $d_{{\Lambda C}}=
d_C\otimes 1 + 1 \otimes d_{ BC}+ \theta ^1+\theta ^2 ,$ where $$\begin{array}{lll}
\theta ^1(u\otimes [\bar a_1|\dotsb |\bar a_n]) = -(-1)^{|u|}ua_1\otimes [\bar
a_2|\dotsb |\bar a_n],\newline $\vspace{1mm}$ \\
\theta ^2 (u\otimes [\bar a_1|\dotsb |\bar a_n]) =(-1)^{(| a_n|+1)
(|u|+\epsilon^a_{n-1})} a_n u\otimes [\bar a_1|\dotsb |\bar a_{n-1}].
\end{array}$$ The homology of $\Lambda C$ is called the Hochschild homology of $C$ and is denoted by $HH_*(C).$
Let $C=T(V_{\Bbbk})$ be a tensor algebra with $V^*_{\Bbbk}$ a free $\Bbbk$-module. Denote $$\bar{V}_{\Bbbk}=s^{-1}(V_{\Bbbk}^{>0})\oplus\Bbbk.$$ Then $\Lambda C$ can be replaced by the small complex $(C\otimes\bar{V}_{\Bbbk},d_{\omega})$ where the differential $d_{\omega}$ is defined as follows (cf. [@Vigue], [@J-M.hoh]): $$\begin{gathered}
d_{\omega}(u\otimes \bar a)=
d_{_C}(u)\otimes \bar a-
(-1)^{|u|}(1\otimes s^{-1})\chi(u\otimes d_{_C}(a))\\ -(-1)^{|u|+|a|}(ua-(-1)^{|a||u|}au)\otimes 1,\end{gathered}$$ in which $$\chi:C\otimes C\rightarrow C\otimes V_{\Bbbk}$$ is a map given for $u\otimes a\in C\otimes C$ with $a=a_1\cdots a_n,\,a_i\in V_{\Bbbk},$ by $$\chi(u\otimes a)=\left\{
\begin{array}{llll}
0,&& a= 1,\\
u\otimes a, && n=1,\vspace{1mm}\\
\underset{1\leq i\leq n}{\sum}(-1)^{\varepsilon} a_{i+1}\cdots a_{n}\, u\, a _1\cdots a_{i-1}\otimes a_i,& & n\geq 2,
\end{array}
\right.$$ $\hspace{2.2in} \varepsilon=(|a_{i+1}|+\cdots +|a_n|)(|u|+|a_1|+\cdots +|a_i|).$
There is a chain map $$\label{phi}
\phi:(\Lambda C,d_{\Lambda C})\rightarrow (C\otimes\bar{V}_{\Bbbk},d_{\omega})$$ defined for $u\otimes x\in \Lambda C$ by $$\phi(u\otimes x)=\left\{
\begin{array}{llll}
u\otimes 1, && x= [\ ],\\
(-1)^{|u|}(1\otimes s^{-1})\chi(u\otimes a), && x =[\bar a],\\
0, && x= [\bar a_1|\cdots |\bar a_n],& n\geq 2,
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $\phi$ is a homology isomorphism.
For $C=RH_{\Bbbk},$ define the differential $\bar{d}_{h}$ on $\bar{V}_{\Bbbk}$ by the restriction of $d_{h}$ to $V_{\Bbbk}$ to obtain the cochain complex $(\bar{V}_{\Bbbk },\bar{d}_{h}).$ There are the sequences of maps $$(\bar V_{\tau})_{\Bbbk} \overset{\psi}{\longleftarrow} B (R_{\tau}H_{\Bbbk}) \overset{B (g_{\tau})_{\Bbbk}}{\longleftarrow}
B (RH_{\Bbbk})\overset{\!\!B f_{\Bbbk}}{\longrightarrow} B A _{\Bbbk}$$ and $$R_{\tau}H\otimes (\bar V_{\tau})_{\Bbbk} \overset{\phi}{\longleftarrow} \Lambda (R_{\tau}H_{\Bbbk}) \overset{ \Lambda (g_{\tau})_{\Bbbk}}{\longleftarrow}
\Lambda (RH_{\Bbbk})\overset{ \!\!\Lambda f_{\Bbbk}}{\longrightarrow} \Lambda A _{\Bbbk}$$ subjected to the following proposition
\[barV\] There are isomorphisms of $\Bbbk$-modules $$\begin{gathered}
H^{*}((\bar V_{\tau})_{\Bbbk},\bar{d}_{h})\overset{\psi^*}{\underset{\approx}{\longleftarrow}} H^{*}(B(R_{\tau}H_{\Bbbk}),d_{_{B(R_{\tau}H_{\Bbbk })}})
\overset{B(g_{\tau})_{\Bbbk}^*}{\underset{\approx}{\longleftarrow}}
H^{*}(B(RH_{\Bbbk}),d_{_{B(RH_{\Bbbk })}})
\\
\overset{\!\!B f^*_{\Bbbk}}
{\underset{\approx}{\longrightarrow}}
H^{*}(BA_{\Bbbk},d_{_{BA_{\Bbbk}}})\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
H^{*}(R_{\tau}H\otimes (\bar V_{\tau})_{\Bbbk},{d}_{\omega})
\overset{\phi^*}{\underset{\approx}{\longleftarrow}}
H^{*}(\Lambda( R_{\tau}H_{\Bbbk}),d_{_{\Lambda (R_{\tau}H_{\Bbbk})}})
\overset{\Lambda (g_{\tau})_{\Bbbk}^*}{\underset{\approx}{\longleftarrow}}
H^{*}(\Lambda( RH_{\Bbbk}),d_{_{\Lambda (RH_{\Bbbk})}})\\
\overset{\!\!\Lambda f_{\Bbbk}^*}{\underset{\approx}{\longrightarrow}}
H^{*}(\Lambda A,d_{_{\Lambda A}}).\end{gathered}$$
Note that the isomorphism $\psi^*$ above is a consequence of a general fact about tensor algebras [@F-H-T]. Recall also the following isomorphisms $H^{\ast}(BC^{\ast }(X;\Bbbk),d_{_{BC}})\approx H^{\ast}(\Omega X;\Bbbk)$ ([@baues]) and $H^{*}(\Lambda C^{*}(X;\Bbbk),d_{_{\Lambda C}}) \approx H^{*}(\Lambda X;\Bbbk)$ ([@Jones], [@saneFREE]) to deduce the following proposition for $A_{\Bbbk}=C^{\ast}(X;\Bbbk).$
\[barVX\] There are isomorphisms of $\Bbbk$-modules $$H^{*}((\bar V_{\tau})_{\Bbbk},\bar{d}_{h})\approx H^{*}(BC^{*}(X;\Bbbk),d_{_{BC}}) \approx
H^{*}(\Omega X;\Bbbk)$$ and $$H^{*}(R_{\tau}H\otimes (\bar V_{\tau})_{\Bbbk},{d_{\omega}})\approx H^{*}(\Lambda
C^{*}(X;\Bbbk),d_{_{\Lambda C}}) \approx H^{*}(\Lambda X;\Bbbk).$$
In the sequel by abusing the notations we will denote $R_{\tau}H$ again by $RH.$
Product on the small model of the Hochschild chain complex
----------------------------------------------------------
Let $RH=T(V)$ be the (small) Hirsch resolution with only $\smile_1$-product. First, define a product on $\bar V$ for $\bar a, \bar b\in \bar V$ by $$\bar a\bar b=\overline {a\smile_1b} \ \ \ \text{with}\ \ \ \bar a1=1\bar a=\bar a.$$ Next define a product on $RH\otimes \bar V$ for $u\otimes \bar a, v\otimes \bar b\in RH\otimes \bar V$ with $d_ha=\sum a_1a_2\!\mod V,$ $d_hb=\sum b_1b_2\!\mod V$ and $a_2,b_1\in V,$ $a_1,b_2\in RH$ by $$\begin{gathered}
( u\otimes \bar a)(v\otimes \bar b)
=
(-1)^{\epsilon_1} uv\otimes \overline{a\smallsmile_1 b}
+u( a\smallsmile_1 v)\otimes \bar b
+ (-1)^{\epsilon_2}
(u\smallsmile_1b)v\otimes \,\bar a
\\
\hspace{3.0in}+(-1)^{\epsilon_3}
(u\smallsmile_1 b)(a\smallsmile_1 \!v)\otimes 1\\
\hspace{1.0in}-\!\!\sum (-1)^{\epsilon_4}u(a_1\smallsmile_1\! v)\otimes \overline{a_2\smallsmile_1 b}
\, +(-1)^{\epsilon_5}(u\smallsmile_1\! b)(a_1\smallsmile_1\! v) \otimes \bar a_2\\
\hspace{1.1in}
+\sum (-1)^{\epsilon_6}\! (u\smallsmile_1 \!\! b_2)v\,\, \otimes\ \overline{a\smallsmile_1\! b_1}
\,\,\,\, +\,\, (-1)^{\epsilon_7}\! (u\smallsmile_1\!\! b_2)(a\smallsmile_1\!\! v)\, \otimes\, \bar b_1,\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{array}{lll}
\hspace{0.5in}\epsilon_1=(|a|+1)|v|,& \epsilon_4= |a_1||b|+(|a_2|+1)|v| ,\\
\hspace{0.5in}\epsilon_2=|a|(|v|+|b|+1)+|v||b|,& \epsilon_5=|a_2|(|v|+1)+(|a|+|v|)|b|,
\\
\hspace{0.5in}\epsilon_3=(|a|+|v|)(|b|+1),& \epsilon_6= (|a|+|b_2|)(|v|+1)+(|a|+|b_1|)|b_2| , \\
&\epsilon_7=(|a|+|v|)(|b_2|+1)+(|b_1|+1)|b_2|,
\end{array}$$ and $$\begin{array}{llll}
( u\otimes 1)(v\otimes 1)&=& uv\otimes 1\\
( u\otimes 1)(v\otimes \bar b) &= & uv\otimes \bar
b+(-1)^{(|v|+1)(|b|+1)}(u\smallsmile_1b) v
\otimes 1,\\
( u\otimes \bar a)(v\otimes 1)& = & (-1)^{(|a|+1)|v|}uv\otimes \bar a+u(a\smallsmile_1
v)\otimes 1.
\end{array}$$ Formulas (\[hirsch1\])–(\[hirsch2\]) guarantee that such defined products satisfy the Leibniz rule, and we obtain a short sequence of dg algebras $$\label{short}
\bar V_{\Bbbk} \overset{\pi}{\leftarrow} RH\otimes \bar V_{\Bbbk}\overset{\iota}{\leftarrow} RH_{\Bbbk}$$ with $\iota$ and $\pi$ the standard inclusion and projection respectively.
1\. The dga $(RH\otimes \bar V_{\Bbbk},d_{\omega})$ can be thought of as a non-commutative version of the cdga $\left({\mathcal A}^*(X)\otimes H^*(\Omega X;{\mathbb Q}),\bar d\, \right)$ modeling $\Lambda X$ [@Sul-Vigue].
2\. Taking into account the product on the Hochschild chain complex $\Lambda A$ of $A=C^*(X;\Bbbk)$ defined in [@saneFREE] one can show that the map $\phi$ given by $(\ref{phi})$ is multiplicative up to homotopy; thus the sequence given by $(\ref{short})$ provides a small multiplicative model of the free loop fibration.
Canonical sequences in $RH\otimes \bar V$
=========================================
Motivated by the notion of a formal $\infty$-implication sequence [@saneBetti] here we construct certain sequences in the dga $(RH\! \otimes \bar V,d_{\omega})$ used in the proof of Theorem2. First, we consider a more general situation.
The sequence $\mathbf{x}_\mu$ in $(C,d_{_{C}})$ {#twosequences}
-----------------------------------------------
Let $(C^*,d_{_{C}})$ be a cochain complex of torsion free abelian groups and let $$t_{\Bbbk}:C\rightarrow C_{\Bbbk} \,\,(=C\otimes_{\mathbb Z}\Bbbk)$$ be the standard map. Let $x\in C$ be a $\!\!\!\!\mod\! \mu$ cocycle, i.e., $d_{_{C_{\Bbbk}}}(t_{\Bbbk}x)=0.$ Consider for $x$ the following two conditions: $$\label{p1}
[x]\neq 0 \ \text{in}\ H(C)\ \text{for}\ d_{_{C}}x=0 ;$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{p2}
\text{If}\ [t_{\Bbbk}x]= 0\in H(C_{\Bbbk}), \ \text{i.e., there is a relation}\
d_{_{C}}a=x+\lambda a', \ a,a'\in C,\,\text{then}\\
d_{_{C_{\Bbbk}}}(t_{\Bbbk}a')=0\ \
\text{for}\, \, \lambda\ \text{to be the greatest integer divisible by}\ \mu.\end{gathered}$$ Obviously, for $x$ with $d_{_{C}}x=0$ condition (\[p2\]) follows from (\[p1\]). In any case for $a'$ from (\[p2\]) we have that $[t_{\Bbbk}a']\neq 0$ in $H(C_{\Bbbk}).$
Let $\mathbf{x}=\{x(n)\}_{n\geq 0}$ be a sequence in $C^*$ with $|x(k)|\neq |x(\ell)|$ for $k\neq \ell$ and let $x(n)$ satisfy (\[p1\])–(\[p2\]) for all $n$ in which case we also say that $\mathbf{x}$ satisfies (\[p1\])–(\[p2\]). Define the *associated* sequence $\mathbf{x}_\mu=\{x_{\mu}(n)\}_{n\geq 0}$ in $C$ as follows: Given $n\geq 0,$ let $$x_{\mu}(n)=\left\{\begin{array}{llll}
a'_n, & [t_{\Bbbk}x(n)]= 0, \vspace{1mm}\\
x(n), & [t_{\Bbbk}x(n)]\neq 0,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $a'_n$ is resolved from (\[p2\]) for $x=x(n).$ Obviously, $[t_{\Bbbk}x_{\mu}(n)]\neq 0$ in $H(C_{\Bbbk})$ for all $n.$
A pair of sequences $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}')=\left(\{x(i)\}_{i\geq 0}\,,\{y'(i)\}_{i\geq
0}\right)$ satisfying (\[p1\])–(\[p2\]) is said to be *admissible*, if $\alpha_1x(i)+\alpha_2y'(j)$ also satisfies (\[p1\])–(\[p2\]) whenever $ |x(i)|=|y'(j)|,$ $\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in{\mathbb Z}. $ Then obtain the sequence $\mathbf{y}_{\mu}=\{y_{\mu}(j)\}_{j\geq0}$ from an admissible pair $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}')$ as follows. Given $j\geq 0,$ set $$\label{xy'}
y_{\mu}(j)=\left\{\begin{array}{llll}
a'_j, & [t_{\Bbbk}\left(\alpha_1x(i)+\alpha_2y'(j)\right)]= 0, \vspace{1mm}\\
y'_{\mu}(j), & \text{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $a'_j$ is resolved from (\[p2\]) for $x=\alpha_1x(i)+\alpha_2y'(j);$ in particular, the pair $\left([t_{\Bbbk}x_{\mu}(i)]\,,[t_{\Bbbk}y_{\mu}(j)]\right)$ is linearly independent in $H(C_{\Bbbk}).$
Sequences in $(RH\otimes \bar V,d_{\omega})$ {#sequencesinhoh}
--------------------------------------------
Let ${\mathcal{D}}_{\Bbbk }\subset RH$ be a subset defined by $${\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}=
\{u+\mu v\,|\,u\in\mathcal{D},v\in V\}.$$ An element $x\in V$ with $d_{h}x\in {\mathcal{D}}+ \lambda V,\,\lambda\neq1,$ is $\lambda$-*homologous to zero* if there are $u,v\in V$ and $c\in {\mathcal D}$ such that $$d_{h}u=x+c+\lambda v.$$ $x$ is *weakly homologous* to zero if $v=0$ above. We have the following statement (cf. [@saneBetti]):
\[nonweak\] Let $v\in V$ and $d_{h}v\in\mathcal{D}.$ If $d_{h}v$ has a summand component $v_1v_2\in\mathcal{D}$ such that $v_1,v_2\in{V},$ $d_{h}v_1,d_{h}v_2\in\mathcal{D},$ both ${v_1}$ and ${v_2}$ are not weakly homologous to zero, then $v$ is also not weakly homologous to zero.
Note also that under the hypotheses of the proposition if $[\bar{v}_1],[\bar{v}_2]\neq0,$ then $[\bar {v}]\neq0$ in $H^{\ast}(\bar{V},\bar{d}_h);$ for example, for $RH=\Omega BH_{\Bbbk}$ (the cobar-bar construction of $H_{\Bbbk}$) with $V=BH_{\Bbbk}$ and $\Bbbk$ a field, the proposition reflects the obvious fact that an element $x\!\in\! H^{\ast}(BH_{\Bbbk})$ is non-zero whenever some $x^{\prime}\otimes x^{\prime\prime}\neq 0$ in $\Delta x=\sum
x^{\prime}\otimes x^{\prime\prime}$ for the coproduct $\Delta:BH_{\Bbbk}\rightarrow BH_{\Bbbk}\otimes BH_{\Bbbk}.$
Let $$\chi_{_1}: RH\rightarrow RH\otimes \bar V$$ be a map defined for $a\in RH$ by $\chi_{_1}(a)=\phi(1\otimes [\bar a] ),$ where $\phi$ is given by (\[phi\]), and define two subsets $\widetilde{\mathcal D},\,\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}\subset {\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}$ as $$\widetilde{\mathcal D}=\{a\in {\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}\mid \chi_{_1}(a)=0 \}
\ \ \text{and} \ \
\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}=\{a\in {\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}\mid \chi_{_1}(a)=0\!\!\mod \mu \}$$ (e.g. $\widetilde{\mathcal D}$ contains the expressions of the form $ab-(-1)^{(|a|+1)(|b|+1)}ba$ and also of the form $y^{\lambda}$ with $|y|$ odd and $\lambda$ even, while $\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}$ contains $y^{\lambda}$ with $|y|$ even and $\lambda$ divisible by $\mu\geq 2$). Given $a\in RH,$ obviously $d_ha\in \widetilde{\mathcal D}$ implies $\chi_{_{1}}(a)\in \operatorname{Ker} d_{\omega},$ while $d_ha\in \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}$ implies $d_{\omega}\chi_{_1}(a)=0 \mod \mu.$
The following statement is also simple.
\[nonweak2\] Given $a\in RH,$ let $d_ha\in \widetilde{\mathcal D}.$ If $a=v_1v_2+c$ such that $c$ does not contain $\pm v_2v_1$ as a summand component and $v_1v_2$ does not occur as a summand component of $d_hw$ for any $w\in RH$ unless $w\in {\mathcal E}$ or $d_hw$ has a summand component from $V,$ too, then $[\chi_{_1}(a)]\neq 0$ in $H(RH\otimes \bar V,d_{\omega}).$
For $v_1=1,$ $v_2\in V$ and $c=0,$ taking into account (\[short\]) the proposition in particular implies that if $v_2$ is not $\lambda$-homologous to zero, then $[\chi_{_{1}}(v_2)]=[1\otimes \bar v_2]\neq 0$ in $H(RH\otimes \bar V,d_{\omega}).$
By the universal coefficient theorem we have an isomorphism $$H^n_{\Bbbk}\approx H^n\! \otimes \Bbbk \, \bigoplus\, Tor(H^{n+1},\Bbbk):=H^n_{\Bbbk, 0}\bigoplus H^{n}_{\Bbbk,1}.$$ Given $\mu\geq 2,$ define a subset $K_{\mu}\subset V^{-1,*}$ as $$K_{\mu}=\left\{ a\in n\!\cdot\!{\mathcal V}^{-1,*}\,|\, da=\lambda b\neq 0,\, b\in R^0H^* ,\,
\mu\ \text{divides}\ \lambda,\, 1\leq n<\mu \right\}$$ (i.e., $n=1$ for $\mu$ to be a prime) and let $$\Xi_{\mu}= K_{\mu}\cup {\mathcal V}^{0,*}.$$ Let $\mathcal{H}_{\Bbbk} \subset H_{\Bbbk}$ denote a (minimal) set of multiplicative generators. Given $x\in {H}_{\Bbbk},$ let $x_0$ be its *representative* in $ RH$ with $[t_{\Bbbk}x_0]=x;$ in particular, $x_0\in R^0H^* $ for $x\in {H}_{\Bbbk,0},$ while $x_0\in \mathcal{V}^{0,*} $ or $x_0\in K_{\mu}$ when $x\in \mathcal{H}_{\Bbbk, 0}$ or $x\in \mathcal{H}_{\Bbbk, 1}$ respectively; given $x\in H_{\Bbbk, 1}$ and $y\in H_{\Bbbk, 0}$ with $dx_0=\lambda y_0$ and $\lambda$ divisible by $\mu,$ we also denote such a connection between $x$ and $y$ as $$\beta_{\lambda}(x)=y,$$ where $\beta_{\mu}$ is the Bockstein cohomology homomorphism associated with the sequence $0\rightarrow {\mathbb Z}_{\mu}
\rightarrow {\mathbb Z}_{\mu^2} \rightarrow {\mathbb Z}_{\mu} \rightarrow 0$ and is simply denoted by $\beta.$
On the other hand, if $$\sigma : H^*(A_{\Bbbk})\rightarrow H^{*-1}(BA_{\Bbbk}),\ \ [a]\rightarrow [\bar a]$$ is the cohomology suspension map, $x\in \operatorname{Ker}\sigma$ is equivalent to say that $x_0$ is $\lambda$-homologous to zero in $(RH,d_h).$
Let $O_{\Bbbk}\subset R^0H$ be a subset given by $$O_{\Bbbk} =\left\{ b\in R^0H \,|\, da=\theta b\ \text{for}\ a\in V^{-1,*}\ \text{and}\
\theta\in {\mathbb Z}\ \text{is prime with}\ \mu \right\}.$$ Obviously $\rho_{\Bbbk}(O_{\Bbbk})=0$ and let ${\mathcal O}_{\Bbbk}\subset RH$ be a Hirsch ideal generated by $O_{\Bbbk}.$ In the sequel we consider the quotient Hirsch algebra $RH/{\mathcal O}_{\Bbbk}$ which by abusing the notations we will again denote by $RH.$
Given $w\in RH,$ let $d_hw$ admit a decomposition $$\label{split}
d_hw=w_1+w_2,\ \ w_1\in
\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}, \ w_2=P(z_1,...,z_q)\in {\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}\ \ \text{for} \ \ z_i\in \Xi_{\mu},
1\leq i\leq q.$$ Given $n\geq 0$ and assuming $w$ to be odd dimensional, define an indecomposable element $x'(n)\in RH$ as $$x'(n)\!=\!
\left\{
\!
\begin{array}{llll}
{w}^{\smallsmile_1 (n+1)}, & w_2=0,
\\
\frac{\mu}{p}{w}^{\smallsmile_1 (n+1)} \smallsmile_1 Z_{w} + \gamma_w , & w_2\neq 0, & & \mu\geq 2,
\\
{w}^{\smallsmile_1 (n+1)} \smallsmile_1 {z_1}
\cdots \smallsmile_1 {z_q} +\gamma_w, & w_2\neq 0, &|z_j|\ \text{is even}, & \mu=0,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $Z_{w}=
{z_1}^{ {\smallsmile_1}^{( p^{\nu_1+1}-1)} }
\smallsmile_1
\cdots \smallsmile_1 {z_q}^{ {\smallsmile_1}^{(p^{\nu_q+1}-1)}}$ with the convention that the component $ {z_j}^{ {\smallsmile_1}^{( p^{\nu_j+1}-1)} } $ is eliminated whenever $[z_j]=\mathcal{P}_1([z_i])$ for some $1\leq i<j\leq q ,$ while $\gamma_w$ is defined so that $d_h x'(n)
\in \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk} ;$ namely, the existence of $\gamma_w$ uses Hirsch formulas (\[hirsch1\])–(\[hirsch2\]) and the fact that $\frac{\mu}{p} {z_j}^{{\smallsmile_1}^{p^{\nu_j+1}}}$ (and $z_j\smile_1 z_j$ for $|z_j|$ even and $\mu=0$) is $\!\!\mod \mu$ cohomologous to zero for all $j.$
Then $w$ rises to the sequence $\mathbf{x}=\left\{x(n)\right\}_{n\geq 0}$ in $RH\otimes \bar V$ defined by $$\label{even}
x(n)=\chi_{_1}\!\left( x'(n) \right).$$ Thus $d_{\omega} x(n)=0\!\! \mod \mu $ for all $n.$
In the sequel we apply to (\[even\]) for the following specific cases of $w.$ First, given $x\in {\mathcal H}_{\Bbbk}$ and its representative $x_0\in \Xi_{\mu}\subset RH,$ the element $w:=x_0$ obviously satisfies (\[split\]) (with $w_2=0$); thus for $x\in {\mathcal H}^{od}_{\Bbbk},$ equality (\[even\]) is specified as $$x(n)=1\otimes s^{-1}\left( {x_0}^{\smallsmile_1 (n+1)}\right).$$
\[example\] Let $\mu=2$ and $x\in {\mathcal H}^{od}_{\Bbbk}.$ When ${\mathcal P}_1(x)=0,$ we have a relation in $(RH,d_h)$ $$d_hv=x_0\smile_1x_0+2x_1\ \ \text{with}\ \ dx_1=x^2_0,\ \ \ x_1\in V^{-1,*},\,v\in V^{-2,*}.$$ Therefore, $x_{\mu}(1)=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
1\otimes \overline{x_0\smile_1 x_0}, & {\mathcal P}_1(x)\neq 0,\, \, \, |x|\ \text{is the smallest}, \\
1\otimes \bar x_1, & {\mathcal P}_1(x)=0
\end{array}
\right.
$ in $RH\otimes \bar V.$
Furthermore, $x\in {\mathcal H}^{od}_{\Bbbk}$ rises to the sequence $\{x_n\in V\}_{n\geq 0}$ in $(RH,d):$
For $x\in {\mathcal H}_{\Bbbk,0}$ ($x_0\in {\mathcal V}^{0,*}$), $$\label{msymmetric}
dx_n=\sum_{\substack{i+j=n-1\\i,j\geq 0}}\varepsilon_{i,j}x_ix_j,\ \ \ \ \ \
\varepsilon_{i,j}=\left\{\!\!\!
\begin{array}{lll}
2, & \rho x_0^2\neq 0, & i,j\ \text{are even},\\
1,& \text{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.
\ \ \ \ n\geq1,$$ with $x_1=-x_0\smile_1x_0$ when $\rho x_0^2\neq 0.$
For $x\in {\mathcal H}_{\Bbbk,1}$ with $dx_0=\lambda x'_0$ ($x_0\in K_{\mu}$), $$\label{msymmetric2}
dx_n=\sum_{\substack{i+j=n-1\\i,j\geq 0}}x_ix_j+\lambda x'_n,\ \ \ \ \
dx'_{n}=-\frac{1}{\lambda}\,d\left( \sum_{\substack{i+j=n-1\\i,j\geq 0}}x_ix_j \right),\ \ \ n\geq1.$$ The element $x_n$ is of odd degree in (\[msymmetric\])–(\[msymmetric2\]) for all $n.$ The action of $h$ on $x_n$ in $(RH,d_h)$ is given by the following formula. Let $\tilde x_i=y_i+h^{tr}x_i $ with $y_i=0$ or $dy_i=-\lambda h^{tr}x'_i$ for $x_i$ in (\[msymmetric\]) or (\[msymmetric2\]) respectively; for $0\leq i_1\leq \cdots \leq i_{r}<n,\,r\geq2,$ denote also $\tilde{x}_{i_1,...,i_r}=(-1)^{r}\tilde{x}_{i_1}\cup_2\cdots\cup_2\tilde{x}_{i_r}.$ $$\label{hmsymmetric}
hx_n=\tilde{x}_n+
\sum_{\substack{i_1+\cdots +i_r+r=n+1}}\varepsilon_{i_1,...,i_r}\left(\tilde{x}_{i_1,...,i_{r-1}}\smile_1 x_{i_r}-
\tilde{x}_{i_1,...,i_r}\right),$$ $$\hspace{0.47in}\varepsilon_{i_1,...,i_r}=\left\{\!\!\!
\begin{array}{lllll}
2, & x\in H_{\Bbbk,0},\, \rho x_0^2\neq 0, \ \text{some}\ (i_s,i_t)_{1\leq s,t\leq r}\ \text{is even},\\
1,& \text{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Now given $x\in H^{od}_{\Bbbk}$ and the smallest odd prime $p$ that divides $\mu,$ recall the definition of the symmetric Massey product $\langle x\rangle ^{p}$ [@kraines] for which we have the Kraines formula (see also [@saneFiltered]) $$\label{krainesf}
\beta {\mathcal P}_1(x)=-\langle x\rangle ^{p}.$$ We also have the equality $$\label{comassey}
\rho_{\Bbbk} h^{tr}(x_{p-1})=-\langle x\rangle ^{p}.$$ When ${\mathcal P}_1(x)\in H_{\Bbbk,0},$ we have $\beta {\mathcal P}_1(x)=0= \langle x\rangle ^{p}.$ Hence we obtain $\rho_{\Bbbk}h^{tr}(x_{p-1})=0,$ and, consequently, $h^{tr}x_{p-1}=0.$ Then $dx_{p-1}\in \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}$ implies that the element $$\label{mzero}
w=x_{p-1}$$ satisfies $(\ref{split}).$
Element $\varpi\in V$ associated with a relation in $H_{\Bbbk}$ {#w-associated}
---------------------------------------------------------------
Given any two multiplicative generators $a,b\in H_{\Bbbk,1}$ with $da_0=\lambda_aa'_0$ and $db_0=\lambda_b b'_0,$ $a'_0,b'_0\in {V}^{0,*},\, a_0,b_0\in K_{\mu},$ we have a relation in $(RH,d)$ $$\begin{gathered}
\label{ab}
du=a_0b_0+\lambda u'\ \ \text{with}\ \ du'= - \frac{\lambda_a}{\lambda}a'_0b_0 - (-1)^{|a|}\frac{\lambda_b}{\lambda} a_0b'_0, \\
\lambda=\operatorname{g.c.d.}(\lambda_a,\lambda_b),\ \ u\in V^{-3,*},\, u'\in V^{-2,*}.
\end{gathered}$$ Regarding the action of $h$ in $(RH,d_h),$ we have $hu=(h^2+h^3)u$ and, in particular, the relation $ab=0$ in $H_{\Bbbk}$ is equivalent to the equalities $h^2u=0$ and $h^3u=0 \, \mod \mu$ in $(RH,d_h).$ More generally, a relation of the form $ab+c_1+c_2=0$ in $H_{\Bbbk},$ where $c_1=P_1(a_1,...,a_{q_1})=\sum_r \lambda_{r} a_{1,r}^{n_{1,r}}\cdots a_{p_r,r}^{n_{q_r,r}}$ with a single $a_{i,r}\in H_{\Bbbk,1}$ with $n_{i,r}=1$ and the other $a_{j,r}\in H_{\Bbbk,0}$ for each $r,$ and $c_2=P_2(b_1,...,b_{q_2})$ with $b_j\in H_{\Bbbk,0}$ for all $j,$ yields that $h^2u\in {\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}$ and $h^3u\in {\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}.$ If either $a$ or $b$ is from $H_{\Bbbk,0},$ then to $ab=0$ corresponds the equality given by a similar formula as (\[ab\]) but this time $(u,u')\in (V^{-2,*}, V^{-1,*})$ with $du'= - (-1)^{|a|}a_0b'_0$ or $ du'= - a'_0b_0$ respectively. Since $a_0b_0$ is $\!\!\!\mod \mu$ cohomologous to $hu,$ we have that for a given $1\leq k< r,$ any cocycle in $\bigoplus_{0\leq i\leq r} R^{-i}H$ is $\!\!\!\mod \mu$ cohomologous to a cocycle in $\bigoplus_{0\leq i\leq k} R^{-i}H.$
In general, consider a (homogeneous) multiplicative relation in $H^*_{\Bbbk}$ $$\label{relation}
P(y_1,...,y_q)=0,\ \ \ y_i\in \mathcal{H}_{\Bbbk}$$ which is not a consequence of the commutativity of the algebra $H_{\Bbbk}$ (and also is not decomposable by any other relations). Obviously $P(b_1,\!...,b_q)$ for $b_i=(y_i)_0\in \Xi_{\mu}$ is a $\!\!\!\mod \mu$ cohomologous to zero cocycle in $(RH,d_h).$ If $P(b_1,\!...,b_q)\in \bigoplus_{0\leq i\leq r} R^{-i}H $ with $r\geq 3,$ then, as above, there is a $\!\!\!\mod \mu$ cohomologous to $P(b_1,\!...,b_q)$ cocycle $P'(z_1,...,z_{m})$ that lies in $\bigoplus_{0\leq i\leq 2} R^{-i}H;$ in particular $z_i\in \Xi_{\mu}$ for all $i,$ but each monomial of $P'(z_1,...,z_{m})$ may contain at most two variables $z_i$ from $ K_{\mu}.$ So that we have one of the following equalities in $(RH,d_h):$ $$\label{basic}
d_hu= \left\{\!\! \begin{array}{lllll}
P(b_1,\!...,b_q), & u\in V^{-1,*},\hspace{0.6in} y_i\in {\mathcal H}_{\Bbbk,0},\,\,1\leq i\leq q, \\
P'(z_1,...,z_{m}), & u\in V^{-2,*}, \\
P'(z_1,...,z_{m}) +\lambda u' , & (u,u')\in (V^{-r,*}, V^{-r+1,*}),\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \, r=2,3.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Note that $d_h u\notin \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}$ (since $du\notin \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}$), unless each monomial of $P(y_1,...,y_q)$ is of the form $\alpha_y y^{\lambda},\, \alpha_y\in {\mathbb Z}$ with $\lambda$ divisible by $\mu\geq 2$ in which case $d_h u\in \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}.$ In any case $w:=u$ obviously satisfies (\[split\]). For example, given $y\in
\mathcal{H}_{\Bbbk}$ with $\dim H_{\Bbbk}<\infty,$ let $\hbar_y$ be the height of $y$ with respect to the product on $H_{\Bbbk}$ so that we have the relation $P(y)=y^{\hbar _y+1}=0$ and then (\[basic\]) becomes the form $$\label{power}
d_hu= \left\{\!\! \begin{array}{lllll}
y_0^{\hbar _y+1}, & y\in {\mathcal H}_{\Bbbk,0},\vspace{1mm}\\
y'_0y_0+\lambda u', & y\in {\mathcal H}_{\Bbbk,1},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $y'_0\in V^{0,*}\oplus V^{-1,*}$ is $\!\!\!\mod \lambda$ cohomologous to $y_0^{\hbar_{y}}\in R^{-\hbar_{y}}H^*$ in $(RH,d_h)$ (in particular, $y'_0=y_0$ for $\hbar_y=1;$ cf. (\[msymmetric2\])).
Note that when both $|y|$ and $\mu$ are odd, always $\hbar_y=1$ and we say that (\[power\]) is a consequence of the commutativity of $H_{\Bbbk}.$
Now given (\[relation\]) of the smallest degree and assuming $\tilde {H}_{\mathbb{Q}}$ is either trivial or has a single algebra generator, we define an odd dimensional $\varpi\in V$ in the following three cases. In the case $\tilde {H}_{\mathbb{Q}}\neq 0,$ denote a single multiplicative generator of infinite order of $H$ by ${\mathfrak z}$ and let $z= t^*_{\Bbbk}({\mathfrak z});$ thus $z={\mathfrak z}\otimes 1\in H_{\Bbbk,0}.$ (Warning: $z$ may not be a multiplicative generator of $H_{\Bbbk}.$)
\(i) When $P$ is even dimensional in (\[relation\]), $u$ is odd dimensional in (\[basic\]) and we set $\varpi=u.$
\(ii) When $P$ is odd dimensional in (\[relation\]), $u$ is even dimensional in (\[basic\]) and we have to consider the following subcases. Suppose that the following expression $$\label{beta}
\beta_{\lambda}(P(y_1,...,y_q))=\sum _{1\leq i\leq q}(-1)^{|y_1|+\cdots +|y_{i-1}|}P(y_1,...,\beta_{\lambda}(y_i),...,y_q)$$ is formally (i.e., independently on $H_{\Bbbk}$) trivial.
$(ii_1)$ Let $y_i\in {\mathcal H}_{\Bbbk,0}$ for all $i,$ i.e., $\beta_{\lambda}(y_i)=0$ and the corresponding relation of (\[relation\]) in $(RH,d_h)$ is given by the first equality of (\[basic\]). Since either at most one $y_i$ may be equal to $z$ for $q\geq 2$ or $q=1$ and $y_1=z$ with $z\in {\mathcal H}^{od}_{\Bbbk,0}$ for $\mu$ even, it is easy to see that there is $c\in H_{\Bbbk}^{+}\cdot H_{\Bbbk}^{+}$ such that $\beta_{\lambda}(c),$ as a formal expression, is equal to $P(y_1,...,y_q).$ (In the last case $c=\lambda_z{\mathcal P}_1(z)z^{2m-1}$ for $P(z)=\lambda_z z^{2m+1},m\geq 1.$) This situation answers to the following relations in $(RH,d_h).$ There is a pair $(b_c,w_c)$ with $b_c\in {\mathcal D},$ $w_c\in V$ such that $$dw_c=-b_c+\lambda u \ \ \text{with} \ \ db_c= \lambda P(b_1,...,b_{q})$$ where $[t_{\Bbbk}h^{tr}w_c]=c$ and $u$ is given by the first equality of (\[basic\]). (In particular $\lambda=\mu$ and $b_c=-\lambda_z \frac{\mu}{2}(z_0\smile_1 z_0) z_0^{2m-1}$ when $\mu$ is even and $P(z)=\lambda_z z^{2m+1}$ as above.) Therefore, if $c={\mathfrak c}\otimes 1$ with ${\mathfrak c}\in H,$ then ${\mathfrak c}=\rho h^{tr}w_c.$ Note also that ${\mathfrak c} $ must be indecomposable in $H$ since there is no relation in degrees $<|P|$ in $H_{\Bbbk}.$ When ${\mathfrak c}$ is of finite order, there is $a\in H_{\Bbbk,1}$ with $\beta_{\lambda}(a)=c$ so that $da_0=\lambda h^{tr}w_c .$ Furthermore, when itself $a$ is linearly dependent on $\mathcal{P}_1(x)$ for some $x\in H^{od}_{\Bbbk},$ i.e., $k a=\ell\, \mathcal{P}_1(x),$ $k,\ell \in {\mathbb Z},$ we obtain $ \frac{k \lambda}{\mu}\, c=- \ell\, \langle x\rangle ^{p}$ since (\[krainesf\]). Taking into account (\[comassey\]) we have that $ \frac{k \lambda}{\mu}\,h^{tr}w_c$ is $\!\!\mod \mu$ cohomologous to $ \ell\, h^{tr}x_{p-1},$ i.e., there is $v\in V^{-1,*}$ with $dv=
\frac{k \lambda}{\mu}\,h^{tr}w_c-\ell\, h^{tr}x_{p-1}+\mu v',\,v' \in V^{0,*}.$ Define $\varpi\in V $ by $$\label{ww}
\varpi=\left\{
\begin{array}{llll}
\frac{k \lambda}{\mu}\,w_c- v- \ell\, x_{p-\!1} , & k a= \ell\, {\mathcal P}_1(x)\neq 0, \\
a_0 , & \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Obviously $w:=\varpi$ satisfies (\[split\]). Let now ${\mathfrak c}$ be of infinite order. Since ${\mathfrak z}$ is unique (when it exists), neither $y_i$ occurs as $z,$ so there is the other $\bar c\in H_{\Bbbk}$ such that $\beta_{\bar \lambda}(\bar c),$ as a formal expression, is again equal to $P(y_1,...,y_q).$ This time $\bar{\mathfrak c}$ is of finite order and hence the definition of $w$ by means of formula (\[ww\]) is not obstructed.
$(ii_2)$ Let at least two $y_i$ lie in ${\mathcal H}_{\Bbbk,1}.$ Then the corresponding relation of (\[relation\]) in $(RH,d_h)$ is given by the second equality of (\[basic\]). Since for each $y_i\in {\mathcal H}_{\Bbbk,1}$ with $\beta_{\lambda}(y_i)=y'_i$ either $y'_i\in {\mathcal H}_{\Bbbk,0}$ or $y'_i=z^n $ for $z\in {\mathcal H}_{\Bbbk,0},$ $n\geq2,$ there exist $c\in H_{\Bbbk}^{+}\cdot H_{\Bbbk}^{+}$ such that $\beta_{\lambda}(c),$ as a formal expression, is equal to $P(y_1,...,y_q).$ When ${\mathfrak c}$ is of finite order, we can define $w$ entirely analogously as in item (i), i.e., by formula (\[ww\]); otherwise, for ${\mathfrak c}$ to be of infinite order, we get an obstruction, i.e., when we have $$\label{specific2}
\beta_{\lambda}(c)=P(y_1,...,y_q)=0\ \ \text{for} \ \ c=z\ \ \text{modulo decomposables} .$$ Note also that $du\notin \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}$ for $u$ corresponding to this relation by (\[basic\]).
\(iii) Suppose that expression (\[beta\]) is not formally trivial. Then the corresponding relation in $(RH,d_h)$ is given by the third equality of $(\ref{basic}).$ Consider two subcases.
$(iii_1)$ Let (\[relation\]) be specified as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{apowerb}
P(y_1,..,y_q)=\lambda' b^nc\,x=0\ \, \text{with}\ \ \beta_{\lambda}(b)=c \ \ \text{for}\\
b\in {\mathcal H}^{ev}_{\Bbbk,1},\,c\in {\mathcal H}^{od}_{\Bbbk,0},\,x\in H_{\Bbbk,0},\, \lambda'\in{\mathbb Z} , \, n\geq 1.
\end{gathered}$$ In particular $\beta_{\lambda}(\lambda' b^{k}x)=0$ for $k>n.$ Since $|b^{n+1}|<|b^nc|$ and (\[apowerb\]) is chosen to be of the smallest degree, we have $\lambda' b^{n+1}x\neq 0.$ Consider two elements $a_i$ for $i=n+1,n+2$ with $\beta_{\lambda}(a_i)=0$ where $$a_i=\left\{
\begin{array}{llll}
b^i , & i\ \text{is divisible by}\ \mu \\
\lambda' b^ix , & \hbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ When $ a_{n+2}\neq 0,$ there is $a\in \mathcal{H}^{od}_{\Bbbk,1}$ with $\beta_{\lambda}(a)=a_{n+1}$ or $\beta_{\lambda}(a)=a_{n+2}$ and we set $\varpi=a_0.$ When $a_{n+2}=0,$ we consider this relation as a particular case of (\[relation\]) and set $\varpi=u$ as in item (i) above.
$(iii_2)$ When at least one monomial of (\[relation\]) differs from that given by (\[apowerb\]), we have $\beta_{\lambda}(P(y_1,...,y_q))=0$ is a desired relation, and then set $\varpi=u'$ where $u'$ is resolved from (\[basic\]).
Finally, we say that an odd dimensional element $\varpi\in V$ is *associated* with (\[relation\]) if $\varpi$ is given by one of items $(i)$–$(iii)$ above. In particular, $\varpi$ always exists for $\tilde{H}_{\mathbb Q}=0$ or, more generally, for $z\in {\mathcal H}_{\Bbbk}.$
Given an even dimensional $y\in {\mathcal H}^{ev}_{\Bbbk,0}$ with the relation $$\label{evenz}
P(y)=\lambda_{y} y^{m}=0,\ \ m\geq 2,\,\lambda_y\in {\mathbb Z},$$ it rises to the sequence $\{y_n\in V\}_{n\geq 0}$ in $(RH,d):$ $$\label{m-even}
\begin{array}{rllll}
d y_{2k+1}&=&
\underset{{\substack{i+j=k-1\\i,j\geq 0}}}{\sum} y_{2i+1}y_{2j+1}-\,\,
\underset{{\substack{i_1+\cdots +i_m=k\\
0\leq i_1\leq...\leq i_m\leq k}}}{\sum}\lambda_y y_{2i_1}\!\cdots y_{2i_m},
\vspace{5mm}\\
d y_{2k} &=&\underset{ {\substack{i+j=2k-1\\i,j\geq 0}}}{\sum}(-1)^{i+1}y_{i}y_{j}
,\hspace{1.9in} k\geq 0,
\end{array}$$ where $y_n$ is of odd degree for $n=2k+1$ and is of even degree for $n=2k.$ In fact a straightforward check shows that each $y_{2k},k\geq 1,$ can be expressed in terms of $y_{r} $ for $r<2k$ as $y_{2k}=-y_0\smile_1 y_{2k-1}\!\!\mod {\mathcal D}$ (e.g. $y_2=-y_0\smile_1y_{1}+\lambda_z\!\underset{i+j=n-1}{\sum} y_0^{i}(y_0\cup_2 y_0)y_0^{j}$). Consequently, $h^{tr}(y_{2k})\in {\mathcal D}.$
\[norelation\] Let $x\in {\mathcal H}^{od}_{\Bbbk}$ and let (\[evenz\]) be a single relation in $H_{\Bbbk}$ with $|P|< |x|.$ Then $x\notin \operatorname{Ker} \sigma$ and if there is $b\in H_{\Bbbk,1}$ with $\beta_{\lambda}(b)=x,$ then also $b\notin \operatorname{Ker} \sigma.$
Theoretically there may be $y_n\in V$ given by (\[m-even\]) serving as a source for $h$ to kill $x$ or $ b.$ Since $|x|$ is odd and $|h^{tr}y_{2k+1}|$ is even (and $h^{tr}(y_{2k})\in {\mathcal D}$), $x_0$ is not $\lambda$-homologous to zero. When there is $b\in H_{\Bbbk,1}$ with $\beta_{\lambda}(b)=x,$ the element $b_0\in K_{\mu}$ is not $\lambda$-homologous to zero since (\[m-even\]) and $d^2_h=0$ prevent $b_0$ to be in the target of $h$ evaluated on any $y_{2k+1}.$
\[sequences\] Let $x\in {\mathcal H}^{od}_{\Bbbk}$ and let $P(y_1,...,y_q)=0$ be a relation given by $(\ref{relation}).$
$(i)$ If $|x|\leq |P|$ or (\[relation\]) is specified as (\[evenz\]) to be a single relation with $|P|<|x|,$ then the sequence $\mathbf{x}=\left\{x(i)\right\}_{i\geq 0}$ given by (\[even\]) for $w=x_0$ satisfies (\[p1\])–(\[p2\]) in $RH\otimes\bar V.$
$(ii)$ Let $\varpi\in V$ be associated with the relation $P(y_1,...,y_q)=0.$
$(ii_1)$ If $P(y_1,...y_q)$ is of the smallest degree with $|x|<|P|,$ then the sequence $\mathbf{x}=\left\{x(i)\right\}_{i\geq 0}$ given by (\[even\]) for $w=\varpi$ satisfies (\[p1\])–(\[p2\]) in $RH\otimes\bar V.$
$(ii_2)$ Let $P'(y'_1,...,y'_{q'})=0$ and $P(y_1,...y_q)=0$ be two relations of the smallest degree with $|x|<|P'|\leq |P|$ where the first relation is given by (\[specific2\]). Then the sequence $\mathbf{x}=\left\{x(i)\right\}_{i\geq 0}$ given by (\[even\]) for $w=\varpi$ satisfies (\[p1\])–(\[p2\]) in $RH\otimes\bar V.$
$(iii)$ Let $P(y_1,...,y_q)\neq \lambda_x x^2$ for $\mu$ even and $\mathcal{P}_1(x)=0,$ $\lambda_x\in{\mathbb Z}.$ Then the pair of sequences given by items (i) and (ii) is admissible.
\(i) First note that when $|x|\leq |P|,$ $x_0$ is not $\lambda$-homologous to zero by the degree reason, while apply Proposition \[norelation\] for $|P|<|x|;$ the same argument implies that $b_0$ is also not $\lambda$-homologous to zero when $\beta_{\lambda}(b)=x.$ Consider two subcases.
$(i_a)$ Let $x\in H_{\Bbbk,0}.$ In fact we have to verify only (\[p1\]). $(i_{a1})$ Assume there is no $b$ with $\beta_{\lambda}(b)=x.$ Observe that for an odd dimensional $a\in RH$ and $n\geq 2,$ $da^{\smile_{\mathbf{1}}n}$ contains a summand component of the form $$\label{binomial}
-\sum_{k+\ell=n}\binom{n}{k} a^{\smile_{1}k} a^{\smile_{1}\ell},\,\,\,\,k,\ell\geq1\ \ \ (\text{with}\ \ a^{\smile_1 1}=a).$$ By setting $v={x_{0}}^{\smile_{1}n}$ and $v_1v_2=-\binom{n}{k} {x_0}^{\smile_{1}k} {x_0}^{\smile_{1}\ell},$ some $k,\ell,$ we see that the hypothesis of Proposition \[nonweak\] is satisfied and hence ${x_{0}}^{\smile_{1}n}$ is not weakly homologous to zero. Consequently, $[x(n)]\neq0$ as desired. $(i_{a2})$ Assume there is $b$ with $\beta_{\lambda}(b)=x.$ Let $p$ be a prime that divides $\mu.$ We have a sequence of relations in $(RH,d)$ $$\label{oneone}
d b_{n}=
\sum_{\substack{i+j=n\\i\geq0;j\geq 1}}\varepsilon_n \binom{n+1}{i+1} b_{i}{x_{0}}^{\smile_{1}j}+ \varepsilon_n \lambda\, {x_{0}}^{\smile_{1}(n+1)},\ \ \ b_n\in V,\,\,n\geq1,$$ where $\varepsilon_{p^k-1}=\frac{1}{p}$ and $\varepsilon_n=1$ for $n+1\neq p^k,k\geq 1. $ In view of (\[oneone\]) and Proposition \[nonweak\] we remark that ${x_{0}}^{\smile_{1}n}$ may be weak homologous to zero only for $\lambda =\mu =p=n+1.$ In any case consider the element $a_n\in (RH,d_h)$ given by $$a_n=\sum_{\substack{i+j=n\\i\geq0;j\geq 1}}\varepsilon_n \binom{n+1}{i+1} b_{i}{x_{0}}^{\smile_{1}j}+hb_n.$$ Since $b_0$ and $x_0$ are not $\lambda$-homologous to zero, so is $b_n$ for all $n.$ Obviously $d_ha_n\in \widetilde{\mathcal D}$ and by setting $a=a_n$ and $v_1\cdot v_2=\varepsilon_n (n+1) \,b_{n-1}\cdot x_0,$ the component of $a$ for $(i,j)=(n-1,1),$ the hypotheses of Proposition \[nonweak2\] are satisfied. Therefore, we get $[\chi_{_{1}}(a)]\neq 0$ in $H(RH\otimes \bar V,d_{\omega}).$ Obviously $[\chi_{_{1}}(a)]= -\varepsilon_n\lambda [\chi_{_{1}}({x_{0}}^{\smile_{1}(n+1)})].$ Thus $[x(n)]\neq 0$ as desired.
$(i_{b})$ Let $x\in H_{\Bbbk,1}.$ Then we have to verify only (\[p2\]). Since $x_0\in K_{\mu}$ is not $\lambda$-homologous to zero, the proof easily follows from the analysis of the component given by (\[binomial\]) for $a=x_0$ in $d{x_{0}}^{\smile_{1}n}.$
\(ii) When $\varpi$ is not $\lambda$-homologous to zero and either $d_h \varpi \in \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}$ or $d_h \varpi \notin \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}$ but ${z_j}^{{\smallsmile_1}^{( p^{\nu_j+1}-1)}}$ is also not $\lambda$-homologous to zero for all $j$ ($z_j$ is a variable in $d_ h \varpi$), the proof is analogous to that of subcase $(i_{a1}) $ or $ (i_{b})$ of item (i). Otherwise, we observe that $\varpi$ is again not $\lambda$-homologous to zero in $(ii_1),$ while $\varpi$ may be $\lambda$-homologous to zero in $(ii_2)$ only by evaluating $h$ on certain elements $u_i\in V$ arising from the relation given by (\[specific2\]) the first of which is $u=u_0$ as given by (\[basic\]); since $d u \notin \widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk},$ neither $du_i$ is in $\widetilde{\mathcal D}_{\Bbbk}.$ And then in the both subcases a straightforward check completes the proof.
\(iii) The proof is analogous to that of items $(i)$–$(ii).$ The restriction on the relation for $\mu$ even is in fact explained by Example \[example\].
Let $A_{\Bbbk}=C^*(X;{\mathbb Z}_p),p>2.$ The case of $x\in H_{{\mathbb Z}_p}$ with $\beta(b)=x$ fundamentally distinguishes the (based) loop and free loop spaces on $X$ with respect to the existence of infinite sequence arising from $x$ in $H^*(\Omega X;{\mathbb Z}_{p})$ and $H^*(\Lambda X;{\mathbb Z}_{p})$ respectively. Namely, let both $\mathcal{P}_{1}(x)$ and $\langle x \rangle^p$ be multiplicative generators of $H^*(X; {\mathbb Z}_p)$ such that $\mathcal{P}_{1}(x)\in\langle b,x,...,x \rangle,$ the $p^{th}$-order Massey product. Then by the hypotheses of Proposition \[sequences\] the sequence arising from $x$ in $H^*(\Omega X;{\mathbb Z}_{p})$ may terminate at the $p^{th}$-component $($see [@saneFiltered] for $p=3)$, while is always infinite in $H^*(\Lambda X;{\mathbb Z}_{p}).$
Proof of Theorem \[varsigma\] {#theorem}
=============================
The proof of the theorem relies on the two basic propositions below in which the condition that $\tilde{H}_{\Bbbk}$ requires at least two algebra generators is treated in two specific cases. Note also that the essence of the method used in the proof of the following proposition is in fact kept for $\mu$ to be a prime.
\[one\] Let $H_{\Bbbk}$ be a finitely generated $\Bbbk$-module with $\mu\geq 2.$ If $\tilde{H}_{\Bbbk}$ requires at least two algebra generators and $\tilde {H}_{\mathbb{Q}}$ is either trivial or has a single algebra generator, then there are two sequences $\mathbf{x}_{\mu}=\left\{x_{\mu}(i) \right\}_{i\geq0}$ and $\mathbf{y}_{\mu}=\left\{y_{\mu}(j)\right\}_{j\geq 0}$ of $\mod \mu$ $d_{\omega}$-cocycles in $(RH\otimes \bar V,d_{\omega})$ whose degrees form arithmetic progressions and the product classes $\left\{[t_{\Bbbk}x_{\mu}(i)]\cdot [t_{\Bbbk}y_{\mu}(j)]\right\} _{i,j\geq0}$ are linearly independent in $H(RH\otimes \bar V _{\Bbbk},d_{\omega}).$
First, we exhibit two sequences $\mathbf{x}=\left\{x(i)\right\}_{i\geq 0}$ and $\mathbf{y}'=\left\{y'(i)\right\}_{i\geq
0}$ in $(RH\otimes \bar V,d_{\omega})$ consisting of $\!\!\!\mod \mu$ $d_{\omega}$-cocycles and satisfying the hypotheses of Proposition \[sequences\]. In the case $\tilde {H}_{\mathbb{Q}}\neq 0,$ let ${\mathfrak z}$ be a single multiplicative generator of infinite order of $H$ and $z= t^*_{\Bbbk}(\mathfrak z)\in H_{\Bbbk,0}.$
By the hypotheses of the proposition there is an odd dimensional element $x\in \mathcal{H}_{\Bbbk}$ and choose $x$ to be of the smallest degree. Define $\mathbf{x}=\{x(i)\}_{i\geq0}$ by (\[even\]) for $w=x_0.$
To find the second sequence, note that there must be an even dimensional element $y\in \mathcal{H}_{\Bbbk}$ and hence a relation $y^{\hbar_y+1}=0 $ in $H_{\Bbbk}$ unless maybe $\mu$ is even and $x=z$ with ${\mathcal P}_1(x)\neq 0$ in which case we have a relation $x^{\hbar_x+1}=0$ instead. First, observe the following: if there is $y\in {\mathcal H}^{od}_{\Bbbk}$ with $y\notin \operatorname{Ker}\sigma$ and linearly independent with ${\mathcal P}_1^{(m)}(x)$ for some $m,$ define $\mathbf{y}'=\{y'(j)\}_{j\geq0}$ by (\[even\]) for $w=y_0;$ If there is $y\in {\mathcal H}^{od}_{\Bbbk,0}$ linearly dependent on ${\mathcal P}_1^{(m)}(x),$ while ${\mathcal P}_1^{(m-1)}(x)\notin \operatorname{Ker}\sigma ,$ define $\mathbf{y}'=\{y'(j)\}_{j\geq0}$ by (\[even\]) for $w$ given by (\[mzero\]) in which $x$ is replaced by ${\mathcal P}_1^{(m-1)}(x).$ Otherwise, consider a relation $P(y_1,...,y_q)=0$ of the smallest degree in $H_{\Bbbk}$ unless $P(y_1,...,y_q)= \lambda_x x^2,\lambda_x\in{\mathbb Z},$ whenever $\mu$ is odd or $\mu$ is even and $\mathcal{P}_1(x)=0.$ When the relation admits to associate $\varpi$ as in subsection \[w-associated\], define $\mathbf{y}'=\{y'(j)\}_{j\geq0}$ by (\[even\]) for $w=\varpi.$ When the definition of $\varpi$ is obstructed, consider the next relation in $H_{\Bbbk}.$ This time the second relation admits to associate $\varpi$ (since the above ${\mathfrak z}$ is unique) and hence the second sequence $\mathbf{y}'=\{y'(j)\}_{j\geq0}$ is defined.
Finally, the pair of the sequences $(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}')$ found above is admissible: when the existence of the pair involves relation(s) in $H_{\Bbbk}$ (if not, the claim is rather obvious), it satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition \[sequences\]. Obtain the associated sequences $\mathbf{x}_{\mu}=\left\{x_{\mu}(i) \right\}_{i\geq0}$ and $\mathbf{y}_{\mu}=\left\{y_{\mu}(j)\right\}_{j\geq 0}$ as in subsection \[twosequences\]. The explicit product on $RH\otimes \bar V$ allows us to ensure immediately that the product classes $\left\{[t_{\Bbbk}x_{\mu}(i)]\cdot [t_{\Bbbk}y_{\mu}(j)]\right\}
_{i,j\geq0}$ are linearly independent in $H(RH\otimes \bar V _{\Bbbk},d_{\omega}).$
Given a cochain complex $(C^{\ast},d)$ over $\mathbb{Q},$ let $S_{C}(T)=\sum_{n\geq0}(\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}C^{n})T^{n}$ and $S_{H(C)}
(T)=\sum_{n\geq0}(\dim_{\mathbb{Q}}H^{n}(C))T^{n}$ be the Poincaré series. Recall the convention: $\sum_{n\geq0}a_{n}T^{n}\leq\sum_{n\geq0}b_{n}T^{n}$ if and only if $a_{n}\leq b_{n}.$ The following proposition can be thought of as a modification of Proposition 3 in [@Sul-Vigue] for the non-commutative case.
\[quotient\] Let $(B^*,d_{B})$ be a dga over ${\mathbb Q}$ and let $y\in B^k, k\geq 2,$ be an element such that $d_{B}y=0$ and $yb\neq 0$ for all $b\in B.$ Then $$\label{inequality2} S_{H(B/yB)}(T)\leq (1+T^{k-1})S_{H(B)}(T).$$
We have an inclusion of cochain complexes $s^k B\overset{\iota}{\longrightarrow}B$ induced by the map $B\overset{y\cdot}{\longrightarrow} B,$ $b\rightarrow yb,$ and, consequently, the short exact sequence of cochain complexes $$0\longrightarrow s^kB\overset{\iota}{\longrightarrow}B\longrightarrow
B/yB\longrightarrow 0.$$ Then the proof of the proposition is entirely analogous to that of [@saneBetti Proposition 7].
\[rationalone\] Let $H_{_{\mathbb{Q}}}$ be a finitely generated $\mathbb{Q}$-module. If $\tilde{H}_{_{\mathbb{Q}}}$ requires at least two algebra generators, then the sequence $\left\{\varsigma_{i}(A)\right\} $ grows unbounded.
Denote $(B,d_B)=(RH\otimes \bar V_{_{\mathbb{Q}}},d_{\omega}).$ We will define two sequences $\mathbf{x}=\left\{x(i) \right\}_{i\geq0}$ and $\mathbf{y}=\left\{y(j)\right\}_{j\geq 0}$ in $B$ consisting of $d_{B}$-cocycles in the four cases below. Consider two relations of the smallest degree in $H _{_{\mathbb{Q}}}$ $$P_1(x_1,...,x_p)=0\ \ \text{and} \ \ P_2(y_1,...,y_q)=0.$$ Suppose that
\(i) All $x_i$ and $y_j$ are even dimensional. Obtain $u_1$ and $u_2$ from (\[basic\]) that correspond to the above relations, and define $\mathbf{x}=\left\{x(i) \right\}_{i\geq0}$ and $\mathbf{y}=\left\{y(j)\right\}_{j\geq 0}$ by (\[even\]) for $w=u_1$ and $w=u_2$ respectively.
\(ii) There are odd dimensional elements $c_1$ and $c_2$ among $x_i$’s and $y_j$’s respectively. Then define $\mathbf{x}=\left\{x(i) \right\}_{i\geq0}$ and $\mathbf{y}=\left\{y(j)\right\}_{j\geq 0}$ by
$$\label{odd1}
x(i)=1\otimes s^{-1}\left({ c_1}^{\smallsmile_1(i+1)}\right)$$
and $$\label{odd2}
y(j)=1\otimes s^{-1}\left( {c_2}^{\smallsmile_1(j+1)}\right)$$ respectively.
\(iii) There is a single odd dimensional $x_i$ and all $y_j$ are even dimensional. Define $\mathbf{x}=\left\{x(i) \right\}_{i\geq0}$ by (\[odd1\]), while define $\mathbf{y}=\left\{y(j)\right\}_{j\geq 0}$ as in item (i). When all $x_i$ are even dimensional and a single $y_j$ is odd dimensional, define $\mathbf{x}=\left\{x(i) \right\}_{i\geq0}$ as in item (i), while define $\mathbf{y}=\left\{y(j)\right\}_{j\geq 0}$ by (\[odd2\]).
\(iv) There is a single odd dimensional $x_i$ and a single odd dimensional $y_j$ equal to the same element $a\in H_{_{\mathbb Q}}.$ Then obviously $P_1(x_1,...,x_p)$ admits a representation $P_1(x_1,...,x_p)=ab$ for a certain even dimensional element $b\in H_{_{\mathbb{Q}}}.$ Consequently, the corresponding relation in $(RH_{_{\mathbb{Q}}},d)$ given by (\[basic\]) has the form $du=a_0b_0$ for $a_0\in {\mathcal V}^{0,*}$ and $b_0\in R^0H^*.$ Denote $a_1=u$ and $b_1=-a_1-a_0\smile_1 b_0$ to obtain $db_1=-b_0a_0.$ Furthermore, denoting $b_2=-b_0\smile_1 a_1,$ there are the induced relations in $(RH_{_{\mathbb{Q}}},d):$ $$\begin{array}
[c]{lllll}
da_2=a_0b_1-a_1a_0, & & da_3=a_0b_2-a_1a_1-a_2b_0, \\
db_2=-b_0a_1-b_1b_0, & & db_3= -b_0a_2-b_1b_1+b_2a_0, && a_3,b_3\in V_{_{\mathbb{Q}}}.
\end{array}$$ Thus we have $h(a_3-b_3)=(h^{2}+h^{3})(a_3-b_3)$ with $h^{2}(a_3-b_3)=-b_0\smile_1 h^2 a_2$ in $(RH_{_{\mathbb{Q}}},d_h).$ Let $b_0=P'(z_1,...,z_r)$ and $ h^3(a_3-b_3)=P''(z_{r+1},...,z_m)$ for some $z_j\in V^{0,*}_{_{\mathbb{Q}}},\, 1\leq j\leq m,\,
1\leq r<m.$ Define a complex $(D,d_{D})$ as $(D,d_{D})=(B/1\otimes \bar C,d_{D}),$ where $\bar C\subset \bar V_{_{\mathbb{Q}}}$ is a subcomplex (additively) generated by the expressions $$\{\bar z_j\,,\overline{z_j\smile_{1}v} \mid v\in V_{_{\mathbb{Q}}},\, 1\leq j\leq m\}.$$ Define $\bar x$ and $\bar y$ in $
\bar {V}_{_{\mathbb{Q}}}/\bar C$ as the projections of the elements $\bar a_0$ and $\overline{a_3-b_3}$ under the quotient map $\bar {V}_{_{\mathbb{Q}}}\rightarrow \bar{V}_{_{\mathbb{Q}}}/\bar C$ respectively. Then $1\otimes \bar x$ and $1\otimes \bar y$ are cocycles in $(D,d_D).$ Apply formulas (\[odd1\])–(\[odd2\]) for $(c_1,c_2)=(x,y)$ to obtain the sequences $\mathbf{x}=\left\{x(i) \right\}_{i\geq0}$ and $\mathbf{y}=\left\{y(j)\right\}_{j\geq 0}$ in $D.$ Then the product classes $\left\{[x(i)]\cdot [y(j)]\right\}
_{i,j\geq0}$ are linearly independent in $H(D\,,d_{D}).$ Finally, apply Proposition \[quotient\] successively for $y\in \{z_1,...,z_m\}$ to obtain $S_{H(D)} (T)\leq S_{H(B)}(T),$ and then an application of Proposition \[barV\] completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[varsigma\] {#proof-of-theorem-varsigma}
-----------------------------
In view of Proposition \[barV\], the proof reduces to the examination of the $\Bbbk$-module $H(RH \otimes \bar{V}_{\Bbbk},d_{\omega}).$ If $\tilde{H}_{\Bbbk}$ has a single algebra generator $a,$ then the set $\left\{ \varsigma_{i}(A)\right\} $ is bounded since $\varsigma_{i}(A)=2$ (cf. [@Halp-Vigue]). If $\tilde{H}_{\Bbbk}$ requires at least two algebra generators, then the proof follows from Proposition \[barV\] and Proposition \[one\] for $\mu\geq 2,$ and from Proposition \[rationalone\] for $\mu=0.$
[99]{} J.F. Adams, On the non-existence of elements of Hopf invariant one, Ann. Math., 72 (1960), 20–104.
H.J. Baues, The cobar construction as a Hopf algebra, Invent. Math., 132 (1998), 467–489.
W. Browder, Torsion in $H$-spaces, Ann. Math., 74 (1961), 24–51.
Y. Felix, S. Halperin and J.-C. Thomas, Adams’ cobar equivalence, Trans. AMS, 329 (1992), 531–549.
D. Gromoll and W. Meyer, Periodic geodesics on compact Riemannian manifolds, J. Diff. Geom., 3 (1969), 493–510.
S. Halperin and M. Vigué-Poirrier, The homology of a free loop space, Pacific J. Math., 147 (1991), 311–324.
J.D.S. Jones, Cyclic homology and equivariant homology, Invent. Math., 87 (1987), 403–423.
J.D.S. Jones and J. McCleary, Hochschild homology, cyclic homology, and the cobar construction, Adams memorial symposium on algebraic topology, 1 (Manchester, 1990), London Math. Soc., Lecture Note Ser., 175 (1992), 53–65.
T. Kadeishvili and S. Saneblidze, A cubical model of a fibration, J. Pure and Appl. Algebra, 196 (2005), 203–228.
D. Kraines, Massey higher products, Trans. AMS, 124 (1966), 431–449.
J. McCleary, Closed geodesics on Stiefel manifolds, Göttingensis Heft 12 (1985).
J. McCleary, Homotopy theory and closed geodesics, LNM, 1418 (1990), 86–94.
J. McCleary and W. Ziller, On the free loop space of homogeneous spaces, Amer. J. Math., 103 (1987), 765–782.
B. Ndombol and J.-C. Thomas, A contribution to the closed geodesic problem, J. Pure and Appl. Algebra, 214 (2010), 937–949.
J. E. Roos, Homology of free loop spaces, cyclic homology and rational Poincaré-Betti series, Preprint series Univ. Stockholm 39 (1987).
S. Saneblidze, Filtered Hirsch algebras, preprint, math.AT/0707.2165.
S. Saneblidze, On the Betti numbers of a loop space, J. Homotopy and Rel. Struc., 5 (2010), 1–13.
S. Saneblidze, The bitwited Cartesian model for the free loop fibration, Topology and Its Appl., 156 (2009), 897–910.
L. Smith, The EMSS and the mod 2 cohomology of certain free loop spaces, Ill. J. Math., 28 (1984), 516–522.
M. Vigué-Poirrier and D. Sullivan, The homology theory of the closed geodesic problem, J. Diff. Geom., 11 (1976), 633–644.
M. Vigué-Poirrier, Homologie de Hochschild et homologie cyclique des algèbres différentielles graduées, Astérisque, 191 (1990), 255–267.
W. Ziller, The free loop space on globally symmetric spaces, Invent. Math., 41 (1977), 1–22.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study a quantum computing system using microwave photons in transmission line resonators on a superconducting chip as qubits. We show that all control necessary for quantum computing can be implemented by coupling to Josephson devices on the same chip. We take advantage of the strong nonlinearities inherent in Josephson junctions to realize qubit interactions. We analyze the gate error rate to demonstrate that our scheme is realistic even for Josephson devices with limited decoherence times. A conceptually innovative solution based on existing technologies, our scheme provides an integrated and scalable approach to the next key milestone for photonic qubit quantum computing.'
author:
- 'Lianghui Du, Yong Hu, Zheng-Wei Zhou, Guang-Can Guo and Xingxiang Zhou'
title: Integrated photonic qubit quantum computing on a superconducting chip
---
Despite the vast potential of quantum computers, no perfect physical implementation has been found for quantum computers. This can be seen by examining two representative systems. Josephson device based superconducting systems are easily integrable and scalable, but are plagued by the short decoherence times of Josephson qubits due to coupling to their complex solid-state environment. Photonic qubits, which have superb coherence properties, suffer from the fact that photons do not interact easily. Also, systems based on conventional bulk optical devices are hard to miniaturize and scale.
Recognizing the importance of integrated systems for scalable quantum computing, a number of investigators have demonstrated on-chip waveguide based quantum gates for photonic qubits recently [@ref:Integrated_OQC]. This is a significant step that may represent the future direction of photonic qubit quantum computing technologies. However, it is a daunting task to achieve a fully integrated photonic qubit quantum computer using conventional technologies including those developed in the latest experiments. This is because conventional optical devices such as lasers, lenses, optical cavities and photo detectors are bulk devices based on very different technologies and no process exists yet to integrate them on the same chip [@ref:onchip]. Therefore, alternative realistic approaches to fully integrated photonic qubit quantum computing systems are highly valuable.
We combine the strengths of photonic and superconducting systems to realize fully integrated photonic qubit quantum computing. Our physical system is a superconducting chip on which high-Q transmission line resonators (TLRs) and Josephson devices are fabricated. The same system has been used for study of cavity QED based on Josephson qubits [@ref:CJ; @ref:tlr; @ref:disp]. However, in our scheme the quantum information is carried by the microwave photon modes in the TLRs and the Josephson junctions play the role of optical devices. For high-Q TLRs the photons have a long life time [@ref:highQ] which is a major advantage. Easy operation and accurate control are available because Josephson devices can be fabricated with great precision and controlled conveniently by monitoring their electrical signals. A further key advantage is we can use the strong nonlinearities inherent in Josephson devices to induce interactions between photons. It is shown that high gate fidelities can be achieved even for Josephson devices with limited decoherence times making their unavoidable noisy environment no longer a limiting factor. Therefore, our scheme is a realistic approach to scalable photonic qubit quantum computing.
We start by considering the two identical TLRs shown in Fig.\[fig1\](a). The TLR mode frequencies are given by $\omega=n\pi/\sqrt{LC}$, $n$ an integer and $L$ and $C$ the total inductance and capacitance of the TLR. We use the $n = 2$ mode. For $L
= 0.5$nH and $C = 5$pF, its frequency $\omega_0/2\pi \approx
20$GHz. The second-quantized voltage and current associated with this mode is $V(x, t)=\sqrt{\hbar\omega_0/C} \cos{\frac{2\pi
x}{l}}(\hat{a}(t) + \hat{a}^{\dagger}(t))$ and $I(x, t)= -i
\sqrt{\hbar\omega_0/L} \sin{\frac{2\pi x}{l}}(\hat{a}(t) -
\hat{a}^{\dagger}(t))$, where $l$ the length of the TLR, $x \in
[-l/2,l/2]$ the position along the TLR, and $\hat{a}(t) =
\hat{a}e^{-i\omega_0 t}$ the mode’s annihilation operator.
For the pair of identical TLRs in Fig.\[fig1\](a), we introduce a single photon of frequency $\omega_0$ and it being in the *l*eft or *r*ight TLR denotes the logic 0 or 1 state [@ref:OQC] for a single qubit. This is analogous to the conventional optical cavity mode representation of photonic qubit where the information is encoded by which cavity the photon is in [@ref:text]. Notice for a dilution refrigerator temperature of $40$mK, the thermal photon number in the TLRs is smaller than $10^{-10}$ and thus the 0 or 1 photon state for the TLRs is an excellent approximation. To effect arbitrary transformations on this single qubit, we need to be able to shift the relative energies of the TLRs and transfer photons between them, which implement the functionalities of phase shifters and beam splitters in optics. We realize this by coupling the TLRs capacitively to current biased Josephson junctions (CBJJ) as shown in Fig. \[fig1\] (a). As the simplest Josephson qubit, CBJJ has the advantage that its level splitting can be easily adjusted by the bias current. Approximating the CBJJs as two-state systems with adjustable energy splittings $\Omega_c$ and $\Omega_r$ [@ref:two-level], we can write the system Hamiltonian $H= \hbar\omega_0 (\hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{a} +
\hat{b}^{\dagger} \hat{b}) + \frac{1}{2} \hbar \Omega_c \sigma^z_c
+\frac{1}{2} \hbar \Omega_r \sigma^z_r + \hbar g_c [(\hat{a} +\hat{b})
\sigma^+_c +(\hat{a}^{\dagger} +\hat{b}^{\dagger}) \sigma^-_c] + \hbar
g_r (\hat{b} \sigma^+_r + \hat{b}^{\dagger} \sigma^-_r)$ [@ref:coupstr], where $\sigma^{z,\pm} _{c,r}$ are the Pauli matrices of the coupling and right CBJJ, $\hat{a}$, $\hat{b}$ are the annihilation operators for photons in the two TLRs, and the coupling strengths $g_{c,r}=\omega_0C_{c,r}/\sqrt{2C(C_J^{c,r}+2C_{c,r})}$, $C_J^{c,r}$ the capacitance of the coupling and right CBJJ.
Since the CBJJ energies can be easily adjusted by tuning the bias current, we can control the interactions between the TLRs and CBJJs. To transfer photons between the TLRs, we adjust the bias currents of the CBJJs to tune $\Omega_r$ faraway from $\omega_0$ so the right CBJJ has no effect. We further tune the coupling CBJJ close to resonance with $\omega_0$ and work in the dispersive region where the magnitude of detuning $\Delta_{c} = \Omega_c-\omega_0$ is much greater than $g_c$. Assuming the CBJJ was prepared in the ground state, its virtual excitation gives rise to the following effective Hamiltonian for the TLRs [@ref:disp] in the rotating frame defined by the uncoupled TLR Hamiltonian: $$H_{eff}= \frac{\hbar g_c^2}{\Delta_c}(\hat{a}\hat{b}^{\dagger} +\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{b}) + \frac{\hbar g_c^2}{\Delta_c}(\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a} +\hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{b}).
\label{eq:Heff}$$ Since there is only 1 photon in the system, $\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}
+\hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{b} =1$, energy shifts described in the second term in $H_{eff}$ is a constant. The first exchange term implements the photon transfer operation. A photon can be transferred between the two TLRs with a rate $\frac{g_c^2}{2\pi\Delta_c}$, which is about $20$MHz for $C_J^c =
0.5$pF, $C_c = 23$fF, and $\Delta_c/2\pi = 2$GHz [@ref:para1; @ref:para2]. To shift the relative energies of the TLRs, we tune the coupling CBJJ far off resonance and tune the right CBJJ into the dispersive region. Similarly, an effective Hamiltonian $(\hbar g_r^2/\Delta_r)
\hat{b}^ {\dagger}\hat{b}$ results which gives a relative phase when the photon is in the right TLR.
We need to study the decoherence properties of our scheme to analyze its reliability. The photonic qubits have superb coherence and their life times are orders of magnitude longer than that of superconducting qubits. For TLRs fabricated on superconducting chips, a high quality factor of $10^6 - 10^7$ has been demonstrated [@ref:highQ]. For TLR frequencies of tens of GHz, the photon loss rate $\kappa/2\pi$ can be as low as KHz. In contrast, the CBJJ has a short decoherence time, and we assume its dephasing rate $\Gamma_2/2\pi \approx $1MHz. The CBJJ’s decay rate from the excited state $\Gamma_1/2\pi$ is on the order of $0.1$MHz.
A major advantage of our scheme is that the relatively lossy CBJJ does not damp the coherence of the photonic qubits much since it is only virtually excited. The CBJJ’s decay from the virtually excited state increases the photon’s loss rate by $(g_{c,r}/\Delta_{c,r})^2\Gamma_1$, which is not a concern since $(g_{c,r}/\Delta_{c,r})^2\Gamma_1$ is no greater than $\kappa$. To study the effect of the CBJJ’s dephasing rate $\Gamma_2$, we model the dephasing effect as the result of a random fluctuation $\delta_n$ in the CBJJ’s energy splitting. This introduces an uncertainty in the detuning during for instance a photon transfer operation, $\Delta_c =
\Omega_c-\omega_0\rightarrow \Delta_c +\delta_n$. Therefore, the system will have a random Hamiltonian $H_{noise}=-\hbar
(g_c/\Delta_c)^2\delta_n (\hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{b} +\hat{a}
\hat{b}^{\dagger})$ in addition to that in Eq. (\[eq:Heff\]). Assuming the distribution of $\delta_n$ is Gaussian, we can estimate the photonic qubit’s decoherence time due to $H_{noise}$ by using the free induction decay function [@ref:deph]. Since the free inductor decay function is determined by the spectral density of $\delta_n$, which in turn is related to the CBJJ’s dephasing rate $\Gamma_2$, it can be estimated that the system’s dephasing rate is no greater than $2(\frac{g_c^2}{\Delta_c^2}
)\Gamma_2$.
Following the quantum theory of damping, we now calculate the gate error of a photon transfer operation under the influence of cavity loss and CBJJ dephasing. using the Master equation for the qubit’s density matrix $\rho$, $d\rho/dt =-i[H_{eff}, \rho]
+\kappa[\hat{a}\rho \hat{a}^{\dagger} -\frac{1}{2} \hat{a}^{\dagger}
\hat{a}\rho -\frac{1}{2} \rho\hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{a}]
+\kappa[\hat{b}\rho \hat{b}^{\dagger} -\frac{1}{2} \hat{b}^{\dagger}
\hat{b}\rho -\frac{1}{2} \rho\hat{b}^{\dagger} \hat{b}]
+2(\frac{g_c}{\Delta_c})^2 \Gamma_2 [(\hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{b}
+\hat{a} \hat{b}^{\dagger}) \rho (\hat{a}^{\dagger} \hat{b} +\hat{a}
\hat{b}^{\dagger}) -\rho]$. The gate error probability of a single qubit bit flip is plotted in Fig. \[fig1\](b) as a function of $\kappa$ and $\Gamma_2$. The result indicates that, for already demonstrated $\Gamma_2/2\pi =1$MHz and $\kappa/2\pi =10$kHz [@ref:cbjjdeph], the gate error is on the order of $10^{-3}$.
\
The manipulations demonstrated so far perform linear optics. We still need a mechanism to induce interactions between photons. This is a major difficulty in conventional optics. However, at microwave frequencies, we can take advantage of the strong nonlinearities in Josephson devices to interact photons.
We consider the low current biased 4-junction SQUID (FJS) device [@ref:nems] in Fig. \[fig2\](a). The two small identical SQUIDs are coupled inductively to TLR $C$ of length $l$ at positions $\pm
l/4$. (This does not mean that the FJS must extend to a length of $l/2$ because the TLR can be layed out in a zig-zag fashion.) Since $l$ is much larger than the dimension of the FJS, we can adopt the long wave approximation and use the TLR current at the SQUIDs’ locations in calculating the SQUIDs’ flux bias. At the two coupling points, the TLR currents are the largest in magnitude and opposite in direction. The main loop is coupled to TLR $D$ at $l/4$.
Assuming there is no other external flux bias, the small SQUIDs and big loop are biased by the TLR currents $I_C= \mp iI_{C0}(\hat{c}
-\hat{c}^{\dagger})$ and $I_D= -iI_{D0}(\hat{d}
-\hat{d}^{\dagger})$, where $I_{C0}= \sqrt{\hbar\omega_c/L_c}$ and $I_{D0}= \sqrt{\hbar\omega_d/L_d}$ the zero point current fluctuations in the TLRs, $L_{c,d}$ the inductance of the TLRs and $\hat{c}$, $\hat{d}$ the annihilation operators for photons in $C$ and $D$. We can work out the system’s Hamiltonian, $H= H_{TLR} +
H_{FJS} +H_{int}$, where $H_{TLR} =\hbar (\omega_c +\omega^c_s)
\hat{c}^{\dagger}\hat{c} +\hbar (\omega_d
+\omega^d_s)\hat{d}^{\dagger}\hat{d}$, $H_{FJS} = -\frac{E_C}{2}
\frac{\partial ^2} {\partial\phi^2} -\frac{\hbar
I_b\phi}{2e} -4E_J^0\cos\phi$, and $$H_{int}= \hbar \omega_{int}\hat{c}^{\dagger}\hat{c} \hat{d}^{\dagger}\hat{d} = \hbar \omega_{int}\hat{n}_c\hat{n}_d.
\label{eq:int}$$ In these equations, $E_c=(2e)^2/4(C_J+C_s)$ and $E_J = \hbar I_c/2e$ are the charging energy and Josephson energy of the junctions, where $C_J$ and $I_c$ are the junctions’ capacitance and critical current. $\phi$ is the average phase of the 4 junctions determined by the low bias current $I_b \approx 0$ of the FJS. The frequency shift $\omega^c_s = -2E_J^0(\phi^2\chi_c^2+\chi_c^2\chi_d^2)/\hbar$, $\omega_s^d = -2E_J^0(\phi^2\chi_d^2+\chi_c^2\chi_d^2)/\hbar$ where $\chi_{c} =\pi M_{C}I_{C0}/(\pi L_sI_c+\Phi_0)$, $\chi_{d} = \pi
M_DI_{D0}/[\pi(L_s+L_L)I_c+\Phi_0]$, $L_s$ and $L_L$ are the self-inductances of the small SQUIDs and the circuit loop. To simplify the expressions, we set $\chi = \chi_c = \chi_d$ and denote the photon frequency shift $\omega_s \equiv \omega_s^c = \omega_s^d$. The photon interaction strength $\omega_{int} = -4E_J^0\chi^4\cos\phi/\hbar$. In deriving the system Hamiltonian, we have used the rotating wave approximation and dropped terms that will be oscillating fast in the rotating frame defined by $H_{TLR}$. We have also dropped terms involving creation and annihilation of two photons. These terms have no effect since there is no more than 1 photon in the TLRs in our scheme.
We operate with a low bias current $I_b \approx 0$ for the FJS so that $\langle cos{\phi} \rangle$ is large and the FJS’ energy splitting is far away from the frequencies of the TLR photons. Thus, the FJS will not be excited by the TLR photons and they hardly get entangled. The FJS then acts as a “nonlinear medium" and Eq. (\[eq:int\]) describes the interaction between photons in $C$ and $D$ modulated by the FJS’ phase. For $I_c = 50\mu$A, $L_s \approx 10$pH, and $M_C
\approx 80$pH [@ref:para3], the photon interaction strength $\omega_{int} \approx 1$MHz, much greater than the photon loss rate. Unfortunately, there are difficulties in using this interaction for quantum computing. First, $\phi$ has fluctuations in it due to the FJS’ charging energy and thus the interaction strength is not a constant. Also, it is not easy to turn off the interaction. Tuning $\phi$ close to $\pi/2$ requires biasing the FJS close to its critical current which makes the system unstable. The uncertainty in $\phi$ grows too.
To have the photons interact only when needed, we use a setup shown in Fig. \[fig2\] (c). Here TLRs $A$, $B$ and $E$, $F$ are two qubits with photons being in $A$ and $F$ representing their logic 0 state. When both qubits are in the 1 state, we can use the photon transfer operation discussed earlier to transfer the photons from $B$ and $E$ to the auxiliary TLRs $C$ and $D$ whose frequencies are made different than that of the qubit TLRs by $\omega_s$ to account for their energy shifts. Once the photons are in $C$ and $D$ they can interact due to coupling to the FJS. Afterwards, we transfer them back to $B$ and $E$.
To stabilize the FJS’ phase, we shunt its junctions with large capacitances $C_s$ as shown in Fig. \[fig2\](a). At low bias currents the FJS’ behavior can be very well approximated by that of a harmonic oscillator and the distribution of $\phi$ is given by its ground state wave function $\sqrt{\alpha/\sqrt{\pi}} \exp[-\alpha
^2(\phi- \phi_0)^2/2]$, where $\alpha =\sqrt[4]{4E_J^0\cos\phi_0/E_c}$ and $\phi_0 = \langle\phi\rangle = \arcsin{\frac {\hbar
I_b}{8eE_J^0}}$. If we choose a total capacitance $C_J+C_s =
20$pF, the relative uncertainty $\delta (\omega_{int})/\omega_{int}
\approx 10^{-4}$. Such a small error is not a concern for the photon interaction term. However uncertainties in the photon energy shift terms $\hbar\omega_s$ can be comparable to $\hbar\omega_{int}$ and can cause large errors.
We employ a two-phase technique in the spirit of spin-echo to address this problem. In phase 1, we first do a photon transfer operation between $B$, $C$ and $E$, $D$ with a speed relatively fast compared to $\omega_{int}$ and $\delta\omega_s =
-2E_J^0\chi^2\delta(\phi^2)/\hbar$, the uncertainty in the photon frequency shift. We then wait for a desired interaction time $t=
\pi/\omega_{int}$ after which we do another photon transfer between $B$, $C$ and $E$, $D$. In phase 2, we first perform a bit flip for the 2 qubits, in other words do a photon transfer operation between $A$, $B$ and $E$, $F$. We then repeat phase 1. At the end, we perform a bit flip on the two qubits again. In this process, depending on their initial states the qubits will acquire the same random phase due to $\delta\omega_s$ in either phase 1 or 2, thus removing the effect of the randomness in the photon energy shifts. The end result is a $\pi$ phase shift on the 2-qubit states if they are both in 0 or 1 initially. This is equivalent to a controlled phase gate and it enables universal quantum computing in combination with the single qubit operations.
If the photon transfer operation between $B$, $C$ and $E$, $D$ was perfect, the controlled phase gate would be exact. phase shift in $C$ and $D$ could be eliminated completely. However, since the photons in $C$ and $D$ will interact with the FJS even during the photon transfer, our control phase gate will have errors. This can be seen by examining the system Hamiltonian during the photon transfer (in the rotating frame) $H= \hbar
\lambda_{bc}(\hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{c} + \hat{b}\hat{c}^{\dagger}) +
\hbar \lambda_{de}(\hat{d}^{\dagger}\hat{e} +
\hat{d}\hat{e}^{\dagger}) -2E_J^0\chi^2\phi^2(\hat{c}^{\dagger}\hat{c}
+\hat{d}^{\dagger}\hat{d}) -\hbar\omega_{int} \hat{c}^{\dagger}\hat{c}
\hat{d}^{\dagger}\hat{d}$. The first two terms are used for the photon transfer operation, however the remaining terms cannot be turned off making the photon transfer imperfect. Obviously, the fidelity of our controlled phase gate will be improved by making the photon transfer frequency $\lambda_{bc}$ and $\lambda_{de}$ large compared to $\delta\omega_s$ and $\omega_{int}$. We numerically studied our control phase gate using the full Hamiltonian and plotted the gate error in Fig \[fig2\] (b). We set $\lambda \equiv \lambda_{bc} =
\lambda_{de}$. For our choice of system parameters, $\lambda/\delta\omega_s \approx 20$ and the gate error is on the order of $10^{-3}$.
Our microelectronic system is easily scalable as shown in Fig. \[fig2\] (c). We can extend the setup for the control phase gate in both ends to integrate many TLR qubits on the same chip with an FJS between each pair of qubits. This is a 1d architecture with controllable interactions between adjacent qubits that can be scaled to a large number of qubits.
In order to perform photonic qubit quantum computing, we still need to be able to generate and detect single photons. Photon generation on superconducting chip has been demonstrated experimentally [@ref:PGE1; @ref:PGE2; @ref:PGE3]. For photon detection [@ref:detector; @ref:qnd], we again consider a CBJJ coupled to a TLR of frequency $\omega_0$ as shown in Fig. \[fig3\] (a). The CBJJ is prepared in the ground state $|g \rangle$ in the well of its washboard potential. We also make use of an unstable excited state $|e
\rangle$ where the CBJJ can tunnel to the voltage state with a large rate $\Gamma$. By adjusting the CBJJ’s bias current, we can tune the CBJJ in resonance with $\omega_0$. The CBJJ will then be excited by the TLR photon to $|e \rangle$. When it escapes from $|e \rangle$, a detectable voltage appears across the CBJJ.
Though an easy and reliable method, our scheme may fail to detect a photon in the TLR due to the photon decay and the CBJJ’s intra-well decay and decoherence. The TLR photon may decay before being detected by the CBJJ. The CBJJ’s intra-well decay from $|e \rangle$ to $|g
\rangle$ and its finite decoherence time are concerns too. To study the influence of the photon loss rate and CBJJ’s intra-well decay and decoherence on the efficiency of our photon detector, we model it as a 3-state system shown in Fig. \[fig3\] (a), where $|f \rangle$ represents the voltage state. We use the Master equation $d\rho/dt
=-i[H,\rho] +\mathcal{L} \rho$. Here, $\rho$ is the density matrix of the system, the system Hamiltonian $H= \delta \hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a}
+g_{td}(\hat{a}^{\dagger} \sigma_{ge} +\hat{a} \sigma_{eg})$, the detuning $\delta =\omega_0 -\mu$, $\mu$ the frequency difference between $|e \rangle$ and $|g \rangle$. The Liouvillian $\mathcal{L}
\rho =\frac{\kappa}{2} \mathcal{L}[\hat{a}]\rho
+\frac{\Gamma}{2}\mathcal{L}[\sigma_{ef}]\rho +\frac{\gamma
_{T}}{2}\mathcal{L}[\sigma_{eg}]\rho
+\frac{\gamma_\varphi}{2}\Sigma_{i = g,e}\mathcal{L}[|i\rangle\langle
i|]\rho$, where $\mathcal{L}[\hat{O}]\rho \equiv
2\hat{O}\rho\hat{O}^\dagger -
\hat{O}^\dagger\hat{O}\rho-\rho\hat{O}^\dagger\hat{O}$. $\kappa$ is the decay rate of the photon in the TLR, $\gamma_T$ and $\gamma_{\varphi}$ are the intra-well decay rate and dephasing rate of the CBJJ, $\sigma_{ij} =|i\rangle \langle j|$ for $i,j=g,e,f$, and $\sigma_z= |e\rangle \langle e| -|g\rangle \langle g|$.
Assuming initially there is a photon in the TLR and the CBJJ is in $|g
\rangle$, we plot the detecting efficiency (the probability the CBJJ ends up in $|f \rangle$) in Fig. \[fig3\] (b) as a function of $\Gamma/\kappa$. As can be seen, the efficiency is high even for moderately large escaping rate $\Gamma$. For $\Gamma/2\pi =20$MHz [@ref:Gamma] and $\kappa/2\pi = 10$kHz, the detection efficiency is above $99\%$. Also, it is demonstrated in our simulation that the influence of $\gamma_{\varphi}$ to the detection efficiency is minor and thus the detecting CBJJ does not need to have long decoherence times.
In summary, we have shown that, by using TLR microwave photons as qubits and Josephson devices as optical devices, a superconducting chip provides an ideal implementation for fully integrated photonic qubit quantum computing. Thanks to our careful design, high gate fidelities can be achieved and thus our scheme is a realistic approach. Since our system is based on existing mature technologies, fast experimental progress can be expected to bring integrated photonic qubit quantum computing to reality. The novel idea of using on-chip microwave photons as qubits also opens the possibility of investigating many interesting optical quantum effects in an integrated system.
This work was supported by NNSF of China (Grant Nos. 10875110, 60621064, 10874170) and National Fundamental Research Program of China (No. 2006CB921900).
A. Politi, M. J. Cryan, J. G. Rarity, S. Yu, and J. L.O’Brien, Science [**320**]{}, 646 (2008).
R. G. Hunsperger, [*Integrated Optics*]{}, Springer, 2002.
F. Plastina and G. Falci, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 224514 (2003).
X. Zhou [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 030301(R) (2004).
A. Blais, R. S. Huang, A. Wallraff, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A. [**69**]{}, 062320 (2004).
I. L. Chuang and Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A [**52**]{}, 3489 (1995).
M. A. Nielsen and I. L.Chuang, “*Quantum computation and quantum information*,” Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Notice that even though we use the 2-state formalism for the CBJJ for the convenience of keeping only the relevant terms in the system Hamiltonian, our scheme does not rely on treating the CBJJ as a 2-state system. The CBJJ will only be virtually excited so potential problems with the 2-state approximation such as insufficient anharmonicity do not affect our results at all.
Y. Hu *et al.*, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 012314 (2007).
A. Wallraf *et al.*, Nature (London) [**431**]{}, 162 (2004).
M. A. Sillanpaa, J. I. Park, and R. W. Simmonds, Nature (London) [**448**]{}, 438 (2007).
P. K. Day *et al.*, Nature (London) [**425**]{}, 817 (2003).
G. Ithier *et al.*, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 134519 (2005).
J. M. Martinis, Quantum Inf. Process. [**8**]{}, 81(2009).
X. Zhou and A. Mizel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 267201 (2006).
S. H. W. van der Ploeg [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 057004 (2007).
B. T. H. Varcoe, S. Brattke, M. Weidinger and H. Walther, Nature (London) [**403**]{}, 743 (2000).
A. A. Houck *et al.*, Nature (London) [**449**]{} 328 (2007).
M. Hofheinz *et al.*, Nature (London) [**454**]{}, 310 (2008).
G. Romero, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, and E. Solano, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 173602 (2009).
F. Helmer, M. Mariantoni, E. Solano, and F. Marquardt, Phys. Rev. A [**79**]{}, 052115 (2009).
K. B. Cooper *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 180401 (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Ketil Malde
---
![\[fig:orgc25ca3b\] Cluster radius for the 65 individual categories (gray) and the average (black) as training progresses.](cluster_radii.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
![\[fig:org02c6c6b\] Output change measured as the distance cluster centroids move between iterations. Individual centroids are shown in gray and the average in black.](cluster_moved.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
![\[fig:orgad41be3\] Prediction accuracy from assigning each image to the nearest centroid. Only the validation set is shown. Accuracy plateaus at 0.838 after 30 iterations, and decreases slightly after 35.](train_acc.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
![\[fig:org74b1661\] Classification performance using the kNN algorithm for different values of $k$.](Average_metrics_30.png){width="0.6\linewidth"}
**Class** **Recall** **Confounders** **Class** **Recall** **Confounders**
--------------------------- ------------ ------------------------------ -- --------------------------- ------------ ----------------------------
Acantharea 82 Phaeodaria (12) Harpacticoida 86 Oncaeidae (8)
Acartiidae 93 Calanoida (7) Hyperiidea 76 Calanoida (7)
Actinopterygii 95 larvae\_\_Crustacea 47 calyptopsis (22)
Annelida 84 Limacidae 58 Limacinidae (36)
Bivalvia\_\_Mollusca 93 Limacinidae 87
Brachyura 98 Luciferidae 72 Decapoda (15)
bubble 97 megalopa 94
Calanidae 74 Calanoida (24) multiple\_\_Copepoda 79 Calanoida (7)
Calanoida 97 nauplii\_\_Cirripedia 97
calyptopsis 91 nauplii\_\_Crustacea 99
Candaciidae 74 Calanoida (16) nectophore\_\_Diphyidae 88 gonophore\_\_Diphyidae (9)
Cavoliniidae 91 nectophore\_\_Physonectae 94
Centropagidae 60 Calanoida (39) Neoceratium 90 seaweed (6)
Chaetognatha 96 Noctiluca 97
tail\_\_Chaetognatha 39 Obelia 95
Copilia 92 Oikopleuridae 99
Corycaeidae 94 Oithonidae 95 Calanoida (5)
Coscinodiscus 99 Oncaeidae 89 Corycaeidae (5)
Creseidae 95 Ophiuroidea 93
cyphonaute 100 Ostracoda 94
cypris 81 Ostracoda (13) Penilia 99
Decapoda 92 Phaeodaria 95 Foraminifera (5)
zoea\_\_Decapoda 6 Podon 76 Evadne (17)
Doliolida 96 Pontellidae 94
egg\_\_Actinopterygii 95 Rhincalanidae 77 Eucalanidae (21)
egg\_\_Cavolinia\_inflexa 82 egg\_\_Actinopterygii (5) Salpida 92
Eucalanidae 78 Calanoida (9) Sapphirinidae 85
Euchaetidae 65 Calanoida (32) scale 82 Noctiluca (5)
eudoxie\_\_Diphyidae 80 nectophore\_\_Diphyidae (13) seaweed 86
Evadne 95 tail\_\_Appendicularia 85 Chaetognatha (5)
Foraminifera 87 tail\_\_Chaetognatha 49 Chaetognatha (39)
Fritillariidae 87 Oikopleuridae (10) Temoridae 97
gonophore\_\_Diphyidae 84 nectophore\_\_Diphyidae (12) zoea\_\_Decapoda 92 Decapoda (6)
Haloptilus 91 Calanoida (5)
: \[tab:org8ed8974\] Accuracy per class on the test set using Inception v3 for classification. Confounders are the most frequent incorrect labels reported when the error occurs in more than 5% of the cases.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We introduce in this paper a new four-parameter generalized version of the linear failure rate (LFR) distribution which is called Beta-linear failure rate (BLFR) distribution. The new distribution is quite flexible and can be used effectively in modeling survival data and reliability problems. It can have a constant, decreasing, increasing, upside-down bathtub (unimodal) and bathtub-shaped failure rate function depending on its parameters. It includes some well-known lifetime distributions as special sub-models. We provide a comprehensive account of the mathematical properties of the new distributions. In particular, A closed-form expressions for the density, cumulative distribution and hazard rate function of the BLFR is given. Also, the $r$th order moment of this distribution is derived. We discuss maximum likelihood estimation of the unknown parameters of the new model for complete sample and obtain an expression for Fisher�s information matrix. In the end, to show the flexibility of this distribution and illustrative purposes, an application using a real data set is presented.
MSC: 60E05; 62F10; 62P99.
Keywords: Beta distribution; Hazard function; Linear failure rate distribution; Maximum likelihood estimation; Moments; Simulation.
author:
- |
A. A. Jafari, E. Mahmoudi[^1]\
Department of Statistics, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran
title: 'Beta-Linear Failure Rate Distribution and its Applications'
---
Introduction
============
The linear failure rate distribution with parameters $a\geq0$ and $b\geq0$, ($a+b>0$) which is denoted by ${\rm LFRD}(a,b)$, has the cumulative distribution function (CDF) $$\label{eq.FLFR}
G\left(x\right)=1-{\exp \left(-ax-\frac{b}{2}x^2\right)},\ \ \ \ \ x>0,$$ and probability density function $$\label{eq.fLFR}
{\rm g}\left(x\right)=\left(a+bx\right){\exp \left(-ax-\frac{b}{2}x^2\right)},\ \ \ \ \ x>0.$$
Note that if $b=0$ and $a\neq0$, then the LFR distribution is reduced to exponential distribution with parameter $a$ (${\rm
Exp}(a)$), and if $a=0$ and $b\neq0$ then we can obtain the Rayleigh distribution with parameter $b$ (${\rm Rayleigh}(b)$). A basic structural properties of ${\rm LFRD(}a,b)$ is that it is the distribution of minimum of two independent random variables $X_1$ and $X_2$ having ${\rm Exp}(a)$ and ${\rm Rayleigh}(b)$ distributions, respectively (Sen and Bhattachrayya, 1995).
If $G$ denotes the CDF of a random variable then a generalized class of distributions can be defined by $$\label{eq.FB}
F\left(x\right)=I_{G\left(x\right)}\left(\alpha ,\beta \right)=\frac{1}{B\left(\alpha ,\beta \right)}\int^{G\left(x\right)}_0{t^{\alpha -1}{\left(1-t\right)}^{\beta -1}}dt,$$ for $\alpha >0$ and $\beta >0$, where $I_y\left(\alpha ,\beta \right)=\frac{B_y\left(\alpha ,\beta \right)}{B\left(\alpha ,\beta \right)}$ is the incomplete beta function ratio and $B_y\left(\alpha ,\beta \right)=\int^y_0{t^{\alpha -1}{\left(1-t\right)}^{\beta -1}}$ is the incomplete beta function.
Many authors considered various forms of $G$ and studied their properties: Eugene et al. (2002) (Beta Normal distribution), Nadarajah and Kotz (2004) (Beta Gumbel distribution), Nadarajah and Gupta (2004) and Barreto-Souza et al. (2011) (Beta Fr$\acute{{\rm e}}$chet distribution), Famoye et al. (2005), Lee et al. (2007) and Cordeiro et al. (2008) (Beta Weibull distribution), Nadarajah and Kotz (2006) (Beta Exponential distribution), Akinsete et al. (2008) (Beta Pareto distribution), Silva et al. (2010) (Beta Modified Weibull distribution), Mahmoudi (2011) (Beta generalized Pareto distribution), Cordeiro et al. (2011) (Beta-exponentiated Weibull distribution), Cordeiro et al. (2011) (Beta-Weibull geometric distribution), Singla et al. (2012) (Beta generalized Weibull distribution), Cordeiro et al. (2012) (Beta generalized gamma distribution) and Cordeiro et al. (2012) (Beta generalized normal distribution).
In this article, we propose a new four parameters distribution, referred to as the BLFR distribution, which contains as special sub-models: the Beta exponential (BE), Beta Rayleigh (BR), generalized linear failure rate (GLFR) and linear failure rate (LFR) distributions, among others. The main reasons for introducing BLFR distribution are: (i) The additional parameters introduced by the beta generalization is sought as a means to furnish a more flexible distribution. (ii) Some modeling phenomenon with non-monotone failure rates such as the bathtub-shaped and unimodal failure rates, which are common in reliability and biological studies, take a reasonable parametric fit with this distribution. (iii) The BLFR distribution is expected to have immediate application in reliability and survival studies. (iv) BLFR distribution shows better fitting, more flexible in shape and easier to perform and formula for modeling lifetime data.
The reminder of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we define the BLFR distribution and outline some special cases of the distribution. We investigate some properties of the distribution in this Section. Some of these properties are the limit behavior and shapes of the pdf and hazard rate function of the BLFR distribution. Section 3 provides a general expansion for the moments of the BLFR distribution. In Section 4, we discuss maximum likelihood estimation and calculate the elements of the observed information matrix. Application of the BLFR distribution is given in the Section 5. A simulation study is performed in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 concludes the paper.
Definition of the BLFR distribution and some special cases
===========================================================
Consider that ${\rm g}(x)\ =\ dG(x)/dx$ is the density of the baseline distribution. Then the probability density function corresponding to (\[eq.FB\]) can be written in the form $$\label{eq.fB}
f\left(x\right)=\frac{g(x)}{B\left(\alpha ,\beta
\right)}{G\left(x\right)}^{\alpha
-1}{\left(1-G\left(x\right)\right)}^{\beta-1}.$$
We now introduce the BLFR distribution by taking $G(x)$ in (\[eq.FB\]) to be the CDF (\[eq.FLFR\]) of the LFR distribution. Hence, the BLFR density function can be written as $$\label{eq.fBLFR}
f\left(x\right)=\frac{a+bx}{B\left(\alpha ,\beta
\right)}{\left(1-{\exp \left(-ax-\frac{b}{2}x^2\right)\
}\right)}^{\alpha-1}{\exp \left(-a\beta x-\frac{b\beta}{2}x^2\right) },$$ and we use the notation $X\sim {\rm BLFR}\ (a, b, \alpha , \beta )$.
The hazard rate function of BLFR distribution is given by $$\label{eq.hBLFR}
h\left(x\right)=\frac{a+bx}{B\left(\alpha ,\beta
\right)-B_{G(x)}\left(\alpha ,\beta \right)}{\left(1-{\exp
\left(-ax-\frac{b}{2}x^2\right)\ }\right)}^{\alpha -1}{\exp
\left(-a\beta x-\frac{b\beta }{2}x^2\right) }.$$
Plots of pdf and hazard rate function of the BLFR distribution for different values of it’s parameters are given in Fig. \[fig.den\] and Fig. \[fig.hz\], respectively.
Special cases of the BLFR distribution
---------------------------------------
1. If $\beta =1$, then we get the generalized linear failure rate distribution (${\rm GLFR}(a,b,\alpha )$) which is introduced by Sarhan and Kundu (2009).
2. If $\beta =1$ and $b=0$, then we get the generalized exponential distribution (GE) (Gupta and Kundu, 1999).
3. If $\beta =1$ and $a=0$, then we get two-parameter Burr X distribution which is introduced by Surles and Padgett (2005) and also is known as generalized Rayleigh distribution (GR) (Kundu and Raqab, 2005) .
4. If $\alpha =\beta =1$, then (2.2) reduces to the linear failure rate distribution (${\rm LFR}(a,b)$) distribution.
5. If $b=0$, then we get the beta exponential distribution (${\rm BE}(a,\alpha ,\beta )$) which is introduced by Nadarajah and Kotz (2006).
6. If $a=0$, then we get the beta Rayleigh distribution (${\rm BR}(b,\beta )$) which is defined by Akinsete and Lowe (2009) and is a special case of beta Weibull distribution (Famoye et al., 2005).
7. If the random variable $X$ ** has BLFR distribution, then the random variable $$Y=1-{\exp \left(-aX-\frac{b}{2}X^2\right)\ },$$ satisfies the beta distribution with parameters $\alpha $ and $\beta $. Therefore, $$T=aX+\frac{b}{2}X^2$$ satisfies the beta exponential distribution with parameters 1, $\alpha $ and $\beta $ (${\rm BE}(1,\alpha ,\beta )$).
8. If $\alpha =i$ and $\beta =n-i$, where $i$ and $n$ are positive integer values, then the $f(x)$ is the density function of $i$th order statistic of LFR distribution.
The following result helps in simulating data from the BLFR distribution: If $Y$ follows Beta distribution with parameters $\alpha $ and $\beta $, then $$X=G^{-1}\left(Y\right)=\left\{ \begin{array}{lcc}
\frac{-a+\sqrt{a^2-2b{\log (1-Y)\ }}}{b} & & {\rm if}\ \ \ b>0 \\
& & \\
-\frac{{\log \left(1-Y\right)\ }}{a}\ \ \ \ \ \ & & {\rm \ \ \ \ \ \ \ if\ \ \ }a{\rm >}0,\ b=0, \end{array}
\right.$$ follows BLFR distribution with parameters $a,\ b,\ \alpha $, and $\beta $.
For checking the consistency of the simulating data set form BLFR distribution, the histogram for a generated data set with size 100 and the exact BLFR density with parameters $a=0.2$, $b=0.1$, $\alpha=2$, and $\beta=0.3$, are displayed in Fig \[Fig.gd\] (left). Also, the empirical distribution function and the exact distribution function is given in Fig \[Fig.gd\] (right).
Properties of the BLFR distribution
------------------------------------
In this section, limiting behavior of pff and hazard rate function of the BLFR distribution and their shapes are studied.
[**Theorem 1.**]{} Let $f(x)$ be the pdf of the BLFR distribution. The limiting behaviour of $f$ for different values of its parameters is given bellow:
i.
: If $\alpha =1$ then ${\mathop{\lim }_{x\rightarrow 0} f(x)\ }=a\beta$.
ii.
: If $\alpha >1$ then ${\mathop{\lim }_{x \rightarrow 0} f(x)\ }=0$.
iii.
: If $0<\alpha <1$ then ${\mathop{\lim }_{x \rightarrow 0} f(x)\ }=\infty$.
iv.
: ${\mathop{\lim }_{x\rightarrow \infty} f(x)\ }=0$.
**Proof:** The proof of parts (i)-(iii) are obvious. For part (iv), we have
$$0\leq{\left(1-{\exp \left(-ax-\frac{b}{2}x^2\right)\ }\right)}^{\alpha-1}<1\Rightarrow 0<f\left(x\right)<\ \frac{a+bx}{B\left(\alpha ,\beta \right)}{\exp \left(-a\beta x-\frac{b\beta}{2}x^2\right)\
}.$$ It can be easily shown that $${\mathop{\lim }_{x\rightarrow\infty} (a+bx){\exp \left(-a\beta x-\frac{b \beta}{2}x^2\right) } }=0.$$ and the proof is completed. $\hfill\blacksquare$
[**Theorem 2.**]{} Let $f(x)$ be the density function of the BLFR distribution. The mode of $f$ is given in the following cases:
i.
: If $\alpha =1$ and $-a+\sqrt{\frac{b}{\beta }\ }>0$ then $f(x)$ has a unique mode in $x=\frac{1}{b}(-a+\sqrt{\frac{b}{\beta }\ })$
i.
: If $\alpha =1$ and $-a+\sqrt{\frac{b}{\beta }\ }<0$ then $f(x)$ has a unique mode in $x=0$.
ii.
: If $\alpha >1$ then $f(x)$ has at least one mode.
**Proof:** The proof is obvious and is omitted. $\hfill\blacksquare$
[**Theorem 3.**]{} Let $h(x)$ be the hazard rate function of the BLFR distribution. Consider the following cases:
i.
: If $\alpha =1$ and $b>0$ then BLFR distribution has an increasing hazard rate function.
ii.
: If $\alpha > 1$ and $b>0$ then the hazard rate function of the BLFR distribution is an increasing.
iii.
: If $b = 0$ BLFR distribution has a decreasing hazard rate function for $\alpha < 1(>1)$, and $h(x)$ is constant for $\alpha =
1$.
iv.
: If $\alpha < 1$ and $b>0$ then $h(x)$ is a bathtub-shaped.
**Proof:**
i\. If $\alpha =1$ then $B\left(\alpha ,\beta \right)-B_{G(x)}\left(\alpha ,\beta \right)=\frac{1}{\beta}\ {\exp \left(-a\beta x-\frac{b\beta }{2}x^2\right)\ }$. Therefore $$h\left(x\right)=\frac{a+bx}{\frac{1}{\beta}\ {\exp \left(-a\beta x-\frac{b\beta }{2}x^2\right)\ }}{\exp \left(-a\beta x-\frac{b\beta }{2}x^2\right)\
}=�\left(a+bx\right),$$ which is an increasing and linear function with respect to $x.$
ii\. Consider $$z=ax+\frac{b}{2}x^2=\frac{b}{2}{\left(x+\frac{a}{b}\right)}^2-\frac{a^2}{2b}$$ It implies that $z>0$ for $x>0$ and also, it is increasing with respect to $x$. We have $x=\frac{1}{b}\sqrt{2bz+a^2}-\frac{a}{b}$. Now, rewriting the BLFR density as function of $z$, $\xi \left(z\right)$ say, we obtain $$\xi \left(z\right)=f\left(\sqrt{2bz+a^2}-\frac{a}{b}\right)=\frac{\sqrt{2bz+a^2}}{B\left(\alpha ,\ \beta \right)}{\left(1-{\exp \left(-z\right)\ }\right)}^{\alpha -1}{\exp \left(-\beta z\right).}$$ Therefore, we have $$\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial z^2}{\log \xi \left(z\right)\ }=-2b^2{\left(2bz+a^2\right)}^{-2}+\left(\alpha -1\right)\frac{-{\exp \left(-z\right)\ }}{\ {\left(1-{\exp \left(-z\right)\ }\right)}^2}<0,$$ and we conclude that the hazard function of BLFR distribution is increasing.
iii\. If $b=0$ then $${\log \left(f\left(x\right)\right)\ }={\log \left(a\right)\ }-{\log \left(B\left(\alpha ,\ \beta \right)\right)+\left(\alpha -1\right)\ }{\log \left(1-{\exp \left(-ax\right)\ }\right)\ }-a\beta x,$$ and $$\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial x^2}{\log \left(f\left(x\right)\right)\ }=-\frac{\left(\alpha -1\right){\exp \left(-ax\right)\ }}{\left(1-{\exp \left(-ax\right)\ }\right)^2}.$$ Thus we have $\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial x^2}{\log
\left(f\left(x\right)\right)\ }>0(<0)$ where $\alpha<1(>1)$, which implies the decreasing (increasing) hazard rate functions in this cases.
iv\. It is difficult to determine analytically the regions corresponding to the upside-down bathtub shaped (unimodal) and bathtub-shaped hazard rate functions for the BLFR distribution. However, by some graphical analysis we can shows: bathtub-shaped hazard rate function correspond to $\alpha < 1$ and $b>0$. the proof is completed. $\hfill\blacksquare$
Some extensions and Moments of the BLFR distribution
====================================================
Here, we present some representations of CDF, PDF, and the survival function of BLFR distribution. The mathematical relation given below will be useful in this section. If $\beta $ is a positive real non-integer and $\left|z\right|<1$, then $${\left(1-z\right)}^{\beta -1}=\sum^{\infty }_{j=0}{w_jz^j},$$ and if $\beta $ is a positive real integer, then the upper of the this summation stops at $\beta-1$, where $$w_j=\frac{{\left(-1\right)}^j\Gamma (\beta )}{\Gamma (\beta -j)\Gamma (j+1)}.$$
1\. We can express (\[eq.FB\]) as a mixture of distribution function of generalized LFR distributions as follows: $$F\left(x\right)=\sum^{\infty }_{j=0}{p_j{\left(G\left(x\right)\right)}^{\alpha +j}}=\sum^{\infty }_{j=0}{p_jG_j(x)},$$ where $p_j=\frac{{\left(-1\right)}^j\Gamma (\alpha +\beta )}{\Gamma\left(\alpha \right)\Gamma \left(\beta -j\right)\Gamma\left(j+1\right)\left(\alpha +j\right)}$ and $G_{{j}}\left(x\right)={\left(G\left(x\right)\right)}^{\alpha +j}$ is distribution function of a random variable which has a generalized LFR distribution with parameters $a$, $b$, and $\alpha +j$.
2\. We can express (\[eq.fBLFR\]) as a mixture of density function of generalized LFR distributions as follows: $$f\left(x\right)=\sum^{\infty }_{j=0}{p_j{\rm (}\alpha {\rm +}j{\rm )g}\left(x\right){\left(G\left(x\right)\right)}^{\alpha +j-1}}=\sum^{\infty }_{j=0}{p_j{{\rm g}}_{j}\left(x\right)},$$ where ${{\rm g}}_{j}\left(x\right)$ is density function of a random variable which has a generalized LFR distribution with parameters $a$, $b$, and $\alpha +j$.
3\. The cdf can be expressed in terms of the hypergeometric function and the incomplete beta function ratio (see, Cordeiro and Nadarajah, 2011) in the following way: $$F\left(x\right)=\frac{{G\left(x\right)}^{\alpha }}{\alpha B\left(\alpha ,\beta \right)}\ _2F_1\left(\alpha ,1-\beta ;\alpha +1;G\left(x\right)\right),$$ where $_2F_1\left(a,b;c;z\right)=\sum^{\infty }_{k=0}{\left({\left(a\right)}_k{\left(b\right)}_k\right)/\left({\left(c\right)}_kk!\right)z^k}$.
4\. The $k$th moment of BLFR distribution can be expressed as a mixture of the $k$th moment of generalized LFR distributions as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
E(X^k)&=&\int^{\infty }_0{x^kf\left(x\right)dx}=\int^{\infty }_0{x^k\sum^{\infty }_{j=0}{p_j{\rm (}\alpha {\rm +}j{\rm )g}\left(x\right){\left(G\left(x\right)\right)}^{\alpha +j-1}}dx} \nonumber\\
&=&\sum^{\infty }_{j=0}{p_j\int^{\infty }_0{x^k{g}_{j}\left(x\right)dx}}=\sum^{\infty }_{j=0}{p_jE(X^k_j)},\end{aligned}$$ where ${g}_{j}\left(x\right)$ is density function of a random variable $X_j$ which has a generalized LFR distribution with parameters $a$, $b$, and $\alpha +j$.
Estimation and inference
=========================
Consider $X_1,\dots X_n$ is a random sample from BLFR distribution. The log-likelihood function for the vector of parameters $\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}=(a,b,\alpha ,\beta )$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq.like}
\ell \left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)&=&\sum^n_{i=1}{{\log \left(a+bx_i\right) }}-n{\log \left(\Gamma \left(\alpha \right)\right) }-n{\log \left(\Gamma \left(\beta \right)\right)}\nonumber \\
&&+n{\log \left(\Gamma \left(\alpha +\beta \right)\right)}+\left(\alpha-1\right)\sum^n_{i=1}{{\log \left(1-{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }\right)}}+\beta\sum^n_{i=1}{ t_i},\end{aligned}$$ where $t_i=-a x_i-\frac{b}{2}x^2_i$. The log-likelihood can be maximized either directly or by solving the nonlinear likelihood equations obtained by differentiating (\[eq.like\]). The components of the score vector $U\left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)$ ** are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&U_a\left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)=\frac{\partial }{\partial a}\ell \left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)=\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{1}{a+bx_i}}+\left(\alpha-1\right)\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x_i{\exp \left(t_i\right) }}{1-{\exp \left(t_i\right) }}}-\beta\sum^n_{i=1}{x_i},\\
&&
U_b\left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)=\frac{\partial }{\partial b}\ell \left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)=\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x_i}{a+bx_i}}+\frac{\left(\alpha-1\right)}{2}\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x^2_i{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }}{1-{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }}}-\frac{\beta}{2}\sum^n_{i=1}{x^2_i},\\
&&
U_{\alpha}\left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)=\frac{\partial }{\partial\alpha }\ell \left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)=-n\psi \left(\alpha\right)+n\psi \left(\alpha+\beta\right)+\sum^n_{i=1}{{\log \left(1-{\exp \left(t_i\right)}\right)\ }},\\
&& U_{\beta }\left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)=\frac{\partial }{\partial\beta }\ell \left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)=-n\psi
\left(\beta\right)+n\psi \left(\alpha+\beta\right)+\sum^n_{i=1}{t_i}.\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi \left(.\right)$ is the digamma function.
For interval estimation and hypothesis tests on the model parameters, we require the observed information matrix. The $4\times 4$ unit observed information matrix $J=J(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$})$ is obtained as $$J=\left[ \begin{array}{cccc}
J_{aa} & J_{ab} & J_{a\alpha } & J_{a\beta } \\
J_{ba} & J_{bb} & J_{b\alpha } & J_{b\beta } \\
J_{\alpha a} & J_{\alpha b } & J_{\alpha \alpha } & J_{\alpha \beta } \\
J_{\beta a } & J_{\beta b } & J_{ \beta \alpha} & J_{\beta \beta } \end{array}
\right].$$ where the expressions for the elements of $J$ are $$\begin{aligned}
&J_{aa}=\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial a\partial a}\ell \left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)=-\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{1}{{\left(a+bx_i\right)}^2}}+\left(\alpha-1\right)\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x^2_i{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }}{1-{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }}}-\left(\alpha-1\right)\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x^2_i{\exp \left(2t_i\right)\ }}{{\left(1-{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }\right)}^2\ }}\\
&J_{ab}=J_{ba}=\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial b\partial a}\ell \left({\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} }\right)=-\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x_i}{{\left(a+bx_i\right)}^2}}+\frac{\left(\alpha-1\right)}{2}\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x^3_i{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }}{1-{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }}}-\frac{\left(\alpha-1\right)}{2}\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x^3_i{\exp \left(2t_i\right)\ }}{{\left(1-{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }\right)}^2\ }}\\
&J_{a\alpha }=J_{\alpha a}=\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial\alpha \partial a}\ell \left({\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} }\right)=\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x_i{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }}{1-{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&J_{a\beta }=J_{\beta a}=\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial\beta \partial a}\ell \left({\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} }\right)=\sum^n_{i=1}{x_i}\\
&J_{bb}=\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial b\partial b}\ell \left({\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} }\right)=-\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x^2_i}{{\left(a+bx_i\right)}^2}}-\frac{\left(\alpha-1\right)}{4}\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x^4_i{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }}{1-{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }\ }}-\frac{\left(\alpha-1\right)}{4}\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x^4_i{\exp \left(2t_i\right)\ }}{{\left(1-{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }\right)}^2\ }}\\
&J_{b\alpha }=J_{\alpha b}=\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial\alpha \partial b}\ell \left({\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} }\right)=\frac{1}{2}\sum^n_{i=1}{\frac{x^2_i{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }}{1-{\exp \left(t_i\right)\ }}}\\
&J_{b\beta }=J_{\beta b}=\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial \beta \partial b}\ell \left({\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} }\right)=
-\frac{1}{2}\sum^n_{i=1}{x_i}\\
&J_{\alpha\alpha }=\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial \alpha^2}\ell \left({\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} }\right)=n{\psi}'\left(\alpha+\beta\right)-n{\psi}'\left(\alpha\right)\\
&J_{\alpha \beta }=J_{\beta \alpha }=\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial\beta \partial\alpha }\ell \left({\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} }\right)=n{\psi}'\left(\alpha+\beta\right)\\
&J_{\beta \beta }=\frac{{\partial }^2}{\partial\beta \partial\beta }\ell \left({\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} }\right)=n{\psi }'\left(\alpha+\beta\right)-n{\psi }'\left(\beta\right)\end{aligned}$$ where ${\psi }'\left(.\right)$ is the trigamma function.
Under conditions that are fulfilled for parameters in the interior of the parameter space but not on the boundary, asymptotically $$\sqrt{n}\left(\widehat{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}-\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)\sim N_4\left(0,\ I{\left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)}^{-1}\right),$$ where $I\left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)$ ** is the expected information matrix. This asymptotic behavior is valid if $I\left(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\right)$ is replaced by $J(\widehat{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}})$, i.e., the observed information matrix evaluated at $\widehat{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}$.
For constructing tests of hypothesis and confidence region we can use from this result. An asymptotic confidence interval with confidence level $1-\gamma $ for each parameter $\theta_i$, $i=1,2,3,4$, is given by $$\left( \hat{\theta}_i-z_{\gamma/2}\sqrt{J^{\theta_i}} \ , \ \hat{\theta}_i+z_{\gamma/2}\sqrt{J^{\theta_i}}\right),$$ where $J^{\theta_i}$ is the $i$th diagonal element of $J(\widehat{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}})$ and $z_{\gamma/2}$ is the upper $\gamma/2$ point of standard normal distribution.
Application of BLFR to real data set
====================================
In this section, we provide a data analysis to see how the new model works in practice. This data set is given by Aarset (1987) and consists of times to first failure of fifty devices. The data is given by
0.1, 0.2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 21, 32, 36, 40, 45, 46, 47, 50,
55, 60, 63, 63, 67, 67, 67, 67, 72, 75, 79, 82, 82, 83, 84, 84, 84, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 86, 86.
In this section we fit BLFR, GLFR, LFR, GR, GE, Rayleigh and exponential models to the above data set. We use the maximum likelihood method to estimate the model parameters and calculate the standard errors of the MLE’s, respectively. The MLEs of the parameters (with std.), the maximized log-likelihood, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic with its respective *p*-value, the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion), AICC and BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) for the BLFR, GLFR, LFR, GR, GE, Rayleigh and exponential models are given in Table \[table1\].
We can perform formal goodness-of-fit tests in order to verify which distribution fits better to the first data. We apply the Anderson-Darling (AD) and Cramr�von Mises (CM) tests. In general, the smaller the values of AD and CM, the better the fit to the data. For this data set, the values of AD and CM statistics for fitted distributions are given in in Table \[table1\].
The empirical scaled TTT transform (Aarset, 1987) can be used to identify the shape of the hazard function. The scaled TTT transform is convex (concave) if the hazard rate is decreasing (increasing), and for bathtub (unimodal) hazard rates, the scaled TTT transform is first convex (concave) and then concave (convex). The TTT plot for this data in Fig. \[fig.ex1\] shows a bathtub-shaped hazard rate function and, therefore, indicates the appropriateness of the BLFR distribution to fit this data. The empirical distribution versus the fitted cumulative distribution functions of BLFR, GLFR, LFR, GR, GE, Rayleigh and exponential distributions are displayed in Fig. \[fig.ex1\].
The results for this data set show that the BLFR distribution yields the best fit among the GLFR, LFR, GR, GE, Rayleigh and exponential distributions. For this data, the K-S test statistic takes the smallest value with the largest value of its respective *p*-value for BLFR distribution. Also this conclusion is confirmed from the values of the AIC, AICC and BIC for the fitted models given in Table \[table1\] and the plots of the densities and cumulative distribution functions in Fig. \[fig.ex1\].
Using the likelihood ratio (LR) test, we test the null hypothesis $H_0$: GLFR versus the alternative hypothesis H1: BLFR, or equivalently, $H_0$: $b=0$ versus $H_1$: $b\neq 0$. The value of the LR test statistic and the corresponding *p*-value are 3.4 and 0.019, respectively. Therefore, the null hypothesis (GLFR model) is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis (BLFR model) for a significance level $>$ 0.019. For test the null hypothesis $H_0$: LFR versus the alternative hypothesis $H_1$: BLFR, or equivalently, $H_0$: $(a,b)=(1,1)$ versus $H_1$: $(a,b)\neq(1,1)$, the value of the LR test statistic is 15.3 (*p*-value = 0.00047), which includes that the null hypothesis (LFR model) is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis (BLFR model) for any significance level. We also test the null hypothesis $H_0$: GR versus the alternative hypothesis $H_1$: BLFR, or equivalently, $H_0$: $(\alpha,b)=(1,1)$ versus $H_1$: $(\alpha,b)\neq(1,1)$. The value of the LR test statistic is 8.3 (*p*-value = 0.0158), which includes that the null hypothesis (GR model) is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis (BLFR model) for a significance level $> 0.0158$. For test the null hypothesis $H_0$: GE versus the alternative hypothesis $H_1$: BLFR, or equivalently, $H_0$: $(\beta,b)=(1,1)$ versus $H_1$: $(\beta,b)\neq(1,1)$, the value of the LR test statistic is 19.2 (*p*-value = 6e-05), which includes that the null hypothesis (GR model) is rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis (BLFR model) for any significance level.
Simulations
===========
This section provides the results of simulation study. simulations have been performed in order to investigate the proposed estimator of $\alpha ,$ $\beta $,$a$ and $b$ of the proposed MLE method. We generated 10000 samples of size $n=30,\ 50,\ 100$ and $200$ from the BLFR distribution for each one of the six set of values of $\left(\alpha ,\beta ,a,b \right).$ We assess the accuracy of the approximation of the standard error of the MLEs determined though the Fisher information matrix. The approximate values of $se(\hat{\alpha })$, $se(\hat{\beta })$, $se(\hat{a})$ and $se(\hat{b})$ are computed. The results for the BLFR distribution is shown in Table \[table.2\], which indicate the following results: (i) convergence has been achieved in all cases and this emphasizes the numerical stability of the MLE method. (ii) The differences between the average estimates and the true values are almost small. (iii) These results suggest that the MLE estimates have performed consistently. (iv) The standard errors of the MLEs decrease when the sample size increases.
Conclusion
===========
We define a new model, called the BLFR distributions, which generalizes the LFR and GLFR distributions. The BLFR distributions contain the GLFR, LFR,GR, GE, Rayleigh and exponential distributions as special cases. The BLFR distribution present hazard functions with a very flexible behavior. We obtain closed form expressions for the moments. Maximum likelihood estimation is discussed. Finally, we fitted BLFR distribution to a real data set to show the potential of the new proposed class.
[99]{}
Aarset, M. V. (1987). How to identify bathtub hazard rate, *IEEE Transactions on Reliability*, 36(1), 106–108.
Akinsete, A., Famoye, F., Lee, C. (2008). The beta-Pareto distribution, *Statistics*, 42(6), 547–563.
Akinsete, A., Lowe C. (2009). Beta-Rayleigh distribution in reliability measure. Section on Physical and Engineering Sciences, *Proceedings of the American Statistical Association*, (1), 3103–3107.
Barreto-Souza, W., Santos A. H. S., Cordeiro, G. M. (2010). The beta generalized exponential distribution, [*Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation*]{}, 80, 159–172.
Barreto-Souza, W., Cordeiro, G., Simas, A. (2011). Some Results for Beta Frechet Distribution, [*Communication in Statistics-Theory and Methods*]{}, 40(5), 798-811.
Cordeiro, G. M., Simas, A. B., Stosic, B. (2008). Explicit expressions for moments of the beta Weibull distribution, Preprint:/arXiv:0809.1860v1S.
Cordeiroa, G. M., Silva, G. O., Ortega, E. E. M. A. D. C., Cintra, L. C., Rago, L. C. (2011). The beta-Weibull geometric distribution, [*Statistics*]{}, DOI: 10.1080/02331888.2011.577897.
Cordeiroa, G. M., Gomez, A. E., de Silva, C. Q., Ortega, E. E. M. (2011). The beta exponentiated Weibull distribution, [*Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation*]{}, DOI: 10.1080/00949655.2011.615838.
Cordeiro, G. M., Nadarajah, S. (2011). Closed form expressions for moments of a class of Beta generalized distributions, [*Brazilian Journal of Probability and Statistics*]{}, 25, 14–33.
Cordeiroa, G. M., Castellaresb, F., Montenegrob, L. C., de Castro, M. (2012). The beta generalized gamma distribution, [*Statistics*]{}, DOI: 10.1080/02331888.2012.658397.
Cordeiroa, G. M., Nascimento, A. D. C., Cintra, L. C., Rago, L. C. (2012). Beta generalized normal distribution with an application for SAR image processing, [*Statistics*]{}, DOI: 10.1080/02331888.2012.748776.
Eugene, N., Lee, C., Famoye, F. (2002). Beta-normal distribution and its applications, [*Communication in Statistics-Theory and Methods*]{}, 31, 497–512.
Famoye, F., Lee, C., Olumolade, O. (2005). The beta-Weibull distribution, [*Journal of Statistical Theory and Applications*]{}, 4 (2), 121–136.
Gupta, R. D., Kundu, D. (1999). Generalized exponential distribution, [*Australian and New Zealand Journal of Statistics*]{}, 41 (2), 173–188.
Khan, M. S. (2010). The beta inverse Weibull distribution, [*International Transactions in Mathematical Sciences and Computer*]{}, 3, 113-119.
Kundu, D., Raqab, M. (2005). Generalized Rayleigh distribution: different methods of estimations, [*Computational Statistics and Data Analysis*]{}, 49, 187–200.
Lee, C., Famoye, F., Olumolade, O. (2007). Beta-Weibull distribution: some properties and applications to censored data, [*Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods*]{}, 6, 173–86.
Mahmoudi, E. (2011). The beta generalized Pareto distribution with application to lifetime data, [*Mathematics and Computers in Simulation*]{}, 81(11), 2414–2430.
Nadarajah, S., Gupta, A. K. (2004). The beta Fr$\acute{{\rm e}}$chet distribution, [*Far East Journal of Theoretical Statistics*]{}, 14, 15–24.
Nadarajah, S., Kotz, S. (2004). The beta Gumbel distribution, [*Mathematical Problems in Engineering*]{}, 10, 323–332.
Nadarajah, S., Kotz, S. (2006). The beta exponential distribution, [*Reliability Engineering and System Safety*]{}, 91, 689–697.
Sarhan, M., Kundu, D. (2009). Generalized Linear Failure Rate Distribution, [*Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods*]{}, 38(5), 642–660.
Sen, A., Bhattacharya, G. K. (1995). Inference procedure for the linear failure rate model, [*Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference*]{}, 46, 59–76.
Silva, G. O., Ortega, E. M. M., Cordeiro, G. M. (2010). The beta modified Weibull distribution, [*Lifetime Data Analysis*]{}, 16, 409–430.
Singla, N., Jain, K., Kumar Sharma, S. (2012). The Beta Generalized Weibull distribution: Properties and applications, [*Reliability Engineering*]{} & [*System Safety*]{}, 102, 5–15.
Surles, J. G., Padgett, W. J. (2005). Some properties of a scaled Burr type X distribution, [*Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference*]{}, 128, 271–280.
![Plots of pdf of the BLFR distribution for selected parameters. []{data-label="fig.den"}](pdf1.eps "fig:") ![Plots of pdf of the BLFR distribution for selected parameters. []{data-label="fig.den"}](pdf3.eps "fig:") ![Plots of pdf of the BLFR distribution for selected parameters. []{data-label="fig.den"}](pdf7.eps "fig:") ![Plots of pdf of the BLFR distribution for selected parameters. []{data-label="fig.den"}](pdf8.eps "fig:") ![Plots of pdf of the BLFR distribution for selected parameters. []{data-label="fig.den"}](pdf10.eps "fig:") ![Plots of pdf of the BLFR distribution for selected parameters. []{data-label="fig.den"}](pdf12.eps "fig:")
![Plots of hazard rate function of the BLFR distribution for selected parameters. []{data-label="fig.hz"}](haz1.eps "fig:") ![Plots of hazard rate function of the BLFR distribution for selected parameters. []{data-label="fig.hz"}](haz2.eps "fig:") ![Plots of hazard rate function of the BLFR distribution for selected parameters. []{data-label="fig.hz"}](haz3.eps "fig:") ![Plots of hazard rate function of the BLFR distribution for selected parameters. []{data-label="fig.hz"}](haz6.eps "fig:") ![Plots of hazard rate function of the BLFR distribution for selected parameters. []{data-label="fig.hz"}](haz7.eps "fig:") ![Plots of hazard rate function of the BLFR distribution for selected parameters. []{data-label="fig.hz"}](haz9.eps "fig:")
![The histogram of a generated data set with size 100 and the exact BLFR density (left) and the empirical distribution function and exact distribution function (right). []{data-label="Fig.gd"}](simpdfvshist.eps "fig:") ![The histogram of a generated data set with size 100 and the exact BLFR density (left) and the empirical distribution function and exact distribution function (right). []{data-label="Fig.gd"}](simcdfvsempricalcdf.eps "fig:")
![Plots of the empirical scaled TTT transform (left), and the empirical distribution versus the fitted cumulative distribution functions (right). []{data-label="fig.ex1"}](TTTplot.eps "fig:") ![Plots of the empirical scaled TTT transform (left), and the empirical distribution versus the fitted cumulative distribution functions (right). []{data-label="fig.ex1"}](empricalcdfvscdf.eps "fig:")
---------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ----------- -------------- -----------
**BLFR** **GLFR** **LFR** **GR** **GE** **Rayleigh** **Exp.**
$\hat{a}$ 0.3347 0.5327 — 0.3520 0.7798 — —
(s.e.) (0.1432) (0.1145) — (0.0559) (0.1351) — —
$\hat{b}$ 0.1243 — — — — — —
(s.e.) (0.0722) — — — — — —
$\hat{\alpha}$ 0.0172 0.0038 0.0136 — 0.0187 — 0.02189
(s.e.) (0.0354) (0.0030) (0.0038) — (0.00363) — (0.00309)
$\hat{\beta}$ 0.0348 0.00031 0.00024 0.00031 — 0.00064 —
(s.e.) (0.0025) (0.00008) (0.0001) (0.00008) — (0.00009) —
-2log L 460.8 466.3 476.1 469.1 480.0 528.1 482.2
AIC 468.8 472.3 480.1 473.1 484.0 530.1 484.2
AICC 469.6 472.8 480.4 473.4 484.2 530.2 484.3
BIC 476.4 478.0 484.0 477.0 487.8 532.0 486.1
K-S 0.1554 0.1830 0.1768 0.2009 0.2042 0.2621 0.1911
P-value 0.1786 0.0703 0.0877 0.0353 0.0309 0.0021 0.0519
AD 1.749 2.4890 4.0346 3.0923 3.2530 13.3205 3.6505
CM 0.3574 0.4959 0.5443 0.6111 0.6472 0.8728 0.6006
---------------- ---------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ----------- -------------- -----------
: MLEs (STDs) of the fitted distribution, K-S, *p*-values, $-2\log(L)$, AIC, AICC, BIC, AD and CM corresponds to times to first failure.[]{data-label="table1"}
----- ------------------------ --------------------- -------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------------------ --------------- ---------------
$n$ $(\alpha ,\beta ,a,b)$ $\widehat{\alpha }$ $\widehat{\beta }$ $\hat{a}$ $\hat{b}$ $sd(\widehat{\alpha })$ $sd(\widehat{\beta })$ $sd(\hat{a})$ $sd(\hat{b})$
30 (.5,.5,1,1) 0.534 0.537 2.453 2.363 0.449 0.606 4.346 3.454
(.5,.5,1,2) 0.528 0.671 1.896 4.485 0.290 0.875 3.191 5.528
(.5,.5,3,1) .4915 .7123 3.321 3.082 0.145 0.571 5.336 5.236
(1,2,1,3) 1.158 2.058 1.977 5.266 0.534 1.415 3.576 6.547
(3,2,1,1) 4.995 4.043 1.275 2.623 8.496 2.761 1.754 7.102
(3,3,3,3) 3.251 4.035 3.249 3.568 1.627 2.054 3.520 3.978
50 (.5,.5,1,1) 0.497 0.714 1.623 1.705 0.151 0.843 2.505 2.153
(.5,.5,1,2) 0.504 0.709 1.798 3.720 0.170 0.934 2.233 4.437
(.5,.5,3,1) .491 0.730 3.579 1.937 .1165 .5404 6.525 2.658
(1,2,1,3) 1.079 2.053 1.658 5.232 .3852 1.392 2.272 6.470
(3,2,1,1) 4.308 4.237 1.222 2.635 6.246 2.982 1.654 7.820
(3,3,3,3) 3.086 3.874 3.131 3.859 1.307 1.923 3.073 4.716
100 (.5,.5,1,1) .4916 .7806 1.683 1.293 .1087 .9284 2.698 1.179
(.5,.5,1,2) .4892 .7829 3.597 3.547 3.277 .2104 5.221 3.875
(.5,.5,3,1) .4923 .7513 3.741 1.275 .0815 .5388 5.177 1.556
(1,2,1,3) 1.023 2.169 1.396 5.047 .2841 1.443 1.470 6.017
(3,2,1,1) 3.385 4.122 1.079 2.169 2.669 2.977 1.339 4.954
(3,3,3,3) 2.998 3.779 3.091 3.612 .8535 1.973 2.374 4.357
200 (.5,.5,1,1) .4897 .7999 1.465 1.121 .0739 .9091 2.022 .8251
(.5,.5,1,2) .4881 .7773 1.642 2.495 .0845 .9556 2.227 1.902
(.5,.5,3,1) .4936 .7369 3.762 1.036 .0567 .4984 4.427 1.038
(1,2,1,3) 1.005 2.062 1.264 4.522 .1967 1.122 .8104 4.719
(3,2,1,1) 3.070 4.021 .9440 1.987 1.311 2.944 .9673 3.587
(3,3,3,3) 2.999 3.766 3.053 3.626 .6332 2.025 1.940 3.962
----- ------------------------ --------------------- -------------------- ----------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------------------ --------------- ---------------
: The averages of the 10000 MLE’s and mean of the simulated standard errors for BLFR distribution. []{data-label="table.2"}
[^1]: corresponding; Email:[email protected]; Phone: +98-351-8122703; Fax: +98-351-8210695
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $G:= (\mathbb C^{\star })^k\times SL_2(\mathbb C)$ act linearly on a vector space or its projectivisation. We obtain an effective criterion to detect whether a number of orbits in an orbit-closure is finite or not.'
author:
- 'E. V. Sharoyko'
title: 'Quasihomogeneous $(\mathbb C^*)^k \times SL_2(\mathbb C)$-varieties containing a finite number of orbits'
---
Introduction
============
In this work we operate over complex numbers $\mathbb C$. Suppose $G:= (\mathbb C^{\star })^k\times SL_2(\mathbb C)$, $V$ is a rational finite-dimensional $G$-module, $\mathbb P(V)$ is its projectivisation, $\EuScript X((\mathbb C^{\star})^k)\cong \mathbb Z^k$ is the lattice of characters of the torus $(\mathbb C^{\star})^k$. As each $G$-module is completely reducible, then $V=\bigoplus\limits_{i=1}^sV_i$, where $V_i$ is a simple rational $G$-module. Let us denote by $V_{\chi_i, n_i}$ the space of binary forms of degree $n_i$ where $G$ acts as follows: $$(t, \left (\begin{array}{cc}\kappa &\lambda \\\mu &\nu\end{array}\right ))
(f(x, y))=\chi_i(t)f(\kappa x+\mu y, \lambda x+\nu y).$$ Here $n_i\in \mathbb Z_+$, $\chi_i\in \EuScript X((\mathbb C^{\star})^k)$. Then every $V_i$ is isomorphic to some $V_{\chi_i, n_i}$.
In this paper we consider the actions $G:V$ and $G:\mathbb P(V)$. Our aim is to obtain a criterion for detection whether a number of orbits in an orbit-closure is finite or not. In [@Pa] this problem was solved for actions $SL_2(\mathbb C):\mathbb P(V)$. In affine case there is always a finite number of orbits as it is shown in [@Po].
A $multiplicity$ is a map $e_i:\mathbb C\cup\{\infty \}\to \mathbb Z_+$ such that $e_i(\infty ):=\sum\limits_{a\in \mathbb C}e_i(a)$, and $e_i(\infty)\le n_i$. For any $v_i\in V_i$ we have $v_i=c_ix^{n_i-e_i(\infty)}
\prod\limits_{a\in \mathbb C}{(ax+y)^{e_i(a)}}$, and for any $v\in V$ one has $v=(c_iv_i)_{i=1}^s=(c_ix^{n_i-e_i(\infty)}
\prod\limits _{a\in \mathbb C}{(ax+y)^{e_i(a)}})_{i=1}^s$, $c_i\in \mathbb C$. One can assume that $\forall i$ $c_i\ne 0$. Since the map $V\to V$, $(c_iv_i)_{i=1}^s\mapsto (v_i)_{i=1}^s$ is a $G$-automorphism we may assume $c_i=1$ for all $i$. Denote by $(u_i)_{i\in I}$, $I\subset
\{1, \ldots, s\}$ the vector $u\in V$ such that its $i$-th component is equal to $u_i$ iff $i\in I$ and to 0 in other case.
Here we recall some definitions and formulate the main results of the paper.
Suppose $\langle\cdot, \cdot\rangle$ is the standard scalar product on $\mathbb Q^{k+1}$. We take in $\mathbb Z^k\times \mathbb Z_+\subset
\mathbb Q^{k+1}$ the set of points $(\chi_i, n_i)=\chi'_i\in\EuScript X((\mathbb C^{\star})^k\times~\mathbb C^{\star})$, $i=1, \ldots s$. This set is called [*characteristic*]{} and its points are called [*characteristic points*]{}. Let us consider the rays from zero to the characteristic points and denote by $M$ the convex hull of these rays. One can see that $M$ is a cone. To each face $F$ of the cone $M$ we assign the set of all characteristic points containing in this face. This set [*forms a face $F$*]{}. Consider the family of vectors $R=(r_1, \ldots r_k, p)$ with $p<0$ which are orthogonal to a face $F$ and non-orthogonal to any face containing $F$. If there exists a vector such that for any characteristic point $\chi'_i$ we have $\langle\chi'_i, R\rangle\ge 0$, then the face $F$ is called [*admissible*]{}. In this case we shall denote this face by $I(R)$.
The number of $G$-orbits in $\overline{Gv}$, $v\in V$ is finite iff for each admissible face $I(R)$ of maximal dimension of the cone $M$ and for any integer-valued vector $\beta=(\beta_i)_{i\in I(R)}$ such that $\sum\limits_{i\in I(R)}\beta_i\chi_i=0$ the following conditions hold: $$\label{afkritk}
\sum\limits_{i\in I(R)}e_i(a)\beta_i=0 \quad\forall a\in\mathbb C.$$
Proceed to the projective case. As in affine version we take in $\mathbb Z^k\times \mathbb Z_+\subset\mathbb Q^{k+1}$ the points $(\chi_i, n_i)=\chi'_i\in\EuScript X((\mathbb C^{\star})^k\times~\mathbb C^{\star})$ for $i=1, \ldots s$ and denote their convex by $C$. To each face $F$ of $C$ we assign the set of all characteristic points containing in this face. This set [*forms an affine face $F$*]{}. Consider the family of vectors $R=(r_1, \ldots r_k, p)$ with $p<0$ which are orthogonal to a face $F$ and non-orthogonal to any face containing $F$. If there exists a vector $R=(r_1, \ldots r_k, p)$ with $p<0$ which is orthogonal to a face $F$, non-orthogonal to any face containing $F$, and directed into the polyhedron $C$, then the affine face $F$ is called [*admissible*]{}. In this case we shall denote this face by $J(R)$.
The number of $G$-orbits in $\overline{G\langle v\rangle}$, $\langle v\rangle\in \mathbb P(V)$ is finite iff for each admissible face $J(R)$ of maximal dimension of the polyhedron $C$ and for any integer-valued vector $\beta=(\beta_i)_{i\in J(R)}$ such that $\sum\limits_{i\in J(R)}\beta_i\chi_i=0$ and $\sum\limits_{i\in J(R)}\beta_i=0$ the following conditions hold: $$\label{prkritk}
\sum\limits_{i\in J(R)}e_i(a)\beta_i=0 \quad\forall a\in\mathbb C.$$
Suppose $k=1$, $V=V_{1,1}\oplus V_{1, 4}\oplus V_{2,4}\oplus V_{3,3}\oplus V_{4, 2}$, $v=(v_1, x^2y^2, x^2(y-x)^2, xy(y-x), x^2)$, where $v_1$ is any linear form. Consider the orbit-closure $\overline{\mathbb C^*\times SL_2(\mathbb C)\langle v\rangle}\subset \mathbb P(V)$. The faces {B, C} and {C, D, E} are admissible faces of maximal dimension. For the face {B, C} all conditions of Theorem 2 hold. For the face {C, D, E} the vector $\beta=(0,0,1,-2,1)$ doesn’t satisfy the condition (2) for $a=0$. Therefore, $\overline{G\langle v\rangle}$ contains infinitely many orbits. Actually, for the curves of the form $\gamma(t)=(t^{-1}, \left (\begin{array}{cc}t^{-1}&-dt^{-1}\\0&t\end{array}\right ))$ with $e_i(d)=0$ we have $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma(t)\langle v\rangle=\langle (0, 0, (d+1)^2x^4, d(d+1)x^3, x^2)\rangle$. Let us prove that there is an infinite number of different $G$-orbits among orbits of this form. Suppose $\Phi\langle v(d_1)\rangle=(t, \left (\begin{array}{cc}\kappa &\lambda \\\mu &\nu\end{array}\right ))
\langle v(d_1)\rangle=\langle v(d_2)\rangle $. Since $\langle x\rangle$ is $\Phi$-invariant then we have $\mu=0, \nu=\kappa^{-1}$. As $\Phi x^2=x^2$ then we obtain $\kappa=\pm 1$. The following conditions are: $t^2(d_1+1)^2=(d_2+1)^2$ ¨ $t^3d_1(d_1+1)=d_2(d_2+1)$. It’s easy to see that for any $d_1$ there exists only a finite number of $d_2$ such that $\langle v(d_2)\rangle$ is in the same orbit. Therefore, the number of orbits in $\overline{G\langle v\rangle}$ is infinite.
(38.75,34.5)(0,0) (9.75,10.75)[(0,1)[18.5]{}]{} (9.75,10.75) (9.75,29.25)[(1,0)[5]{}]{} (9.75,29.25) (14.75,29.25)(.033653846,-.034340659)[364]{}[(0,-1)[.034340659]{}]{} (14.75,29.25) (27,16.75)(-.09550562,-.03370787)[178]{}[(-1,0)[.09550562]{}]{} (27,16.75) (20.82,23) (15.5,30.5) (21.5,24) (26.75,17.25) (5,8) (4.25,34.5)[(0,1)[.07]{}]{}(4.25,0)[(0,1)[34.5]{}]{} (38.75,5)[(1,0)[.07]{}]{}(0,5)[(1,0)[38.75]{}]{} (5,30.5)
Also we describe all $G$-moduli for which the orbit-closure of any orbit in $V$ (Corollary 1) and in $\mathbb P(V)$ (Corollary 2) contains a finite number of $G$-orbits.
The author is grateful to I. V. Arzhantsev for problem statement and useful discussions.
Some Lemmas
===========
Let $B$ be the direct product of $(\mathbb C^*)^k$ and the subgroup of upper-triangular matrices in $SL_2(\mathbb C)$. Then $B$ is the Borel subgroup of $G$.
We shall consider $B$-orbits in $\overline{Bv}$. It is known that $\overline{Bv}$ intersects any $G$-orbit in $\overline{Gv}$ ([@Kr III.2.5, Cor. 1]). Hence, if there is a finite number of $B$-orbits in $\overline{Bv}$, then there is a finite number of $G$-orbits in $\overline{Gv}$. In the sequel we shall see that the inverse statement is also true. Let us say that some condition holds [*for almost all orbits*]{} if it holds for all orbits except finitely many.
Two following lemmas generalize Lemma and Proposition 1 from [@Pa].
Let $\gamma :\mathbb C^{\star} \to B$ be a curve in $B$. We shall prove that any $B$-orbit in $\overline{Bv}$ contains a point $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v$ for some special curve $\gamma(t)$.
Suppose $v\in V$, $w\in \overline{Bv}$. Then there exist $p,q,r_1, \ldots r_k\in \mathbb Z$ with $q<-p$, $c\in \mathbb C$, and a polynomial $h\in \mathbb C[t]$ with $h(0)=-1$ and $\deg h<-p-q$ such that $$\lim\limits_{t\to 0}(t^{r_1}, \ldots t^{r_k}, \left (\begin{array}{cc}t^p&ch(t)t^q\\0&t^{-p}\end{array}\right ))v\in Bw.$$
Let $\gamma(t)\in B(\mathbb C((t)))$ be an analitic curve in $B$ such that $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v=w'\in Bw$. If $\delta (t)\in B(\mathbb C((t)))$ such that $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\delta(t)\in B$, then $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}(\delta (t)\cdot \gamma (t)v)=\delta (0)w'$, and without loss of generality we can replace $\gamma (t)$ by $\delta (t)\gamma (t)$.
Consider $p, q, r_1, \ldots r_k\in \mathbb Z, c\in \mathbb C, f_1, \ldots f_k,
g_1, g_2\in \mathbb C[[t]],
f_1(0)\ne ~0, \ldots f_k(0)\ne ~0, g_1(0)\ne ~0, \linebreak g_2(0)=-g_1(0)$ and $$\gamma(t)=(t^{r_1}f_1, \ldots t^{r_k}f_k,
\left (\begin{array}{cc}t^pg_1&cg_2t^q\\0&t^{-p}g_1^{-1}\end{array}\right )).$$ If $á=0$ or $q\ge -p$ we put $$\delta(t):=(f_1^{-1}, \ldots f_k^{-1},\left (\begin{array}{cc}g_1^{-1}&-t^{p+q}cg_2\\0&g_1\end{array}\right )).$$ Then $\delta (t)\gamma (t)=(t^{r_1}, \ldots t^{r_k},\left (\begin{array}{cc}t^p&0\\0&t^{-p}\end{array}\right ))$. If $á\ne 0$ and $q<-p$ we put $$\delta(t):=(f_1^{-1}, \ldots f_k^{-1}, \left (\begin{array}{cc}g_1^{-1}&ch'(t)\\0&g_1\end{array}\right )),$$ where $h'\in\mathbb C[[t]]$ such that $h:=h't^{-p-q}g_1^{-1}+g_2g_1^{-1}\in \mathbb C[t]$ is a polynomial of degree less than $-p-q$. Then $h(0)=g_2(0)g_1(0)^{-1}=-1$ and $\newline\delta (t)\gamma (t)=(t^{r_1}, \ldots t^{r_k},\left (\begin{array}{cc}t^p&cht^q\\0&t^{-p}\end{array}\right ))$.
Suppose $q<-p, \deg h<-p-q$. We shall compute $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v$ and prove that in almost all $B$-orbits in $\overline {Bv}$ a vector of some standard form is contained.
Now we give some notations: $p_i(d)=\prod\limits_{a\in \mathbb C, a\ne d}(a-d)^{e_i(a)}$ as $d\in \mathbb C$ and $p_i(\infty)=1$; $I(d, R, A):=\{ i\mid \langle\chi'_i, R\rangle +Ae_i(d)=0\}$, $d\in\mathbb C\cup\{\infty\}$, $A\in \mathbb Z$ (In particular, $I(R):=I(d, R, 0)$); $v(d, R, A):= (p_i(d) x^{n_i})_{i\in I(d,R, A)}$, $v(d, R):=v(d, R, 0)$. Vectors of the form $v(d,R)$ are called [*standard*]{}.
Consider a vector of the form $v(d, R)$, where $R=(r_1, \ldots, r_k, p)$, $p<0$. If $\forall i\in I(R)$ $e_i(d)=0$, then $v(d, R)\in \overline {Bv}$. Almost all $B$-orbits in $\overline {Bv}$ contain a vector of this form.
We shall consider different types of the curve $\gamma$, where $\gamma$ is of the form described in Lemma 1. For an irreducible $G$-module $V=V_{\chi, n}$ we have $$\gamma (t)v=t^{\langle\chi', R\rangle-pe(\infty)}x^{n-e(\infty)}
\prod\limits _{a\in \mathbb C}{((at^p+ch(t)t^q)x+t^{-p}y)^{e(a)}},$$ where $R=(r_1, \ldots, r_k, p)$, $\chi'=(\chi, n)$.
1\. $p=0, c=0$. For an irreducible $G$-module $V$ we have $$\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v=
\lim\limits_{t\to 0}t^{\langle\chi', R\rangle}x^{n-e(\infty)}
\newline\prod\limits_{a\in \mathbb C}(ax+y)^{e(a)}.$$ The limit exists iff $\langle\chi', R\rangle\ge 0$. For a reducible $G$-module $V$ the limit exists iff $\forall i$ $\langle\chi'_i, R\rangle\ge 0$. In this case it is equal to $(v_i)_{i\in I(R)}$. Since $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v_i$ is either $0$ or $v_i$, there is a finite number of the vectors of this form.
2\. $p>0, c=0$. For an irreducible $G$-module $V$ we have $$\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v=\lim\limits_{t\to 0}t^{\langle\chi', R\rangle-2pe(\infty )}
\newline x^{n-e(\infty )}y^{e(\infty )}.$$ The limit exists iff $\langle\chi', R\rangle-2pe(\infty)\ge ~0$. For a reducible $G$-module $V$ the limit exists iff $\forall i$ $\langle\chi'_i, R\rangle-2pe_i(\infty )\ge 0$. In this case it is equal to $(x^{n_i-e_i(\infty )}y^{e_i(\infty )})_{i\in I(\infty , R, -2p)}.$ Since $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v_i$ is either $0$ or $x^{n_i-e_i(\infty )}y^{e_i(\infty )}$, there is a finite number of the vectors of this form.
3\. $p<0, c=0$. For an irreducible $G$-module $V$ we have $$\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v=
\lim\limits _{t\to 0}t^{\langle\chi', R\rangle-2pe(0)}
\newline x^{n-e(0)}y^{e(0)}
\prod\limits_{a\in \mathbb C, a\ne 0}a^{e(a)}.$$ The limit exists iff $\langle\chi', R\rangle-2pe(0)\ge ~0$. For a reducible $G$-module $V$ the limit exists iff $\forall i$ $\langle\chi'_i, R\rangle-2pe_i(0)\ge 0$. In this case it is equal to $(x^{n_i-e_i(0)}y^{e_i(0)}p_i(0))_{i\in I(0 , R, -2p)}$. Since $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v_i$ is either $0$ or $x^{n_i-e_i(0)}y^{e_i(0)}p_i(0)$, there is a finite number of the vectors of this form.
4\. $p=q, h\equiv -1$ (then we have $p<0$). For an irreducible $G$-module $V$ we have $$\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v=
\lim\limits _{t\to 0}t^{\langle\chi', R\rangle-2pe(c)}
\newline x^{n-e(c)}y^{e(c)}
\prod\limits_{a\in \mathbb C, a\ne c}(a-c)^{e(a)}.$$ The limit exists iff $\langle\chi', R\rangle-2pe(c)\ge ~0$. For a reducible $G$-module $V$ the limit exists iff $\forall i$ $\langle\chi'_i, R\rangle-2pe_i(c)\ge 0$. In this case it is equal to $(x^{n_i-e_i(c)}y^{e_i(c)}p_i(c))_{i\in I(c, R, -2p)}$. Since $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v_i$ is either $0$ or $x^{n_i-e_i(c)}y^{e_i(c)}p_i(c)$, there is a finite number of the vectors of this form with $e_i(c)\ne 0$. If for any $i$ we have $e_i(c)=0$, then this is a standard vector $v(c, R)$.
5\. $p=q, c\ne 0, h\not \equiv -1$ (then we have $p<0$). Suppose $h(t)=-1+h_lt^l+\ldots h_mt^m$. For an irreducible $G$-module $V$ we have $$\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v=
\lim\limits _{t\to 0}t^{\langle\chi', R\rangle+le(c)}x^n
(ch_l)^{e(c)}\prod\limits_{a\in \mathbb C, a\ne c}(a-c)^{e(a)}.$$ The limit exists iff $\langle\chi', R\rangle+le(c)\ge 0$. For a reducible $G$-module $V$ the limit exists iff $\forall i$ $\langle\chi'_i, R\rangle+le_i(c)\ge 0$. In this case it is equal to $((ch_l)^{e_i(c)}p_i(c)x^{n_i})_{i\in I(c, R, l)}$. Let us act on the vector by the element $((ch_l)^{r_1/l}, \ldots (ch_l)^{r_k/l}, \left (\begin{array}{cc}(ch_l)^{p/l}&0\\0&(ch_l)^{-p/l}\end{array}\right ))$ and $$((ch_l)^{\langle\chi'_i, R\rangle/l+e_i(c)}p_i(c)x^{n_i})_{i\in I(c,R, l)}=
(p_i(c)x^{n_i})_{i\in I(c, R, l)}=v(c,R, l).$$ There is a finite number of vectors of such form with $e_i(c)\ne 0$. If for any $i$ we have $e_i(c)=0$, then the vector is of the form $v(c, R)$.
6\. $p>q, c\ne 0$. For an irreducible $G$-module $V$ we have $$\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v=
\lim\limits _{t\to 0}t^{\langle\chi', R\rangle+(q-p)e(\infty )}x^n(-c)^{e(\infty )}.$$ The limit exists iff $\langle\chi', R\rangle+(q-p)e(\infty)\ge~ 0$. For a reducible $G$-module $V$ the limit exists iff $\forall i$ $\langle\chi'_i, R\rangle+(q-p)e_i(\infty )\ge 0$. In this case it is equal to $((-c)^{e_i(\infty )}x^{n_i})_{i\in I(\infty ,R, q-p)}$. Let us act on the vector by the element $$((-c)^{r_1/(q-p)}, \ldots (-c)^{r_k/(q-p)}, \left (\begin{array}{cc}(-c)^{p/(q-p)}&0\\0&(-c)^{-p/(q-p)}\end{array}\right ))$$ and $(p_i(\infty )x^{n_i})_{i\in I(\infty, R, q-p)}=
v(\infty , R, q-p)$.
7\. $p<q, c\ne 0$ (then we have $p<0$). For an irreducible $G$-module $V$ we have $$\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v=
\lim\limits _{t\to 0}(-c)^{e(0)}t^{\langle\chi', R\rangle+(q-p)e(0)}
x^n\prod\limits_{a\in \mathbb C, a\ne 0}a^{e(a)}.$$ The limit exists iff $\langle\chi', R\rangle+(q-p)e(0)\ge ~0$. For a reducible $G$-module $V$ the limit exists iff $\forall i$ $\langle\chi'_i, R\rangle+(q-p)e_i(0)\ge 0$. In this case it is equal to $(p_i(0)(-c)^{e_i(0)}x^{n_i})_{i\in I(0, R,q-p)}$. Let us act on the vector by the element $$((-c)^{r_1/(q-p)}, \ldots (-c)^{r_k/(q-p)}, \left (\begin{array}{cc}(-c)^{p/(q-p)}&0\\0&(-c)^{-p/(q-p)}\end{array}\right ))$$ and $(p_i(0)x^{n_i})_{i\in I(0,R,q-p)}=v(0,R,q-p)$.
Let us remark that one $B$-orbit may contain more than one standard vector.
Consider the curves of the form 6 and 7 from Lemma 2. Each non-zero component of the limit vector is $p_i(\infty )x^{n_i}$ in case 6 and $p_i(0)x^{n_i}$ in case 7. However, each component has only a finite number of possible values. This means that the curves of the forms 6 or 7 have only a finite number of vectors $v(c, R, A)$ as limits.
Consequently, $\overline{Bv}$ contains infinitely many $B$-orbits iff curves of the forms 4 and 5 from Lemma 2 with $e_i(c)=0$ have $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma(t)v$ in an infinite number of different $B$-orbits.
The number of $G$-orbits in $\overline{Gv}$ is finite iff the number of $B$-orbits in $\overline{Bv}$ is finite.
It is known that $\overline{Bv}$ intersects each $G$-orbit in $\overline{Gv}$ ([@Kr Korollar III.2.5.1]). Hence, if the number of $B$-orbits is finite then the number of $G$-orbits is finite. On the other hand, suppose that the number of $B$-orbits is infinite. Then there exist infinitely many standard vectors in different $B$-orbits. Let the element $g\in G$ move one standard vector to another. Then $g$ must preserve $\langle x \rangle$ and $g\in B$. However, every $G$-orbit contains at most one $B$-orbit of the vector $v(d, R)$ and the number of $G$-orbits in $\overline{Gv}$ is also infinite.
Our aim is to check the finiteness of the number of $B$-orbits in $\overline{Bv}$. It is sufficient to check the finiteness of the number of $B$-orbits containing a vector of the form $v(c,R)$ such that $I(R)$ is an admissible face. We shall now find out when a vector $v(d_2, R_2)$ can be obtained from $v(d_1, R_1)$ by $B$-action. Let us note that in this case one has $I(R_1)=I(R_2)$ and thus we can consider each admissible face separately. The number of orbits in a given orbit-closure is finite iff for each admissible face there exists only a finite number of standard vector orbits.
Suppose that an algebraic group $H$ acts on an irreducible variety $X$. Denote the minimal codimension of $H$-orbit in $X$ by $d(X, H)$. For an arbitrary variety $Y$ the [*modality*]{} of the action $H:Y$ is $$mod (Y, H)=\max\limits_{{X\subset Y,\atop X\ is\ irreducible\ and\
H-invariant}}d(X, H).$$
Under the action $G:V$ for any $v\in V$ we have $mod(\overline{Gv}, G)=
mod(\overline{Bv}, B)\le 1.$
Consider the space $\{(\alpha_ix^{n_i})_{i\in I(R)}\}$ for each admissible face $I(R)$. The torus $(\mathbb C^*)^{k+1}$ acts on this space as follows: $(\alpha_i)_{i\in I(R)}\mapsto (\chi'_i(t)\alpha_i)_{i\in I(R)}.$ In this space there is the curve $v(c, R)=
(\prod\limits_{a\in \mathbb C, a\ne c}(a-c)^{e_i(a)}x^{n_i})_{i\in I(R)}, c\in \mathbb C.$ If this curve intersects an infinite number of $(\mathbb C^*)^{k+1}$-orbits then $mod(\overline{Bv}, B)=1$. If for all admissible faces $v(c, R)$ intesects only a finite number of orbits of the torus, then the modality is zero.
It is easy to prove that $mod(\overline{Gv}, G)=mod(\overline{Bv}, B)$ as in Lemma 3.
Let us note that the inequality from Proposition 1 follows also from the paper of E. B. Vinberg [@V].
Affine case
===========
We shall obtain a criterion to detect whether the number of $B$ orbits in $\overline{Bv}$ is finite or not. Almost all $B$-orbits in $\overline{Bv}$ contain $\lim\limits_{t\to 0}\gamma (t)v$ for $\gamma(t)$ of the form described in Lemma 1 with $p=q<0, e_i(c)=0$ $\forall i$. By Lemma 2, for almost all orbits in $\overline{Bv}$ this limit is $v(c, R)$. We need to get the conditions which hold as we have $b\cdot v(d_1, R)=v(d_2, R)$ for some $b\in B$, $d_1, d_2\in \mathbb C$, $R=(r_1, \ldots, r_k, p)$, where $I(R)$ is an admissible face.
We shall use the following well-known fact (see, for example, [@St]):
Suppose $V=\mathbb C^m$, the k-dimensional torus $T$ acts on $V$ multiplying $i$th coordinate by the character $\chi_i$. Consider two points $x=(x_1, \ldots x_m)$ and $y=(y_1,\ldots y_m)$ of $V$ such that $x_1\ldots x_my_1\ldots y_m\ne 0$. Then $x$ and $y$ are in the same $T$-orbit iff for any $\beta=~(\beta_1, \ldots \beta_m)\in \mathbb Z^m$ such that $\beta_1\chi_1+ \ldots\beta_m\chi_m=0$ the condition $x_1^{\beta_1}\ldots x_m^{\beta_m}=y_1^{\beta_1}\ldots y_m^{\beta_m}$ is fulfilled.
The number of $G$-orbits in $\overline{Gv}$, $v\in V$ is finite iff for each admissible face $I(R)$ of maximal dimension of the cone $M$ and for any integer-valued vector $\beta=(\beta_i)_{i\in I(R)}$ such that $\sum\limits_{i\in I(R)}\beta_i\chi_i=0$ the following conditions hold: $$\sum\limits_{i\in I(R)}e_i(a)\beta_i=0 \quad \forall a\in\mathbb C.\leqno(1)$$
By Lemma 3, it is sufficient to consider the number of $B$-orbits in $\overline{Bv}$. We consider $b\cdot v(d_1, R)=v(d_2,R)$ and we shall obtain the conditions which hold as there is an infinite number of $d_2$ for some $d_1$. We have $(t, \left (\begin{array}{cc}\kappa&\lambda\\0&\kappa^{-1}
\end{array}\right ))p_i(d_1)x^{n_i}=p_i(d_2)x^{n_i}$. $\chi'_i(t, \kappa)\prod\limits_{a\in C, a\ne d_1}(a-d_1)^{e_i(a)}=
\prod\limits_{a\in C, a\ne d_2}(a-d_2)^{e_i(a)}.$ Since the equation of the face $I(R)$ is $\langle\chi'_i, R\rangle=0$, then we have $\chi'_i(t, \kappa)=\chi_i(t')$ ($\chi'_i(t, \kappa)=t_1^{\alpha_{1i}}
\ldots t_k^{\alpha_{ki}}\kappa^{n_i}=t_1^{\alpha_{1i}}
\ldots t_k^{\alpha_{ki}}\kappa^{-\alpha_{1i}r_1-\ldots -\alpha_{ki}r_k}=
(t_1\kappa^{-r_1})^{\alpha_{1i}}\ldots t_k\kappa^{-r_k})^{\alpha_{ki}}=
\chi_i(t'))$.
Therefore, $$\chi_i(t')\prod\limits_{a\in C, a\ne d_1}(a-d_1)^{e_i(a)}=
\prod\limits_{a\in C, a\ne d_2}(a-d_2)^{e_i(a)}.$$ Hence, the action is reduced to the action of the torus and, using Proposiion 2, we obtain that a $B$-orbit contains an infinite number of the vectors of the form $v(d,R)$ iff $\prod\limits_{i\in I(R)}\prod\limits_{a\in \mathbb C}(a-c)^{e_i(a)\beta_i}$ is independent of $c$ for any $\beta$ such that $\sum\limits_{i\in I(R)}\beta_i\chi_i=0$. And it is equivalent to the following condition: for any $a\in \mathbb C$ and any $\beta$ such that $\sum\limits_{i\in I(R)}\beta_i\chi_i=0$ we have $\sum\limits_{i\in I(R)}e_i(a)\beta_i=0$.
Finally, any admissible face is contained in an admissible face of maximal dimension. Hence, if condition (\[afkritk\]) is fulfilled for a bigger face then it is fulfilled for its subface. So, it is sufficient to deal only with faces of maximal dimension.
Now let us describe the $G$-moduli which have only a finite number of orbits in each orbit-closure.
Suppose that $I(R)$ is an admissible face of maximal dimension. A [*character matrix*]{} for this face is the matrix with the coordinates of characters $\chi'_i$, $i\in I(R)$ as its columns.
Any orbit-closure in $V$ contains a finite number of $G$-orbits iff for each admissible face $I(R)$ of the cone $M$ the characters $\chi_i$ $(i\in I(R), n_i\ne ~0)$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb Q$. Particularly, it is true if $M$ does not contain admissible faces.
By Theorem 1, $\overline{Gv}$ contains a finite number of $G$-orbits iff for each admissible face $I(R)$ and for any $c\in \mathbb C$ the vector $(e_i(c))_{i\in I(R)}$ is a rational linear combination of the rows of character matrix. The vector $(e_i(c))_{i\in I(R)}$ is called the [*vector of mutiplicities*]{}. Let us note that $E_j$ (the vector with 1 for $j$th coordinate and 0 for others) is a vector of multiplicities for some $c$ iff $j\in I(R)$ ¨ $n_j\ne 0$. On the other hand, any vector of multiplicities is a linear combination of $E_j$.
Projective case
===============
The number of $G$-orbits in $\overline{G\langle v\rangle}$, $\langle v\rangle\in \mathbb P(V)$ is finite iff for each admissible face $J(R)$ of maximal dimension of the polyhedron $C$ and for any integer-valued vector $\beta=(\beta_i)_{i\in J(R)}$ such that $\sum\limits_{i\in J(R)}\beta_i\chi_i=0$ and $\sum\limits_{i\in J(R)}\beta_i=0$ the following conditions hold: $$\sum\limits_{i\in J(R)}e_i(a)\beta_i=0 \quad\forall a\in\mathbb C.\leqno(2)$$
To obtain the criterion in the case of projective action $G:\mathbb P(V)$, we shall consider the linear action of bigger group $\mathbb C^*\times G$ on $V$ with characters $\hat{\chi_i}=(1, \chi_i)\in
\EuScript X((\mathbb C^{\star})^{k+1})$. Let the cone $M$ correspond to this action.
The number of $G$-orbits in $\overline{G\langle v\rangle}$, $\langle v\rangle\in \mathbb P(V)$ is finite iff for each admissible face $I(R)$ of maximal dimension of the cone $M$ and for any integer-valued vector $\beta=(\beta_i)_{i\in I(R)}$ such that $\sum\limits_{i\in I(R)}\beta_i\chi_i=0$ and $\sum\limits_{i\in I(R)}\beta_i=0$ the following conditions hold: $$\sum\limits_{i\in I(R)}e_i(a)\beta_i=0 \quad \forall a\in\mathbb C.$$
It follows from Theorem 1.
If we return from characters $\hat{\chi_i}$ back to $\chi_i$, then a set of the form $J(R):=\{ i\mid (\chi'_i, R)=\min\limits_j{(\chi'_j, R)}\}$ corresponds to each admissible face $I(R)$ of the cone. This set forms an admissible affine face of the intersection of the cone and the plane ${x_1=1}$.
In the case $G=SL_2$ the polyhedron $C$ is an arc and the only its admissible face is its right vertex. Theorem 2 shows that $\overline {SL_2\langle v\rangle}$ contains a finite number of $G$-orbits iff all components of maximal degree of the vector $v$ coincide. This fact was originally proved in [@Pa Prop. 4].
Any orbit-closure in $\mathbb P(V)$ contains a finite number of $G$-orbits iff for each admissible face $J(R)$ of the polyhedron $C$ the characters $\hat\chi_i$ $(i\in J(R), n_i\ne ~0)$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb Q$.
It easily follows from Corollary 1.
Consider the action $SL_2:\mathbb P(V_{n_1})\times\ldots\times\mathbb P(V_{n_m})$. Then any orbit-closure contains only a finite number of orbits. To prove it, we take the action of the group $SL_2\times(\mathbb C^{\star})^m$ on $V=V_{n_1}\oplus\ldots V_{n_m}$ with the character $\chi_i$ on $V_{n_i}$. Here $\chi_1=(1,0,\ldots 0),\ldots,\chi_m=(0,\ldots 0,1)$. Now we use Corollary 1.
[99]{} Kraft, H., Geometrische Methoden in der Invariantentheorie, Vieweg Verlag, Braunschweig 1985; Russian Transl.: Mir, Moscow 1987. Pauer, F., Closure of $SL_2(\mathbb C)$-orbits in projective spaces, Manuscripta Math. [**87**]{} (1995), 295-309. Popov, V. L., Structure of the closures of orbits in spaces of finite-dimensional linear representations of the group $SL_2$, Mat. Zametki [**16**]{} (1974), 1159-1162 (in Russian); English Transl.: Math. Notes [**16**]{} (1974), 943-950. Sturmfels, B., Gröbner Bases and Convex Polytopes, University Lecture Series, Vol. 8, AMS, Providence, RI, 1995. Vinberg, E. B., Complexity of actions of reductive groups, Funktsional’nyi Analiz i ego Prilog. [**20:1**]{} (1986), 1-13 (in Russian); English Transl.: Func. Anal. and its Appl. [**20:1**]{} (1986), 1-13.
Chair of Higher Algebra, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory, GSP-2, Moscow, 119992, Russia
e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We develop a method for finding the time evolution of exactly solvable models by Bethe ansatz. The dynamical Bethe wavefunction takes the same form as the stationary Bethe wavefunction except for time varying Bethe parameters and a complex phase prefactor. From this, we derive a set of first order nonlinear coupled differential equations for the Bethe parameters, called the dynamical Bethe equations. We find that this gives the exact solution to particular types of exactly solvable models, including the Bose-Hubbard dimer and Tavis-Cummings model. These models go beyond the Gaudin class, and offers an interesting possibility for performing time evolution in exactly solvable models.'
author:
- Igor Ermakov
- Tim Byrnes
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Time dynamics of Bethe ansatz solvable models
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
Exact methods of mathematical physics have substantially pushed our understanding of many paramount nonlinear phenomena. One such method is the Quantum Inverse Method (QIM) which was developed almost 40 years ago by Faddeev, Sklyanin, Takhtadzhyan and others [@sklyanin1979quantum; @sklyanin1982quantum; @kulish1982quantum]. QIM together with the algebraic version of Bethe Ansatz [@slavnov2018ABAPre; @levkovich2016bethe] has been successfully applied to various problems from different areas of physics such as one dimensional BECs [@lieb1963exact; @knap2014quantum], spin chains [@maillet2007heisenberg; @kitanine1999form; @kato2003next; @bortz2005exact], $(1+1)$ models of quantum field theory [@faddeev1982integrable], $(2+1)$ model of classical statistical physics [@thiery2016exact], conformal field theory and string theory [@arutyunov2004bethe], quantum optics [@bogoliubov2012exactly], and quantum dots [@bortz2007exact].
Obtaining the time dynamics of quantum many-body systems remains an important but very challenging problem due to the high computational and calculational demands. In the case of the QIM, the dynamics of the system after a quench of one or several parameters has been successfully shown [@faribault2009bethe; @zill2018quantum]. However, in general, QIM without modifications can not be applied to the system with time-dependent parameters. Recently several exact methods for time-dependent Hamiltonians were proposed. In Ref. [@sinitsyn2018integrable], a set of conditions under which the Schrodinger equation can be solved exactly was presented. It was also shown in Ref. [@sinitsyn2018integrable] that among Hamiltonians satisfying these conditions are the multistate Landau-Zener model and the generalized Tavis-Cummings model. Earlier in Ref. [@barmettler2013non], Barmettler, Fioretto and Gritsev proposed a generalization of the Bethe wavefunction for the dynamical case and presented its explicit form for the detuning driven Tavis-Cummings model. In Ref. [@fioretto2014exact], by means of correspondence between the class of Gaudin models and the classical Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations some exact solutions for Gaudin-magnets were obtained for special choices of time dependence of the coupling constants. There has also been progress in studies of the exact dynamics of periodically driven systems [@gritsev2017integrable]. However, to our knowledge a general formulation of how to perform the time evolution of an integrable system has not been shown.
In this paper, we study the generalization of Bethe wavefunction for the time-dependent case. Specifically, consider that we are dealing with an integrable system with Bethe wavefunction $$\begin{aligned}
\prod^M_{j=1}\mathbf{B}(\lambda_j)\vac,
\label{generalB1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{B}(\lambda)$ is an operator which depends on complex parameter $\lambda$ and $\vac$ is the pseudo-vacuum reference state, specific to the model being considered. For an initial state that can be represented by the Bethe wavefunction, we show that its time evolution can be described using the dynamical Bethe wavefunction, $$\begin{aligned}
e^{ip(t)}\prod^M_{j=1}\mathbf{B}(\lambda_j(t))\vac,\label{generalB2}\end{aligned}$$ where $p(t)$ is a complex phase. The time dependent wavefunction has exactly the same structure as Bethe wavefunction, but its parameters are functions of time and it has time varying prefactor. One of the most important features of the Bethe vectors is that it allows for the determinant representation for observables [@slavnov1989calculation], which is widely used in calculations of the Bethe ansatz [@gamayun2018impact; @bulchandani2018bethe]. The fact that the time-dependent wavefunction (\[generalB2\]) has the structure of a Bethe vector allows us to transfer all the Bethe ansatz machinery to the time-dependent case.
When a system is exactly solvable by QIM, one can always make (\[generalB1\]) an eigenfunction, by choosing special values of the parameters $\lambda_j$, which satisfy the Bethe equations. In this paper, we formulate a set of conditions for when the dynamical Bethe wavefunction (\[generalB2\]) satisfies the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. The set of conditions is a set of nonlinear coupled differential equations, which we call the dynamical Bethe equations. The time-dependent wavefunction can always be represented by the dynamical Bethe wavefunction (\[generalB2\]) for an arbitrary smooth time-dependence of the model parameters if the Hilbert space of the model under consideration is small enough. We provide an explicit example of the dynamical Bethe equations for a detuning driven Bose-Hubbard dimer.
The form of the wavefunction (\[generalB2\]) first appeared in Ref. [@barmettler2013non] for the Tavis-Cummings model, where the set of dynamical Bethe equations for $\lambda_j(t)$ was found, and its connection of trajectories $\lambda_j(t)$ with classical motion in a potential was established. So far all the examples of the dynamically integrable models considered in [@sinitsyn2018integrable; @barmettler2013non; @fioretto2014exact] belong to the Gaudin class [@gaudin1983fonction] of integrable models or models with a classical R-matrix. Here we show that (\[generalB2\]) can be applied to a wider class of integrable models, which goes beyond Gaudin class. The Bose-Hubbard dimer example that we show here belongs to the so-called rational XXX R-matrix class. We note that the set of conditions formulated in Ref. [@sinitsyn2018integrable] does not require that the model should belong to the Gaudin class to be dynamically integrable. Furthermore, models which can be solved by dynamical Bethe wavefunction also do not necessarily satisfy the set of conditions in Ref. [@sinitsyn2018integrable].
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[qim\] we discuss the general procedure of constructing the dynamical Bethe wavefunction. In Sec. \[BHDimer\] we derive the dynamical Bethe equations for a Bose-Hubbard dimer with driven detuning and quenching. In Sec. \[outlook\] we summarize and discuss the future prospects of our method. For more background and details about the Bethe Ansatz technique and our derivations, we refer the reader to the Appendix.
Dynamical Bethe equations {#qim}
=========================
In this section we discuss the general method of finding the dynamical Bethe wavefunction, without specifying the model. For the reader who is not familiar with Bethe ansatz, we refer them to the Supplemetary Material, or for an extensive review see for example Ref. [@SlavnovLecturesArXiv].
We first assume that the model under consideration can be solved by algebraic Bethe ansatz. We also assume that the set of these Bethe vectors form a complete orthogonal set. This condition should be checked for every specific model separately, but for the vast majority of physically relevant models it is known to be satisfied. Also for simplicity we restrict the considered models to be those with a rational R-matrix and XXX or XXZ-like R-matrices. In practice these three classes cover most physically relevant models.
A central quantity in integrable models is the trace of the monodromy matrix $\tau(\lambda)$ (see Appendix). This operator has many useful algebraic properties provided by the integrability of the model, its specific form should be defined for each model separately. By construction $\tau(\lambda)$ is explicitly connected with the Hamiltonian $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ of the model under consideration. Usually the Hamiltonian $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ can be expressed as some elementary function or a residue of $\tau(\lambda)$ at some certain point $\lambda_0$. Because of the connection between $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ and $\tau(\lambda)$, we will see that it is beneficial to consider the following Schrodinger-like equation $$\label{Schrodinger_tau}
i\frac{d}{dt}|\Psi(t)\rangle=\tau(\lambda)|\Psi(t)\rangle .$$ This will allow us to learn the complete information about the time dynamics of the system. We look for the solution of (\[Schrodinger\_tau\]) of the form $$\label{bWF_gen}
|\Psi^\sigma_M(t)\rangle=e^{ip^\sigma(t)}\prod^M_{j=1}\mathbf{B}(\lambda^\sigma_j(t))\vac,$$ here $M$ is the number of excitations in the system and $\sigma$ enumerates the eigenstates. At $t=0$, the vectors (\[bWF\_gen\]) are eigenvectors which form a complete orthogonal set and the set of parameters $\Lambda^\sigma_M(t)=\{\lambda^\sigma_1(t),\lambda^\sigma_2(t),...,\lambda^\sigma_M(t)\}$ satisfies the stationary Bethe equations for each $\sigma$. We demand time-dependent wavefunctions to also form a complete set $$\label{Orth_dynam}
\sum_\sigma |\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma(t)\})\rangle\langle\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma(t)\})| \propto \hat{I} ,$$ where we have a proportionality because the wavefunctions are not normalized. The expansion of Bethe vectors (\[bWF\_gen\]) over a convenient basis is a difficult problem and in general not solvable, because of the complex structure of (\[bWF\_gen\]). For example, $\mathbf{B}(\lambda)$ can be represented as a series of exponential length.
Thus instead of studying the Schrodinger equation (\[Schrodinger\_tau\]) directly, we demand that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\Psi(\{\lambda^{\sigma'}(t)\})|\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma(t)\})\rangle=0 ,\label{determ1}\end{aligned}$$ for $\sigma<\sigma'$, where $\sigma\in [1,L]$ and $L$ is the dimensionality of the Hilbert space under consideration. This states that the Bethe vectors are mutually orthogonal for all $ t $. We also demand that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\dot{\Psi}(\{\lambda^{\sigma'}(t)\})|\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma(t)\})\rangle+\langle\Psi(\{\lambda^{\sigma'}(t)\})|\dot{\Psi}(\{\lambda^\sigma(t)\})\rangle=0 ,
\label{determ2}\end{aligned}$$ which must be satisfied for any solution of (\[Schrodinger\_tau\]).
We now would like to write (\[determ1\]) and (\[determ2\]) as a set of coupled differential equations. Eq. (\[determ1\]) may re-expressed in this form by writing $|\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma(t)\})\rangle$ in terms of its derivative, which for Bethe vectors always take a special form. To show this, we start by finding the result of operatoring $\tau(\mu)$ on the Bethe wavefunction (\[bWF\_gen\]), giving the well-known result $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(\mu) & \prod^M_{j=1}\mathbf{B}(\lambda^\sigma_j)\vac=\Theta(\mu, \{\lambda_j^\sigma\}) \prod^M_{j=1}\mathbf{B}(\lambda_j^\sigma)\vac \nonumber \\
& + \sum^M_{n=1}\phi_n(\mu, \{\lambda_j^\sigma\})\mathbf{B}(\mu) \prod^M_{j=1 \atop j\neq n}\mathbf{B}(\lambda_j^\sigma)\vac ,
\label{tau_acts_on_WF_art}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta(\mu, \{\lambda_j^\sigma\})$ and $\phi_n(\mu, \{\lambda_j^\sigma\})$ are eigenvalues and the off-shell functions defined in (\[thetaL\]) and (\[offshellfunc\]) correspondingly. By combining (\[Schrodinger\_tau\]), (\[bWF\_gen\]), and (\[tau\_acts\_on\_WF\_art\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{substitution_to_SH}
& i(i \frac{dp}{dt}-\Theta(\mu, \{\lambda^\sigma_j(t)\})\prod^M_{j=1}\mathbf{B}(\lambda^\sigma_j(t))\vac \nonumber\\
& = -i\frac{d}{dt}\prod^M_{j=1}\mathbf{B}(\lambda^\sigma_j(t))\vac \nonumber \\
& +\sum^M_{n=1}\phi_n(\mu, \{\lambda^\sigma_j(t)\})\mathbf{B}(\mu) \prod^M_{j=1 \atop j\neq n}\mathbf{B}(\lambda^\sigma_j(t))\vac .\end{aligned}$$ Demanding that the right hand side is proportional to the left hand side, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{proportionBW}
& f(\{\lambda^\sigma_j(t)\})\prod^M_{j=1}\mathbf{B}(\lambda^\sigma_j(t))\vac = -i\frac{d}{dt}\prod^M_{j=1}\mathbf{B}(\lambda^\sigma_j(t))\vac \nonumber \\
& +\sum^M_{n=1}\phi_n(\mu, \{\lambda^\sigma_j(t)\})\mathbf{B}(\mu) \prod^M_{j=1 \atop j\neq n}\mathbf{B}(\lambda^\sigma_j(t))\vac ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $f(\{\lambda^\sigma_j(t)\})$ is a smooth function. If (\[proportionBW\]) is satisfied we can solve (\[Schrodinger\_tau\]) with (\[bWF\_gen\]) by choosing special form of phase factor $p^\sigma(t)$ $$\label{phase_factor}
p^\sigma(t)=-\int^t_0\left[i\Theta(\mu, \{\lambda^\sigma_j(t')\})+f(\{\lambda^\sigma_j(t')\})\right]dt'.$$ Although it is possible to explicitly find both $f(\{\lambda^\sigma_j(t)\})$ and $p^\sigma(t)$, in practice this is not necessary, because the phase factor $e^{ip^\sigma(t)}$ cancels for any observable due to normalization.
After substitution of (\[proportionBW\]) into (\[determ1\]), the conditions (\[determ1\]) transfers to the set of differential equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{determ1full}
& i\langle\Psi(\{\lambda^{\sigma'}(t)\})|\dot{\Psi}(\{\lambda^\sigma(t)\})\rangle = \nonumber \\
& +\langle\Psi(\{\lambda^{\sigma'}(t)\})|\sum^M_{n=1}\phi_n(\mu, \{\lambda^\sigma_j(t)\})\mathbf{B}(\mu) \prod^M_{j=1 \atop j\neq n}\mathbf{B}(\lambda^\sigma_j(t))\vac ,\end{aligned}$$ Now conditions (\[determ2\]) and (\[determ1full\]) are set of $L^2-L$ nonlinear differential equations, with $ML$ variables, where $M$ is the number of parameters which parameterize Bethe wavefunction (\[bWF\_gen\]). The solution of (\[determ2\]) and (\[determ1full\]) is a set of trajectories $\Lambda^\sigma(t)=\{\lambda^\sigma_1(t),...,\lambda^\sigma_M(t)\}$, for each wavefunction enumerated by $\sigma$. So when $M=L-1$ the number of equations coincides with the number of variables and (\[determ1\]) and (\[determ2\]) always have a solution. So the dynamical Bethe wavefunction can always be constructed if the Hilbert space of the system under consideration is small enough, for arbitrary smooth time dependence of the parameters of the model.
In Bethe ansatz it is typical for the Bethe wavefunction to be parameterized by a number of parameters which is much smaller than size of the Hilbert space. For example, while the Hilbert space of the XXZ Heisenberg magnet has an exponentially large dimension, its Bethe wavefunction is parametrized by a number of parameters linearly proportional to the number of excitations, which provides a great advantage in terms of computational complexity. The equations (\[determ2\]) and (\[determ1full\]), however, become overdetermined if the dimensionality of Hilbert space $L>M+1$. Nevertheless, in principle, the existence of solutions for (\[determ2\]) and (\[determ1full\]) when it is overdetermined is not prohibited because the equations are nonlinear. A trivial example of such a solution is adiabatic evolution when $\{\lambda^\sigma_1(t),...,\lambda^\sigma_M(t)\}$ is a solution of static Bethe equations at every moment.
Example: Bose-Hubbard dimer {#BHDimer}
===========================
We now illustrate the above method to obtain the time dynamics by applying it to the Bose-Hubbard dimer. This model provides both a simple and non-trivial example of a dynamically integrable model from the XXX class. For this particular case the dynamical Bethe equations can be written in a particularly simple and explicit form.
The Bose-Hubbard dimer in the two mode approximation (equivalent to a two-site Bose-Hubbard model) can be described by the following Hamiltonian [@milburn1997quantum; @ermakov2018high] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{\hat{H}} = & \epsilon(a^\dagger a - b^\dagger b)-J(a^\dag b+ab^\dag) \nonumber \\
& + \frac{U}{2} \left(a^\dagger a^\dagger aa + b^\dagger b^\dagger b b\right)
+ V a^\dagger a b^\dagger b ,
\label{hamb} \end{aligned}$$ where $ a, b $ are bosonic operators for the two sites satisfying $[a,a^\dag]=[b,b^\dag]=1$. The total number operator of particles $\hat{N}= a^\dag a+b^\dag b$ is a conserved quantity, $[\mathcal{\hat{H}},\hat{N}]=0$. For the Bethe ansatz formalism it is convenient rescale and offset the Hamiltonian by defining $$\label{hvh}
\hat{H}=-\frac{1}{J}\left(\mathcal{\hat{H}}-\frac{U}{2}\hat{N}(\hat{N}-1)-\epsilon \hat{N}\right),$$ which commutes with (\[hamb\]). Defining the dimensionless detuning $\Delta=\frac{2\epsilon}{J}$ and coupling constant $c^2=\frac{U-V}{J}$, the Hamiltonian can be rewritten $$\label{ham}
\hat{H}=\Delta b^\dag b + a^\dag b+ab^\dag + c^2 a^\dag a b^\dag b ,$$ which is the form we shall use. Using the dimensionless Hamiltonian (\[ham\]) means that all energies are measured in units of $ J $ and time is measured in units of $ \hbar/J $.
We now assume that the coupling constant $c$ is time-independent whereas the detuning $\Delta(t)$ continuously depends on time. We introduce the generalized creation operator $\mathbf{B}(\lambda)$ which depends on a complex parameter $\lambda$ [@bogoliubov2016time] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b_op_for_BH}
&\mathbf{B}(\lambda)=\lambda b^\dagger - \mathbf{X}, \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{X} = \frac{\Delta}{c} b^\dagger +ca^\dagger ab^\dagger+c^{-1}a^\dagger.\end{aligned}$$ The pseudo-vacuum in this case is simply the zero particle Fock state $$\begin{aligned}
\vac=|0\rangle_a\otimes|0\rangle_b. \end{aligned}$$ The time-dependent Bethe wavefunction can then be written following (\[bWF\_gen\]) using the above definitions. We first consider the case where only the detuning is time-dependent. In this case the dynamical Bethe equations can be written in a compact form given by $$\label{dynamicalBE_BH}
i\left(\frac{\dot{\Delta}}{c}-\dot{\lambda}^\sigma_n(t)\right)=\varphi_n(\{\lambda^\sigma\})\lambda^\sigma_n(t), \; \forall n=1,...,N .$$ Here $\varphi_n(\{\lambda^\sigma\})$ are the so-called off-shell functions defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_n (\{\mathbf{\lambda^\sigma}\})=& \left(\frac{\Delta}{c}-\lambda^\sigma_n\right)\prod^N_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq n}}\left(1-\frac{c}{\lambda^\sigma_n-\lambda^\sigma_j}\right)\nonumber\\
&+\frac{1}{c\lambda^\sigma_n}\prod^N_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq n}}\left(1-\frac{c}{\lambda^\sigma_j-\lambda^\sigma_n}\right).\end{aligned}$$ When $\varphi_n(\{\mathbf{\lambda}\})=0, \; \forall n=1,...,N$, where $N$ is the number of particles, these reduce to the static Bethe equations.
The dynamical Bethe equations are a set of first order coupled ordinary differential equations. As the initial condition for (\[dynamicalBE\_BH\]) we need to pick a set of parameters $\{\lambda(0)\}=\{\lambda_1(0),...,\lambda_N(0)\}$, which parametrizes the initial state $|\Psi_N(0)\rangle$. For example, if the initial state is an eigenstate, the set $\{\lambda(0)\}$ should satisfy the static Bethe equations.
We numerically solve the set of equations (\[dynamicalBE\_BH\]) for a detuning with time dependence $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(t)=\Delta_0+\cos(t^2),\end{aligned}$$ which has a rather non-trivial non-linear and aperiodic dependence. The initial condition was chosen to be the solution of static Bethe equations which corresponds to the ground state of (\[ham\]). As the observable, we calculate the intersite coherence $$\begin{aligned}
\nu(t)=\frac{|\langle a^\dagger b\rangle|}{N} ,
\label{coherence}\end{aligned}$$ for the details of calculation of $\nu(t)$ see Appendix \[abaBH\]. Figure \[DrivenDet\](a) shows our results. We find that the method perfectly reproduces time dynamics calculated by exact diagonalization, giving identical curves. The method is computationally efficient the solution requires the evolution of $ N $ coupled equations. In Fig. \[DrivenDet\](c) we show the stroboscopic maps of the solutions of dynamical Bethe equations (\[dynamicalBE\_BH\]), point of certain color corresponds to the value of the component of the solution of (\[dynamicalBE\_BH\]) $\lambda_j(t_k)$ at the moment $t_k$. Instead of solving (\[dynamicalBE\_BH\]) one may solve more general system of equations (\[determ2\]),(\[determ1full\]), which is applicable for arbitrary time dependece of both $\Delta$ and $c^2$, we checked that solutions of (\[determ2\]),(\[determ1full\]) does perfectly coincide with the solutions of (\[dynamicalBE\_BH\]) when only detuning is driven.
As a second example, we consider the case of a quench, when the parameters are changed suddenly from $c,\Delta$ to $c',\Delta'$. When all the parameters of the model are constant the set of equations (\[dynamicalBE\_BH\]) become $$\label{free_dynamical_BE}
-i\frac{\dot{\lambda}_n(t)}{\lambda_n(t)}=\varphi_n(\{\lambda\}) \qquad \forall n=1,...,N .$$ The set of equations (\[free\_dynamical\_BE\]) describes the evolution of an initial state $|\Psi_N(0)\rangle$ with a static Hamiltonian (\[ham\]). The initial state can be parameterized by a Bethe vector with the set of parameter $\{\lambda^0\}$ satisfying (\[off\_shell\_BE\]) for the initial parameters $ c,\Delta $. After the quench is performed, the Hamiltonian parameters change to $ c',\Delta'$, hence we need to establish the connection between the old wavefunction expressed in terms of $c,\Delta$, and the new one expressed in terms of $ c',\Delta'$. The initial condition for (\[free\_dynamical\_BE\]) thus is given by $$\label{WF_connect}
\prod_{j=1}^N\mathbf{B}^{(c',\Delta')} (\lambda_j(0))\vac=\prod_{j=1}^N\mathbf{B}^{(c,\Delta)} (\lambda_j^0)\vac.$$ For the case that only the detuning is quenched $ c'= c $, the initial conditions for (\[free\_dynamical\_BE\]) can be simply found to be $$\label{boundary cond}
\lambda_j(0)=\lambda_j^0-\frac{\Delta'-\Delta}{c}.$$
In Fig. \[DrivenDet\](b) we plot an example solution of the intersite coherence (\[coherence\]) from the dynamical Bethe equations (\[free\_dynamical\_BE\]). We again see that there is perfect agreement of the time dynamics with numerical results obtained from exact diagonalization. In Fig. \[DrivenDet\](d) we plot stroboscopic maps for the solution of (\[free\_dynamical\_BE\]) in the same fashion as we did for (\[dynamicalBE\_BH\]).
{width="\linewidth"}
Outlook and conclusions {#outlook}
=======================
We have described a method for evaluating the time dynamics of systems that are exactly solvable by Bethe ansatz. The method is based on the dynamical Bethe wavefunction (\[generalB2\]) which is a straightforward generalization of Bethe ansatz for dynamical case, where the Bethe parameters are time dependent and there is a time varying complex phase. The main advantage of the dynamical Bethe wavefunctions (\[generalB2\]) is that they are mathematically manageable thanks to the well-developed Bethe ansatz results which are directly applicable.
The set of differential dynamical Bethe equations (\[determ2\]) and (\[determ1full\]) can be applied to any Bethe ansatz solvable model from XXX, XXZ or Gaudin class which has a dimensionality not bigger than $N+1$, where $N$ is the number of parameters in the Bethe wavefunctions. What would be interesting is if the dynamical Bethe wavefunction could describe the diabatic evolution of a non-trivial model with a larger Hilbert space than $ N + 1 $. This would be an example of exact non-ergodic behavior which is a topic of great importance [@turner2018weak]. We have shown that our approach produces exact time dynamics with the Tavis-Cummings model, which possesses formally a Hilbert space of dimension $ 2^N $, but can be restricted by symmetry to a dimension $ N + 1 $. Thus this alone does not demonstrate a completely non-trivial example. Currently, the in terms of computational advantage, the dynamical Bethe equations only provide an equivalent approach to alternative techniques, since both scale as $ N $. However, we do not exclude the possibility that there are systems with larger Hilbert space for which overdetermined system (\[determ2\]) and (\[determ1full\]) might have a non-trivial solution.
The authors are grateful to O. Lychkovskiy for useful discussions. I. E. is supported by the Russian Science Foundation under the grant N$^{\rm o}$ 17-71-20158.
Algebraic Bethe ansatz
======================
Here we briefly sketch the main aspects of the algebraic Bethe ansatz technique which are necessary for the understanding of the present paper. For an extensive review of the Bethe ansatz, we refer the reader to Refs. [@SlavnovLecturesArXiv; @korepin1997quantum; @essler2005one].
The cornerstone of any integrable model is the R-matrix which in this paper always takes the form $$\label{R}
{\bf R}(\lambda ,\mu )=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
f(\mu ,\lambda ) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & g(\mu ,\lambda ) & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & g(\mu ,\lambda ) & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & f(\mu ,\lambda )
\end{array}
\right) .$$ Here the entries $f(\mu ,\lambda )$ and $g(\mu ,\lambda )$ are specified for each model separately. In general, the R-matrix is the solution of the Yang-Baxter equation [@SlavnovLecturesArXiv], and can take many different forms. The specific form of the R-matrix generates a family of integrable models.
In order to construct an integrable model we need to define the monodromy matrix $$\label{monodromy_matr}
T(\lambda)=\begin{pmatrix}
A(\lambda) & B(\lambda) \\
C(\lambda) & D(\lambda)
\end{pmatrix} ,$$ which depends on the complex spectral parameter $\lambda$. Here, $A(\lambda), B(\lambda), C(\lambda)$ and $D(\lambda)$ are operators acting in the Hilbert space of the model under consideration, and their explicit representation depends on the model. The monodromy matrix should also satisfy the Yang-Baxter equation $$\label{yangbaxter}
R(\lambda,\mu)\otimes T(\lambda)\otimes T(\mu) = T(\mu)\otimes T(\lambda)\otimes R(\lambda,\mu).$$
To construct the Hamiltonian of a particular integrable model, we define the trace of the monodromy matrix $$\label{trace_mon_matr}
\tau(\lambda)=\text{Tr}T(\lambda)=A(\lambda)+D(\lambda).$$ The Hamiltonian $\hat{\mathcal{H}}$ of the model may be expressed via the trace of the monodromy matrix $\tau(\lambda)$, or its derivative at some specified $\lambda=\lambda_0$. Usually it can be expressed as some elementary function of $\tau(\lambda_0)$, or as a residue of the $\tau(\lambda)$ at a particular point $\lambda_0$.
The pseudovacuum state $\vac$ is a state from the Hilbert space of the model, which is annihilated by the operator $C(\lambda)\vac=0$. The conjugated operator also satisfies $\vacc B(\lambda)=0$. Usually the pseudovacuum state is an eigenstate of the system, but, in general, it is not required. We also define two eigenvalue functions $a(\lambda)$ and $d(\lambda)$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a_and_d}
&A(\lambda)\vac=a(\lambda)\vac \nonumber \\
&D(\lambda)\vac=d(\lambda)\vac .\end{aligned}$$
The Bethe wavefunction is then defined as $$\label{betheWF}
|\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma_j\})\rangle=\prod^M_{j=1}B(\lambda^\sigma_j)\vac,$$ where $\{\lambda^\sigma_j\}$ is the set of complex parameters $\{\lambda^\sigma_j\}=\{\lambda^\sigma_1,\lambda^\sigma_2,...,\lambda^\sigma_M\}$, and $M$ is the number of excitations in the system, and $\sigma$ labels the wavefunction. The wavefunction (\[betheWF\]) is an eigenfunction of the trace of monodromy matrix $\tau(\lambda)$ $$\label{eigen_transfer}
\tau(\lambda)|\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma_j\})\rangle=\Theta(\lambda, \{\lambda^\sigma_j\})|\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma_j\})\rangle,$$ if the set $\{\lambda^\sigma_j\}$ satisfies to the set of Bethe equations $$\label{bethe_equations}
\frac{a(\lambda^\sigma_j)}{d(\lambda^\sigma_j)}\prod^M_{n=1\atop n\neq j}\frac{f(\lambda^\sigma_j,\lambda^\sigma_n)}{f(\lambda^\sigma_n,\lambda^\sigma_j)}=1, \qquad j=1,2,...,M.$$ All the roots within one solution $\{\lambda^\sigma_j\}$ should be different, otherwise $|\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma_j\})\rangle$ can not be an eigenfunction. The Bethe equations (\[bethe\_equations\]) are set of coupled nonlinear algebraic equations. It has $M$ equations and $N$ solutions, where $N$ is the size of Hilbert space.\
For our purposes it is very important to know what the effect of the transfer matrix $\tau(\lambda)$ acting on the Bethe vector (\[betheWF\]). For notational simplicity we omit the index $\sigma$ henceforth, such that $\{\lambda_j\}$ denotes the set $\{\lambda_1^\sigma ,\lambda_2^\sigma,...,\lambda_M^\sigma \}$. From Ref. [@SlavnovLecturesArXiv] it is known that $$\begin{aligned}
A(\lambda) & \prod^M_{j=1}B(\lambda_j)\vac =a(\lambda)\Lambda(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\}) \prod^M_{j=1}B(\lambda_j)\vac \nonumber \\
& + \sum^M_{n=1}a(\lambda_n)\Lambda_n(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\})B(\lambda) \prod^M_{j=1 \atop j\neq n}B(\lambda_j)\vac .
\label{a_acts_on_WF}\end{aligned}$$ Here we defined the functions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LambdaLarge}
\Lambda(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\})& =\prod^M_{j=1}f(\lambda,\lambda_j) \nonumber \\
\Lambda_n(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\})& =g(\lambda_n,\lambda)\prod^M_{j=1 \atop j\neq n}f(\lambda_n,\lambda_j) .\end{aligned}$$ For the $D(\lambda)$ operator, we have the similar expressions $$\begin{aligned}
D(\lambda) & \prod^M_{j=1}B(\lambda_j)\vac =d(\lambda)\bar{\Lambda}(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\}) \prod^M_{j=1}B(\lambda_j)\vac \nonumber \\
& + \sum^M_{n=1}d(\lambda_n)\bar{\Lambda}_n(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\})B(\lambda) \prod^M_{j=1 \atop j\neq n}B(\lambda_j)\vac ,
\label{d_acts_on_WF}\end{aligned}$$ where we defined $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\Lambda}(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\})& =\prod^M_{j=1}f(\lambda_j,\lambda) \nonumber \\
\bar{\Lambda}_n(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\}) & =g(\lambda,\lambda_n)\prod^M_{j=1 \atop j\neq n}f(\lambda_j,\lambda_n) .
\label{LambdaLargeBar}\end{aligned}$$ Combining these results we can find the effect of acting $\tau(\lambda)$ on the Bethe wavefunction, given by $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(\lambda) & \prod^M_{j=1}B(\lambda_j)\vac =\Theta(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\}) \prod^M_{j=1}B(\lambda_j)\vac \nonumber \\
& + \sum^M_{n=1}\phi_n(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\})B(\lambda) \prod^M_{j=1 \atop j\neq n}B(\lambda_j)\vac .
\label{tau_acts_on_WF}\end{aligned}$$ Here we defined $$\label{thetaL}
\Theta(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\})=a(\lambda)\Lambda(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\})+d(\lambda)\bar{\Lambda}(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\}),$$ and the off-shell function as $$\label{offshellfunc}
\phi_n(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\})=a(\lambda_n)\Lambda_n(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\})+d(\lambda_n)\bar{\Lambda}_n(\lambda, \{\lambda_j\}).$$ If we now demand that the off-shell function (\[offshellfunc\]) is zero, it is evident that the wavefunction (\[betheWF\]) is an eigenfunction for $\tau(\lambda)$. The roots of off-shell functions (\[offshellfunc\]) coincide with the roots of Bethe equations (\[bethe\_equations\]), but we should distinguish between these since later we will encounter cases where the off-shell function is not zero.
Finally, we mention several important properties of Bethe wavefunctions. The dual Bethe wavefunctions are defined as $$\label{dual_betheWF}
\langle\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma_j\})|=\vacc\prod^M_{j=1}C(\lambda^\sigma_j).$$ In general, despite the notation, the wavefunction (\[dual\_betheWF\]) does not coincide with the hermitian conjugate of the function (\[betheWF\]), i.e. $\langle\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma_j\})|\neq |\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma_j\})\rangle^\dagger$. Dual vectors like this must be introduced in order to evaluate scalar products and averages of observables. Generally, in the literature devoted to Bethe Ansatz, the left bracket $\langle\Psi|$ implies the dual vector (\[dual\_betheWF\]).
For most of the integrable models it has been proven that Bethe vectors form a complete set [@korepin1997quantum; @SlavnovLecturesArXiv] $$\label{complete_set_BWF}
\sum^N_{\sigma=1}|\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma_j\})\rangle\langle\Psi(\{\lambda^\sigma_j\})|\propto \hat{I} ,$$ where $\hat{I}$ is the identity operator, and $N$ is the size of the Hilbert space. In general Bethe wavefunctions are not normalized.
One of the most important properties of Bethe wavefunctions is that for many models it is possible to evaluate the scalar product of Bethe wavefunctions and averages of the operators by applying Slavnov’s formula [@slavnov1989calculation]. This allows one to express scalar product as a determinant. We do not reproduce the general form of the Slavnov’s formula here because of its complexity, and it not very useful to consider it without specifying the model. Application of Slavnov’s formula to the models considered in this paper have been studied in Refs. [@bogoliubov2016time; @bogoliubov2017time].
Dynamical Bethe equations for the Bose-Hubbard dimer {#abaBH}
====================================================
Here we give more details of the derivation of the dynamical Bethe equations for the detuning driven Bose-Hubbard dimer. A more detailed description regarding the Bethe ansatz solution of this model can be found in Ref. [@bogoliubov2016time], we use the same notations as this paper.
The Hamiltonian of the Bose-Hubbard dimer is $$\label{hamsupp}
\hat{H}=\Delta b^\dag b + a^\dag b+ab^\dag + c^2 a^\dag a b^\dag b .$$ The diagonal elements of the monodromy matrix are in this case $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a_and_d_ham}
A(\lambda) =& \lambda^2-\lambda\left(ca^\dagger a+cb^\dagger b+\frac{\Delta}{c}\right) \nonumber \\
& +\Delta b^\dagger b+a^\dagger b+c^2a^\dagger ab^\dagger b, \\
D(\lambda) = & ab^\dagger+c^{-2}.\end{aligned}$$ The Hamiltonian (\[hamsupp\]) can then be expressed via trace of the monodromy matrix (\[trace\_mon\_matr\]) according to $$\label{ham_via_tr}
\hat{H}=\tau(0)-c^{-2}.$$ According to the definitions (\[a\_and\_d\]), the eigenvalue functions are then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a_and_d__smham}
a(\lambda) &=\lambda\left(\lambda-\frac{\Delta}{c}\right), \\
d(\lambda)& = c^{-2}.\end{aligned}$$ The elements of the R-matrix are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f_and_g_ham}
&f(\mu,\lambda)=1-\frac{c}{\mu-\lambda} \\
&g(\mu,\lambda) = -\frac{c}{\mu-\lambda}.\end{aligned}$$
We now wish to look for Bethe eigenfunctions of the form $$\label{bWF_BH}
|\Psi^\sigma_N\rangle=\prod^N_{j=1}\mathbf{B}(\lambda^\sigma_j)\vac,$$ where the pseudo-vacuum state is $\vac=|0\rangle_a\otimes|0\rangle_b$. $\sigma$ is the index which labels the energy levels of the system, for the sake of notational simplicity we omit this below. The eigenvector depends on $N$ complex parameters $\{\lambda\}=\{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,...,\lambda_N\}$. By applying the Bethe ansatz machinery we can evaluate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{h_on_bWF}
\hat{H}|\Psi_N\rangle= & E_N(\{\lambda\})\prod^N_{j=1}\mathbf{B}(\lambda_j)\vac \nonumber \\
& -\sum_{n=1}^N\varphi_n(\{\mathbf{\lambda}\})\mathbf{X}\prod_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq n}}^N\mathbf{B}(\lambda_j)\vac,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b_op_for_BH}
E_N(\{\lambda\}) =&-c^{-2}+c^{-2}\prod^N_{j=1}\left(1-\frac{c}{\lambda_j}\right), \\
\varphi_n(\{\mathbf{\lambda}\})=& \left(\frac{\Delta}{c}-\lambda_n\right)\prod^N_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq n}}\left(1-\frac{c}{\lambda_n-\lambda_j}\right) \nonumber \\
& +\frac{1}{c\lambda_n}\prod^N_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq n}}\left(1-\frac{c}{\lambda_j-\lambda_n}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here $E_N(\{\lambda\})$ is the energy and $\varphi_n(\{\mathbf{\lambda}\})$ is the off-shell function. From (\[h\_on\_bWF\]) we can see that when set $\{\lambda\}$ satisfies $$\label{off_shell_BE}
\varphi_n(\{\mathbf{\lambda}\})=0, \qquad \forall n=1,...,N ,$$ the wavefunction (\[bWF\_BH\]) becomes an eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian (\[hamsupp\]). The set of equations (\[off\_shell\_BE\]) are known as the Bethe equations.
We now look for a time-dependent wavefunction of the form $$\label{timed_bwf_BH}
|\Psi_N(t)\rangle=e^{ip(t)}\prod^N_{j=1}\mathbf{B}(\lambda_j(t))\vac .$$ If only the detuning $ \Delta $ is time-dependent, it is easy to see that $[\frac{d}{dt}\mathbf{B},\mathbf{B}]=0$, and the derivative of (\[timed\_bwf\_BH\]) can be taken easily. Substituting (\[timed\_bwf\_BH\]) into the time-dependent Schrodinger equation we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psitimeoff}
[p'(t)+&E_N(\{\mathbf{\lambda}\})]\prod_{j=1}^N\mathbf{B}(\lambda_j)\vac=\nonumber\\
&\sum_{n=1}^N\left(i\left(\dot{\lambda}_n-\frac{\dot{\Delta}}{c}\right)b^\dagger+\varphi_n(\{\mathbf{\lambda}\})\mathbf{X}\right)\prod_{\substack{j=1\\j\neq n}}^N\mathbf{B}(\lambda_j)\vac .\end{aligned}$$ If we demand now that $$\label{dynamicalBE_BH_app}
i\left(\frac{\dot{\Delta}}{c}-\dot{\lambda}_n(t)\right)=\varphi_n(\{\lambda\})\lambda_n(t), \qquad \forall n=1,...,N \;,$$ the wavefunction (\[timed\_bwf\_BH\]) will satisfy the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. We call the set of conditions (\[dynamicalBE\_BH\]) the dynamical Bethe equations. The dynamical Bethe equations are set of first order coupled ordinary differential equations. For the initial condition of (\[dynamicalBE\_BH\]) we need to pick a set $\{\lambda(0)\}=\{\lambda_1(0),...,\lambda_N(0)\}$, which parametrizes the initial state $|\Psi_N(0)\rangle$. For example if the initial state is an eigenstate, the set $\{\lambda(0)\}$ should satisfy the static Bethe equations (\[off\_shell\_BE\]). The phase factor $p(t)$ is given by $$\label{phasefactor_BH}
p(t)=\int_0^tdt'\left(-E_N(\{\mathbf{\lambda}\})+\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{i}{\lambda_n}\left(\dot{\lambda}_n-\frac{\dot{\Delta}}{c}\right)\right).$$
To evaluate observables one may use the determinant representation as a general approach [@slavnov1989calculation; @bogoliubov2016time]. More convenient approach is to use the expansion of Bethe vectors (\[bWF\_BH\]) over the Fock space, which was developed in [@ermakov2018high]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{wavefExp}
\nonumber|\Psi_N(\{\lambda\})\rangle&=\sum _{m=0}^N \sum _{l=0}^{N-m} \sum _{k=0}^l(-1)^m \sqrt{k!} \sqrt{(N-k)!} D(l,k)\\
\nonumber&\binom{N-m}{l} \Gamma _{lmk}|k\rangle_a\otimes|N-k\rangle_a,\\
\nonumber\langle\Psi_N(\{\lambda\})|&=\sum _{m=0}^N \sum _{k=0}^{N-m}(-1)^m\langle N-k|_a\otimes\langle k|_b \sqrt{k!}\\
&\sqrt{(N-k)!} c^{-2 k-m+N} D(N-m,k)e_m,\end{aligned}$$
where the coefficient $\Gamma _{lmk}$ defined as $$\label{gammacoef}
\Gamma _{lmk}=\Delta^{N-m-l}c^{-N+m+2l-2k}e_m,$$ and $D(M,k)$ are coefficients defined by the following recurrence relation $$\label{recurrent}
D(M,k)=kD(M-1,k)+D(M-1,k-1)$$ with the conditions: $D(1,1)=1$ and $D(M,k)=0$ if $k>M$. This coefficient possess the obvious property: $D(M,1)=D(n,n)=1$. The general expression for $D(M,k)$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dcoeff}
D(M,k)=\sum\limits^{M-k}_{n_1=0}\sum\limits^{M-k-n_1}_{n_2=0}\sum\limits^{M-k-n_1-n_2}_{n_3=0}...\\\sum\limits^{M-k-n_1-...-n_{k-1}}_{n_{k-1}=0}k^{n_1}(k-1)^{n_2}\;...\;2^{n_{k-1}}.\end{gathered}$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Singlet fission (SF) is a multi-exciton generation process that could be harnessed to improve the efficiency of photovoltaic devices. Experimentally, systems derived from the pentacene molecule have been shown to exhibit ultrafast SF with high yields. Charge-transfer (CT) configurations are likely to play an important role as intermediates in the SF process in these systems. In molecular crystals, electrostatic screening effects and band formation can be significant in lowering the energy of CT states, enhancing their potential to effectively participate in SF. In order to simulate these, it desirable to adopt a computational approach which is acceptably accurate, relatively inexpensive, which and scales well to larger systems, thus enabling the study of screening effects. We propose a novel, electrostatically-corrected constrained Density Functional Theory (cDFT) approach as a low-cost solution to the calculation of CT energies in molecular crystals such as pentacene. Here we consider an implementation in the context of the ONETEP linear-scaling DFT code, but our electrostatic correction method is in principle applicable in combination with any constrained DFT implementation, also outside the linear-scaling framework. Our newly developed method allows us to estimate CT energies in the infinite crystal limit, and with these to validate the accuracy of the cluster approximation.'
author:
- 'David H. P. Turban'
- Gilberto Teobaldi
- 'David D. O’Regan'
- 'Nicholas D. M. Hine'
bibliography:
- 'MyLibrary.bib'
title: 'Supercell convergence of charge-transfer energies in pentacene molecular crystals from constrained DFT'
---
Introduction
============
Singlet fission (SF) is a multiple-exciton-generation process that is of great interest for potential applications in photovoltaics [@smith_singlet_2010; @smith_recent_2013; @lee_singlet_2013]. Crystalline pentacene is a material that exhibits highly efficient SF on an ultrafast timescale of around 80 fs [@wilson_ultrafast_2011]. The system has been investigated in a number of experimental [@rao_exciton_2010; @chan_observing_2011; @marciniak_ultrafast_2007; @marciniak_ultrafast_2009], theoretical [@beljonne_charge-transfer_2013; @berkelbach_microscopic_2013; @zimmerman_mechanism_2011; @zimmerman_singlet_2010; @zeng_low-lying_2014], and combined [@congreve_external_2013; @bakulin_real-time_2016] studies. Pentacene is a five-membered linear polyacene and forms molecular crystals with a characteristic ‘herringbone’ lattice (Fig. \[fig:pentacene-lattice\]). Intermolecular charge-transfer (CT) states spanning nearest-neighbour molecules are thought to play a central role in the ultrafast SF process in pentacene and similar molecules [@berkelbach_microscopic_2013-1; @berkelbach_microscopic_2013; @berkelbach_microscopic_2014; @chan_quantum_2013]. In molecular crystals, neighbouring pairs of molecules (dimers) undergoing charge-transfer are embedded in a complex molecular environment where screening and hybridisation effects are important.
Angular-momentum preserving CT states are difficult to access with experimental techniques as they are optically dark, making it challenging to measure accurate excitation energies [@sebastian_charge_1981; @sebastian_charge-transfer_1983]. They also pose a challenge to electronic structure theory. For example, linear-response time-dependent DFT with local exchange is known to perform poorly on CT-like states, severely underestimating their energies [@dreuw_long-range_2003]. This stems from the fact that local functionals are unable to describe the long-ranged electron-hole interaction correctly, a problem that is related to, and which compounds, the well-known band-gap error of the underlying ground-state DFT calculation. A possible remedy is the use of long-range corrected functionals with asymptotically correct exchange [@tawada_long-range-corrected_2004]. However, this comes at the expense of introducing additional parameters and of a greatly increased computational cost. It is thus desirable and timely to construct a low-cost method that scales well to large system sizes and complex environments, and which simultaneously describes the electrostatic and quantum mechanical features of CT states with reasonable accuracy.
![The pentacene ($\text{C}_{22}\text{H}_{14}$) single molecule and molecular crystal (S-phase [@sharifzadeh_quasiparticle_2012]). The unit cell contains two molecules. The third lattice vector $\mathbf{c}$ points out of the page.\[fig:pentacene-lattice\]](pentchem){width="1\columnwidth"}
In this work, we make use of constrained DFT (cDFT) [@dederichs_ground_1984; @wu_direct_2005; @wu_constrained_2006; @kaduk_constrained_2012] in combination with linear-scaling DFT (as implemented in the ONETEP code [@skylaris_introducing_2005]), applying it to intermolecular charge-transfer in two nearest-neighbour dimers taken from the pentacene crystal structure. The cDFT method has been applied to a wide variety of molecular systems, to date, in the context of CT excitation energies [@rezac_robust_2015; @vaissier_influence_2015; @zheng_ab_2012; @zheng_solvated_2013], electronic couplings [@kubas_electronic_2014; @kubas_electronic_2015; @si_theoretical_2012], electron transfer [@aikawa_theoretical_2015; @eisenmayer_proton_2013; @yu_electrochemical_2012; @siefermann_atomic-scale_2014] and molecular dynamics [@rezac_robust_2012; @oberhofer_charge_2009]. A largely unresolved issue in this context, however, is that of achieving supercell convergence of CT excitations in extended models suitable for capturing the screening and hybridisation effects encountered in realistic systems. A solution to this problem, such as that which we presently propose, is then readily transferable to a range of complex systems of technological interest, not only in the context of photovoltaics, but also organic electronics [@sun_introduction_2008; @forrest_path_2004; @zhao_25th_2013] and spintronics [@naber_organic_2007].
We first calculate CT energies for the dimers in isolation, and we subsequently include screening effects by embedding such dimers in a small cluster of neighbours, and in supercells of the crystal. Supercell calculations allow us to approach the infinite limit using a correction scheme that eliminates the spurious dipole-dipole interactions between periodic images of the simulation cell. The only inputs required for this correction are the intrinsic dipole of the CT configuration and the dielectric tensor of the crystal. The latter is obtained from a density functional perturbation theory (DFPT) calculation [@baroni_phonons_2001]. We find that a single parameter, fit to the results of a series of calculations on different supercells, is sufficient to correct for the overestimation of electrostatic screening as a result of the aforementioned band-gap problem of DFT. The isolated calculations facilitate a comparison of the cDFT method with higher-level theory results from the literature [@coto_low-lying_2014]. In addition comparison between clusters and the infinite limit enables us to directly confirm the validity of the cluster approximation.
Methods
=======
The ground state: linear-scaling DFT
------------------------------------
In order to carry out ground and excited state calculations on large clusters and supercells, we use linear-scaling DFT as implemented in the ONETEP code [@skylaris_introducing_2005]. This LS-DFT methodology is based on the single-electron density matrix $\rho(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')$ rather than Kohn-Sham orbitals $\psi_{i}(\mathbf{r})$. The density matrix is expanded in a basis of localised, atom-centred functions $\phi_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r})$ called NGWFs (non-orthogonal generalised Wannier functions) [@skylaris_nonorthogonal_2002]: $$\rho(\mathbf{r},\mathbf{r}')=\sum_{i}\psi_{i}(\mathbf{r})f_{i}\psi_{i}(\mathbf{r}')=\sum_{\alpha\beta}\phi_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r})K^{\alpha\beta}\phi_{\beta}(\mathbf{r}'),$$ where $K^{\alpha\beta}$ is called the density kernel. The NGWFs are strictly truncated at a chosen localisation radius, which is a convergence parameter. The computational effort of traditional DFT methods, based on manipulation of Kohn-Sham eigenstates, inevitably scales as $\mathcal{O}(N^{3})$, where $N$ denotes the number of electrons. This is because there are $\mathcal{O}(N)$ eigenstates represented via $\mathcal{O}(N)$ basis functions, which have to be kept mutually orthogonal to $\mathcal{O}(N)$ other eigenstates. By contrast, in a density matrix representation, it is possible to achieve overall $\mathcal{O}(N)$ scaling if the density kernel is truncated at some cutoff radius such that it is a sparse matrix. This exploits the ‘near-sightedness’ of electronic structure in systems with a gap [@kohn_nearsightedness_2008]. Instead of imposing orthogonality explicitly on Kohn-Sham states, it is necessary to constrain the density matrix to be idempotent and have a trace equal to the number of electrons $N$. In ONETEP, a nested loop optimisation scheme, utilising a conjugate gradients algorithm, is used to minimise the total energy with respect to both $K^{\alpha\beta}$ (subject to the constraints of idempotency and normalisation), and the set of NGWFs $\{\phi_{\alpha}(\mathbf{r})\}$. This approach has been shown to provide total energies and forces in $\mathcal{O}(N)$ effort with systematically controllable accuracy equivalent to that of a plane-wave basis [@skylaris_achieving_2007]. This is possible despite using a minimal number of NGWFs (i.e., typically one per hydrogen atom, four per carbon atom), since the NGWFs are optimised in an underlying variational basis set of ‘psinc’ functions (delta functions with limited spectral range), which are fully equivalent to plane-waves.
Constrained DFT\[sub:Constrained-DFT\]
--------------------------------------
In constrained DFT (cDFT) [@dederichs_ground_1984; @wu_direct_2005; @wu_constrained_2006] the DFT total energy functional is augmented with terms that impose desired constraints on the charge (and/or spin) density of a system. While these constraints can take several forms, in this work we impose them using monomer-localised projection operators to partition the density. This gives a total functional of the form: $$W=E_{\text{DFT}}+\sum_{\text{sites }I}V_{I}\left(\text{Tr}[\hat{P}_{I}\hat{\rho}]-N_{I}\right).\label{eq:cDFT-func}$$ Here, the $V_{I}$ are Lagrange multipliers that enforce occupancy targets $N_{I}$ on specific sites in the system, which are defined via projectors $\hat{P}_{I}$. The sites in question may, generally, be atoms, groups of atoms or entire molecules. For example, if one aims to describe an intermolecular CT state, each of the two molecules involved constitutes a site. The Lagrange multipliers $V_{I}$ act as artificial constraining potentials that cause charge to move around the system (cf. Fig. \[fig:cDFT-in-ONETEP:\]a). These potentials are optimised in-situ, via a further conjugate gradients algorithm nested between kernel optimisation and NGWF optimisation, and iterated until the population targets $N_{I}$ for the chosen sites are met. In the case of intermolecular CT states, these targets are, respectively, one fewer charge on the donor molecule and one additional charge on the acceptor, relative to the ground state.
Within the LS-DFT framework it is a natural choice to employ the aforementioned localised NGWFs to define site projectors [@oregan_projector_2010]. In this work we employ a fixed set of NGWFs from a ground-state calculation for this purpose: $$\hat{P}_{I}=\sum_{\alpha\in I}\left|\phi^{\alpha}\right\rangle \left\langle \phi_{\alpha}\right|,$$ where the sum $\alpha \in I$ refers to NGWFs centered on atoms belonging to site $I$. Here, subscript indices are used to describe the standard covariant functions $|\phi_\alpha\rangle$, while superscript indices refer to their contravariant duals $|\phi^\alpha\rangle$, which obey $\langle \phi_\alpha |
\phi^\beta \rangle = \delta_{\alpha\beta}$. See Ref. [@artacho_nonorthogonal_1991; @oregan_linear-scaling_2012] for further discussion on this topic. A complication in the definition of site projection operators arises from the fact that the NGWFs are not orthonormal (this is true even of atomic orbitals, in the case of sites comprising more than one atom), meaning that the duals $\phi^{\alpha}$ are not the same as the NGWFs. Instead, they are defined via the inverse of the NGWF overlap matrix $S_{\alpha\beta}=\langle\phi_{\alpha}|\phi_{\beta}\rangle$: $$\left|\phi^{\alpha}\right\rangle =\sum_{\beta} \left|\phi_{\beta}\right\rangle
\left(S^{-1}\right)^{\beta \alpha}.$$ Given that the overlap and inverse overlap matrices can both be made sparse by appropriately-chosen truncation, it is possible to construct the inverse in linear-scaling computational effort using a sparse matrix implementation of Hotelling’s algorithm [@ozaki_efficient_2001]. Duals constructed using the NGWF overlap matrix for the complete system are delocalised over that system, and thus present a highly undesirable choice for use in cDFT since this implies that constraining potentials $V_{I}$ act non-locally on the charge density, with donor and acceptor subspaces overlapping. Appropriate localisation of the duals, to the region of the system of interest for defining a site, is achieved by by suitably truncating the NGWF overlap matrix before its inversion, and then defining subspace duals for the purposes of building the site projection operators via the resulting subspace inverse overlap matrix $O_{\alpha\beta}$ instead of the full $S_{\alpha\beta}$, as described in [@oregan_subspace_2011]. Specifically, a ‘site-block’ scheme is imposed on the sparsity of the NGWF overlap matrix before it is inverted. Here, a block is defined by all NGWFs associated with a given site. Overlap matrix elements between NGWFs associated with different sites are set to zero (cf. Fig. \[fig:cDFT-in-ONETEP:\]b). Once this matrix has been inverted, it retains the same block pattern of sparsity, meaning that subspace duals are defined as a linear combination of only those NGWFs on the same constraint site.
When the sites are defined in self-contained manner, thereby, bi-orthogonality is unavoidably lost between NGWFs and duals localised to different sites, in the event that these sites overlap to some degree. This carries the disadvantage the sum of charges over a set of such sites, covering the system, may not equal the true total charge. For well-separated donor and acceptor regions such as in the system at hand, any overestimation of site charge due to the latter effect is insubstantial in comparison to the dramatic overestimation incurred by using delocalised duals. On the other hand, even when the donor and acceptor regions do overlap substantially, unlike methods employing fully delocalized duals our approach ensures that the constraining potentials remain fully localised to their respective regions, with a smooth, non-oscillatory transition at the boundary.
A different approach to cDFT in the context of linear-scaling has been described in Refs. [@ratcliff_toward_2015; @ratcliff_fragment_2015].
In order to obtain energies of CT excitations, we first perform a ground state DFT calculation. This yields both a total energy for the ground state and a set of converged ground-state NGWFs which are subsequently used as cDFT projectors. To define the population targets for the cDFT run we simply add $\pm1$ to the ground state populations of the appropriate sites (acceptor: $+1$; donor: $-1$). The difference between the constrained total energy and the ground state energy yields the (vertical) CT excitation energy. Since we are interested in ultrafast processes like singlet fission where nuclear relaxation in the excited state is less significant, we restrict our attention to vertical excitation energies. In general, a geometry optimisation in the excited state would be required in order to correctly describe longer-lived CT states.
![a) Schematic of the cDFT scheme used in this work: A nonlocal constraining potential (illustrated by 2D potential energy surface) constructed from atom-centred functions is applied to the single-electron density matrix. This causes charge to redistribute to obey chosen population constraints, and allows the description of CT excitations within the framework of standard DFT. b) Block scheme of truncated NGWF overlap matrix to ensure site-localisation of contravariant duals. Blue and red denote the constrained sites, gray the remaining system.\[fig:cDFT-in-ONETEP:\]](cdft-expl_with_blocking_resubmit){width="1\columnwidth"}
Computational Details
---------------------
For all calculations we employ the LDA functional and norm-conserving pseudopotentials. The energy cutoff is chosen as 750 eV. We use 1 NGWF per hydrogen atom and 4 NGWFs per carbon atom. For the localisation radius of the NGWFs a value of 10 Bohr is chosen. Using these parameters the total energy is converged to 1 meV/atom at 10 Bohr NGWF radius compared to 14 Bohr, and to around 25 meV/atom at 750 eV cutoff compared to 1250 eV. All NGWFs are initialised to pseudoatomic orbitals [@ruiz-serrano_pulay_2012] and then optimised in-situ in terms of the underlying psinc basis. The density kernel $K^{\alpha\beta}$ is not truncated in this work as all systems are small enough that sparse matrix algebra is only a minor component of the total computational effort. For the later Density Functional Perturbation Theory calculations, we utilise the CASTEP plane-wave DFT code [@clark_first_2009] with the same pseudopotentials and cutoff energy. The DFPT calculations are performed with 12 k-points, corresponding to a maximum k-point spacing of 0.05 1/Å.
The S-phase molecular crystal structure considered here has two molecules per primitive cell and triclinic ($P-1$) space group symmetry. The lattice parameters are given by $a=7.90$ Å, $b=6.06$ Å, $c=16.01$ Å, and $\alpha=101.9^{\circ}$, $\beta=112.6^{\circ}$, $\gamma=85.8^{\circ}$ [@campbell_crystal_1962]. Optimised molecular geometries are taken from Ref. [@sharifzadeh_quasiparticle_2012] in order to facilitate comparison of our calculations with Ref. [@coto_low-lying_2014] where high-level CASPT2/CASSCF and GW/BSE calculations were performed using the same geometries.
For calculations on isolated dimers and clusters we employ open boundary conditions. This is achieved by putting the dimers in a large simulation box and truncating the Coulomb interaction at large distances to eliminate electrostatic interactions between periodic images [@hine_electrostatic_2011]. The calculations on supercells of the pentacene crystal use periodic boundary conditions.
Dimer & Cluster Calculations
============================
The molecular geometries of the ‘herringbone’ dimer and the ‘parallel’ dimer are shown in Fig. \[fig:Dimer-geometries\]. The herringbone dimer represents the unit cell of the pentacene crystal. While the long axes of the molecules are mostly aligned, there is a rotational offset around the same long axis between the units. In particular, this means that the two units in the herringbone dimer are not related by symmetry.
In the parallel dimer, on the other hand, the pentacene molecules belong to the same sublattice of the crystal and are related by a translation along lattice vector $\mathbf{b}$ (cf. Fig. \[fig:pentacene-lattice\]). As a result the molecular planes of the molecules are parallel. The translational correspondence together with the inversion symmetry of single pentacene molecules mean that the parallel dimer has an inversion centre, i.e. the units are symmetry-equivalent.
Configuration our method CASPT2/CASSCF GW/BSE
--------------- ------------ ----------------------------- -------------------------------
Herringbone 1 2.04 2.22 [@coto_low-lying_2014] 1.92 [@coto_low-lying_2014]
Herringbone 2 2.72 2.55 [@coto_low-lying_2014] 2.60 [@coto_low-lying_2014]
Parallel 2.61 3.03 [@coto_low-lying_2014] 2.45\* [@coto_low-lying_2014]
: CT energies (eV) of isolated dimers, comparing our results with higher-level theory. The authors of Ref. [@coto_low-lying_2014] identify the excitation marked by an asterisk as a third locally excited state dominated by transitions between the frontier orbitals of the monomers. However, in a dimer there can only be two states of this kind. Hence, we concluded that the excitation does in fact have CT character.\[tab:higher-level-comparison\]
First, we obtain CT energies for the dimers in isolation. The results are summarised in Fig. \[fig:Dimer-geometries\]. The most striking aspect is the significant energy gap between the two CT configurations in the herringbone dimer due to their symmetry-inequivalence, as elaborated in the figure. In the parallel configuration the energies are degenerate due to inversion symmetry. The excitation energies for the herringbone configuration are within $\sim$0.2 eV of literature values obtained with higher-level methods (cf. Table \[tab:higher-level-comparison\]). For the parallel configuration the discrepancy may be as large as $\sim$0.4 eV, depending on the method compared to.
![Dimer geometries and CT excitation energies from cDFT (quoted in eV). The significant energy gap between the two CT states in the herringbone dimer can be rationalised by considering the different charge distributions of electron and hole, and the geometry. The hole orbital corresponds to the pentacene HOMO which has a node on the long axis of the molecule. The electron orbital (LUMO), on the other hand, does not feature such a node. The partial alignment of the upper molecule with the dipole vector means that the bimodal charge distribution on the upper molecule has a lower Coulomb energy in configuration 1 as compared to configuration 2. In the parallel case the two CT states are related by inversion symmetry and the energies are degenerate.\[fig:Dimer-geometries\]](dimer_results){width="1\columnwidth"}
We next perform cluster calculations where we surround the dimers with a small cluster of neighbouring molecules fixed in the geometry of the molecular crystal (Table \[tab:energy-comparison\]). The 4-molecule clusters (144 atoms) only include the CT pair and the two shared nearest-neighbour molecules in the $\mathbf{a}$-$\mathbf{b}$-plane. In the 10-molecule clusters (360 atoms), all nearest-neighbour molecules in the $\mathbf{a}$-$\mathbf{b}$-plane are included. The results are summarised in Table \[tab:energy-comparison\]. We observe a significant down shift of the mean energy and closing of the relative gaps as the size of the cluster increases. This is driven by a reduction of the gap due to the hybridisation and increased electrostatic screening by neighbouring molecules. It should be noted that the degeneracy of the two parallel dimer CT states is very slightly lifted in the clusters (which does not exhibit exact inversion symmetry), but only within the quoted accuracy. Therefore, we only give a single value for the CT energy.
From the presented set of calculations alone it is difficult to determine whether sufficient convergence to the infinite limit has been reached with the 10-molecule cluster.
Configuration isolated (2 mol) 4-mol cluster 10-mol cluster
--------------- ------------------ --------------- ----------------
Herringbone 1 2.04 (0.80) 2.16 (0.73) 2.00 (0.68)
Herringbone 2 2.72 (0.80) 2.25 (0.73) 2.04 (0.68)
Parallel 2.61 (1.13) 2.35 (0.92) 2.10 (0.87)
: Comparison of CT states for isolated dimers and clusters. The table quotes the excitation energy of the CT state and the HOMO-LUMO gap of the ground state configuration in brackets (in units of eV).\[tab:energy-comparison\]
Supercell Calculations\[sub:Bulk-Molecular-Crystal:\]
=====================================================
We now consider the dimers embedded not in vacuum, but in the natural environment of the molecular crystal. This immediately raises the issue of treating a non-periodic, infinite system in DFT. In practice, one has to use supercell calculations with periodic boundary conditions. However, these suffer from finite-size errors which are particularly pronounced in the case at hand, as can be seen from the large scatter of 0.1-0.3 eV of the uncorrected CT energies in Fig. \[fig:corr-her1\] (blue bars). This is a consequence of the large dipole moments of the CT configurations, resulting in significant dipole-dipole interactions between periodic images. The problem is expected to be even more pronounced in systems with either larger CT-dipoles, like biological photo-reaction centres, or smaller polarisabilities (e.g. due to smaller pi-systems).
We address this problem by deriving an energy correction that cancels the spurious interactions. We apply this correction to a range of calculations using supercells of varying shapes and sizes to demonstrate consistency of the method. The largest supercell considered has dimensions $3\times3\times2$, or 18 unit cells (1368 atoms).
Dipole-dipole correction {#dipole-dipole-correction .unnumbered}
------------------------
Periodic DFT codes employ the Ewald formula [@ewald_berechnung_1921] to evaluate the electrostatic energy. The central idea is a splitting of the solution of Poisson’s equation $\triangle\varphi=-4\pi\rho$ into parts that converge rapidly in real and reciprocal space, respectively. The splitting is controlled by an inverse length scale $\eta$, called Ewald’s parameter.
If metallic boundary conditions are used (i.e. vanishing surface term), as is commonly the case, the total energy of an isolated system with a net dipole converges relatively slowly ($\sim V_{\text{cell}}^{-1}$) with the size of the simulation cell due to dipole-dipole interactions between periodic images. Makov & Payne showed that a better degree of convergence ($\sim V_{\text{cell}}^{-5/3}$) can be achieved by subtracting a dipole term from the Ewald energy [@makov_periodic_1995]: $$E_{\text{dip}}=-\frac{2\pi}{3V_{\text{cell}}}\cdot\mathbf{P}^{2},\label{eq:surf-vac}$$ where $\mathbf{P}$ is the total dipole moment of the simulation cell. The Makov & Payne result is only valid for cubic cells. If the aperiodic system to be studied is embedded in an isotropic dielectric one can apply the phenomenological approach by Leslie & Gillan [@leslie_energy_1985]. Here the dipole-dipole interaction is reduced by the dielectric constant of the dielectric, i.e. $$E_{\text{dip}}=-\frac{2\pi}{3V_{\text{cell}}}\cdot\frac{|\mathbf{P}|^{2}}{\epsilon}.$$
In order to be useful for CT states in pentacene supercells it is necessary to generalise these results to arbitrary cell shapes and, crucially, anisotropic dielectrics [@mckenna_crossover_2012; @blumberger_constrained_2013; @murphy_anisotropic_2013]. To achieve the first step we can employ the following expression by Kantorovich which is valid for general periodic cells and can obtained by evaluating the Ewald formula for a periodic lattice of point dipoles [@kantorovich_elimination_1999]: $$E_{\text{dip}}=-\frac{2\eta^{3}}{3\sqrt{\pi}}\cdot|\mathbf{P}|^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}P_{\alpha}\psi_{\alpha\beta}P_{\beta},$$ where $\eta$ is Ewald’s parameter, and $$\psi_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{4\pi}{V_{\text{cell}}}\sum_{\mathbf{k}\ne\mathbf{0}}\frac{k_{\alpha}k_{\beta}}{|\mathbf{k}|^{2}}e^{-|\mathbf{k}|^{2}/4\eta^{2}}-\eta^{3}\sum_{\mathbf{l}\ne\mathbf{0}}H_{\alpha\beta}(\eta\mathbf{l}),$$ where $\mathbf{k}$ denotes reciprocal lattice vectors, and $\mathbf{l}$ denotes direct lattice vectors. Furthermore, we have $$H_{\alpha\beta}(\mathbf{y})=-\delta_{\alpha\beta}h(|\mathbf{y}|)+\frac{y_{\alpha}y_{\beta}}{|\mathbf{y}|^{2}}\left[3h(|\mathbf{y}|)+\frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-|\mathbf{y}|^{2}}\right],$$ with $$h(y)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\cdot\frac{e^{-y^{2}}}{y^{2}}+\frac{\text{erfc}(y)}{y^{3}}.$$
If the dipoles are embedded in an anisotropic dielectric we need to modify Poisson’s equation by substituting $\bigtriangleup\rightarrow\boldsymbol{\nabla}^{t}\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}\boldsymbol{\nabla}$, where $\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}$ is the dielectric tensor of the medium. Now it turns out that in order to preserve the structure of the Ewald formula it is necessary to split the charge distribution anisotropically. This is achieved by inserting the inverse dielectric tensor in the exponential of the Gaussian smearing function, namely $\text{exp}(-\eta^{2}|\mathbf{r}|^{2})\rightarrow\text{exp}(-\eta^{2}\mathbf{r}^{t}\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}^{-1}\mathbf{r})/\sqrt{\det\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}}$. Using this substitution the solution of the (real space) Poisson equation for the smeared charge can be reduced to the isotropic case by a change of variables. In the reciprocal space term the denominator transforms in conjunction with the Poisson equation as $|\mathbf{k}|^{2}\rightarrow\mathbf{k}^{t}\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}\mathbf{k}$. In addition, the Fourier transform of the modified Gaussian smearing function is now given by $\text{exp}(-\mathbf{k}^{t}\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}\mathbf{k}/4\eta^{2})$.
All in all, a structurally identical expression for the dipole contribution is obtained, the only difference being an overall factor of $1/\sqrt{\det\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}}$ and linear transformations of the direct and reciprocal vectors: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P} & \rightarrow & \underline{\underline{D}}^{-1}\underline{\underline{C}}^{t}\mathbf{P},\\
\mathbf{l} & \rightarrow & \underline{\underline{D}}^{-1}\underline{\underline{C}}^{t}\mathbf{l},\\
\mathbf{k} & \rightarrow & \underline{\underline{D}}\underline{\underline{C}}^{t}\mathbf{k}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $\underline{\underline{C}}$ is the (orthogonal) principal axis transformation that diagonalises $\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}$, and $\underline{\underline{D}}=\text{diag}(\sqrt{\epsilon_{1}},\sqrt{\epsilon_{2}},\sqrt{\epsilon_{3}})$ with the eigenvalues $\epsilon_{i}$ of $\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}$, i.e. $\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}=\underline{\underline{C}}\underline{\underline{D}}^{2}\underline{\underline{C}}^{t}$ [@fischerauer_comments_1997]. We note that transforming the lattice vectors in this way necessarily entails a rescaling of the cell volume, namely $V_{\text{cell}}\rightarrow V_{\text{cell}}/\sqrt{\det\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}}$.
Applying the correction {#applying-the-correction .unnumbered}
-----------------------
![*(Top)* Herringbone 1 *(Centre)* Herringbone 2 *(Bottom)* Parallel. Uncorrected energies (blue) and dipole corrections (red) for CT states across a range of supercell embeddings. Dashed lines indicate corrected mean energies. Note that the dipole correction is negative for the 531 supercell for both herringbone configurations.\[fig:corr-her1\]](her1){width="1\columnwidth"}
![*(Top)* Herringbone 1 *(Centre)* Herringbone 2 *(Bottom)* Parallel. Uncorrected energies (blue) and dipole corrections (red) for CT states across a range of supercell embeddings. Dashed lines indicate corrected mean energies. Note that the dipole correction is negative for the 531 supercell for both herringbone configurations.\[fig:corr-her1\]](her2){width="1\columnwidth"}
![*(Top)* Herringbone 1 *(Centre)* Herringbone 2 *(Bottom)* Parallel. Uncorrected energies (blue) and dipole corrections (red) for CT states across a range of supercell embeddings. Dashed lines indicate corrected mean energies. Note that the dipole correction is negative for the 531 supercell for both herringbone configurations.\[fig:corr-her1\]](par){width="1\columnwidth"}
First, we perform a DFPT calculation using the CASTEP code to obtain the dielectric tensor for the primitive cell of the pentacene crystal: $$\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}_{\text{DFPT}}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
3.48 & -0.18 & -0.12\\
-0.18 & 3.14 & 0.19\\
-0.12 & 0.19 & 5.61
\end{array}\right].$$ The actual dielectric tensor is assumed to be obtained by a uniform scaling $\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}=c\cdot\underline{\underline{\epsilon}}_{\text{DFPT}}$. The scaling accounts for the overestimation of screening due to the band-gap error, as previously discussed. By using a single scaling parameter $c$ we employ the simplifying assumption that the overscreening of DFPT is isotropic. The dipole moments were taken from dimer cDFT calculations in vacuum (atomic units): $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}_{\text{her1}} & = & (1.45,\,-6.70,\,-2.07)^{t}, & \;\;\left|\mathbf{P}_{\text{her1}}\right| & = & & 7.16\\
\mathbf{P}_{\text{her2}} & = & (-1.19,\,7.58,\,2.33)^{t}, & \;\;\left|\mathbf{P}_{\text{her2}}\right| & = & & 8.02\\
\mathbf{P}_{\text{par1/2}} & = & \pm(-7.89,\,4.23,\,1.85)^{t}, & \;\;\left|\mathbf{P}_{\text{par1/2}}\right| & = & & 9.14\end{aligned}$$ The dipole correction is applied to the supercell energies as follows: $$E_{\text{tot}}=E_{\text{cDFT}}-E_{\text{dip}}.\label{eq:etot}$$ Minimising the combined standard deviation across all three dimer configurations yields a best-fit value $c=0.378$. The effect of the correction using this value of $c$ for the three cases is shown graphically in Fig. \[fig:corr-her1\]. We note that the value of $c$ is in approximate agreement with the ratio of the DFT gap of $\sim0.8$ eV and to the quasiparticle gap of $\sim2.4$ eV calculated with many-body perturbation theory [@sharifzadeh_quasiparticle_2012], as might be expected.
Having applied Eq. , for the herringbone dimer we obtain a corrected mean energies of 2.01 eV and 2.04 eV, respectively. The parallel dimer yields a mean energy of 2.10 eV. The spread of corrected energies is down to 0.03-0.08 eV, a reduction by a factor of 3-4, demonstrating the success of the method. The significantly larger spread of values in the parallel dimer compared to the herringbone dimer is a result of enhanced dipole interaction between periodic images. This is due to the fact that the dimer (and hence dipole) is aligned with the crystal lattice (along lattice vector $\mathbf{b}$, cf. Fig. \[fig:pentacene-lattice\]).
Discussion
==========
As elaborated above, the empirical parameter $c$ in the method accounts for the overscreening of DFPT with local functionals. There are additional uncertainties due to the fact that the separation of periodic images is small, implying that the supercell calculations still exhibit a relatively high density of electron-hole pairs. This can modify the dielectric properties. Further errors may stem from higher-order electrostatic corrections as a result of the fact that the CT configurations considered take up a significant portions of the supercells and hence do not constitute perfectly point-like dipoles. All these effects are integrated in the $c$ parameter. The remaining spread of energies is presumably related to residuals of these sources of error which cannot be eliminated with the single $c$ parameter.
It is apparent that the dipole-corrected energies are essentially degenerate with those obtained for the 10-molecule cluster, within the quoted precision of 10 meV (cf. Table \[tab:energy-comparison\]). Presuming this holds for still-larger clusters, this result demonstrates the validity of the cluster approximation for molecular crystals of pentacene and likely a range of similar molecules (eg. tetracene). In case where the molecular unit of a molecular crystal has a net dipole, the cluster approach in vacuum would incur significant difficulties due to the unscreened net-dipole [@lever_electrostatic_2013]. The current approach, in employing periodic boundary conditions, would not encounter such problems.
We observe that aggregation has a twofold effect on CT energies in the pentacene molecular crystal: an overall downshift, and an assimilation of the different CT configurations considered. The latter is particularly striking in the herringbone dimer, where the initial splitting of nearly 0.7 eV in isolation is reduced to only a few 10 meV when embedded in the crystal. Interestingly, the alignment of the three CT energies also changes. In the isolated dimers, the parallel CT energy is situated between the two herringbone energies, whereas in the crystal the parallel energy is slightly above the two (now nearly degenerate) herringbone energies.
We also note that although our calculations employ the computationally cheap LDA functional they do not appear to suffer from a systematic underestimation of excitation energies relative to those calculated with higher levels of theory. This observation can be rationalised by noting that in cDFT the excited electron orbital is fully occupied. No DFT eigenvalues of unoccupied orbitals which are subject to large systematic underestimation enter the calculation. TDDFT with local exchange requires computationally expensive and parameter-dependent range-separated hybrid functionals in order to yield CT energies that are not severely underestimated [@dreuw_long-range_2003; @tawada_long-range-corrected_2004]. By contrast, using the novel combination of linear-scaling methodology with projector-based cDFT, we are able to perform relatively cheap calculations which scale well to large system sizes (1368 atoms, in this work).
We further note that the relatively low CT energies in the crystal of just above 2 eV put them on the lower end of experimental estimates [@sebastian_charge_1981]. They are in line with previous theoretical results indicating a significant admixture of CT-like components into the lowest singlet exciton in pentacene [@tiago_ab_2003; @cudazzo_excitons_2012; @sharifzadeh_low-energy_2013]. The low energies also lend support to the notion that a CT-mediated ‘superexchange’ mechanism can play a crucial role in ultrafast fission [@berkelbach_microscopic_2013-1; @berkelbach_microscopic_2013; @berkelbach_microscopic_2014; @chan_quantum_2013].
Our procedure should also be transferable to other systems in which CT states are situated in a complex screening environment. These include (but are not limited to) a variety of organic materials for organic photovoltaics and optoelectronics/spintronics.
At this point there remain a number of limitations that need to be addressed by future work. Our method as presented in this work relies on the system in question exhibiting sufficiently homogeneous dielectric properties which can be approximated by a single dielectric tensor. Furthermore, the cDFT approach necessitates prior knowledge of the excited state structure such that appropriate donor and acceptor regions can be defined. Another current drawback is the requirement of performing calculations on a range of supercells for the purpose of the single parameter fit, increasing computational cost. This limitation may be overcome by using a more accurate functional (or higher-level theory than DFT) for the response calculation, provided that the unit cell is not so large as to make this computationally infeasible.
Conclusions
===========
In this work we have demonstrated the application of (linear-scaling) constrained DFT to charge-transfer states in the pentacene molecular crystal. Our results for isolated dimers are in reasonable agreement with higher-level theory calculations from the literature. Furthermore, we have used cluster calculations to illustrate the transition to the crystal limit, showing that CT energies are lowered both by screening and the formation of bands. We have devised a scheme based on periodic supercell calculations in combination with a dipole correction in order to establish the limit of the infinite molecular crystal. Our dipole correction method is novel in that it is applicable to very general systems (non-cubic with anisotropic dielectric properties). It is also of significant interest that in spite of the high-polarity of the CT configurations, the excellent agreement between results for the cluster approximation and for the crystal limit reveals unexpectedly high screening capability for pentacene, with important consequences for the modelling of pentacene interfaces and film stuctural imperfections.
DHPT and NDMH would like to gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Winton Programme for the Physics of Sustainability. In addition, DHPT gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, as well as access to computing resources provided by the Cambridge High Performance Computing Cluster *Darwin*. GT and DDO’R gratefully acknowledge the Royal Society and Royal Irish Academy for provision of an International Exchange grant. The underlying data of this publication can be accessed via the following persistent URI: <https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/254222>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a detailed analysis of spectral line profiles in Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) spectra. We focus on the feature at [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}3500 – 4000 Å, which is commonly thought to be caused by blueshifted absorption of Ca H&K. Unlike some other spectral features in SN Ia spectra, this feature often has two overlapping (blue and red) components. It is accepted that the red component comes from photospheric calcium. However, it has been proposed that the blue component is caused by either high-velocity calcium (from either abundance or density enhancements above the photosphere of the SN) or [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$. By looking at multiple data sets and model spectra, we conclude that the blue component of the Ca H&K feature is caused by [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ for most SNe Ia. The strength of the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ feature varies strongly with the light-curve shape of a SN. As a result, the velocity measured from a single-Gaussian fit to the full line profile correlates with light-curve shape. The velocity of the Ca H&K component of the profile does not correlate with light-curve shape, contrary to previous claims. We detail the pitfalls of assuming that the blue component of the Ca H&K feature is caused by calcium, with implications for our understanding of SN Ia progenitors, explosions, and cosmology.'
author:
- |
Ryan J. Foley$^{1}$[^1]\
$^{1}$Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
bibliography:
- '../astro\_refs.bib'
date: 'Accepted . Received ; in original form '
title: On Spectral Line Profiles in Type I Supernova Spectra
---
\[firstpage\]
[line: identification – line: profile – supernovae: general – supernovae: individual: SN 2010ae – supernovae: individual: SN 2011fe]{}
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
The spectral-energy distribution (SED) of a Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) near maximum brightness is relatively similar to that of a hot star. An SN SED is predominantly a black body with line blanketing in the ultraviolet. There are also prominent spectral features associated with absorption and emission from elements primarily generated in the SN explosion. These features typically have broad P-Cygni profiles, although overlapping lines can produce larger and more complicated profiles.
The exact SED of a SN Ia depends on the velocity and density structure of the SN ejecta [e.g., @Branch85]. Since broad-band filters sample portions of the SED, and measurements in such filters are used to determine SN distances to ultimately measure cosmological parameters [e.g., @Conley11; @Suzuki12], understanding SN Ia spectral features is important for precise cosmological measurements.
SN spectra also provide detailed information about the SN explosion, progenitor composition, circumbinary environment, and reddening law [e.g., @Hoflich98; @Lentz01; @Mazzali05:hvf; @Tanaka08; @Wang09:2pop; @Foley12:csm; @Hachinger12:10jn; @Roepke12]. Furthermore, there is evidence that one can estimate the intrinsic colour of SNe Ia, and thus improve distance measurements through a better estimate of the dust reddening by measuring the ejecta velocity of SNe Ia [@Foley11:vel]. Ejecta velocity is measured from the blueshifted position of spectral features. For both cosmology and SN physics, it is important to have a precise understanding of SN Ia SEDs.
At optical wavelengths, the two most prominent features in a maximum-light spectrum of a SN Ia are at [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}3750 and 6100 Å, respectively. The latter is thought to be from [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda\lambda 6347$, 6371 ($gf$-weighted rest wavelength of 6355 Å), and is the hallmark spectral feature of a SN Ia. The former, at rest-frame wavelengths of [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}3500 – 4000 Å, is generally attributed to blueshifted absorption from Ca H&K ($gf$-weighted rest wavelength of 3945 Å). However, the line profile of this feature is complicated, often times displaying shoulders, a flat bottom, a “split” profile, and/or two distinct absorption components. There is broad consensus that the red component of the profile is from Ca H&K at a “photospheric” velocity, i.e., a velocity similar to that of the ejecta at close to the $\tau = 2/3$ surface, which is typically about 12000 [kms$^{-1}$]{} near maximum light. However, there is no clear consensus to the origin of the blue component. Previous studies have attributed the blue absorption component to either “high-velocity” (HV) Ca H&K absorption [[$\sim\!\!$ ]{}18,000 [kms$^{-1}$]{}; e.g., @Hatano99:94d; @Garavini04; @Branch05; @Branch07; @Stanishev07:03du; @Chornock08; @Tanaka08; @Tanaka11; @Parrent12], where the absorption comes from a region at high velocity within the SN ejecta that has high-density calcium, and to [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda\lambda 3854$, 3856, 2863 [$gf$-weighted rest wavelength of 3858 Å; e.g., @Kirshner93; @Hoflich95; @Nugent97; @Lentz00; @Wang03; @Altavilla07]. Since calcium and silicon produce the strongest features in SN Ia spectra near maximum brightness, both interpretations are worth investigation. For convenience, we will generally refer to this feature as the “Ca H&K feature.”
There are several cases of clear HV material in SNe Ia. Observations showing multiple components to the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$ line profile [e.g., @Mazzali05:99ee; @Altavilla07; @Garavini07:05cf; @Stanishev07:03du; @Wang09:05cf; @Foley12:09ig] or strong and quickly varying HV [O$\,$]{} $\lambda 7774$ [@Altavilla07; @Nugent11] are perhaps the cleanest way to detect HV material since there are no other strong lines just blueward of [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$ and [O$\,$]{} $\lambda 7774$. Other detections have been made by observing the Ca NIR triplet, often through spectropolarimetry [e.g., @Hatano99:94d; @Li01:00cx; @Kasen03; @Wang03; @Gerardy04; @Mazzali05:hvf], however there are several subtleties to this feature.
HV features must be caused by abundance and/or density enhancements in layers of the ejecta above the SN photosphere. Two distinct “layers” of material within a smooth density profile (i.e., an abundance enhancement) would necessarily be caused by the explosion, and observations of HV features could therefore restrict the possible explosion models. However, @Mazzali05:99ee suggested that abundance differences alone cannot reproduce the strength of the HV features, and therefore there must be a density enhancement. Density enhancements may be either caused by the explosion causing over-dense blobs or shells of material or by sweeping up circumbinary material [e.g., @Gerardy04; @Mazzali05:hvf; @Quimby06:05cg]. Spectropolarimetric observations have indicated that HV Ca NIR triplet features are probably caused from the explosion [e.g., @Kasen03; @Wang03; @Chornock08]. Because of its wavelength, it is difficult to obtain high-quality spectropolarimetric measurements of the Ca H&K feature. None the less, @Wang03 was able to make such a measurement, and the polarization spectrum suggested that the blue component of the Ca H&K feature was from [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ for SN 2001el.
Using the large CfA sample of SN Ia spectra [@Blondin12], @Foley11:vgrad determined that the velocity of [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$, , and the velocity of the red component of the Ca H&K feature, , at maximum light correlated with intrinsic colour, but did not correlate with light-curve shape (and thus luminosity). However, they did not find statistically significant evidence of a linear correlation between the pseudo-equivalent width of the Ca H&K feature and intrinsic colour. Using SDSS–II Supernova Survey and Supernova Legacy Survey data, @Foley12:vel confirmed these trends with high-redshift SNe Ia. They also noted a slight (2.4-$\sigma$ significant) trend between the maximum-light () and host-galaxy mass.
@Maguire12 [hereafter ] presented a sample of maximum-light low-redshift SN Ia spectra obtained with the *Hubble Space Telescope* (*HST*). After various quality cuts, the sample consisted of 16 spectra of 16 SNe Ia. These spectra covered the Ca H&K feature, but did not cover wavelengths near [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$. Unlike @Foley11:vgrad and @Foley12:vel, which presumed that the red component of the Ca H&K feature was representative of photospheric calcium (and thus the wavelength of the maximum absorption of this component represented ), fit a single Gaussian to the entire profile to measure . Among other claims, reported a linear relationship between and light-curve shape (3.4-$\sigma$ significant). Furthermore, they claimed that after correcting for the relation between light-curve shape and , there is no correlation between and host-galaxy mass.
In this paper, we examine the claims of with particular scrutiny to the details of the Ca H&K profile. In Section \[s:cahk\], we re-examine the sample. We confirm a difference in the Ca H&K line profile for SNe Ia with different light-curve shapes, but show that the difference is primarily in the blue component. We also conclude that single-Gaussian fits to the Ca H&K feature give biased, unphysical velocity measurements. In Section \[s:synow\], we provide simple models of calcium and silicon features in a SN Ia spectrum. Trends in the spectra indicate that the blue component of the Ca H&K feature is likely from [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$. In Section \[s:m12\], we perform further analysis with the sample, finding systematic biases in single-Gaussian velocity measurements appear to be present in the analysis. In Section \[s:cfa\], we re-examine the CfA spectral sample, providing further evidence that (1) the blue component of the Ca H&K feature is from [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ absorption and (2) there is no evidence for a correlation between and light-curve shape. Finally, we examine the spectra of the well-observed SN 2011fe and SN 2010ae, a very low-velocity SN Iax, in Section \[s:add\]. Although one cannot uniquely claim that the blue component of the Ca H&K profile is from [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ for SN 2011fe, it must be the the case for SN 2010ae. We discuss implications of this result and conclude in Section \[s:conc\].
The Ca H&K Line Profile {#s:cahk}
=======================
As noted above, the spectral feature at rest-frame wavelengths of [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}3500 – 4000 Å in SN Ia spectra often has structure such as shoulders and multiple components. The main absorption is thought to be from Ca H&K (from the photosphere and possibly from a HV component) and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$. We will refer to this feature as the Ca H&K feature, although there may be additional species contributing to it.
In this section, we will examine the Ca H&K feature in detail. To do this, we use the spectra. After testing their claims of differences in the profile shape with light-curve shape, we examine the different results one gets depending on the method of fitting the line profile.
suggested that depends on the light-cure shape (and therefore peak luminosity) of the SN. Using the WISERep database [@Yaron12], we obtained most of the spectra presented by [^2]. We exclude all SNe that do not use in their final analysis, including PTF10ufj, which only has a redshift determined by SN spectral feature matching. In total, there are 14 spectra of 14 SNe Ia in the final sample. In Figure \[f:maguire\], we present median spectra from the sample. The Ca H&K feature has two clear minima (at [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}3720 and 3800 Å, respectively) in the median spectrum. These data appear to be an excellent sample for studying the Ca H&K profile shape.
![Median spectra from the sample. The black curve is the median spectrum from their full sample. In the top panel, the blue and red curves represent the median spectra taken from early and late subsamples, respectively, while in the bottom panel, they represent low and high stretch (corresponding to low and high luminosity) subsamples, respectively.[]{data-label="f:maguire"}](maguire_spec){width="3.2in"}
We also generated median spectra for subsets of the full sample. First, we split the sample by phase. Since the velocity of SN features typically decreases monotonically with time because of the receding photosphere, one expects lower velocity features at later times. The phase-split median spectra do not appear to be significantly different from each other or the median spectrum from the full sample. This is likely the result of the sample having a very narrow phase range.
We also split the sample by light-curve shape. We split the sample by $s = 1.01$ to match what was done by . Here, we see the same result that found and shows in their Figures 5 and 7. Namely, the low-stretch (corresponding to faster-declines and lower luminosity) SNe have narrower, seemingly lower velocity features than those of high-stretch SNe.
{width="6.8in"}
Given the above difference, it is worth a detailed look at the line profiles. Despite coming from P-Cygni profiles, the line profiles appear to be similar to the sum of two Gaussians, and performing such a fit resulted in excellent matches to the profiles. The absorption component of a P-Cygni profile is very similar to a Gaussian, so using Gaussians to fit the absorption is a reasonable choice. In Figure \[f:dgauss\], we display the median spectra for the full sample and the low/high-stretch subsamples. We also display the best-fitting double-Gaussian fits (after removing a linear pseudo-continuum) to each line profile. For each case, we performed a six–parameter fit, allowing the centroid, width, and height of each Gaussian to vary. The centroid of each Gaussian corresponds roughly to the characteristic velocity of that component. Similarly, the width of each feature corresponds to the velocity-width of the absorbing region for that feature. Finally, the height of each feature is roughly related to the amount of absorbing material at a given velocity. The six–parameter double-Gaussian fits to each profile are represented by the blue lines in Figure \[f:dgauss\].
We also fit the low/high-stretch subsamples with two parameters fixed and four allowed to vary. The centroid and width (the parameters related to velocity) of the redder Gaussian was fixed to match the best-fitting values for the full-sample median spectrum, and the remaining parameters (all parameters for the bluer Gaussian and the height of the redder Gaussian) were allowed to vary. These fits are represented by the red lines in Figure \[f:dgauss\]. Visually, the six–parameter fit is not a significantly better representation of the data than the four–parameter fit. The reduced $\chi^{2}$ decreases by 0.10 and 0.06 when changing from the six–parameter to the four–parameter fit for the low and high-stretch subsamples, respectively. That is, the four–parameter fit has a smaller reduced $\chi^{2}$ than the six–parameter fit (although only marginally smaller), and thus, the subsamples and the full sample are completely consistent with all having the same velocity for the red component.
argued that the difference in the red edge of the Ca H&K line profile was evidence that the subsamples have different ejecta velocities. But we have shown that simply varying the height of the redder Gaussian (and the bluer Gaussian) are sufficient to produce the red edge of the profile. That is, the apparent different in the red edge can be explained by different line strengths rather than different line velocities, and thus a difference in the red edge is not sufficient to distinguish different velocity features.
We also attempted to fix the parameters of the bluer Gaussian, but that did not result in good fits. From these tests, we see that (1) the red component does not necessarily have a different centroid (and thus velocity) for the two subsamples and (2) the blue component does have a different centroid.
We now turn to the difficulty of reducing these profiles to a single parameter, namely velocity. There have been two approaches to measure velocities. The first fits a single Gaussian to a line profile and ascribes the centroid of the Gaussian to the velocity of the feature. This method is used by many studies, including . The alternative is to measure the wavelength of maximum absorption (usually after some smoothing) to represent the velocity of the feature. This is the method described by @Blondin06 and used by @Foley11:vgrad and @Foley12:vel. Although there are many arguments to use either method, we will focus on the potential systematic errors of using these methods when a feature has multiple components like the Ca H&K feature.
In Figure \[f:dgauss\], we also show a single-Gaussian fit to the Ca H&K feature. Besides being a poor representation of the data, the centroid of the Gaussian is consistently intermediate to the two components. Usually, one wants to measure the photospheric velocity for a given feature. With that goal, the single Gaussian clearly fails. A single Gaussian, by measuring something intermediate to the two components, measures nothing physical. Furthermore, the centroid of the single Gaussian is significantly affected by the blue component. The single Gaussian fits for the subsamples indicate that the low-stretch SNe have significantly lower velocities than the high-stretch SNe. However, the double-Gaussian fits show that this is not the case for the photospheric component.
To investigate the importance of the blue component to the measured from these two methods, we created artificial, but realistic, line profiles. In Figure \[f:gauss\], we again show the median spectrum from the sample. We created a double-Gaussian line profile to mimic the profile of the median spectrum. We then varied the height of the bluer Gaussian, but left all other parameters fixed. We display several example line profiles in Figure \[f:gauss\]. Visually, all of these line profiles appear physically possible and represented in nature. The full sample of line profiles vary from having no blue component to having a blue component that is about twice as strong as the red component.
![Ca H&K line profiles. The black curve is the median spectrum from the full sample. The solid lines are artificial line profiles created from two Gaussians where only the height of the blue component varies. The dotted lines are single-Gaussian fits to the artificial profiles.[]{data-label="f:gauss"}](test_gauss){width="3.2in"}
We fit single Gaussians to all artificial line profiles. We display a subset of these fits in Figure \[f:gauss\] (those that match the subset of profiles displayed). As expected, the stronger the blue component, the bluer the centroid of the Gaussian. In Figure \[f:vel\_off\], we show the measured from these Gaussian fits. Over the range we explore (from no blue component to a blue component that is twice as strong as the red component), the measured changes by more than 5000 [kms$^{-1}$]{}. Even when the blue component is about a third as strong as the red component, the measured is [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}1000 [kms$^{-1}$]{} different from the true .
![Measured velocity for artificial line profiles. The horizontal black lines represent the velocity of the two components (as measured from their centroid and assuming a rest wavelength of 3945 Å), with the lower and higher velocity components labelled “Photospheric Calcium” and “‘High Velocity’ Calcium,” respectively. The black crosses represent the measured from a single Gaussian to fit the profiles. The blue X’s represent the measured from the wavelength of maximum absorption.[]{data-label="f:vel_off"}](vel_off){width="3.2in"}
We also measured the wavelength of maximum absorption. This wavelength is associated with the blue component when it is stronger and quickly transition its association to the red component as the blue component becomes weaker. The measured for our artificial line profiles is shown in Figure \[f:vel\_off\]. Although this method fails dramatically for strong blue components, the measured is relatively constant for line ratios less than one, with all measured velocities $<$1000 [kms$^{-1}$]{} for all such cases. There is a slight bias ([$\sim\!\!$ ]{}150 [kms$^{-1}$]{}) for these measurements, some of which can be explained by increasing flux of the pseudo-continuum with wavelength. Correcting for the pseudo-continuum removes much of the bias, with the remaining bias related to the strength of the blue component.
For cases where the red component is stronger than the blue component, measuring the wavelength of maximum absorption is significantly better at measuring the photospheric velocity than using a Gaussian fit to the full profile. In this regime, the wavelength of maximum absorption is only minimally affected by the strength of the blue component, while the Gaussian fit is significantly affected. In the regime of having a stronger blue component, the wavelength of maximum absorption fails. However, in this regime, the Gaussian fit also fails, producing unphysical and significantly biased results.
Using the @Foley11:vgrad method of culling measurements that are not representative of the photospheric velocity, one should have reliable measurements, but will necessarily have an incomplete sample. A potential way to avoid this bias would be to perform a double-Gaussian fit. We have not investigated how this method performs with noisy data.
SYNOW Models {#s:synow}
============
To further understand the nature of the Ca H&K feature, we use the SN spectrum-synthesis code [SYNOW]{} [@Fisher97] to create simple [SYNOW]{} spectral models. We specifically use these models to test how temperature can affect the profile and look for trends between the Ca H&K profile shape and other spectral features. Although [SYNOW]{} has a simple, parametric approach to creating synthetic spectra, it can provide insight on basic trends in SN SEDs. To generate a synthetic spectrum, one inputs a blackbody temperature ($T_{\rm BB}$), a photospheric velocity ($v_{\rm ph}$), and for each involved ion, an optical depth at a reference line, an excitation temperature ($T_{\rm exc}$), the maximum velocity of the opacity distribution ($v_{\rm max}$), and a velocity scale ($v_{e}$). This last variable assumes that the optical depth declines exponentially for velocities above $v_{\rm ph}$ with an $e$-folding scale of $v_{e}$. The strengths of the lines for each ion are determined by oscillator strengths and the approximation of a Boltzmann distribution of the lower-level populations with a temperature of $T_{\rm exc}$.
We produced models consisting of only [Ca$\,$]{} and with only [Si$\,$]{} and [Ca$\,$]{} to isolate their affect on the profile of the Ca H&K feature. For all models, we set $T_{\rm BB} =
10000$ K, $v_{\rm ph} = 10000$ [kms$^{-1}$]{}, $v_{\rm max} = 80000$ [kms$^{-1}$]{}, and $v_{e} = 3000$ (for [Si$\,$]{}) and 2000 [kms$^{-1}$]{} (for [Ca$\,$]{}). We chose $\tau = 5$ and 4 for [Si$\,$]{} and [Ca$\,$]{}, respectively. These parameters were chosen such that when $T_{\rm
exc} = 10000$ K, the model Ca H&K line profile was visually similar to that of the median spectrum of the sample. Keeping all other parameters fixed, we varied $T_{\rm exc}$ from 5000 to 20000 K. A subset of the models spanning this range are presented in Figure \[f:sspec\].
{width="6.8in"}
As seen in Figure \[f:sspec\], the inclusion of [Si$\,$]{} dramatically changes the Ca H&K profile shape, making it stronger, broader, and bluer. Although the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ feature may be stronger in the models than in real SN spectra, the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$ and the Ca H&K features appear to have reasonable strengths.
There is a clear spectral progression as the temperature changes. We note that for [SYNOW]{}, $T_{\rm bb}$ only changes the continuum shape of the models and does not affect the strength of features. Since [SYNOW]{} uses Ca H&K as the reference calcium line, the strength of the Ca H&K absorption by definition does not change much with $T_{\rm exc}$, and the entire calcium spectrum does not change much over the temperatures probed. Meanwhile the [Si$\,$]{} spectrum changes significantly with varying $T_{\rm exc}$. The strength of the Ca H&K absorption within the Ca H&K feature (i.e., the strength of the red component) does change slightly with $T_{\rm
exc}$ because of the strength of the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ emission changing the apparent Ca H&K absorption.
In the red, there is the expected change in the ratio of the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 5972$ and $\lambda 6355$ lines. This ratio, $\mathcal{R}$(Si), is highly correlated with luminosity and light-curve shape [@Nugent95]. As the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda
5972$ feature becomes stronger, the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ feature becomes weaker. For the [SYNOW]{} models, $\mathcal{R}$(Si) increases with increasing $T_{\rm exc}$, while for SNe Ia, $\mathcal{R}$(Si) increases with decreasing $T$; this has been previously noted [e.g., @Bongard08], and is likely the result of not simultaneously changing the opacity with $T_{\rm exc}$ and/or non-local thermodynamic equilibrium effects. However, the [Ca$\,$]{} spectrum does not change significantly with $T_{\rm exc}$ and other model spectra show the same relation between [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 5972$ [e.g., @Kasen07:asym; @Blondin13]. We therefore consider the qualitative changes in the spectra to be correct, although the corresponding temperatures may not be. All models show that the strength of [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda
5972$ are anti-correlated; we will use this relation as the primary model prediction. We will later use $\mathcal{R}$(Si) as a proxy for light-curve shape.
The excitation energy for the various [Si$\,$]{} lines also explain the correlations between the various [Si$\,$]{} features. The [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$, [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 5972$, and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$ features have excitation energies of 6.9, 10.0, and 8.1 eV, respectively. Because the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda
3858$ and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 5972$ features have very different excitation energies and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$ has an excitation energy intermediate to the other two features, the strengths of the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 5972$ features should change in opposite directions with changing temperature. This also explains the [SYNOW]{} results since [SYNOW]{} fixes the strength of the reference feature, [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$.
In the middle and right-hand panels of Figure \[f:sspec\], we show the Ca H&K feature and redder [Si$\,$]{} complex in detail. Again, it is clear that both $\mathcal{R}$(Si) and the strength of the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ feature change in the way described above.
A SN photosphere is, of course, more complicated than the simple [SYNOW]{} model. Specifically, as the temperature changes over the relevant range, the ionization of silicon (specifically the amount of singly and doubly ionized silicon) changes. Additionally, certain features may be saturated (and possibly for only certain temperatures). Specifically, it is thought that [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda
6355$ is usually saturated. However, it seems unlikely that the other [Si$\,$]{} features are saturated. Therefore, these additional complexities should not change our interpretation that the strengths of the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 5972$ features are anti-correlated and change with temperature.
We fit the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 4130$, $\lambda 5972$, and $\lambda
6355$ features in each model spectrum with single Gaussians. Although the line profiles are not exactly Gaussian, the fits are reasonable approximations of the data, and the process is similar to what is done in practice. We also fit the Ca H&K feature with both a single Gaussian and a double Gaussian. We show the measured velocity in Figure \[f:spar\].
![*Top Panel:* Measured velocity as a function of excitation temperature for [SYNOW]{} model spectra. The red dotted lines represent the velocities measured with a single Gaussian for the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 4130$ and $\lambda 6355$ lines. The black crosses represent velocities measured with a single-Gaussian fit to the Ca H&K feature. The blue X’s represent velocities measured with a double-Gaussian fit to the Ca H&K feature, where the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ velocity is measured assuming its rest wavelength is 3945 Å. *Bottom Panel:* The $\mathcal{R}$(Si) (red dotted line) and Si/Ca (blue X’s) line ratios as a function of excitation temperature for the [SYNOW]{} model spectra.[]{data-label="f:spar"}](synow_par){width="3.2in"}
The measured [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 4130$, and $\lambda 6355$ velocities differ by at most 530 and 220 [kms$^{-1}$]{} over the entire temperature range, respectively. At the lowest $T_{\rm exc}$, the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 5972$ feature is not strong enough to measure a reliable velocity, but for the other temperatures, it differs by at most 440 [kms$^{-1}$]{}. These differences are encouraging since the photospheric velocities did not change.
Fitting two Gaussians to the Ca H&K feature, which should be better at recovering the true velocity (see Section \[s:cahk\]), we see that the red component, corresponding to Ca H&K, has a measured velocity range similarly small to that of the [Si$\,$]{} features noted above. Specifically, the maximum difference of measured Ca H&K velocities over all temperatures probed is only 290 [kms$^{-1}$]{}. However, the measured velocity for the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ feature changes significantly with temperature. Over the full temperature range probed, the measured [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ velocity ranges from $-15$,550 to $-19,$380 [kms$^{-1}$]{} – a difference of 3820 [kms$^{-1}$]{}, or roughly an order of magnitude greater than that of the other features.
A single-Gaussian fit performs even worse. Because of the changing [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ velocity and its varying strength, a single-Gaussian fit to the Ca H&K feature results in a range of $-13$,250 to $-17,670$ [kms$^{-1}$]{} over our chosen temperature range for a maximum difference of 4420 [kms$^{-1}$]{}. Since the measured using a single Gaussian can have dramatic differences even when there is no change in physical velocities, this is even more reason to avoid this technique.
Figure \[f:spar\] also shows the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 5972$ to [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$ ($\mathcal{R}$(Si)) and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ to Ca H&K ratios, which we will call the Si/Ca ratio. The range for $\mathcal{R}$(Si), from effectively zero (when [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 5972$ is difficult to discern) to [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}0.3, is approximately the range seen by all SNe Ia except SN 1991bg-like objects [e.g., @Blondin12; @Silverman12:lc]. The Ca/Si ratio has a range of 1.2 to 2.3. The ratio is affected by both the strength of the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ absorption and the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ *emission*, which fills in some of the Ca H&K absorption. As noted above, the strength of the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda
3858$ feature can have a large affect on the Ca H&K line profile, and even dominates for many temperatures.
Since [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 5972$ and $\lambda 6355$ do not show significant velocity differences with temperature, are relatively free of contamination from other species, and $\mathcal{R}$(Si) is a good indication of light-curve shape, we can use it as a proxy for light-curve shape for our models. Figure \[f:si\_cavel\] shows measured with a single Gaussian as a function of $\mathcal{R}$(Si). The measured decreases in amplitude with increasing $\mathcal{R}$(Si), which corresponds to decreasing stretch and luminosity.
![Velocities measured with a single-Gaussian fit to the Ca H&K feature as a function of $\mathcal{R}$(Si) for the [SYNOW]{} model spectra. The data are also plotted in blue where the measured stretch is converted to $\mathcal{R}$(Si) with the top axis showing the scaling.[]{data-label="f:si_cavel"}](si_cavel){width="3.2in"}
Converting stretch to $\mathcal{R}$(Si), we can plot the measurements on Figure \[f:si\_cavel\]. The spectra do not cover the redder [Si$\,$]{} features, so a direct measurement could not be made. The values, which use a single Gaussian to fit the Ca H&K feature, span a similar range of and inferred $\mathcal{R}$(Si) as the models, with the model trend going through the middle of the data values. The claimed trend of with light-curve shape is clear using the values. However, this trend is similar to the trend generated by simply changing the temperature in the [SYNOW]{} models. We emphasize that the true is fixed for all models and the measured using a double-Gaussian fit varies only slightly over all models. The trend shown in Figure \[f:si\_cavel\] is solely the result of the method for measuring the velocity. The underlying physical effect is the changing strength of [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ with temperature, and thus light-curve shape.
There will undoubtedly be a true range of velocities in the data. We have not explored how the [SYNOW]{} models change when varying several parameters, but it is clearly possible to reproduce the trend through a combination of single Gaussian fitting, an inherent velocity range, and relations between the Ca H&K profile shape with temperature and velocity.
The M12 Sample {#s:m12}
==============
With the insights of the above analysis, we re-analyse the individual spectra. In Section \[s:cahk\], we showed that fitting the Ca H&K profile with a single Gaussian results in an imprecise, biased, and unphysical measurement of the photospheric velocity. Instead, we fit the Ca H&K profiles of the spectra with two Gaussians. As suggested above, this method should provide relatively unbiased measurements of the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ feature and the Ca H&K feature.
We provide the best-fitting velocities for [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ assuming that it is “HV” Ca H&K and Ca H&K in Table \[t:data\]. We also provide the Si/Ca ratio in Table \[t:data\].
Figure \[f:vel\_vel\] compares the velocities measured with the double-Gaussian fit to those reported by . The is systematically lower than the value for the same SNe. Similarly, the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ (when treated as HV Ca H&K) is systematically higher than the value for the same SNe. Performing a Bayesian Monte-Carlo linear regression on the –[Si$\,$]{} and –Ca H&K data sets [@Kelly07], we find that 99.8 and 86.8 per cent of the realizations have positive slopes, respectively, corresponding to 3.1-$\sigma$ and 1.5-$\sigma$ results, respectively. That is, there is significant evidence for a linear relation between the measurements and the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ velocity, but no evidence for a linear relation between the measurements and the velocity of the red component corresponding to absorption from photospheric calcium.
![ Ca H&K velocities measured using a single-Gaussian fit to the Ca H&K feature compared to velocities measured with a double-Gaussian fit to the Ca H&K feature for the sample. The black and blue points represent the Ca H&K and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ (assuming a rest wavelength of 3945 Å) velocities from the double-Gaussian fit. The solid lines represent the best-fitting linear relationships for the data, corresponding to 1.5 and 3.1-$\sigma$ results for Ca H&K and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$, respectively.[]{data-label="f:vel_vel"}](vel_vel){width="3.2in"}
As expected from the results of Section \[s:synow\], the measurements are intermediate to the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ and Ca H&K velocities, more closely track the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ velocity than the Ca H&K velocity, and are systematically biased measurements of .
For much of the analysis performed by , they corrected their measured to a maximum-light value, , using a single velocity gradient for all objects derived from the and effective phase measurements for their sample. Using a large sample where many objects had multiple spectra obtained near maximum light, @Foley11:vgrad showed that and the velocity gradient were highly correlated with higher-velocity SNe also having higher-velocity gradients. Taking into account this relation, they produced an equation which estimates given and phase. Using the velocity gradient results in differences between and that can be as large as 1150 [kms$^{-1}$]{}, and the median difference is 460 [kms$^{-1}$]{}. However, if one uses the @Foley11:vgrad relation to correct the velocity measurements to have a common phase of 2.7 d (the median of the sample), then the deviation between that value and is at most 560 [kms$^{-1}$]{}, with a median absolute deviation of 120 [kms$^{-1}$]{}, both of which are smaller than the typical uncertainty of 670 [kms$^{-1}$]{} for the measurements. The combination of using a single velocity gradient and extrapolating to maximum light (only one spectrum in the sample has a phase before maximum brightness) introduces unnecessary additional uncertainty. Instead in all further analysis, we use the raw measurements, but add an additional 120 [kms$^{-1}$]{} uncertainty in quadrature to the reported uncertainty.
Using our measurements of , we can re-examine the claim that is correlated with light-curve shape. In Figure \[f:s\_vel\], we show the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda
3858$, Ca H&K, and velocity measurements as a function of stretch. This figure is similar to Figure \[f:si\_cavel\].
![Velocities measured with a single or double-Gaussian fit to the Ca H&K feature as a function of stretch for the sample. The single-Gaussian measurements are taken from and represented by the red data. The double-Gaussian measurements are shown as black and blue points for the Ca H&K and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ (assuming a rest wavelength of 3945 Å) components, respectively. The solid lines represent the best-fitting linear relationships for the data, corresponding to 2.3, 2.3, and 1.4-$\sigma$ results for the , [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$, and Ca H&K velocities, respectively.[]{data-label="f:s_vel"}](stretch_vel){width="3.2in"}
Performing a Bayesian Monte–Carlo linear regression on the , the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$, and Ca H&K velocity measurements, we find that 97.7, 97.8, and 87.6 per cent of the realizations have positive slopes, respectively, corresponding to 2.3-$\sigma$, 2.3-$\sigma$, and 1.5-$\sigma$ results, respectively. We therefore find mild evidence that the and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ velocity measurements are linearly related to stretch. We find no statistical evidence that is linearly related to stretch.
found a 3.4-$\sigma$ linear relation between their measurements and stretch. Above, our measured significance is much lower. This is partly because in the above calculation, we did not include SNe 2011by and 2011fe since we do not have the spectra. Including the reported values for these SNe, there is only a minor change in the significance, changing the percentage of realizations with positive slopes to be 98.7 per cent, which is a 2.5-$\sigma$ result. The other difference is that above we examine instead of . Performing the same analysis as (using and including SNe 2011by and 2011fe), we find that 99.4 per cent of the realizations have positive slopes, which is a 2.8-$\sigma$ result. The difference in significance is likely in the subtleties of fitting a line. This practice is not trivial [@Hogg10], but the @Kelly07 method is generally a better choice than most options.
We also performed a Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) test, splitting the samples by a stretch of 1.01. This is not an ideal test since there are several SNe with stretches consistent with 1.01 (and therefore could be in either group) and uncertainty in the velocity can also change the overall distribution, but it can provide an indication of a difference. The KS test resulted in $p$ values of 0.0014, 0.0036, and 0.080 for the , the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$, and Ca H&K velocity measurements, respectively. These tests indicate that the low and high-stretch subsamples have different parent populations for both the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ and velocities. However, there is no statistical evidence that the low/high-stretch subsamples have different parent distributions.
Although there is only marginal evidence that there is a linear relationship between the measurements and stretch, we find a similar significance of a relationship between [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ velocity and stretch. Since the shows no evidence for a correlation with stretch and the measurements are correlated with the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ velocity (and at most weakly correlated with the Ca H&K velocity), the physical relationship underlying the result identified by is likely the correlation between [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ velocity and stretch. From the [SYNOW]{} models, this relation is understood as a temperature effect (and not a real difference in photospheric velocity).
Next, we examine the Si/Ca ratio. We show the Si/Ca ratio as a function of stretch for the sample in Figure \[f:s\_rat\]. Performing a Bayesian Monte–Carlo linear regression on the data, we find that 82.4 per cent of the realizations have positive slopes, corresponding to a 1.4-$\sigma$ result. Although there is no evidence for a linear relationship between stretch and the Si/Ca ratio in the data, there is a slight correlation with higher stretch SNe having larger Si/Ca ratios. This is the same general trend expected from the [ SYNOW]{} models, and future investigations should determine if such a trend exists.
![Si/Ca ratio as a function of stretch for the sample. The solid line represents the best-fitting linear relationship for the data, corresponding to a 1.4-$\sigma$ result.[]{data-label="f:s_rat"}](stretch_ratio){width="3.2in"}
Finally, we compare the Si/Ca ratio to our measured velocities (Figure \[f:rat\_vel\]). There are no obvious trends (1.0 and 1.7-$\sigma$) between the Si/Ca ratio and the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda
3858$ or Ca H&K velocities. However, there is a moderate trend between the Si/Ca ratio and the measurements (2.7-$\sigma$), where the velocities increase with increasing Si/Ca ratio. One should expect that the single-Gaussian method (as employed by ) should be intermediate to the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ and Ca H&K velocities. The velocity should be closer to the Ca H&K velocity when the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ feature is weak (small Si/Ca ratio) and closer to the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ velocity when the feature is strong (large Si/Ca ratio).
![Velocities measured with a single or double-Gaussian fit to the Ca H&K feature as a function of the Si/Ca ratio for the sample. The single-Gaussian measurements are taken from and represented by the red data. The double-Gaussian measurements are shown as black and blue points for the Ca H&K and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ (assuming a rest wavelength of 3945 Å) components, respectively. The solid lines represent the best-fitting linear relationships for the data, corresponding to 2.7, 1.0, and 1.7-$\sigma$ results for the , [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$, and Ca H&K velocities, respectively. The dotted lines represent the best-fitting linear relationships for the data with a Si/Ca ratio of $>$1. The red, black, and blue circles represent the single-Gaussian and double-Gaussian fit velocities for the [ SYNOW]{} model spectra.[]{data-label="f:rat_vel"}](ratio_vel){width="3.2in"}
The behavior seen in the data is reproduced to some extent by the [SYNOW]{} models. Figure \[f:rat\_vel\] also shows the [ SYNOW]{} model Si/Ca ratio compared to the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda
3858$, Ca H&K, and single-Gaussian velocities. The Ca H&K velocity is relatively flat for the [SYNOW]{} models, while the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ and single-Gaussian velocities increase with increasing Si/Ca ratio. The Ca H&K and single-Gaussian trends are similar in the data and models, but the data have higher velocities than the data (by about 700 and 2200 [kms$^{-1}$]{}, respectively). There is no obvious trend in the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ data, contrary to what is seen in the models.
The models are restricted to Si/Ca ratios of $>$1. If we fit the data with the same restriction, the fits are more similar to the slopes seen in the models. Specifically, the trend with Ca H&K is flatter and the trend with [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ is stronger, although neither trend is statistically significant. Perhaps a simple linear relation is not sufficient to describe the trend between the Si/Ca ratio and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ velocity.
The CfA Sample {#s:cfa}
==============
Although the sample was used to identify some trends which were investigated above, it is limited in size. To test additional trends, we use the CfA spectral sample [@Blondin12]. Over the last two decades, the CfA SN Program has observed hundreds of SNe Ia, mostly with the FAST spectrograph [@Fabricant98] mounted on the 1.5 m telescope at the F. L. Whipple Observatory. The data have been reduced in a consistent manner [@Matheson08; @Blondin12], producing well-calibrated spectra. These spectra often cover Ca H&K and always cover [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$, which the spectra do not cover.
For SNe Ia in the sample with a measured time of maximum brightness from light curves, $v_{\rm Si~II}$ and $v_{\rm Ca~H\&K}$ have been measured [@Blondin12]. Briefly, this is achieved by first generating a smoothed spectrum using an inverse-variance Gaussian filter [@Blondin06], and the wavelength of maximum absorption in the smoothed spectrum is used to determine the velocity (see @Blondin12 for details). The measurements for each spectrum have been reported by @Foley11:vgrad, and measurements in all cases were obtained by @Blondin12
The CfA sample contains 1630 $v_{\rm Si~II}$ and 1192 $v_{\rm
Ca~H\&K}$ measurements for 255 and 192 SNe Ia, respectively.
The velocity of each absorption minimum in the [Ca$\,$]{} H&K feature of the smoothed spectra is automatically recorded [@Blondin12]. We only examine spectra with one or two minima. If two minima are found, the higher/lower velocities are classified as “blue”/“red.” If only one minimum is found, it is categorized as the red or lower-velocity component.
@Foley11:vgrad noted that comparing all $v_{\rm Ca~H\&K}$ measurements to their corresponding $v_{\rm Si~II}$ measurements, there were two distinct “clouds” corresponding to a lower and higher velocity relative to $v_{\rm Si~II}$. The higher-velocity cloud typically corresponds to the blue velocity component, although there are some red measurements in that cloud. The red measurements in the blue cloud typically have indications of a lower-velocity component, such as a red shoulder in the line profile, and it was assumed that they likely corresponded to measurements which were physically similar to the blue measurements and were simply misclassified.
In Figure \[f:cfa\_vel\], we show the subset of CfA measurements of spectra with $-1 \le t \le 4.5$ d (chosen to match the sample). This subset also shows the distinct blue/red clouds. We used the method of @Williams10 to fit a single slope, but separate offsets to the two clouds. As a result of that fitting, there is a natural dividing line between the two clouds, and we used this line to produce cleaner subsamples. We removed every blue measurement in the red cloud, since they may be errant measurements. We also reassigned every red measurement in the blue cloud as a “blue” measurement because of the reasons listed above. This full process is shown graphically in the three panels of Figure \[f:cfa\_vel\].
{width="6.8in"}
With these clean subsets, we have a reasonable estimate of the velocities for the blue and red components of the Ca H&K feature. Since some SNe in the CfA sample have multiple spectra in the chosen phase range, we created samples for each velocity group where there is one measurement per SN. For each SN, we chose the measurement closest to a phase of $t = 2.7$ d, the median of the sample. This resulted in samples of 66 and 67 SNe Ia with blue and red measurements (approximately one-third of the full CfA sample and about 5 times as large as the sample), respectively. We present those measurements as a function of light-curve shape (specifically, $\Delta m_{15} (B)$) in Figure \[f:vel\_dm15\]. There is no significant linear relation between light-curve shape and the individual velocity components. In fact, the stronger relationship of the red velocity component, which is the best representation of the Ca H&K photospheric velocity, is a 1.3$\sigma$ result in the *opposite* direction than the relation (i.e., higher velocity for slower-declining SNe Ia). Because of this opposing trend, the CfA data are significantly inconsistent with the relation. However, this result is consistent with that of @Foley11:vgrad and @Foley12:vel for both Ca H&K and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$.
![Velocity of the blue (top) and red (bottom) components of the Ca H&K profile (assuming a rest wavelength of 3945 Å) vs. $\Delta m_{15} (B)$ for the CfA sample and a phase range of $-1 \le
t \le 4.5$ d. The choice of blue and red velocities were made as described in the text and visually represented in Figure \[f:cfa\_vel\]. Each point represents a different SN (66 and 67, respectively). There is no significant correlation for either (linear relations are 0.4$\sigma$ and 1.3$\sigma$ significant, respectively). Since the red component, corresponding to photospheric Ca H&K, has a slight (but insignificant) trend of higher velocity with faster-declining light curves, the data are significantly inconsistent with the claim of that Ca H&K velocity decreases with faster-declining light curves.[]{data-label="f:vel_dm15"}](cfa_vel_dm15){width="3.2in"}
In addition to the arguments detailed above, there is additional evidence in the CfA data that suggest that the blue component of the Ca H&K feature is the result of [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$. If the blue component is predominantly from HV Ca H&K, then one would not expect a particularly high correlation between its velocity and that of [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$. That is, the velocity of a HV calcium component could be independent of the photospheric silicon velocity. However, there is a reasonable correlation (correlation coefficient of 0.54) between the two. On the other hand, the velocities of the red and blue components are barely correlated (correlation coefficient of 0.27). Therefore, the velocity of the blue component has a larger association with the photospheric velocity of silicon than the photospheric velocity of calcium.
Perhaps the best evidence that the blue component is from [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ absorption is presented in Figure \[f:cfa\_vel\]. In the right panel, we plot the relation between and in the scenario where the measurement is from a misidentified [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ feature at the same velocity as [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$. The line goes directly through the blue cloud, indicating that the blue component of the Ca H&K feature has a velocity consistent with that of [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$ if it is formed by [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ absorption. In other words, the blue component is at the wavelength one expects by blueshifting 3858 Å by . Addtionally, @Blondin12 presented several examples of SNe where the blue component was consistent with [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ at the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$ velocity, while the red component was consistent with the velocity of the Ca NIR triplet.
From the large CfA sample, we showed additional evidence that does not correlate with light-curve shape. The velocity of the blue component is correlated with the photospheric silicon velocity (as measured by [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$) and relatively uncorrelated with the photospheric calcium velocity. In addition to being correlated with photospheric silicon velocity, the CfA data show that the velocity of the blue component matches the expected photospheric velocity of [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$.
Additional Modeling {#s:add}
===================
From the above analysis of the [SYNOW]{} models, the comparison of the sample to the [SYNOW]{} models, and an examination of the CfA sample, there is significant evidence that the blue component of the Ca H&K feature is predominantly from [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$. However, additional confidence in this claim can be obtained by modeling specific SNe.
In this section, we examine the two possible scenarios for the blue component of the Ca H&K feature (either HV calcium or [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$) for two test cases: SN 2011fe and SN 2010ae.
SN 2011fe {#ss:11fe}
---------
SN 2011fe, which occurred in M 101 and was the brightest SN Ia in 40 years, has been incredibly well observed and extensively studied [e.g., @Nugent11; @Brown12; @Chomiuk12; @Horesh12; @Margutti12; @Matheson12; @Parrent12; @Shappee13]. Here we examine a single maximum-light spectrum of SN 2011fe, obtained by *HST* using the STIS spectrograph (Program GO–12298; PI Ellis). The spectra were obtained on 2011 September 10 between 09:51 and 11:14 UT, corresponding to $t = 0.0$ d relative to $B$-band maximum brightness . The observations were obtained with three different gratings, all with the $52\arcsec \times 0.\arcsec2$ slit. Two exposures were obtained for each of the CCD/G230LB, CCD/G430L, and CCD/G750L setups with individual exposure times of 530, 80, and 80 s, respectively. The three setups yield a combined wavelength range of 1665 – 10,245 Å. The data were reduced using the standard *HST* Space Telescope Science Data Analysis System (STSDAS) routines to bias subtract, flat-field, extract, wavelength-calibrate, and flux-calibrate each SN spectrum.
We present the spectrum in Figure \[f:11fe\]. We note that presented a spectrum for SN 2011fe from a different phase and which only covered [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}2900 – 5700 Å. This is the first publication of these data. This is also only the second published maximum-light SN Ia spectrum to probe below [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}2500 Å(the first being of SN 2011iv; @Foley12:11iv).
{width="6.8in"}
The SN 2011fe spectrum is of extreme high quality, including in the UV. Because of its quality and wavelength coverage, we can produce a reasonable [SYNOW]{} model. We have made two attempts at fitting the SN 2011fe spectrum using [SYNOW]{} models. The first assumes that the blue component of the Ca H&K feature is from [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$; the second assumes that it is caused by HV Ca H&K. We present our models in Figure \[f:11fe\] and model parameters in Table \[t:models\].
When generating these models, we first attempted to fit the full spectrum with a limited number of species. These models are not optimized to fit the entire spectrum; because of potential effects other species could have on the spectral features of interest, we wanted a first-order model of the full spectrum. We then either added HV [Ca$\,$]{} or adjusted the [Si$\,$]{} temperature to match the blue component of the Ca H&K feature. We allow the opacity and density structures for [Ca$\,$]{}, [Si$\,$]{}, HV [Ca$\,$]{}, and [Na$\,$]{} to vary, but all other species remain the same.
For the HV calcium model, we adjusted the [Si$\,$]{} temperature to an extreme value that still fits the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 5972$ feature. In this model, we do not include any [Na$\,$]{}, and therefore Na D does not contribute at all to this feature. As a result, the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ is about as weak as possible, and the HV Ca H&K is essentially as strong as possible.
For the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ model, we adjust the [Si$\,$]{} temperature to an extreme value to match the blue feature in the Ca H&K feature. We then add [Na$\,$]{} to match the strength of the feature near 5800 Å.
These models differ in some ways from those presented by @Parrent12 for their optical-only maximum-light SN 2011fe spectrum. Most differences are related to matching the UV region, which requires adding [Co$\,$]{} and [Cr$\,$]{}. Interestingly, adding these features reduces the need to include [Fe$\,$]{} in the [SYNOW]{} model (although we cannot definitively say that it is not in the spectrum). Additionally, we are able to better model the Ca H&K feature than @Parrent12 because of the additional data blueward of the feature.
Examining the [SYNOW]{} models in detail, particularly near the Ca H&K feature, the redder [Si$\,$]{} features, and the Ca NIR triplet (see lower panels of Figure \[f:11fe\]), we see that the models are very similar. In other words, [SYNOW]{} modeling of SN 2011fe cannot distinguish between our two scenarios; it simply has too many parameters for the data.
We did not adjust the models to fit the Ca NIR triplet, with the hope that we might see signatures of HV Ca. There is a feature in the [SYNOW]{} model that is coincident with a shoulder in the SN 2011fe spectrum. However, we see a similar feature in the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ model that is simply the result of a slightly different density profile for [Ca$\,$]{}. A full spectral sequence and/or NIR spectra, which would supply additional [Si$\,$]{} features, may provide a clear way to distinguish the models.
SN 2010ae
---------
With an inconclusive result from modeling SN 2011fe, we now turn to modeling SN 2010ae. SN 2010ae is a SN Iax [@Foley12:iax] similar to SN 2008ha [@Foley09:08ha; @Foley10:08ha; @Valenti09]. Its spectrum is similar to that of a SN Ia, but with an extremely low ejecta velocity. This indicates that the ejecta composition, density structure, temperature, and other aspects of the explosion important for producing a particular SED are similar for SN 2010ae and SNe Ia. However, because of the low ejecta velocity, line blending is minimal.
We present a near maximum-light spectrum of SN 2010ae originally presented by @Foley12:iax and presumed to be obtained near maximum light in Figure \[f:10ae\]. This spectrum only covers optical wavelengths. We dereddened the spectrum by $E(B-V) = 0.6$ mag to roughly match the continuum of SN 2011fe and smoothed the spectrum with a inverse-variance weighted Gaussian filter and velocity scale of 150 [kms$^{-1}$]{}.
{width="6.8in"}
Perhaps the most important aspect of the SN 2010ae spectrum is that the Ca H&K feature is separated into two distinct features.
We then attempted to produce [SYNOW]{} model spectra in a way similar to what was performed for SN 2011fe. As a starting point, we used the SN 2011fe models. We decreased $v_{\rm phot}$ from 9000 [kms$^{-1}$]{} to 3000 [kms$^{-1}$]{}. We also reduced minimum and maximum velocities for each species. The details of the models are presented in Table \[t:models\].
We did not change the majority of parameters for the model. As a result, the fits are not ideal. In particular, the lack of [C$\,$]{} results in missing obvious features. Additional adjustments would certainly improve the overall fit, but this is not necessary for our purpose. However, keeping the model similar to that of a SN Ia (with mostly just adjustments to the velocity) reinforces the spectral (and compositional) similarities between SNe Iax and SNe Ia.
Additionally, we changed the opacity of [Si$\,$]{} and [Ca$\,$]{}, and we changed the density structure of [Ca$\,$]{}. We adjusted the opacity of [Si$\,$]{} to roughly match the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$ feature. The [Ca$\,$]{} opacity was changed to roughly match the NIR triplet. The velocity of the HV calcium and the density structure of both the HV and photospheric calcium were adjusted to match the Ca H&K feature.
Ca H&K are offset by 34.8 Å, which corresponds to 2640 [kms$^{-1}$]{}. The velocity difference between the two components will be present even if Ca H&K are blueshifted. For most SNe, the ejecta velocities are high enough where the two components blend together completely. But for SN 2010ae, which has an ejecta velocity similar to this separation, any Ca H&K feature will be roughly twice the width of a feature from a single line. For SN 2010ae, the blue component of the Ca H&K feature has a FWHM of 2960 [kms$^{-1}$]{}. Therefore, the Ca H&K components can barely fit within the width of the feature (with a velocity of [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}11200 [kms$^{-1}$]{}, about 4 times that of the photospheric velocity), but then the line can only be minimally broadened. That is unphysical, but if it were the case, then one would expect two components within the blue component, which is not seen.
The only other choice is to choose a velocity which results in either Ca H or Ca K to have a minimum near 3800 Å. Doing this for Ca H results in a velocity of [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}13000 [kms$^{-1}$]{} and a significant absorption feature at [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}3760 Å, where no such feature exists. When assigning a velocity of [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}10000 [kms$^{-1}$]{} for HV calcium (such that Ca K is at [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}3800 Å), there is no gap between the blue and red components. Neither option reproduces the observed profile for SN 2010ae.
Alternatively, the [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ model roughly matches the spectrum of SN 2010ae. In particular, it reproduces the (now unblended) Ca H&K feature. The HV calcium model, on the other hand, does not reproduce a key aspect of the Ca H&K feature – its unblended nature. It is reasonably certain that [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda
3858$ causes the absorption of the blue component of the normally blended Ca H&K feature for SN 2010ae.
Furthermore, removing the HV Ca from the HV Ca model does not have two distinct features. It appears necessary to have a reasonably strong [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ feature to produce the emission between the two components.
Since @Foley12:iax showed that SNe Iax have very similar spectra to SNe Ia, except with different velocities, and since the SN 2011fe [SYNOW]{} model roughly matches the SED of SN 2010ae (with only differences in the velocity), one can extrapolate this result to SNe Ia.
Discussion & Conclusions {#s:conc}
========================
We have shown through a re-examination of the sample, a re-examination of the CfA sample, basic [SYNOW]{} modeling, and more thorough [SYNOW]{} modeling of SNe 2010ae and 2011fe that the blue component of the Ca H&K spectral feature in near-maximum light SN Ia spectra is typically from [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ absorption. This was also the interpretation of @Wang03, which has spectropolarimetric observations of Ca H&K, [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$, and the Ca NIR triplet, providing additional weight to this conclusion. Some previous claims that the component is the result of HV Ca H&K absorption may require re-examination. The Ca NIR triplet has shown HV features for some SNe, although it is also possible to reproduce some of these features with a different (but still smooth) density profile for calcium (see Section \[ss:11fe\]). Therefore, it is still unclear if HV calcium contributes to the Ca H&K component, how frequently it does, and if that contribution is typically blended with [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda
3858$. The realization that the blue absorption in the Ca H&K profile is from [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ for most SNe Ia has far-reaching implications for our understanding of SN Ia progenitor systems and explosion models, which have interpreted the prevalence of HV calcium as an indication of specific explosion mechanisms and potentially a tracer of the environment of the progenitor system.
Because the Ca H&K profile is a combination of Ca H&K and [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$, should not be measured by fitting the entire Ca H&K feature with a single (Gaussian) component. Regardless of the source of the two components, we also show that if one *does* fit the profile with a single Gaussian component that the resulting measurements will be unphysical, inaccurate, and highly biased. However, because of the true nature of the blue component, a single Gaussian fit is particularly biased.
We confirmed the result that SNe in their sample have different Ca H&K line profiles based on light-curve shape. However, the difference is mostly constrained to the blue component, with no evidence for a difference in velocity or width for the red component.
We re-examined the claim that is correlated with light-curve shape . Using the reported measurements, we do not find a statistically significant linear relation, but the KS test does indicate different parent populations for low/high-stretch subsamples. When using measurements from the red component of the Ca H&K profile for the spectra, there is no statistically significant trend between and light-curve shape. An analysis of the CfA sample also showed that there is no correlation between ejecta velocity and light-curve shape, confirming the previous results of @Foley11:vgrad and @Foley12:vel. Instead, the underlying physical effect driving the relation between the measurements and light-curve shape is likely the relation between [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ and temperature.
This result implies that the claim that does not correlate with host-galaxy mass is not supported by data. Other claims made by related to , including correlations between and the wavelengths or velocities of certain features, should also be re-examined.
From modeling, there is some indication that the Si/Ca ratio should be a strong tracer of temperature and an indicator of light-curve shape, but this is not verified with data. There may also be a relatively low correlation between and the pseudo-equivalent width of the Ca H&K feature. This may be why @Foley11:vgrad did not find a relation between the pseudo-equivalent width of the Ca H&K feature and the intrinsic colour of SNe Ia.
@Foley11:vgrad and @Foley12:vel suggested that could be useful for measuring the intrinsic colour of SNe Ia. However, this current analysis shows that this approach may be limited by the contamination of [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$. At the very least, SNe with very high ejecta velocities will have a Ca H&K profile that is a blend of [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$ and Ca H&K with no distinct components. At that point, one should be circumspect of the derived velocity. The culling technique of @Foley11:vgrad should reduce the number of spectra with velocity measurements contaminated by [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 3858$, but relatively low signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) spectra, galaxy contamination, and other nuisances, may reduce the viability of this option.
There is a proposal to have a low-resolution ($R \approx 75$) spectrograph on WFIRST [@Green12]. The main purpose of the spectrograph for SN science would be spectroscopic classification and redshift determination. Similarly, the SED Machine [@Ben-Ami12], is a proposed $R \approx 100$ spectrograph to classify thousands of low-redshift SNe. Another use of these spectrographs could be to measure ejecta velocities. Assuming perfect knowledge of the SN redshift, the precision of the ejecta velocity measurement can be limited by spectroscopic resolution.
To test our ability to determine ejecta velocities with different resolutions, we show artificial Ca H&K line profiles that contain two components in Figure \[f:test\_res\]. One cannot distinguish the two components of the profile at $R = 50$; there are [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}4 resolution elements in the feature, which is insufficient for a full six–parameter fit of a double-Gaussian fit. Additionally, the two components are separated by [$\sim\!\!$ ]{}6000 [kms$^{-1}$]{}, corresponding to $R
\approx c / 6000{\rm ~km~s}^{-1} \approx 50$. At $R = 75$, one can start to see the effect of the two components in some spectra (i.e., flat bottoms), but the components are still not clearly separate. A resolution of 100 may be the minimal amount to clearly see the effects of multiple components. But considering additional effects such as potential \[[O$\,$]{}\] $\lambda 3727$ emission from the host galaxy contaminating the line profile, one might want a higher resolution, such as $R = 200$, where narrow lines should not significantly affect the overall profile shape.
![Artificial Ca H&K line profiles. The profiles are the same as shown in Figure \[f:gauss\]. Different resolutions ($R = 50$, 75, 100, 150, and 200) are shown in each panel from top to bottom.[]{data-label="f:test_res"}](test_res){width="3.2in"}
However, we note that [Si$\,$]{} $\lambda 6355$ does not suffer these same problems, and $R = 75$ should provide accurate (and reasonably precise) measurements of the ejecta velocity. For optical spectrographs, one can easily measure to $z = 0.3$. With red-sensitive CCDs and good sky subtraction one can use optical spectrographs to measure to $z \approx 0.6$. With NIR spectrographs, one can easily measure to $z \approx 2$ (neglecting the faintness of the SNe).
For the SED Machine, which aims to classify low-redshift SNe, it should also be able to measure . The proposed spectrograph on WFIRST would have a wavelength range of 0.6 – 2 $\mu$m, which should cover to $z \approx 3$, well beyond the expected redshift range of WFIRST. @Rodney12 presented an [*HST*]{} observer-frame NIR spectrum of a $z = 1.55$ SN Ia, SN Primo. The spectrum has a low S/N and is low-resolution ($R \approx 130$). But using the method of @Blondin06, we measure $v_{\rm Si~II} = -11200 \pm 900$ [kms$^{-1}$]{}at a phase of $6 \pm 3$ d, corresponding to $v_{\rm Si~II}^{0} =
-11700 \pm 1000$ [kms$^{-1}$]{}. This corresponds, using the @Foley11:vgrad relations, to $(B_{\rm max} - V_{\rm max})_{0} =
0.00 \pm 0.07$ mag. The uncertainty in the velocity measurement is dominated by the low S/N of the spectrum, but the uncertainty in the intrinsic colour is still dominated by the uncertainty and scatter in the velocity-colour relation. None the less, SN Primo appears to be have a moderate intrinsic colour. This shows the potential of using velocity measurements for SN Ia cosmology even if the complexities of the Ca H&K profile prevents accurate measurements.
The additional knowledge of the Ca H&K profile provided here is a step toward further understanding of the full SED of SNe Ia. SNe Iax, which have compositions similar to that of SNe Ia, can be exceedingly useful for determining which specific atomic transitions contribute to SN Ia spectra. Because of their low ejecta velocities, SNe Iax may provide additional insight into the specific contributions from various lines for blended SN Ia features. Similarly, additional spectropolarimetric observations of SNe Ia, and particularly those that cover both Ca H&K and the Ca NIR triplet, NIR spectra, and good spectral sequences starting at early times should produce additional insight into the formation of a SN Ia SED.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
[*Facilities:*]{} HST(STIS)
We thank D. Kasen, R. Kirshner, and J. Parrent for their comments, insights, and help.
Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute. STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under NASA contract NAS 5–26555.
[l@[ ]{}l@[ ]{}r@[ ]{}r@[ ]{}r@[ ]{}r@[ ]{}r@[ ]{}r@[ ]{}r]{}
PTF09dlc & 0.0666 & 2.8 & 1.05 (0.03) & $-16.99$ (0.17) & $-17.78$ (0.67) & $-19.25$ (0.12) & $-10.47$ (0.19) & 1.709 (0.050)\
PTF09dnl & 0.019 & 1.3 & 1.05 (0.02) & $-16.81$ (0.15) & $-17.17$ (0.33) & $-18.87$ (0.05) & $-9.71$ (0.07) & 1.987 (0.047)\
PTF09fox & 0.0707 & 2.6 & 0.92 (0.04) & $-14.40$ (0.04) & $-15.14$ (0.62) & $-16.99$ (0.33) & $-10.28$ (0.31) & 1.278 (0.041)\
PTF09foz & 0.05331 & 2.8 & 0.87 (0.06) & $-14.28$ (0.11) & $-15.07$ (0.67) & $-17.32$ (0.30) & $-10.02$ (0.28) & 1.058 (0.006)\
PTF10bjs & 0.0303 & 1.9 & 1.08 (0.02) & $-16.47$ (0.22) & $-17.02$ (0.50) & $-21.68$ (0.10) & $-13.37$ (0.07) & 0.790 (0.004)\
PTF10hdv & 0.0542 & 3.3 & 1.05 (0.07) & $-17.03$ (0.18) & $-17.94$ (0.78) & $-19.71$ (0.18) & $-10.94$ (0.22) & 1.637 (0.048)\
PTF10hmv & 0.033 & 2.5 & 1.15 (0.01) & $-15.02$ (0.11) & $-15.72$ (0.59) & $-17.84$ (0.16) & $-9.92$ (0.18) & 1.420 (0.026)\
PTF10icb & 0.0088 & 0.8 & 0.99 (0.03) & $-12.61$ (0.03) & $-12.85$ (0.20) & $-16.99$ (0.06) & $-10.25$ (0.05) & 0.733 (0.004)\
PTF10mwb & 0.0312 & $-0.4$ & 0.94 (0.03) & $-13.09$ (0.03) & $-12.99$ (0.09) & $-16.99$ (0.12) & $-10.24$ (0.12) & 0.903 (0.008)\
PTF10qjq & 0.0288 & 3.5 & 0.96 (0.02) & $-11.87$ (0.08) & $-12.86$ (0.83) & $-17.64$ (0.24) & $-10.80$ (0.12) & 0.459 (0.022)\
PTF10tce & 0.039716 & 3.5 & 1.07 (0.02) & $-16.02$ (0.05) & $-17.00$ (0.81) & $-19.81$ (0.17) & $-12.35$ (0.16) & 0.850 (0.016)\
PTF10wnm & 0.0645 & 4.1 & 1.01 (0.03) & $-12.90$ (0.07) & $-14.04$ (0.96) & $-17.46$ (0.40) & $-10.66$ (0.24) & 0.579 (0.034)\
PTF10xyt & 0.0484 & 3.2 & 1.07 (0.04) & $-15.01$ (0.08) & $-15.90$ (0.74) & $-18.74$ (0.48) & $-11.62$ (0.38) & 0.810 (0.026)\
SN2009le & 0.01703 & 0.3 & 1.08 (0.01) & $-16.08$ (0.12) & $-16.16$ (0.14) & $-19.98$ (0.10) & $-12.24$ (0.10) & 0.966 (0.001)
[lrrrrrrrrrr]{}
\
\
$\tau$ & 0.2 & 0.8 & 0.5 & 3 & 1.2 & 7 & 0 & 60 & 0.5 & 0.4\
$v_{e}$ & 5 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1.5 & 2.5 & & 2 & 2.5 & 2\
$T_{\rm exc}$ & 8 & 8 & 5 & 6 & 12 & 18 & & 10 & 10 & 10\
\
$\tau$ & 0.2 & 0 & 0.5 & 3 & 1.2 & 4 & 1.7 & 60 & 0.5 & 0.4\
$v_{e}$ & 5 & & 2 & 2 & 1.5 & 3.5 & 2 & 2 & 2.5 & 2\
$T_{\rm exc}$ & 8 & & 5 & 15 & 12 & 18 & 18 & 10 & 10 & 10\
\
\
$\tau$ & 0.2 & 0.8 & 0.5 & 1 & 1.2 & 4 & 0 & 60 & 0.5 & 0.4\
$v_{e}$ & 5 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1.5 & 2.5 & & 2 & 2.5 & 2\
$T_{\rm exc}$ & 8 & 8 & 5 & 6 & 12 & 18 & & 10 & 10 & 10\
\
$\tau$ & 0.2 & 0 & 0.5 & 1.5 & 1.2 & 4 & 1 & 60 & 0.5 & 0.4\
$v_{e}$ & 5 & & 2 & 2 & 1.5 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2.5 & 2\
$T_{\rm exc}$ & 8 & & 5 & 15 & 12 & 18 & 18 & 10 & 10 & 10
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected]
[^2]: The spectra of SNe 2011by and 2011fe were not included in the database, and are therefore excluded from our analysis. But we do not expect including them in our analysis would change our results much.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Julien Garaud
- Egor Babaev
title: Domain walls and their experimental signatures in s+is superconductors
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $G$ denote a complex semisimple linear algebraic group, $P$ a parabolic subgroup of $G$ and $\mathcal{P}=G/P$. We identify the quantum multiplication by divisors in $T^*\mathcal{P}$ in terms of stable basis, which is introduced in [@Maulik2012]. Using this and the restriction formula for stable basis ([@su2015restriction]), we show that the $G\times\mathbb{C}^*$-equivariant quantum multiplication formula in $T^*\mathcal{P}$ is conjugate to the formula conjectured by Braverman.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
Columbia University\
New York, NY 10027
author:
- Changjian SU
bibliography:
- 'quantum.bib'
title: 'Equivariant quantum cohomology of cotangent bundle of $G/P$'
---
Introduction
============
The main goal of this paper is to study the equivariant quantum cohomology of $T^*\mathcal{P}$, which is a special case of symplectic resolutions. Recall from [@Kaledin2009] that a smooth algebraic variety $X$ with a holomorphic symplectic form $\omega$ is called a symplectic resolution if the affinization map $$X\rightarrow X_0=\operatorname{Spec}H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X)$$ is projective and birational. Conjecturally all the symplectic resolutions of the form $T^*M$ for a smooth algebraic variety $M$ are of the form $T^*\mathcal{P}$, see [@Kaledin2009]. In [@Fu], Fu proved that every symplectic resolution of a normalization of a nilpotent orbit closure in a semisimple Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ is isomorphic to $T^*\mathcal{P}$ for some parabolic subgroup $P$ in $G$.
In [@Maulik2012], Maulik and Okounkov defined the stable basis for a wide class of varieties, which include symplectic resolutions. Other examples of symplectic resolutions include hypertoric varieties, resolutions of Slodowy slices, Hilbert schemes of points on $\mathbb{C}^2$, and, more generally, Nakajima varieties [@Nakajima1998]. Their quantum cohomologies were studied in [@McBreen2013], [@Braverman2011], [@Okounkov2004] and [@Maulik2012] respectively. The stable basis in the Springer resolutions are just characteristic cycles of Verma modules up to a sign, see [@ginsburg1986] and Remark 3.5.3 in [@Maulik2012], and the restriction of stable basis to fixed points is obtained in [@su2015restriction]. In the case of Hilbert schemes of points on $\mathbb{C}^2$, it corresponds to Schur functions if we identify the equivariant cohomology ring of Hilbert schemes with the symmetric functions, while the fixed point basis corresponds to Jack symmetric functions, see e.g. [@Maulik2012], [@hiraku1999lectures], [@nakajima2014more]. In this case, Shenfeld obtained the transition matrix from the stable basis to fixed point basis in [@Shenfeld].
To state our main Theorem, let us fix some notations. Let $B$ be a Borel subgroup, $R^+$ be the roots appearing in $B$, and $R^-=-R^+$. Let $\Delta$ be the set of simple roots, $I$ be a subset of $\Delta$, and $P=P_I=\bigcup_{w\in W_I}BwB$ be the parabolic subgroup containing $B$ corresponding to $I$. It is well-known that every parabolic subgroup is conjugate to some parabolic subgroup containing the fixed Borel subgroup $B$, which is of the form $P_I$ for some subset $I$ in $\Delta$, and $P_I$ is not conjugate to $P_J$ if the two subsets $I$ and $J$ are not equal (see [@Springer2010]). Let $W_P$ the subgroup of the Weyl group $W$ generated by the simple reflections $\sigma_\alpha$ for $\alpha\in I$, and $R_P^{\pm}$ be the roots in $R^{\pm}$ spanned by $I$. Let $\alpha^{\vee}$ be the coroot corresponding to $\alpha$. Let $A$ be a maximal torus of $G$ contained in $B$, and $\mathbb{C}^*$ scales the fiber of $T^*\mathcal{P}$ by a nontrivial character $-\hbar$. Let $T=A\times \mathbb{C}^*$.
Any weight $\lambda$ that vanishes on all $\alpha^{\vee}\in I^{\vee}$ determines a one-dimensional representation $\mathbb{C}_{\lambda}$ of $P$. Define a line bundle $$\mathcal{L}_{\lambda}=G\times_P\mathbb{C}_{\lambda}$$ on $G/P$. Pulling it back to $T^*\mathcal{P}$, we get a line bundle on $T^*\mathcal{P}$, which will still be denoted by $\mathcal{L}_{\lambda}$. Let $D_{\lambda}:=c_1(\mathcal{L}_{\lambda})$. It is well-known that the fixed point set $(T^*\mathcal{P})^A$ is in one-to-one correspondence with $W/W_P$. The stable envelope map $\operatorname{stab}_+$ will be defined in Section \[section 2\], and $\operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}})$ is the image of the unit in $H_T^*(\bar{y})$ under the stable envelope map, where $\bar{y}$ in $H_T^*(\bar{y})$ is the fixed point in $T^*\mathcal{P}$ corresponding to $yW_P$. An element $y\in W$ is called minimal if its length is minimal among the elements in the coset $yW_P$. As $y$ runs through the minimal elements, $\operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}})$ form a basis in $H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{P})$ after localization, which is called the stable basis. The result we are going to prove is:
\[quantum mul for P\] The quantum multiplication by $D_{\lambda}$ in $H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{P})$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\lambda}\ast \operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}})=& y(\lambda)\operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}})-\hbar\sum\limits_{\alpha\in R^+, y\alpha\in R^-}(\lambda,\alpha^{\vee})\operatorname{stab}_+(\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}})\\
&-\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}} \left(\operatorname{stab}_+(\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}})+\prod\limits_{\beta\in R_P^+}\frac{\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}{\beta} \operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y})\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $y$ is a minimal representative in $yW_P$, and $d(\alpha)$ is defined by Equation \[degree\].
Combining this and the restriction formula for stable basis ([@su2015restriction]), we get
\[P con\] Under the isomorphism $H_{G\times\mathbb{C}^*}^*(T^*\mathcal{P})\simeq (\operatorname{sym}\mathfrak{t}^*)^{W_P}[\hbar]$, the operator of quantum multiplication by $D_{\lambda}$ is given by $$D_{\lambda}\ast f=\lambda f+\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\left(\frac{\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha}(f\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}(\beta-\hbar))}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}(\beta-\hbar)}-\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta}f\right).$$
This shows that the quantum multiplication formula is conjugate to the one (\[conj\]) conjectured (through private communication) by Professor Braverman.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we apply results in [@Maulik2012] to define the stable basis of $T^*\mathcal{P}$. In Section 3, we prove our main Theorem \[quantum mul for P\] by calculating the classical multiplication and purely quantum multiplication separately. In the last section, we first show how to deduce the $G\times\mathbb{C}^*$-equivariant quantum multiplication in $T^*(G/B)$ from Theorem \[quantum mul for P\], which is the main result of [@Braverman2011]. Then a similar calculation gives a proof to Theorem \[P con\].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
I wish to express my deepest thanks to my advisor Professor Andrei Okounkov for suggesting this problem to me and his endless help, patience and invaluable guidance. I am grateful to Professor Alexander Braverman for suggesting the conjectured formula (\[conj\]) to me. I also thank Chiu-Chu Liu, Michael McBreen, Davesh Maulik, Andrei Negut, Andrey Smirnov, Zijun Zhou, Zhengyu Zong for many stimulating conversations and emails. A lot of thanks also go to my friend Pak-Hin Lee for editing a previous version of the paper.
Stable basis for $T^*\mathcal{P}$ {#section 2}
=================================
In this section, we apply the construction in [@Maulik2012] to $T^*\mathcal{P}$.
Fixed point sets
----------------
It is well-known the $A$-fixed points of $T^*\mathcal{P}$ is in one-to-one correspondence with $W/W_P$. For any $y\in W$, let $\bar{y}$ denote the coset $yW_P$ and the corresponding fixed point in $T^*\mathcal{P}$. Recall the Bruhat order $\leq$ on $W/W_P$ is defined as follows: $$\bar{y}\leq \bar{w}\text{\quad if\quad} ByP/P\subseteq \overline{BwP/P}.$$
Chamber decomposition
---------------------
The cocharacters $$\sigma:\mathbb{C^*}\rightarrow A$$ form a lattice. Let $$\mathfrak{a}_{\mathbb{R}}=\operatorname{cochar}(A)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R}.$$
Define the torus roots to be the $A$-weights occurring in the normal bundle to $(T^*\mathcal{P})^A$. Then the root hyperplanes partition $\mathfrak{a}_{\mathbb{R}}$ into finitely many chambers $$\mathfrak{a}_{\mathbb{R}}\setminus\bigcup \alpha_i^\perp=\coprod \mathfrak{C}_i.$$ It is easy to see that in this case the torus roots are just the roots in $G$. Let $+$ denote the chamber such that all root in $R^+$ are positive on it, and $-$ the opposite chamber.
Stable leaves
-------------
Let $\mathfrak{C}$ be a chamber. Define the stable leaf of $\bar{y}$ by $$\operatorname{Leaf}_{\mathfrak{C}}(\bar{y})=\left\{x\in T^*\mathcal{P}\left|\lim\limits_{z\rightarrow 0} \sigma(z)\cdot x=\bar{y}\right.\right\},$$ where $\sigma$ is any cocharacter in $\mathfrak{C}$; the limit is independent of the choice of $\sigma\in \mathfrak{C}$. In our case, $$\operatorname{Leaf}_+(\bar{y})=T_{B\bar{y}P/P}^*\mathcal{P},$$ and $$\operatorname{Leaf}_-(\bar{y})=T_{B^-\bar{y}P/P}^*\mathcal{P},$$ where $B^-$ is the opposite Borel subgroup.
Define a partial order on $W/W_P$ as follows: $$\bar{w}\preceq_{\mathfrak{C}} \bar{y}\text{\quad if\quad}\overline{\operatorname{Leaf}_{\mathfrak{C}}(\bar{y})}\cap \bar{w}\neq \emptyset.$$ By the description of $\operatorname{Leaf}_+(\bar{y})$, the order $\preceq_+$ is the same as the Bruhat order on $W/W_P$, and $\preceq_-$ is the opposite order. Define the slope of a fixed point $\bar{y}$ by $$\operatorname{Slope}_{\mathfrak{C}}(\bar{y})=\bigcup_{\bar{w}\preceq_{\mathfrak{C}} \bar{y}} \operatorname{Leaf}_{\mathfrak{C}}(\bar{w}).$$
Stable basis
------------
For each $\bar{y}$, define $\epsilon_{\bar{y}}=e^A(T_{\bar{y}}^*\mathcal{P})$. Here, $e^A$ denotes the $A$-equivariant Euler class. Let $N_{\bar{y}}$ denote the normal bundle of $T^*\mathcal{P}$ at the fixed point $\bar{y}$. The chamber $\mathfrak{C}$ gives a decomposition of the normal bundle $$N_{\bar{y}}=N_{\bar{y},+}\oplus N_{\bar{y},-}$$ into $A$-weights which are positive and negative on $\mathfrak{C}$ respectively. The sign in $\pm e(N_{\bar{y},-})$ is determined by the condition $$\pm e(N_{\bar{y},-})|_{H_A^*(\text{pt})}=\epsilon_{\bar{y}}.$$ The following theorem is the Theorem 3.3.4 in [@Maulik2012] applied to $T^*\mathcal{P}$.
\[stable for P\] There exists a unique map of $H_T^*(\text{pt})$-modules
$\operatorname{stab}_{\mathfrak{C}}:H_T^*((T^*\mathcal{P})^A)\rightarrow H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{P})$
such that for any $\bar{y}\in W/W_P$, $\Gamma=\operatorname{stab}_{\mathfrak{C}}(\bar{y})$ satisfies:
1. $\operatorname{supp}\Gamma\subset \operatorname{Slope}_{\mathfrak{C}}(\bar{y})$,
2. $\Gamma|_{\bar{y}}=\pm e(N_{-,\bar{y}})$, with sign according to $\epsilon_{\bar{y}}$,
3. $\Gamma|_{\bar{w}}$ is divisible by $\hbar$, for any $\bar{w}\prec_{\mathfrak{C}} \bar{y}$,
where $\bar{y}$ in $\operatorname{stab}_{\mathfrak{C}}(\bar{y})$ denotes the unit in $H_T^*(\bar{y})$.
1. The map is defined by a Lagrangian correspondence between $(T^*\mathcal{P})^A\times T^*\mathcal{P}$, hence maps middle degree to middle degree.
2. From the characterization, the transition matrix from $\{\operatorname{stab}_{\mathfrak{C}}(\bar{y}), \bar{y}\in W/W_P\}$ to the fixed point basis is a triangular matrix with nontrivial diagonal terms. Hence, after localization, $\{\operatorname{stab}_{\mathfrak{C}}(\bar{y}), \bar{y}\in W/W_P\}$ form a basis for the cohomology, which is the **stable basis**.
3. Theorem 4.4.1 in [@Maulik2012] shows that $\{\operatorname{stab}_{\mathfrak{C}}(\bar{y}), \bar{y}\in W/W_P\}$ and $\{(-1)^m\operatorname{stab}_{\mathfrak{-C}}(\bar{y}), \bar{y}\in W/W_P\}$ are dual bases, where $m=\dim G/P$.
From now on, we let $\operatorname{stab}_\pm(\bar{y})$ denote the stable basis in $H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{P})$, and let $\operatorname{stab}_\pm(y)$ denote the stable basis in $H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{B})$. We record two lemmas here, which will be important for the calculations.
Each coset $W/W_P$ contains exactly one element of minimal length, which is characterized by the property that it maps $I$ into $R^+$.
\[mod h\^2 P\] Let $y$ be a minimal representative of the coset $yW_P$. Then $$\operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y})|_{\bar{w}} \equiv \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
\displaystyle (-1)^{l(y)+1}\frac{\hbar\prod\limits_{\alpha\in R^+}\alpha}{y\beta\prod\limits_{\alpha\in R^+_P} y\sigma_{\beta}\alpha} & \pmod{\hbar^2} & \text{if } \bar{w}=\overline{y\sigma_{\beta}} \text{ and } y\sigma_{\beta}<y \text{ for some } \beta\in R^+,\\
\\
0 & \pmod{\hbar^2} & \text{otherwise},
\end{array}\right.$$ and $$\operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{w})|_{\bar{y}}\equiv\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}
\displaystyle (-1)^{l(y)+1}\frac{\hbar\prod\limits_{\alpha\in R^+}\alpha}{y\beta\prod\limits_{\alpha\in R^+_P} y\alpha} &\pmod{\hbar^2} &\text{if } \bar{w}=\overline{y\sigma_{\beta}} \text{ and } y\sigma_{\beta}<y \text{ for some } \beta\in R^+,\\
\\
0 & \pmod{\hbar^2} & \text{otherwise},\\
\end{array}\right.$$ where $<$ is the Bruhat order on the Weyl group $W$.
$T$-equivariant quantum cohomology of $T^*\mathcal{P}$
======================================================
Now we turn to the study of equivariant quantum cohomology of $T^*\mathcal{P}$. We denote $T^*\mathcal{P}$ by $X$ in this section. Recall $D_{\lambda}:=c_1(\mathcal{L}_{\lambda})$. We are going to determine the quantum multiplication by the divisor $D_{\lambda}$ in terms of the stable basis. It is easy to see that $y\lambda$ does not depend on the choice of representative in $yW_P$, since $W_P$ fix $\lambda$.
Preliminaries on quantum cohomology
-----------------------------------
By definition, the operator of quantum multiplication by $\alpha\in H_T(X)$ has the following matrix elements $$(\alpha\ast \gamma_1, \gamma_2)=\sum_{\beta\in H_2(X,\mathbb{Z})}q^{\beta} \langle \alpha,\gamma_1,\gamma_2 \rangle^X_{0,3,\beta},$$ where $(\cdot, \cdot)$ denotes the standard inner product on cohomology and the quantity in angle brackets is a 3-point, genus 0, degree $\beta$ equivariant Gromov–Witten invariant of $X$.
If $\alpha$ is a divisor and $\beta\neq 0$, we have $$\langle\alpha,\gamma_1,\gamma_2\rangle^X_{0,3,\beta}=(\alpha,\beta)\langle\gamma_1,\gamma_2\rangle^X_{0,2,\beta}.$$
Since X has a everywhere-nondegenerate holomorphic symplectic form, it is well-known that the usual non-equivariant virtual fundamental class on $\overline{M}_{g,n}(X,\beta)$ vanishes for $\beta\neq 0$. However, we can modify the standard obstruction theory so that the virtual dimension increases by 1 (see [@Braverman2011] or [@Okounkov2004]). The virtual fundamental class $[\overline{M}_{0,2}(X,\beta)]^\text{vir}$ has expected dimension $$K_X\cdot \beta+ \dim X+2-3=\dim X-1.$$ Hence the reduced virtual class has dimension $\dim X$, and for any $\beta\neq 0$, $$[\overline{M}_{0,2}(X,\beta)]^\text{vir}=-\hbar\cdot[\overline{M}_{0,2}(X,\beta)]^\text{red},$$ where $\hbar$ is the weight of the symplectic form under the $\mathbb{C}^*-$action.
Unbroken curves
---------------
Broken curves was introduced in [@Okounkov2004]. Let $f:C\rightarrow X$ be an $A$-fixed point of $\overline{M}_{0,2}(X,\beta)$ such that the domain is a chain of rational curves $$C=C_1\cup C_2\cup \cdots \cup C_k,$$ with the marked points lying on $C_1$ and $C_k$ respectively.
We say $f$ is an unbroken chain if at every node $f(C_i\cap C_{i+1})$ of $C$, the weights of the two branches are opposite and nonzero. Note that all the nodes are fixed by $A$.
More generally, if $(C,f)$ is an $A$-fixed point of $\overline{M}_{0,2}(X,\beta)$, we say that $f$ is an unbroken map if it satisfies one of the three conditions:
1. $f$ arises from a map $f:C\rightarrow X^A$,
2. $f$ is an unbroken chain, or
3. the domain $C$ is a chain of rational curves $$C=C_0\cup C_1\cup\cdots C_k$$ such that $C_0$ is contracted by $f$, the marked points lie on $C_0$, and the remaining components form an unbroken chain.
Broken maps are $A$-fixed maps that do not satisfy any of these conditions.
Okounkov and Pandharipande proved the following Theorem in Section 3.8.3 in [@Okounkov2004].
\[OP unbroken\] Every map in a given connected component of $\overline{M}_{0,2}(X,\beta)^A$ is either broken or unbroken. Only unbroken components contribute to the $A$-equivariant localization of reduced virtual fundamental class.
Unbroken curves in X
--------------------
Any $\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P$ defines an $SL_2$ subgroup $G_{\alpha^{\vee}}$ of $G$ and hence a rational curve $$C_{\alpha}:=G_{\alpha^{\vee}}\cdot [P]\subset G/P\subset X.$$ This is the unique $A$-invariant rational curve connecting the fixed points $\bar{1}$ and $\bar{\sigma}_{\alpha}$, because any such rational curve has tangent weight at $\bar{1}$ in $R^-\setminus R_P^-$, and uniqueness follows from the following lemma in Section 4 in [@Fulton2001].
\[fulton unique\] Let $\alpha, \beta$ be two roots in $R^+\setminus R^+_P$. Then $\bar{\sigma}_{\alpha}=\bar{\sigma}_{\beta}$ if and only if $\alpha=\beta$.
If $C$ is an $A$-invariant rational curve in $X$, $C$ must lie in $G/P$, and it connects two fixed points $\bar{y}$ and $\bar{w}$. Then its $y^{-1}$-translate $y^{-1}C$ is still an $A$-invariant curve, which connects fixed points $\bar{1}$ and $\overline{y^{-1}w}$. So $y^{-1}C=C_{\alpha}$ for a unique $\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P$, and $\overline{y^{-1}w}=\bar{\sigma}_{\alpha}$. Hence the tangent weight of $C$ at $\bar{y}$ is $-y\alpha$. In conclusion, we have
\[unbroken in P\] There are two kinds of unbroken curves $C$ in X:
1. $C$ is a multiple cover of rational curve branched over two different fixed points,
2. $C$ is a chain of two rational curve $C=C_0\cup C_1$, such that $C_0$ is contracted to a fixed point, the two marked points lie on $C_0$, and $C_1$ is a multiple cover of rational curve branched over two different fixed points.
For any $\alpha\in \Delta\setminus I$, define $\tau(\sigma_{\alpha}):=\overline{B\sigma_{\alpha}P/P}$. Then $$\{\tau(\sigma_{\alpha})|\alpha\in \Delta\setminus I\}$$ form a basis of $H_2(X,\mathbb{Z})$. Let $\{\omega_{\alpha}|\alpha\in \Delta\}$ be the fundamental weights of the root system. For any $\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P$ , define degree $d(\alpha)$ of $\alpha$ by $$\label{degree}
d(\alpha)=\sum_{\beta\in \Delta\setminus I}(\omega_{\beta},\alpha^{\vee})\tau(\sigma_{\beta}).$$
The degree of $[C_{\alpha}]$ is $d(\alpha)$, and $d(\alpha)=d(w\alpha)$ for any $w\in W_P$.
Classical part
--------------
We first calculate the classical multiplication by $D_{\lambda}$ in the stable basis. Let $m$ denote the dimension of $G/P$. Since $\{\operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}})\}$ and $\{(-1)^m\operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{y})\}$ are dual bases, we only need to calculate $$\label{classical mult}
(D_{\lambda}\cup \operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}}), (-1)^m\operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{w}))=\sum\limits_{\bar{w}\leq\bar{z}\leq \bar{y}}\frac{D_{\lambda}|_{\bar{z}}\cdot \operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}})|_{\bar{z}}\cdot (-1)^m\operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{w})|_{\bar{z}}}{e(T_{\bar{z}}X)}.$$ This will be zero if $\bar{y}<\bar{w}$. Assume $y$ is a minimal representative. Note that the resulting expression lies in the nonlocalized coefficient ring due to the proof of Theorem 4.4.1 in [@Maulik2012], and a degree count shows that it is in $H_T^2(\text{pt})$. There are two cases.
### Case $\bar{y}=\bar{w}$
There is only one term in the sum of the right hand side of Equation (\[classical mult\]). Hence, $$(D_{\lambda}\cup \operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}}), (-1)^m\operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{y}))=\frac{D_{\lambda}|_{\bar{y}}\cdot \operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}})|_{\bar{y}}\cdot (-1)^m\operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{y})|_{\bar{y}}}{e(T_{\bar{y}}X)}=y(\lambda).$$
### Case $\bar{y}\neq\bar{w}$
Notice that $(D_{\lambda}\cup \operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}}), (-1)^m\operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{w}))\in H_T^2(\text{pt})$, and it is $0$ if $\hbar=0$, because every term in Equation (\[classical mult\]) is divisible by $\hbar$. Hence, it is a constant multiple of $\hbar$. So in Equation (\[classical mult\]), only $\bar{z}=\bar{y}$ and $\bar{z}=\bar{w}$ have contribution since all other terms are divisible by $\hbar^2$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
(D_{\lambda}\cup \operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}}), (-1)^m\operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{w}))&=y(\lambda)\frac{\operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{w})|_{\bar{y}}}{\operatorname{stab}_-({\bar{y}})|_{\bar{y}}}+w(\lambda)\frac{\operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y})|_{\bar{w}}}{\operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{w})|_{\bar{w}}}\\
&=y(\lambda)\frac{\hbar\text{ part of } \operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{w})|_{\bar{y}}}{\prod\limits_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}y\alpha}+w(\lambda)\frac{\hbar\text{ part of } \operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y})|_{\bar{w}}}{\prod\limits_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}w\alpha},\end{aligned}$$ where the first equality follows from $\operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}})\cdot \operatorname{stab}_-({\bar{y}}))=(-1)^me(T_{\bar{y}}X)$.
Lemma \[mod h\^2 P\] shows this is zero if $\bar{w}\neq \overline{y\sigma_{\beta}}$ for any $\beta\in R^+$ with $y\sigma_{\beta}<y$. However, if $\bar{w}=\overline{y\sigma_{\beta}}$ for such a $\beta$, then since $(-1)^{l(y\sigma_{\beta})}=(-1)^{l(y)+1}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& (D_{\lambda}\cup \operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}}), (-1)^m\operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{w}))\\
=&y(\lambda)(-1)^{l(y)+1}\frac{\hbar\prod\limits_{\alpha\in R^+}\alpha}{y\beta \prod\limits_{\alpha\in R^+}y\alpha}
+y\sigma_{\beta}(\lambda)(-1)^{l(y)+1}\frac{\hbar\prod\limits_{\alpha\in R^+}\alpha}{y\beta\prod\limits_{\alpha\in R^+} y\sigma_{\beta}\alpha}\\
=&-\frac{\hbar}{y\beta}y(\lambda)+\frac{\hbar}{y\beta}y\sigma_{\beta}(\lambda)\\
=&-\hbar(\lambda,\beta^{\vee}).\end{aligned}$$
Notice that for any $\beta\in R^+$, $y\sigma_{\beta}<y$ is equivalent to $y\beta\in R^-$. To summarize, we get
\[classical part\] Let $y$ be a minimal representative. Then the classical multiplication is given by $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\lambda}\cup \operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}})
= y(\lambda)\operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}})-\hbar\sum\limits_{\alpha\in R^+, y\alpha\in R^-}(\lambda,\alpha^{\vee})\operatorname{stab}_+(\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}).\end{aligned}$$
Quantum part {#quantum part}
------------
Let $D_{\lambda}\ast_q$ denote the purely quantum multiplication. We want to calculate $$(-1)^m(D_{\lambda}\ast_q \operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y}), \operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{w}))=-\sum_{\beta\text{ effective}}(-1)^m\hbar q^{\beta}(D_{\lambda}, \beta)(ev_*[\overline{M}_{0,2}(X,\beta)]^\text{red},\operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y})\otimes \operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{w})).$$ where $ev$ is the evaluation map from $\overline{M}_{0,2}(X,\beta)$ to $X\times X$. The $-$ sign appears because the cotangent fibers have weight $-\hbar$ under the $\mathbb{C}^*-$action. Since $$\dim[\overline{M}_{0,2}(X, \beta)]^\text{red}=\dim X,$$ and $$(ev_*[\overline{M}_{0,2}(X, \beta)]^\text{red},\operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y})\otimes \operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{w}))$$ lies in the nonlocalized coefficient ring (see Theorem 4.4.1 in [@Maulik2012]), the product is a constant by a degree count. Thus we can let $\hbar=0$, i.e., we can calculate it in $A$-equivariant chomology. As in the classical multiplication, there are two cases depending whether the two fixed points $\bar{y}$ and $\bar{w}$ are the same or not.
### Case $\bar{y}\neq\bar{w}$
By virtual localization, Theorem \[OP unbroken\] and Lemma \[unbroken in P\], $$(ev_*[\overline{M}_{0,2}(X, \beta)]^\text{red},\operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y})\otimes \operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{w}))$$ is nonzero if and only if $\bar{w}=\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}$ for some $\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P$. Only the first kind of unbroken curves have contribution to $(ev_*[\overline{M}_{0,2}(X, \beta)]^\text{red},\operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y})\otimes \operatorname{stab}_-(\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}))$, and only restriction to the fixed point $(\bar{y}, \overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}})$ is nonzero in the localization of the product by the first and third properties of the stable basis. The $A$-invariant rational curve $y[C_{\alpha}]$ connects the two fixed points $\bar{y}$ and $\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}$, and it is the unique one. For example, if $y[C_{\beta}]$ is also such a curve, then $\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}=\overline{y\sigma_{\beta}}=\bar{w}$. Hence $\alpha=\beta$ by Lemma \[fulton unique\]. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
(-1)^m(D_{\lambda}\ast_q \operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y}), \operatorname{stab}_-(\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}))=&-\sum_{k>0}(-1)^m\hbar q^{k\cdot d(\alpha)}(D_{\lambda}, k\cdot d(\alpha))\\
&(ev_*[\overline{M}_{0,2}(X,k\cdot d(\alpha))]^\text{red},\operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y})\otimes \operatorname{stab}_-(\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}})).\end{aligned}$$
Let $f$ be an unbroken map of degree $k$ from $C=\mathbb{P}^1$ to $y[C_{\alpha}]$. Then $$\operatorname{Aut}(f)=\mathbb{Z}/k.$$ By virtual localization, $$k(ev_*[\overline{M}_{0,2}(X,k\cdot d(\alpha))]^\text{red},\operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y})\otimes \operatorname{stab}_-(\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}))=\frac{e(T_{\bar{y}}^*\mathcal{P})e(T_{\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}}^*\mathcal{P}) e'(H^1(C, f^*TX))}{e'(H^0(C, f^*TX))}.$$ Here $e'$ is the product of nonzero $A$-weights.
We record Lemma 11.1.3 from [@Maulik2012].
\[line bundle on p1\] Let $A$ be a torus and let $\mathcal{T}$ be an $A$-equivariant bundle on $C = \mathbb{P}^1$ without zero weights in the fibers $\mathcal{T}_0$ and $\mathcal{T}_{\infty}$. Then $$\frac{e'(H^0(\mathcal{T}\oplus\mathcal{T}^*))}{e'(H^1(\mathcal{T}\oplus\mathcal{T}^*))}=(-1)^{\deg\mathcal{T}+rk\mathcal{T}+z}e(\mathcal{T}_0\oplus \mathcal{T}_{\infty})$$ where $z=\dim H^1(\mathcal{T}\oplus\mathcal{T}^*)^A$, i.e., $z$ counts the number of zero weights in $H^1(\mathcal{T}\oplus\mathcal{T}^*).$
Since $$f^*TX=\mathcal{T}\oplus\mathcal{T}^* \text{\quad with\quad} \mathcal{T}=f^*T\mathcal{P},$$ Lemma \[line bundle on p1\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
k(ev_*[\overline{M}_{0,2}(X,k\cdot d(\alpha))]^\text{red},\operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y})\otimes \operatorname{stab}_-(\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}))
=&\frac{e(T_{\bar{y}}^*\mathcal{P})e(T_{\bar{y\sigma_{\alpha}}}^*\mathcal{P}) e'(H^1(C, f^*TX))}{e'(H^0(C, f^*TX))}\\
=&(-1)^{\deg\mathcal{T}+rk\mathcal{T}+z}.\end{aligned}$$ We now study the vector bundle $\mathcal{T}=f^*T\mathcal{P}$. First of all, $rk\mathcal{T}=\dim \mathcal{P}$. By localization, $$\begin{aligned}
\deg\mathcal{T}&=k\left(\frac{\sum\limits_{\gamma\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(-y\gamma)}{-y\alpha}+\frac{\sum\limits_{\gamma\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(-y\sigma_{\alpha}\gamma)}{y\alpha}\right)\\
&=k\sum\limits_{\gamma\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\gamma, \alpha^{\vee})=k(2\rho-2\rho_P,\alpha^{\vee})\\
&=2k\sum\limits_{\beta\in \Delta\setminus I}(\omega_{\beta}, \alpha^{\vee})\end{aligned}$$ is an even number, where $\rho$ is the half sum of the positive roots, $\rho_P$ is the half sum of the positive roots in $R_{P}^+$, and $\omega_{\beta}$ are the fundamental weights.
The vector bundle $\mathcal{T}$ splits as a direct sum of line bundles on $C$ $$\mathcal{T}=\bigoplus_{i}\mathcal{L}_i,$$ so $$\bigoplus_i\mathcal{L}_i|_0=\bigoplus_{\gamma\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}\mathfrak{g}_{-y\gamma},$$ where $\mathfrak{g}_{-y\gamma}$ are the root subspaces of $\mathfrak{g}$. Suppose $\mathcal{L}_i|_0=\mathfrak{g}_{-y\gamma}$. Since $y\sigma_{\alpha}y^{-1}$ maps $y$ to $y\sigma_{\alpha}$, we have $$\mathcal{L}_i|_{\infty}=\mathfrak{g}_{-y\sigma_{\alpha}\gamma}.$$ Hence there is only one zero weight in $H^1(\mathcal{T}\oplus\mathcal{T}^*)$, which occurs in $H^1(\mathcal{L}_i\oplus\mathcal{L}_i^*)$, where $\mathcal{L}_i|_0=\mathfrak{g}_{-y\alpha}$, i.e., $\mathcal{L}_i$ is the tangent bundle of $C$.
Therefore $z=1$ and we have
$$(-1)^m(D_{\lambda}\ast_q \operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}}), \operatorname{stab}_-({\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}}))=\sum_{k>0}\hbar q^{k\cdot d(\alpha)}(D_{\lambda}, d(\alpha))=-\hbar \frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee}).$$
We only need to show $$(D_{\lambda}, d(\alpha))=-(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee}).$$ By definition and localization, $$\begin{aligned}
(D_{\lambda}, d(\alpha))&=\sum\limits_{\beta\in \Delta\setminus I}(\omega_{\beta,\alpha^{\vee}})\int_{\tau(\sigma_{\beta})}c_1(\mathcal{L}_{\lambda})=\sum\limits_{\beta\in \Delta\setminus I}(\omega_{\beta,\alpha^{\vee}})\left(\frac{\lambda}{-\beta}+\frac{\sigma_{\beta}\lambda}{\beta}\right)\\
&=-\sum\limits_{\beta\in \Delta\setminus I}(\omega_{\beta,\alpha^{\vee}})(\lambda,\beta^{\vee})=-\sum\limits_{\beta\in \Delta}(\omega_{\beta,\alpha^{\vee}})(\lambda,\beta^{\vee})\\
&=-(\lambda,\alpha^{\vee}).\end{aligned}$$
### Case $\bar{y}=\bar{w}$
In this case, only the second kind of unbroken curves have contribution to $(D_{\lambda}\ast_q \operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y}), \operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{y}))$. Let $C=C_0\cup C_1$ be an unbroken curve of the second kind with $C_0$ contracted to the fixed point $\bar{y}$, and $C_1$ is a cover of the rational curve $yC_{\alpha}$ of degree $k$, where $\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P$. Let $p$ denote the node of $C$, and let $f$ be the map from $C$ to $X$. Then the corresponding decorated graph $\Gamma$ has two vertices, one of them has two marked tails, and there is an edge of degree $k$ connecting the two vertices. Hence the automorphism group of the graph is trivial. The virtual normal bundle ([@Mirror]) is $$\label{Normal bundle}
e(N_{\Gamma}^{\operatorname{vir}})=\frac{e'(H^0(C,f^*TX))}{e'(H^1(C,f^*TX))} \frac{-y\alpha/k}{y\alpha/k}\\
=-\frac{e'(H^0(C,f^*TX))}{e'(H^1(C,f^*TX))},$$ where $e'(H^0(C,f^*TX))$ denotes the nonzero $A$-weights in $H^0(C,f^*TX)$. Consider the normalization exact sequence resolving the node of $C$: $$0\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{C_0}\oplus \mathcal{O}_{C_1}\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_p\rightarrow 0.$$ Tensoring with $f^*TX$ and taking cohomology yields: $$\begin{aligned}
0\rightarrow H^0(C,f^*TX)&\rightarrow H^0(C_0,f^*TX)\oplus H^0(C_1,f^*TX)\rightarrow T_{\bar{y}}X\\
&\rightarrow H^1(C,f^*TX)\rightarrow H^1(C_0,f^*TX)\oplus H^1(C_1,f^*TX)\rightarrow 0.\end{aligned}$$ Since $C_0$ is contracted to $\bar{y}$, $H^0(C_0,f^*TX)=T_{\bar{y}}X$ and $H^1(C_0,f^*TX)=0$. Therefore, as virtual representations, we have $$H^0(C,f^*TX)-H^1(C,f^*TX)=H^0(C_1,f^*TX)-H^1(C_1,f^*TX).$$ Due to Equation (\[Normal bundle\]) and the analysis in the last case, we get $$\begin{aligned}
e(N_{\Gamma}^{\operatorname{vir}})&=-\frac{e'(H^0(C_1,f^*TX))}{e'(H^1(C_1,f^*TX))}\\
&=(-1)^me(T_{\bar{y}}\mathcal{P})e(T_{\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}}\mathcal{P}).\end{aligned}$$ Then by virtual localization formula, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(-1)^m(D_{\lambda}\ast_q \operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y}), \operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{y}))&=-\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P, k>0}(D_{\lambda}, d(\alpha))q^{k\cdot d(\alpha)}\frac{e(T_{\bar{y}}^*\mathcal{P})^2}{e(T_{\bar{y}}\mathcal{P})e(T_{\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}}\mathcal{P})}\\
&=\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}y\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}y\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}\\
&=\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+}y\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+}y\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}y\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}y\beta}\\
&=-\hbar\cdot y\left(\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used $$\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+}y\beta=(-1)^{l(y)}\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+}\beta, \text{\quad and\quad } (-1)^{l(y\sigma_{\alpha})}=(-1)^{l(y)+l(\sigma_{\alpha})}=(-1)^{l(y)+1}.$$ Notice that for any root $\gamma\in R^+_P$, $\sigma_{\gamma}$ preserves $R^+\setminus R^+_P$. For any $\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P$, $d(\sigma_{\gamma}(\alpha))=d(\alpha)$, $(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})=(\lambda, \sigma_{\gamma}(\alpha)^{\vee})$ and $\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\gamma}\beta=-\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\gamma}&\left(\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha}\beta\right)\\
&=\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\sigma_{\gamma}\alpha}\sigma_{\gamma}\beta\\
&=-\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha}\beta.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $\sum\limits_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha}\beta$ is divisible by $\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta$. But they have the same degree, so $$\label{constant}
\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta}$$ is a scalar.
To summarize, we get
\[purely quantum mul for P\] The purely quantum multiplication by $D_{\lambda}$ in $H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{P})$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\lambda}\ast_q \operatorname{stab}_+({\bar{y}})=-\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}} \operatorname{stab}_+(\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}})
-\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta} \operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y}).\end{aligned}$$
1. The scalar $$-\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta}$$ can also be determined by the condition $$D_{\lambda}\ast_q1=0.$$
2. The element $y$ is not necessarily a minimal representative.
3. The Theorem is also true if we replace all the $\operatorname{stab}_+$ by $\operatorname{stab}_-$.
Quantum multiplications
-----------------------
Combining Theorem \[classical part\] and Theorem \[purely quantum mul for P\], we get our main Theorem \[quantum mul for P\]. Taking $I=\emptyset$, we get the quantum multiplication by $D_{\lambda}$ in $H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{B})$.
\[quantum mul for B\] The quantum multiplication by $D_{\lambda}$ in $H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{B})$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\lambda}\ast \operatorname{stab}_+(y)=& y(\lambda)\operatorname{stab}_+(y)-\hbar\sum\limits_{\alpha\in R^+, y\alpha\in -R^+}(\lambda,\alpha^{\vee})\operatorname{stab}_+(y\sigma_{\alpha})\\
&-\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee}) \frac{q^{\alpha^{\vee}}}{1-q^{\alpha^{\vee}}}(\operatorname{stab}_+(y\sigma_{\alpha})+\operatorname{stab}_+(y)).\end{aligned}$$
Calculation of the scalar in type A {#Calculation of constants}
-----------------------------------
We can define an equivalence relation on $R^+\setminus R^+_P$ as follows $$\alpha\sim \beta \text{\quad if \quad} d(\alpha)=d(\beta).$$ Then $w(\alpha)\sim \alpha$ for any $w\in W_P$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum\limits_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta}\\
&=\sum\limits_{\alpha\in (R^+\setminus R^+_P)/\sim}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\sum\limits_{\alpha'\sim\alpha}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha'}\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that $$\sum\limits_{\alpha'\sim\alpha}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha'}\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta}$$ is a constant, which will be denoted by $C_P(\alpha)$.
In this section, we will determine the constant $C_P(\alpha)$ when $G$ is of type $A$. We will first calculate this number in $T^*Gr(k,n)$ case, and the general case will follow easily. Now let $G=SL(n, \mathbb{C})$ and let $x_i$ be the function on the Lie algebra of the diagonal torus defined by $x_i(t_1,\cdots,t_n)=x_i$.
### $T^*Gr(k,n)$ case
Let $P$ be a parabolic subgroup containing the upper triangular matrices such that $T^*(G/P)$ is $T^*Gr(k,n)$. Then $$R_P^+=\{x_i-x_j|1\leq i<j \leq k, \text{ or } k<i<j\leq n\},\quad R\setminus R_P^+=\{x_i-x_j|1\leq i\leq k<j\leq n\}$$ and all the roots in $R\setminus R_P^+$ are equivalent. The number $C_P(\alpha)$ will be denoted by $C_P$. By definition, $$\label{CP}
C_P=\frac{\sum\limits_{1\leq r\leq k<s\leq n}(rs)\left(\prod\limits_{1\leq i< j\leq k}(x_i-x_j)\prod\limits_{1+k\leq p< q\leq n}(x_p-x_q)\right)}{\prod\limits_{1\leq i< j\leq k}(x_i-x_j)\prod\limits_{1+k\leq p< q\leq n}(x_p-x_q)},$$ where $(rs)$ means the transposition of $x_r$ and $x_s$.
Observe that $$\prod\limits_{1\leq i< j\leq k}(x_j-x_i)\prod\limits_{1+k\leq p< q\leq n}(x_q-x_p)=\det\begin{pmatrix}
1&x_1&\cdots&x_1^{k-1}&&\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots&&\\
1&x_k&\cdots&x_k^{k-1}&&\\
&&&& 1&x_{k+1}&\cdots&x_{k+1}^{n-k-1}&&\\
&&&& \vdots&\vdots&\ddots&&\\
&&&& 1&x_{n}&\cdots&x_{n}^{n-k-1}&&\\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Then it is easy to see that the coefficient of $x_2x_3^2\cdots x_k^{k-1}x_{k+2}x_{k+3}^2\cdots x_n^{n-k-1}$ in $$\sum\limits_{1\leq r\leq k<s\leq n}(rs)\left(\prod\limits_{1\leq i< j\leq k}(x_j-x_i)\prod\limits_{1+k\leq p< q\leq n}(x_q-x_p)\right)$$ is $\min(k,n-k)$, since only when $s-r=k$, $(rs)\left(\prod\limits_{1\leq i< j\leq k}(x_j-x_i)\prod\limits_{1+k\leq p< q\leq n}(x_q-x_p)\right)$ has the term $x_2x_3^2\cdots x_k^{k-1}x_{k+2}x_{k+3}^2x_n^{n-k-1}$, and the coefficient is $1$. Hence
$$C_P=\min(k,n-k).$$
### General case
Let $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_N)$ be a partition of $n$ with $\lambda_1\geq\cdots\geq\lambda_N$. Let $$\mathcal{F}_{\lambda}=\{0\subset V_1\subset V_2\cdots \subset V_N|\dim V_i/V_{i-1}=\lambda_i\}$$ be the partial flag variety, and let $P$ be the corresponding parabolic subgroup. Then $$R_P^+=\{x_i-x_j|\lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_p< i<j \leq \lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_{p+1}, \text{ for some } p \text{ between } 0 \text{ and } N-1 \}.$$ Two positive roots $x_i-x_j$ and $x_k-x_l$ are equivalent if and only if there exist $1\leq p< q\leq N$ such that $$\lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_p< i,k \leq \lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_{p+1}, \lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_q< j,l \leq \lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_{q+1}.$$ So the set $(R^+\setminus R^+_P)/\sim$ has representatives $$\{x_{\lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_p}-x_{\lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_{q}}|1\leq p< q\leq N\}.$$ The same analysis as in the last case gives
For any $1\leq p< q\leq N$, $$C_P(x_{\lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_p}-x_{\lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_q})=\lambda_q.$$
$G\times\mathbb{C}^*$ quantum multiplications
=============================================
Let $\mathbb{G}=G\times \mathbb{C}^*$, and let $\mathcal{B}$ denote the flag variety $G/B$. In this section, we will first get the $\mathbb{G}$-equivariant quantum multiplication formula in $T^*\mathcal{B}$, which is the main result of [@Braverman2011]. Then we show the quantum multiplication formula in $T^*\mathcal{P}$ is conjugate to the conjectured formula given by Braverman .
$T^*\mathcal{B}$ case
---------------------
Let us recall the result from [@Braverman2011] first. Let $\mathfrak{t}$ be the Lie algebra of the maximal torus $A$. Then $$H_\mathbb{G}^*(T^*\mathcal{B})\simeq H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{B})^W\simeq H_T^*(\text{pt})\simeq \operatorname{sym}\mathfrak{t}^*[\hbar].$$ The isomorphism is determined as follows: for any $\beta\in H_\mathbb{G}^*(T^*\mathcal{B})$, lift it to $H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{B})$, and then restrict it to the fixed point $1$. Similarly, we have $$H_\mathbb{G}^*(T^*\mathcal{P})\simeq H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{P})^W\simeq (\operatorname{sym}\mathfrak{t}^*)^{W_P}[\hbar].$$
Let us recall the definition of the graded affine Hecke algebra $\mathcal{H}_{\hbar}$. It is generated by the symbols $x_{\lambda}$ for $\lambda\in \mathfrak{t}^*$, Weyl elements $\bar{w}$ and a central element $\hbar$ such that
1. $x_{\lambda}$ depends linearly on $\lambda\in \mathfrak{t}^*$;
2. $x_{\lambda}x_{\mu}=x_{\mu}x_{\lambda}$;
3. the $\tilde{w}$’s form the Weyl group inside $\mathcal{H}_t$;
4. for any $\alpha\in \Delta$, $\lambda\in \mathfrak{t}^*$, we have $$\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha}x_{\lambda}-x_{\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha}(\lambda)}\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha}=\hbar(\alpha^{\vee},\lambda).$$
According to [@lusztig1988cuspidal], we have a natural isomorphism $$H_*^\mathbb{G}(T^*\mathcal{B}\times_{\mathcal{N}}T^*\mathcal{B})\simeq \mathcal{H}_{\hbar},$$ where $\mathcal{N}$ is the nilpotent cone in $\mathfrak{g}$. The action of $\mathcal{H}_{\hbar}$ on $\operatorname{sym}\mathfrak{t}^*[\hbar]$ is defined as follows: $x_{\lambda}$ acts by multiplication by $\lambda$, and for every simple root $\alpha$, the action of $\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha}$ is defined by $$\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha}f=(\frac{\hbar}{\alpha }+\frac{\alpha-\hbar}{\alpha}\sigma_{\alpha})f$$ where $f\in \operatorname{sym}\mathfrak{t}^*[\hbar]$, and $\sigma_{\alpha}f$ is the usual Weyl group action on $\operatorname{sym}\mathfrak{t}^*[\hbar]$.
Having introduced the above notations, we can state the main Theorem of [@Braverman2011].
\[G-equivariant quantum mul B\] The operator of quantum multiplication by $D_{\lambda}$ in $H_\mathbb{G}^*(T^*\mathcal{B})$ is equal to $$x_{\lambda}+\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+}(\lambda,\alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{\alpha^{\vee}}}{1-q^{\alpha^{\vee}}}(\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha}-1).$$
Let us also recall the restriction formula for stable basis from [@su2015restriction].
\[restriction B\] Let $y=\sigma_1\sigma_2\cdots\sigma_l$ be a reduced expression for $y\in W$, and $w\leq y$. Then $$\operatorname{stab}_+(y)|_w=\sum\limits_{\substack{1\leq i_1<i_2<\dots<i_k\leq l\\
w=\sigma_{i_1}\sigma_{i_2}\dots\sigma_{i_k}}}(-1)^l \prod\limits_{j=1}^k\frac{\sigma_{i_1}\sigma_{i_2}\dots\sigma_{i_j}\alpha_{i_j}-\hbar}{\sigma_{i_1}\sigma_{i_2}\dots\sigma_{i_j}\alpha_{i_j}} \frac{\hbar^{l-k}}{\prod\limits_{j=0}^k\prod\limits_{i_j<r<i_{j+1}}\sigma_{i_1}\sigma_{i_2}\dots\sigma_{i_j}\alpha_r}\prod\limits_{\alpha\in R^+}\alpha,$$ where $\sigma_i$ is the simple reflection associated to a simple root $\alpha_i$.
We are now ready to deduce Theorem \[G-equivariant quantum mul B\] from Theorem \[quantum mul for B\] and Theorem \[restriction B\]. The classical multiplication is obvious. We only show that the purely quantum part matches. Let $f\in \operatorname{sym}\mathfrak{t}^*[\hbar]$ correspond to $\gamma\in H_\mathbb{G}^*(T^*\mathcal{B})$. We also let $\gamma$ denote the lift in $H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{B})$. Then $\gamma|_w=w(f)$ for any $w\in W$. Since the stable and unstable basis are dual basis up to $(-1)^n$, where $n=\dim \mathcal{B}$, we have $$\gamma=\sum_{y}(-1)^n(\gamma, \operatorname{stab}_+(y))\operatorname{stab}_-(y).$$ Due to Theorem \[quantum mul for B\], we have $$D_{\lambda}\ast_q \gamma=-\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{\alpha^{\vee}}}{1-q^{\alpha^{\vee}}}\sum_{y}(\gamma, (-1)^n \operatorname{stab}_+(y))(\operatorname{stab}_-(y\sigma_{\alpha})+\operatorname{stab}_-(y)).$$ Notice that $\operatorname{stab}_-(y)|_1=\delta_{y,1}e(T_1^*\mathcal{B})$. Restricting to the fixed point $1$ , we get $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\lambda}\ast_q \gamma|_1 &=-\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{\alpha^{\vee}}}{1-q^{\alpha^{\vee}}}\gamma|_1\\
&-\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{\alpha^{\vee}}}{1-q^{\alpha^{\vee}}}(\gamma, (-1)^n \operatorname{stab}_+(\sigma_{\alpha}))e(T_1^*\mathcal{B}).\end{aligned}$$ Hence we only need to show $$\label{B}
-(\gamma, (-1)^n \operatorname{stab}_+(\sigma_{\alpha}))e(T_1^*\mathcal{B})=\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha}f.$$ To prove this, we need the following lemma.
\[cotangent\] If $w=\sigma_{i_1}\sigma_{i_2}\dots\sigma_{i_k}$, then $$\prod_{j=1}^k\frac{\sigma_{i_1}\sigma_{i_2}\dots\sigma_{i_{j-1}}\alpha_{i_j}-\hbar}{\sigma_{i_1}\sigma_{i_2}\dots\sigma_{i_j}\alpha_{i_j}-\hbar}=\frac{e(T_1^*\mathcal{B})}{e(T^*_w\mathcal{B})}.$$
If $w=\sigma_{i_1}\sigma_{i_2}\dots\sigma_{i_k}$ is reduced, then this follows from the fact $$\{w\beta|\beta\in R^+, w\beta\in R^-\}=\{\sigma_{i_1}\sigma_{i_2}\dots\sigma_{i_{j}}\alpha_{i_j}|1\leq j\leq l\}.$$ If $w=(\sigma_{\alpha}\sigma_{\beta})^{m(\alpha,\beta)}=1$ for some simple roots $\alpha$ and $\beta$, where $m(\alpha,\beta)$ is the order of $\sigma_{\alpha}\sigma_{\beta}$, we can check it case by case easily. If $w=\sigma_{\alpha}^2$, then it it trivial. In general, $w$ will be a composition of these three cases.
If $\sigma_{\alpha}=\sigma_{\alpha_1}\cdots\sigma_{\alpha_l}$ is a reduced decomposition, then $$\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha}f=\prod_{i=1}^l(\frac{\hbar}{\alpha_i}+\frac{\alpha_i-\hbar}{\alpha_i}\sigma_{\alpha_i})f.$$ Expanding this and using Theorem \[restriction B\], Lemma \[cotangent\] and the fact $(-1)^{l(\sigma_{\alpha})}=-1$, we get $$\label{simple reflection action}
\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha}(f)=\sum_{w}\frac{\operatorname{stab}_+(\sigma_{\alpha})|_w wf}{e(T_wT^*\mathcal{B})}(-1)^{1+n}e(T_1^*\mathcal{B})
=-(\gamma, (-1)^{n}\operatorname{stab}_+(\sigma_{\alpha}))e(T_1^*\mathcal{B}),$$ which is precisely Equation (\[B\]).
$T^*\mathcal{P}$ case
---------------------
In the parabolic case, Professor Braverman suggests (through private communication) that the quantum multiplication should be $$\label{conj}
D_{\lambda}\ast=x_{\lambda}+\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda,\alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha}+\cdots,$$ where $\cdots$ is some scalar. Recall we have $$H_\mathbb{G}^*(T^*\mathcal{P})\simeq H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{P})^W\simeq (\operatorname{sym}\mathfrak{t}^*)^{W_P}[\hbar].$$ It is easy to see that classical multiplication by $D_{\lambda}$ is given by multiplication by $\lambda$.
Now we do the similar calculation as in the $T^*\mathcal{B}$ case. We need the following restriction formula from [@su2015restriction]: $$\label{restriction formula for P}
\operatorname{stab}_{\pm}(\bar{y})|_{\bar{w}}=\sum_{\bar{z}=\bar{w}}\frac{\operatorname{stab}_\pm(y)|_z}{\prod\limits_{\alpha\in R^+_P}z\alpha}.$$ Take any $\gamma\in H_\mathbb{G}^*(T^*\mathcal{P})$, and assume it corresponds to $f\in (\operatorname{sym}\mathfrak{t}^*)^{W_P}[\hbar]$. We still let $\gamma$ denote the corresponding lift in $H_T^*(T^*\mathcal{P})$. Then $\gamma|_{\bar{y}}=yf$. Let $m$ be the dimension of $\mathcal{P}$. Then we have $$\gamma=\sum_{\bar{y}}(-1)^m(\gamma, \operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y}))\operatorname{stab}_-(\bar{y}).$$ By Theorem \[purely quantum mul for P\], $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\lambda}\ast_q \gamma&=\sum_{\bar{y}}(\gamma, (-1)^m \operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{y})) (-\hbar)\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}} \operatorname{stab}_-(\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}})\\
&-\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta} \gamma.\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $$\operatorname{stab}_-(\overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}})|_{\bar{1}}
=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
e(T_{\bar{1}}^*\mathcal{P}) & \text{ if\quad } \overline{y\sigma_{\alpha}}=\bar{1} ;\\
0& \text{ otherwise }.
\end{array}\right.$$ Restricting $D_{\lambda}\ast_q \gamma$ to the fixed point $\bar{1}$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\lambda}\ast_q \gamma|_{\bar{1}}&=-\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}(\gamma, (-1)^m \operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{\sigma}_{\alpha}))e(T_{\bar{1}}^*\mathcal{P})\\
&-\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta}f \end{aligned}$$ Due to restriction formula (\[restriction formula for P\]) and Equation (\[simple reflection action\]), we have $$(\gamma, (-1)^m \operatorname{stab}_+(\bar{\sigma}_{\alpha}))e(T_{\bar{1}}^*\mathcal{P})=-\frac{\tilde{\sigma}_{\alpha}(f\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}(\beta-\hbar))}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}(\beta-\hbar)}.$$ Hence, we obtain Theorem \[P con\].
Since $$\label{constant term}
\hbar\sum_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}\frac{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\sigma_{\alpha}\beta}{\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}\beta}$$ is a scalar, the quantum multiplication formula in Theorem \[P con\] is conjugate to the conjectured formula (\[conj\]) by the function $$\prod\limits_{\beta\in R^+_P}(\beta-\hbar).$$ This factor comes from geometry as follows. Let $\pi$ be the projection map from $\mathcal{B}$ to $\mathcal{P}$, and $\Gamma_{\pi}$ be its graph. Then the conormal bundle to $\Gamma_{\pi}$ in $\mathcal{B}\times \mathcal{P}$ is a Lagrangian submanifold of $T^*(\mathcal{B}\times \mathcal{P})$. $$\xymatrix{
T_{\Gamma_{\pi}}^*(\mathcal{B}\times \mathcal{P}) \ar[r]^-{p_1} \ar[d]_{p_2} & T^*\mathcal{B} \\
T^*\mathcal{P} \\}.$$ Let $D=p_{1*}p_2^*$ be the map from $H_{\mathbb{G}}^*(T^*\mathcal{P})$ to $H_{\mathbb{G}}^*(T^*\mathcal{B})$ induced by this correspondence. Then under the isomorphisms $$H_{\mathbb{G}}^*(T^*\mathcal{B})\simeq \operatorname{sym}\mathfrak{t}^*[\hbar] \text{\quad and \quad} H_\mathbb{G}^*(T^*\mathcal{P})\simeq (\operatorname{sym}\mathfrak{t}^*)^{W_P}[\hbar],$$ the map becomes multiplicaiton by the above factor, see [@su2015restriction]. The scalar in the conjectured formula (\[conj\]) is just the one in Equation (\[constant term\]). By the calculation in the Subsection \[Calculation of constants\], it is not equal to $$\hbar\sum\limits_{\alpha\in R^+\setminus R^+_P}(\lambda, \alpha^{\vee})\frac{q^{d(\alpha)}}{1-q^{d(\alpha)}}$$ in general. It can also be determined by the condition $D_{\lambda}\ast_q1=0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a color-magnitude diagram for a region $1'-2'$ from the center of M32 based on [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} WFPC2 images. The broad color-luminosity distribution of red giants shows that the stellar population comprises stars with a wide range in metallicity. This distribution cannot be explained by a spread in age. The blue side of the giant branch rises to $M_I \approx -4.0$ and can be fitted with isochrones having \[Fe/H\] $\approx-1.5.$ The red side consists of a heavily populated and dominant sequence that tops out at $M_I
\approx -3.2,$ and extends beyond $V-I=4.$ This sequence can be fitted with isochrones with $-0.2 <$ \[Fe/H\] $< +0.1,$ for ages running from 15 Gyr to 5 Gyr respectively. We do not find the [*optically*]{} bright asymptotic giant branch stars seen in previous ground-based work and argue that the majority of them were artifacts of crowding. Our results are consistent with the presence of the [*infrared*]{}-luminous giants found in ground-based studies, though their existence cannot be directly confirmed by our data. The tip of the metal-poor portion of the giant branch occurs at the luminosity expected if M32 is at the same distance as M31 but is too sparsely sampled by this data set to provide a precise distance estimate. At fainter magnitudes, the rising giant branch is significantly wider (FWHM$_{V-I}\sim 0.6$ mag down to $M_I\sim-1.0$) than can be accounted for by photometric uncertainties, again due to a metallicity spread. There is little evidence for an extended or even a red horizontal branch, but we find a strong clump on the giant branch itself, as expected for the high metallicities inferred from the giant branch. If the age spread is not extreme, the distribution of metallicities in M32 is considerably narrower than that of the closed-box model of chemical evolution, and also appears somewhat narrower than that of the solar neighborhood. Overall, the M32 [*HST*]{} color-magnitude diagram is consistent with the average luminosity-weighted age of 8.5 Gyr and \[Fe/H\]$\approx-0.25$ inferred from integrated spectral indices, extrapolated to the same radius and analyzed with the same population models.
author:
- 'Carl J. Grillmair'
- 'Tod R. Lauer'
- Guy Worthey
- 'S. M. Faber'
- 'Wendy L. Freedman'
- 'Barry F. Madore'
- 'Edward A. Ajhar'
- 'William A. Baum'
- 'Jon A. Holtzman'
- 'C. Roger Lynds'
- 'Earl J. O’Neil, Jr.'
- 'Peter B. Stetson'
title: '[*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} Observations of M32: The Color-Magnitude Diagram'
---
Introduction.
=============
As the nearest example of an elliptical galaxy, M32 serves as an important beachhead in our campaign to understand the age and metallicity mixture of stellar populations in elliptical galaxies. While M32 may be somewhat unusual given its proximity to M31, spectroscopically it is identical to other faint ellipticals (Faber 1972; Burstein 1984; Bica, Alloin, & Schmidt 1990; González 1993; Trager 1996). A key objective is to obtain deep color-magnitude (CM) diagrams to test conclusions thus far based solely on integrated colors and spectral index work. The proximity of M32, combined with the superb resolution afforded by the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} Wide Field/Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) permits a remarkable improvement in our ability to study its stellar content and brings us within range of this goal.
In studying a stellar population, the basic variables we wish to determine are the mean stellar age and metallicity, and the distribution functions around these means. For old stellar populations like that in M32, it is difficult to measure both age and Z simultaneously from integrated light, as broad-band spectral shape and metal lines tend to vary together in lock step with both these variables (Worthey 1994). To break this “age-Z degeneracy", it is necessary to add another measured quantity that is specifically sensitive to age. Four such quantities have been suggested for M32: 1) Balmer line strength (Burstein 1984, Faber 1992), which is directly sensitive to turnoff temperature, 2) Sr II$\lambda 4077 /$Fe I$\lambda 4045$ (Rose 1985, 1994), which is sensitive to the ratio of dwarf to giant light and hence to turnoff luminosity, 3) ultraviolet surface-brightness fluctuations at 2500Å (Worthey 1993), again sensitive to turnoff luminosity, and 4) (1500-V) color (Bressan, Chiosi, & Tantalo 1996), which measures age through its effect on the number and luminosities of hot post-RGB stars.
Many integrated light studies have claimed to have found evidence for a relatively young, few-Gyr-old stellar population in M32 (Baum 1959, Faber 1972, O’Connell 1980, Burstein 1984, Rose 1985, Bica, Alloin & Schmidt 1990, Hardy 1994). However, in retrospect it is clear that some of these investigations lacked the basic spectral information needed to distinguish age and Z, while others lacked sufficiently reliable population models to correctly interpret the important spectral features.
Rapid progress is being made on both fronts. Stellar population models, taking both age and Z into account, have been constructed by Worthey (1994), Bressan (1994), Buzzoni (1995), and by Tantalo (1996). Accurate measurements of H$\beta$ (Gonzáles 1993, hereafter G93) and Sr/Fe (Rose 1994) in M32 are also now available (the former as a function of radius out to 1 R$_e$). The upshot of this recent work is to confirm the earlier findings of relatively young stars, but the conclusion is now considerably more secure.
Nevertheless, there are important assumptions in these population models that need to be checked against a real CM diagram. For example, Worthey’s models for the age and Z of M32 assume a pure red clump for the horizontal branch (HB). If the H$\beta$ were concentrated at intermediate F-type temperatures, the need for a young population would be completely removed (Burstein 1984). All models also assume a luminosity function for RGB and AGB stars that crucially affects the predicted red and infrared continua, spectral features, and surface-brightness fluctuations. Finally, the CM diagram permits measurement of the spreads about mean properties in a way that integrated light can never do. These spreads are as important as the mean values in decoding the star-formation history of the galaxy.
This paper uses a new upper CM diagram of M32 from [*HST*]{} to address these and other fundamental aspects of the stellar population. The major focus is on the metallicity and its distribution. That is because giant-branch loci are much more sensitive to Z than age, so conclusions about Z are relatively independent of the assumed age. The breadth of the giant branch implies a [*wide*]{} range in Z, from roughly solar down to below $-1.0$ dex. Paradoxically though, the distribution is rather narrow when judged by its FWHM compared to either the closed-box model of chemical enrichment or the distribution of metallicity in the solar neighborhood. Evidence for a wide giant branch and broad total range in Z was available before from pioneering ground-based CM diagrams in [*V*]{} and [*I*]{} by Freedman (1989) and Davidge & Jones (1992). However, it is clear now that the old data were just the tip of the iceberg — the present data give a [*much*]{} fuller picture of the upper giant branch, and a correspondingly greater total width in .
A second focus is comparison with mean population age and Z deduced from ground-based integrated spectral indices. We can infer these values using Worthey models for the [*HST*]{} field by slight outward extrapolation of G93’s data. The resulting age-Z pair, 8.5 Gyr and $-0.25$ dex, agrees perfectly with the color of the giant-branch stars in the CM diagram. This indicates a degree of consistency in the Worthey models but does not independently establish the age. Ages could be inferred from very deep observations of main sequence turnoff stars, but crowding precludes this in M32 inside about 3 arcmin, even with [*HST*]{}. Since upper giant-branch tracks are degenerate in age and Z much like integrated colors and metallic lines, it is not possible to derive an age from the upper CM diagram alone. Aside from verifying the red clump assumption of the Worthey models (in itself an important contribution), the new CM diagram has little to say about age.
Nonetheless, the new observations represent an enormous gain over previous ground-based efforts in our ability to probe the stellar population of M32. They offer another tantalizing glimpse of how this so very interesting galaxy may have formed, and point the way for future work.
Observations. \[sec:obs\]
==========================
Images of M32 were taken on October 22, 1994, with WFPC2. Two fields were imaged, one of M32 (POS1) and the other of a “background" field (POS2) to determine the colors and magnitudes of the M31 stars that make up the majority of field stars at POS1. The POS1 coordinates were chosen so that the nucleus of M32 was roughly centered in WF3. The Planetary Camera (PC) image (00455 per pixel) covers a region extending from 1 to 2 arcminutes almost due south of the center of M32 (see Figure \[fig:plate1\] = Plate 1). The POS2 field is situated $\approx 5$6 NE of POS1 in an area originally intended to match the background surface brightness of M31 underlying M32. Four 500s exposures were taken in each of F555W ([*V*]{}) and F814W ([*I*]{}) in each pointing. An additional three 1000s exposures were taken through F300W, but we defer discussion of these data to a later paper. The coadded F814W image is shown in Figure \[fig:plate2\] (Plate 2).
Stellar photometry was carried out using the crowded-field, PSF-fitting package ALLFRAME (Stetson 1994), the most recent development in the DAOPHOT series of photometry packages. ALLFRAME differs from its predecessors primarily in its ability to use information from many individual frames simultaneously. The extra geometric and photometric information available from multiple frames extends the range of magnitudes and crowding conditions for which useful photometry is obtainable. ALLFRAME is applied to the data [*after*]{} object detection and aperture photometry are carried out using DAOPHOT II (Stetson 1987). The global characteristics of the CM diagram produced using DAOPHOT II and ALLSTAR were essentially identical to those found using ALLFRAME. However, the latter produced fewer outliers and gave a cleaner-looking result.
To push the star detection limit to as faint a level as possible, we coadded all images taken through the same filter. ALLFRAME was then applied to the F555W and F814W images simultaneously. While analyzing the coadded images does not make full use of the information available in all 8 individual frames, experiments using both methods showed that our completeness fraction was significantly higher when coadding frames prior to object detection.
Neither POS1 nor POS2 had a sufficient number of bright and reasonably isolated stars to allow proper characterization of the PSF. The PSF was consequently derived from F555W and F814W images of the globular cluster NGC 6397 observed with [*HST*]{} approximately two months prior to the date of the M32 observations. No focus changes were commanded during the intervening period, and desorption of volatiles will not have significantly altered the focus over this time.
Owing to severe crowding, we ran three DAOPHOT II detection passes to identify and measure faint stars and to improve the photometry for the bright stars. After each pass, we subtracted all detected stars from the images and reran the finding algorithm to search for any newly-revealed faint stars. Three such passes yielded a candidate list of roughly 24,000 objects. Passing this list on to ALLFRAME resulted in the elimination of $\approx 4000$ objects, leaving a total of 19,969 measured stars. The final CM diagram is approximately one magnitude deeper at the 50% completeness level than it had been using a single detection pass.
Identical procedures were used to find and measure stars in the POS2 field, yielding a total of 4111 stars. Under ideal conditions, correcting for M31 background stars in the M32 field would require that, for each star found in POS2, we subtract from the POS1 sample the star most similar in color and magnitude. However, image crowding is clearly more important for POS1 than POS2, and proper accounting needs to be taken of their differing levels of completeness. Moreover, owing to a miscalculation, the POS2 field as observed lies about 57” outwards from the M31 isophote that passes through POS1. The number of M31 stars we see in POS2 consequently underestimates the number we would expect to find in POS1. From interpolation of blue M31 isophotes plotted by Hodge & Kennicutt (1982) and by deVaucouleurs (1958) and from color-index data by Walterbos & Kennicutt (1988), we estimate the [*V*]{} surface brightness gradient of M31 in the vicinity of M32 to be approximately 0.0035 mag/arcsec. From this we conclude that the stellar surface density expected at POS1 is 1.2 times that found at POS2.
Completeness tests were carried out by adding $\approx 500$ artificial stars, with colors and magnitudes selected from grid points in the CM diagram, to each of the POS1 F555W and F814W images. The pixel locations of the added stars were randomly chosen and identical between F555W and F814W frames. The frames were then processed using DAOPHOT II and ALLFRAME in a manner identical to that applied to the original data. The results of these tests are shown in Figures \[fig:compfig\] and \[fig:returned\], which show that the 50% completeness level for most POS1 stars occurs at $I\approx 24.9$ and $V\approx25.4.$ Virtually identical tests were carried out for POS2.
The M32 CM diagram was corrected for contaminating M31 stars as follows. For a star at POS2 of magnitude [*I*]{} and color , a number of stars
$$N = 1.2 \times C_1(I,V - I)/C_2(I,V - I)$$
of similar magnitude and color were subtracted from the POS1 sample, where $C_1$ and $C_2$ denote completeness fractions computed at POS1 and POS2, respectively, and the factor 1.2 corrects for the misplacement of POS2. In most cases $N$ is not an integer, and stars were subtracted once, twice, or not at all as determined by whether a randomly generated number fell above or below the fractional portion of [*N*]{}. In total, about 3600 stars were subtracted from the POS1 sample to account for contamination by M31.
The completeness tests also showed that the level of crowding leads to relatively large photometric uncertainties, ranging from $\pm0.19$ mag RMS at $I = 22.0$ to $\pm0.46$ mag RMS at $I = 25.0.$ However, the uncertainties in [*V*]{} and [*I*]{} are correlated, and the color uncertainties range from $\pm0.08$ mag RMS at $I = 22.0$ to $\pm0.32$ mag RMS at $I = 25.0.$ This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:returned\], where we have plotted the colors and magnitudes of artificial stars as returned by the DAOPHOT/ALLFRAME processing sequence.
Discussion \[sec:discussion\]
=============================
Morphology of the Color-Magnitude Diagram
-----------------------------------------
The CM diagrams for the POS1 and POS2 fields are shown in Figures \[fig:cm\] and \[fig:m31cm\]. For stars bluer than = 3 the magnitudes have been transformed from F555W and F814W to Johnson-Cousins [*V*]{} and [*I*]{} using the coefficients of Holtzman (1995). The color terms determined by Holtzman are poorly constrained for [*very*]{} red stars. They are approximately zero at = 2.5 (the reddest color for which good measurements exist) and we have consequently adopted zero color terms for all stars with $ > 3.0$. The magnitudes have also been dereddened assuming E([*B-V*]{}) = 0.08 (Burstein & Heiles 1982) and using the absorptions tabulated by Holtzman (1995) for stars of K5 spectral type. An electronic version of the photometry table is available on request from CJG.
The most striking feature in Figure \[fig:cm\] is the obviously composite nature of the CM diagram — there is a wide spread in the colors of the giants. Particularly interesting is the strongly enhanced red sequence that bends over at $I\approx 21.2,$ and extends to extremely red ($V-I> 4$) colors. While Freedman (1989) and Davidge & Jones (1992) showed that the giant branch covers a wide range in color, this extended sequence was not visible in either previous work and represents a significant change in the picture of the M32 RGB. The present CM diagram is consistent, however, with Freedman’s noted incompleteness at faint [*V*]{} magnitudes and her corresponding insensitivity to very red stars. This insensitivity is obvious when one considers the effect of a [*V*]{}-magnitude limit given the morphology apparent in the [*V*]{} vs diagram, illustrated in Figure \[fig:cmtracks\]. In short, the new [*HST*]{} measurements reveal the full extent and morphology of the upper giant branch for the first time. Even with [*HST,*]{} however, there may be some incompleteness for very red stars with $ > 3$. For example, we find 14 starlike objects brighter than $I=22$ that have no visible counterparts at all in the F555W image. Most of these are probably extremely red giants with $>4$).
Below about $I = 22,$ the giant stars appear to merge into a rather fat giant branch of more or less uniform width down almost to the clump. Based on the completeness tests, the width of the giant branch above [*I*]{} $\sim 24$ is significantly larger than can be accounted for by photometric errors (the color uncertainty at $I = 23$ is 0.125 mag RMS, whereas the observed giant branch width at this point is 0.253 mag RMS — we return to this point below). The core-helium burning stars seem to be concentrated in a red clump. We see no indications of RR Lyraes or an extended reddish horizontal branch, even though the completeness in the region of the diagram where they should appear ([*I*]{} $\sim 24.6$, $\sim 0.5$) is $\sim$65%. The form of the fall-off in the density of stars below $I = 25$ is due to a combination of completeness effects and photometric uncertainties.
Crowding and the Brightest Giants \[sec:crowding\]
--------------------------------------------------
We observe a significant number of stars to be brighter than the first ascent RGB tip. These may be AGB stars. However, their luminosities are significantly fainter than the AGB stars identified by Freedman (1989). Assuming a distance modulus $(m-M)_0 = 24.43$ (Ajhar 1996), we expect the tip of the giant branch for older/more metal-poor populations to occur at $I\approx 20.4$. We find 23 stars with $I <
20.4$ in POS1 and only one such star in POS2, giving a surface density of AGB stars of 70 arcmin$^{-2}$. Though the absence of such stars in POS2 argues that these stars must be associated with M32, they do not appear to be as strongly concentrated towards the center of M32 as the integrated light. Freedman finds 91 stars brighter than $I = 20.4$ in her inner field (a 1.42 arcmin$^2$ region of her field which encompasses POS1 — see Figure \[fig:plate1\]), giving a very similar surface density of 64 arcmin$^{-2}$.
However, whereas our [*I*]{}-band luminosity function goes essentially to zero at $I = 19.8,$ both Freedman (1989) and Davidge & Nieto (1992) see significant numbers of stars [*brighter*]{} than $I = 19.8$ extending to $I\approx18$. Since Freedman’s inner field overlaps with our own, we can test directly the hypothesis that this inconsistency is due to differences in resolution. We therefore convolved our PC image with a Gaussian kernel of FWHM= 06 to match Freedman’s CHFT resolution. We then integer-binned the data to a scale of 018 pix$^{-1}$, reasonably close to the 02 pix$^{-1}$ scale at the prime focus of the CFHT. Finally, we scaled the counts to match the exposure times used by Freedman, adding $\sim3$ “background" counts per pixel as well as noise to match the gain and readout noise characteristics of the RCA chip on the CFHT. To characterize the degraded PSF in the standard way, the same process was applied to the NGC 6397 observations, constructing a PSF from 27 stars still visible in the resulting image. We applied two passes of the DAOPHOT II star-detection routine and used ALLSTAR to carry out the PSF-fitting photometry. The results yielded 147 stars detected in both the F555W and F814W frames in the region of overlap between the PC field of view and that of Freedman. Of these, 68 could be matched with the photometry of Freedman, yielding a mean [*I*]{}-band magnitude difference of only $0.03 \pm 0.35$ mag. The fact that we could match only half the stars in the field we attribute to differing completeness levels, which depend on rather small differences in the noise properties.
The resulting CM diagram and luminosity function are remarkably similar to those obtained by Freedman. While the photometry of the original [*HST*]{} image yields only 3 stars brighter than $I = 20,$ smoothing the image results in a total of 19 stars measured to be brighter than this magnitude. Moreover, the mean color measured in the degraded image of the stars brighter than $I = 22$ becomes bluer by 0.5 magnitudes, from $V-I = 2.3$ to $V-I = 1.8.$ This strongly suggests that most of the bluer bright giants appearing in the ground-based CM diagrams of this region are in fact blends of fainter stars.
The existence of the [*infrared*]{}-luminous AGB stars found by Freedman (1992) and Elston & Silva (1992) using [*J*]{} and [*K*]{} photometry appears to be compatible with our observations, although we cannot identify them uniquely with $V$ and $I$ alone. Freedman finds 125 stars with $K<18$ in a $100''\times40''$ field at similar distance from the nucleus as our [*HST*]{} observations; 85 of these $K$-bright stars are also detected in $J.$ Given our smaller image area, we would expect to have $\sim35$ stars with $K<18$ in our PC observations, with half of these having $K<17.$ Most of these stars have $J-K>1.1,$ and would thus be expected to have $I-K>3.5$ if the Milky Way bulge giants of Frogel & Whitford (1987) can be used as a guide. We would conclude that most of the $K$-bright stars thus have $I>20,$ placing them comfortably below the bright tip of our $I$-band luminosity function. The Frogel & Whitford giants further show little correlation between $V-I$ and $I-K$ for $I-K>3.5,$ so the $K$-bright stars could fall anywhere within the broad $V-I$ spread at the top of the $I$-band CM diagram. In contrast, the brightest and bluest stars in the Freedman sample might be expected to fall [*above*]{} the tip of the present $I$-band luminosity function; however, there are only 8 stars with $K<17$ and $J-K<1.1$ in the Freedman sample, giving an expectation of just 2 such stars for the PC field. The interesting problem posed by the Freedman (1992) and Elston & Silva (1992) data is that the majority of their $K$-bright stars actually have $J-K$ colors much redder than the Frogel & Whitford (1987) bulge sequence, making them presumably extremely red in $I-K$, and perhaps also $V-I.$ As noted above, there are 14 stars with $I<22$ that have no $V$ counterparts — perhaps these are stars that correspond to a significant fraction of the $K$-bright sample, and for which it will be very interesting to obtain NICMOS observations.
The Metallicity Distribution
----------------------------
We argue that the composite nature of the giant branch in M32 is due to a wide range in metallicity. Gradients in the spectral index observations (see below) imply that the (light-weighted) mean age of the M32 population increases with radius, so there may well be a mixture of ages present in the PC field; however, a spread in age can account for only a modest amount of the spread in giant properties implied by the CM diagram morphology, as we now show. In Figure \[fig:cmtracks\], we show a set of three isochrones (Worthey 1994) with ages 2, 5, and 15 Gyr. Since the three tracks can be made to overlap by making only modest metallicity changes among them, the age structure is impossible to deduce from the color distribution of the giant branch alone. The tradeoff between age and metallicity for any assumed RGB track is approximately $d\log|\tau|=-1.7d\log|Z|,$ where the minus sign indicates that a younger age is counteracted by increased metallicity. On the other hand, since age effects are less important than Z, the color spread must primarily reflect the intrinsic metallicity distribution, with ambiguity in age causing only minor uncertainty. This is evident in Figure \[fig:cmtracks\], where we show RGB tracks for clusters with diverse metallicities, and in Figure \[fig:cmtheory\], where we show theoretical RGB tracks covering a wide range in both metallicity and age.
We can demonstrate the degree to which metallicity must predominate over age effects as follows. At $M_I$ = -1.6, the width of the red giant branch is FWHM() $\approx$ 0.6 mag, giving $\sigma$() = 0.26 mag. The photometric uncertainty at this magnitude is $\sigma$() = 0.14 mag, yielding an intrinsic RGB width of $\sigma$() = 0.22 mag, or FWHM() = 0.51 mag. Now from Figure \[fig:cmtheory\] we see that FWHM() for $\Delta Z = 1.2$ dex is $\approx 0.5$ mag, giving a change in color with respect to metallicity of 0.42 mag/dex. From the scaling rule above, the age dependence therefore goes as 0.42 / 1.7 = 0.25 mag/dex. Assuming that the observed width must be the quadrature sum of both effects, we define
$$\Delta_t \equiv {\rm FWHM ~in} ~\log \tau$$
and
$$\Delta_Z \equiv {\rm FWHM ~in} ~\log Z$$
Thus we have
$$[0.42 \Delta_Z]^2 + [0.24 \Delta_\tau]^2 = 0.51^2.$$
Setting a maximum allowable age range of $\log \tau =$1.0 dex (1.5 to 15 Gyr) and solving, we find a minimum allowable $\Delta_Z =
1.1$ dex. The data clearly mandate a large range in metallicity irrespective of the range in stellar ages which may be present.
The CM diagram implies that the distribution of metallicity is fairly smooth, but with many more metal-rich stars than metal-poor ones. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:hist\], where we compute the metallicity histogram by laying down a mesh of 10 Gyr isochrones on the CM diagram covering a wide range of \[Fe/H\], and then counting the stars between them brighter than $M_I=-2.4$, where the uncertainties are fairly small. A small correction for differences in RGB lifetime at different metallicities was also applied. No correction was applied for [*V*]{}-band incompleteness for the reddest giants, so the highest metallicity bins slightly underestimate the true number of giants by up to 14 stars. One sees that the majority of stars lie along the red side of the RGB, with a decreasing tail toward blue, metal-poor RGB loci. There are very few stars ($<1$%) more metal-poor than \[Fe/H\]$\approx -1.5$. Although some of us initially had a visual impression of bimodality in the CM diagram, with a slight paucity of stars between the main “blue” and “red” RGBs, the \[Fe/H\] distribution shows no evidence of this. The illusion probably stems from the fact that RGB color begins to change rapidly with metallicity at about \[Fe/H\]$ =-0.5$ and higher. The effect of assuming a population age of 15 Gyr is also shown; the histogram shifts only slightly to lower metallicity.
In Figure \[fig:hist\] we compare the distribution of metal abundance found in M32 with closed-box models of chemical evolution. These simple, one-parameter models are one-zone, with no gas infall or outflow and zero metal content initially, and assume instantaneous recycling of heavy elements (Searle & Sargent 1972). The photometric uncertainties for the stars considered here are relatively small, and the models have not been smoothed. Quite striking is the fact that the observed metallicity distribution is significantly narrower than the closed-box models would predict. This region of M32 appears at first glance to be more monometallic than even the solar cylinder. On the other hand, if the main ridge of stars in the CM diagram is comprised of populations with a spread in age, then the youthful stars may move to the next higher \[Fe/H\] bin, and it is possible that the real abundance distribution resembles that of the solar neighborhood more than it first appears in Figure \[fig:hist\]. For example, the metal abundance of the main red component is \[Fe/H\]$= -0.2$ if one assumes an age of 15 Gyr, \[Fe/H\]$=-0.07$ for 8 Gyr, but \[Fe/H\]$=0.01$ for 5 Gyr. Even so, the general shape of the distribution remains more or less constant with age, and the result that there are few low metallicity stars is secure.
A similar metallicity distribution derived for the POS2 M31 background field is also illustrated in Figure \[fig:hist\], renormalized by a factor of 5.7 so that the total number of stars is the same as that for the corrected POS1. Relative to M32, the M31 population has a peak at similar Z but a higher tail towards lower metallicities. The POS2 M31 diagram resembles the solar neighborhood more closely, with the caveat that the age structure is completely unknown. The paucity of metal-poor stars relative to the closed-box model is also inferred for the nuclei of M31 and M32 (Worthey, Dorman, & Jones 1996), so it is probable that this condition exists at most radii in both M32 and M31.
Worthey et al. (1996) argue that the simplest explanation for the lack of low-mass, metal-poor stars is that normal processes of chemical enrichment typically operate to produce fewer low-metallicity stars than the simplest closed-box model predicts. That is, modifications to the simplest model (like variable yield, spatially inhomogeneous enrichment, or variable IMF schemes that result in fewer metal poor stars) may be required to mimic chemical enrichment in the real universe. However, it is also possible that metal-poor stars could be present at larger radii. Large-radius storage of metal poor stars is a prediction of models of monolithic galaxy collapse (e.g. Larson 1975, Matteucci & Tornambè 1987, Arimoto & Yoshii 1987) in which the metal poor stars are created at large radius and enrichment proceeds at smaller and smaller radii until most of the gas is consumed. The abundance distribution at a given radius predicted by these models is always narrower than the closed-box model (Larson 1975).
The predicted number of metal-poor stars in the collapse model can be expressed as a fraction of total galaxy mass. In M32, the radius of the POS1 field encloses about 75% of the total light, using the parameters of Kent (1987) and assuming a deVaucouleurs $r^{1/4}$ profile. Conversion to mass requires a $M/L$ ratio as a function of radius. Older ages and higher metallicities drive $M/L$ up, so most galaxies are inferred to have a higher $M/L$ in the nucleus. However, M32 is likely to be an exception to this general rule owing to the sizeable subpopulation of young stars resident in the nucleus (see Section \[sec-int\]). Various population mixtures were modeled and compared to both the nucleus and the POS1 positions, and the best-fitting $M/L_B$ ratios were roughly $M/L_B=3$ to 4.5 on a scale where Galactic globulars have $M/L_B=2.7$ for both M32 locations depending on the age-metallicity mixture. The amount of mass enclosed within the radius of POS1 (which we have taken to be 75%) is consequently about 10% more uncertain than our estimate of the enclosed light.
In the closed-box model, about 10% of the stars in M32 should be more metal-poor than \[Fe/H\]$=-1$ assuming an approximately solar yield (the percentage would be higher if the yield is less than solar). Thus, if we stipulate a largely circular orbit distribution for metal-poor stars to account for the lack of such stars in our sample, there would still appear to be sufficient room to store them in the outer $\sim
25$% of the galaxy at $R > 2^\prime$. [*HST*]{} observations are scheduled for a field in the outskirts of M32 that encloses about 92% of the light. If these observations uncover copious stars of \[Fe/H\]$=-2.5$ to $-1.5,$ this would strongly support an outside-in dissipational origin for M32. If the observations find few such stars, then either they did not form in large numbers, as Worthey et al. suggest, or they were tidally stripped by close passages with M31, a possibility not without supporting evidence (Faber 1973; Nieto & Prugniel 1987).
Clump Morphology
----------------
Turning back to the CM diagram, the morphology of the core-helium burning stars in M32 is a “clump” instead of a “blue,” “extended,” or “red” horizontal branch as commonly seen in Galactic (and M31) globular clusters with metallicity less than around $-0.7$. This confirms the conclusion of Rose (1994) that a clump, rather than red horizontal branch stars, must dominate the core-helium burning stars to produce the observed spectral line indices and broad-band colors. A “clump” morphology is expected for metal-rich populations (Hatzidimitriou 1991), so the fact that the M32 clump is strong is consistent with the giant branch color distribution.
The extent to which the core-helium stars lie exclusively within a clump can in principle set upper limits on the numbers and ages of stars with metallicities between \[Fe/H\]$= -0.8$ and $-1.5.$ Superficially, the CM diagram is consistent with a pure-clump population. If [*all*]{} core-helium burning stars are in the clump, then the metal-poor stars in M32 must be younger than $\sim$10 Gyr, as populations this young or younger are neither observed (Stryker, Da Costa, & Mould 1985) nor predicted (e.g. Lee, Demarque, & Zinn 1994) to have RR Lyrae stars or stars intermediate in temperature between the instability strip and the clump. This picture is contrasted against one in which most of the stars in M32 are very old. In that case the more metal-poor components should display bluer horizontal branches like the “red” one of 47 Tuc or the “extended” one of M3 (a theoretical approximation of which is shown in Figure \[fig:cmtracks\]).
Unfortunately, there are so few stars with \[Fe/H\]$<-0.7$, and the photometric errors are so large at the base of the CM diagram, that it is not possible to detect or rule out blue horizontal branch stars unambiguously. Using Figure \[fig:hist\] as a guide, and assuming a 15 Gyr population, there are 128 stars more metal-poor than \[Fe/H\]$=-0.7$ (out of 842 brighter than $M_I=-2.4$). The ratio of the number of bright giants corresponding to the Figure \[fig:hist\] cutoff to the number of horizontal branch stars in either M3 or 47 Tuc is about 0.5, so we would expect over 200 metal poor horizontal branch stars to be present under the all-15-Gyr hypothesis. To test whether we see these stars or not, false stars were added to the observed CM diagram in either a 47-Tuc morphology or an M3 morphology, with random errors approximately as observed. The conclusion from this exercise is that up to several hundred 47-Tuc-like HB stars could exist in the CM diagram, yet be hidden in the broad envelope of the more numerous true clump stars. Bluer M3-like HB stars could also exist, but probably less than 200 of them. In short, the present CM diagram cannot strongly constrain the upper age limits of the most metal-poor stars in M32.
Age Information from Integrated Light {#sec-int}
-------------------------------------
Although the present CM diagram yields a clear picture of the metallicity distribution in M32, it does less well regarding age, especially of any younger components that might be present. Integrated colors provide some information on age if the metallicity distribution is approximately known, but the answer is intrinsically slippery because of model-to-model differences in the prediction of colors, which translate into a 35% scatter in age estimates (Charlot, Worthey, & Bressan 1996). The intrinsic power of the isochrones to delimit age is also not that much higher than integrated colors: $\Delta \log Z = -1.7 \Delta \log \tau$ (see above) vs. $\Delta \log Z
= -1.5 \Delta \log \tau$ (Worthey 1994). In addition, with integrated indices (including colors), we are presently limited to deriving an average age rather than a star formation history.
Worthey (1994) has demonstrated that, to break the age-Z degeneracy, it is necessary to add information beyond colors and metal lines, for example, Balmer line strength. Using this approach, we will first attempt to derive an age under the simplifying assumption that the population is characterized by a single age. G93 took long-slit spectra to obtain line-strength indices on the Lick system, which can be directly compared to the Worthey (1994) model predictions. Over the POS1 PC field of view, the G93 gradients (extrapolated from $45^{\prime\prime}$) were averaged, weighted by amount of light:
$$<I>={{\int_{\rm area} I \mu_r{\rm d}A }\over{\int_{\rm
area}\mu_r{\rm d}A}}$$
where $<I>$ is the average index, $\mu_r$ is the $r$-band surface brightness as a function of position from Kent (1987), and $A$ is the area over which the averaging was performed. Given the shallow color gradients in M32, $r$-band will adequately mimic $V$, where the indices are actually measured. The light-weighted mean radius of the PC field is 1.8 $R_e$, where G93 H$\beta =1.92,$ Mg b =2.99, and $<{\rm Fe}> =2.42.$ Worthey (1994) models predict that H$\beta$ relative to the combined index \[MgFe\] = (Mg b $\times<{\rm
Fe}>)^{1/2}$ can give a simultaneous estimate for a mean age and a mean metallicity, with an age in this case of 8.5 Gyr and \[Fe/H\]$=-0.25$ for $R = 1.8 R_e$.
This is noteworthy because if 8-Gyr isochrones are laid down on the POS1 CM diagram and a metallicity distribution computed as in Figure \[fig:hist\], the mean metallicity of the stars is \[Fe/H\]$=-0.25$. This demonstrates (at least) internal model coherence as shown by the close agreement in mean metallicity estimates from star counts in the CM diagram on the one hand vs. line strengths on the other. Within model errors, which can be substantial (Charlot, Worthey, & Bressan 1996), the integrated colors of the M32 POS1 field are also consistent with the same age and Z.
Toward the nucleus of M32 the metallic indices of G93 get only slightly stronger, while H$\beta$ increases in strength dramatically (confirmed by Hardy et al. 1994). Differentially within the models, the only way H$\beta$ [*and*]{} metallic indices can both increase in strength is if the mean population towards the nucleus is simultaneously younger and more metal rich. The G93 indices at the nucleus indicate a mean age of $\sim$4 Gyr and a metallicity just less than solar. To within the uncertainties, [*the predicted color at the nucleus is the same as that at 1.8 $R_e$,*]{} despite a factor of two difference in predicted age because the age effect is balanced by an average abundance enhancement.
Although age is the simplest explanation for the observed H$\beta$ gradient and the flat metallic feature strength and color gradients, two other alternatives should be considered: large numbers of either blue straggler stars or blue HB stars, if concentrated toward the center, could increase H$\beta$ strength as observed. However, both of these alternatives would make for bluer colors and weaker metallic features toward the center, which are not observed. Lacking a plausible mechanism to counter these effects, one would still require an age or metallicity gradient in M32. In the case of blue HB stars or young A-type main sequence stars, significant numbers of them appear to be ruled out in M32’s nucleus by the Ca II index (Rose 1994; Worthey, Dorman, & Jones 1996). Moreover, in contrast to M32, other elliptical galaxies generally show strongly increasing metal line strengths, reddening colors, and slightly weaker or constant H$\beta$ toward the center. If blue stragglers or blue HB stars are responsible for M32’s high central H$\beta$, we must then explain why M32 behaves differently than other ellipticals.
Despite these favorable checks, there remains little detailed information on the age structure in M32 because all the details are averaged into one or two indicators. Dropping the assumption of a single age for the POS1 field, we constructed limited two-age models to try to quantify the uncertainty. The models begin with an assumed base age. Based on this age, a metallicity histogram is compiled from the CM diagram data. Then different age/metallicity components are substituted for the most populous bin in various proportions, and the results are compared with G93 indices. The constructed models are at all times consistent with the CM diagram for bright giants.
The (merely illustrative, not definitive) result for a base age of 15 Gyr is that about 7% (by total mass) of a 2-Gyr population is needed to match the G93 indices. Interestingly, this is consistent with the results of a near-infrared survey by Silva & Bothun (1996) of ellipticals with strong nuclear H$\beta$ and blue central colors. For a base age of 10 Gyr, 5% of a 5-Gyr population would suffice. For a base age of 8 Gyr, the best match is obtained if there is 25% to 30% of an old, 15 Gyr population present. From the way these populations balance, it is clear that [*over half of the stars at the POS1 radius must be as old or older than 8 Gyr.*]{} All of these models match the data as well as the single-age 8.5 Gyr model. The conclusion is that there are many ways of balancing subcomponents so that the see-saw lands at a mean age of 8.5 Gyr. This sort of modeling, which takes into account CM diagram information as well as integrated light indices, is in its infancy.
The Tip of the Red Giant Branch
-------------------------------
The tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) in metal-poor populations can be used as a distance indicator. Old, metal-poor giant stars have peak absolute [*I*]{}-band magnitudes of M$_I\sim-4$ mag. Da Costa & Armandroff (1990) calibrated the magnitude of the TRGB for the range of metallicities ($-2.2 <$\[Fe/H\]$< -0.7$) defined by Galactic globular clusters. With this calibration, Lee, Freedman & Madore (1993) compared TRGB distances to 10 nearby galaxies to those from Cepheids and/or RR Lyrae stars; they found excellent correspondence at a level of $\pm10$% RMS. Subsequent studies ([*e.g.,*]{} Sakai, Madore, & Freedman 1996a,b) confirm the excellent agreement between the Cepheid distances and the TRGB distances for metal-poor giants. A key property of the TRGB distance indicator is that M$_I$ varies by less than $\sim0.1$ mag for \[Fe/H\]$< -0.7.$
Use of the TRGB distance indicator for M32 is problematic, given the high average metallicity of its population. To date, no empirical calibration for the TRGB exists for populations with metallicities higher than defined by the Galactic globular clusters. Based on the models of Worthey (1994), the expected behavior of the TRGB for more metal-rich systems is shown in Figure \[fig:trgb\]. Lee, Freedman & Madore (1993) conclude that the method could be applied to systems [*as long as the galaxies show an appreciable population of low-mass, resolved red giant branch stars with \[Fe/H\] $< -0.7$ dex.*]{} Figures \[fig:cm\], \[fig:trgb\], and \[fig:lf\] underscore the importance of obtaining color information before blindly applying the TRGB method. The redder, metal-rich giants in M32 are almost a magnitude fainter than the bluer, metal-poor giants, and an uncritical application of this method to the metal-rich component could lead to a serious systematic error. The TRGB method works by passing an edge-detecting or “Sobel” filter over the [*I*]{}-band luminosity function that generates a strong signal at locations where the luminosity function has sharp discontinuities. As can be seen in Figure \[fig:lf\], the M32 luminosity function over all metallicities lacks a well-defined edge. Selecting just the metal poor stars (those with $V-I<1.8$ mag) does produce a luminosity function with a sharper edge, but unfortunately in this case, there are too few such stars in the PC field to define the metal-poor TRGB accurately. Application of the edge detector to just the metal-poor giants yields a TRGB magnitude of m$_I=20.75,$ or M$_I=-3.7$ mag. This value has a large uncertainty, however, and its difference from the expected M$_I=-4.0$ (for the assumed distance modulus of 24.43) is not significant.
Luminosity Function
-------------------
The [*I*]{}-band luminosity function (LF) we derive for M32 is shown in Figure \[fig:lf\], along with theoretical LFs for selected age/metallicity pairs. The model LFs were generated using a pure clump, as opposed to a red or blue horizontal branch. The mismatch between the data and the model LFs in the clump region is likely due to a combination of $(i)$ ill-determined completeness corrections at very faint magnitudes, $(ii)$ the asymmetric nature of the photometric uncertainties in this region, which we have characterized as Gaussian for simplicity, $(iii)$ uncertainties and a possible spread in the theoretically predicted clump luminosities, and $(iv)$ the possibility that severe crowding is causing us to overestimate the luminosities of very faint stars in a manner analogous to that for AGB stars described in Section \[sec:crowding\]. Of the four model LFs shown, the 8 Gyr/\[Fe/H\]$=-0.07$ model is the best match to the observed discontinuity and bump in the region $ 20.5 < I < 22.0$. However, the differences among the models are sufficiently small that a slight change in the assumed distance to M32 could easily negate this distinction.
There are fairly substantial discontinuities in the LF at $I\approx
20.5$ and $I\approx 21.$ The latter (which is the more significant) is clearly a consequence of the young/metal rich giant branch, which is essentially horizontal in Figure \[fig:cm\] at this magnitude. Assuming $(m-M)_0= 24.43,$ the discontinuity at $I\approx 20.5$ is very close to that expected for old/metal poor stars. Indeed, if we generate a LF using only metal-poor stars bluer than $V-I = 1.8$ (dashed histogram), the discontinuity is considerably enhanced. This is the tip of the giant branch used in the TRGB distance method. The cut again illustrates the importance of ensuring that the sample is not contaminated by stars more metal rich than \[Fe/H\]$\approx -0.7$ when applying the TRGB method. As we noted in the previous section, the Sobel filter actually locates the edge of the metal-poor TRGB at a slightly fainter luminosity, but with little significance.
To improve our sampling of the bright end of the luminosity function, we also analyzed the less-crowded half of chip WF4. Using a reduction procedure essentially identical to that used for the PC, this yielded another 20,000 stars (this field is slightly further from the center of M32). With allowances for the greater degree of undersampling and differing levels of completeness, the morphology of the CM diagram and the luminosity function obtained in the WF4 field are completely consistent with the results from the PC.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
We have analyzed WFPC2 images of M32. Based on ALLFRAME crowded-field photometry we conclude the following:
- The observed spread in color among giant branch stars [*requires*]{} a substantial range of metallicity. Allowing for a large range in population age will have only a slight effect on the range of metallicity inferred.
- The metallicity distribution is smooth and strongly skewed towards metal rich stars. The peak of the metallicity histogram occurs at $-0.2<$\[Fe/H\]$<+0.05$ for assumed mean ages in the range 15 Gyr to 5 Gyr for the stellar population. A low metallicity tail extends to \[Fe/H\]$\approx-1.5.$
- The raw metallicity distribution appears somewhat narrower than that of the solar cylinder although, if there are strong age admixtures, the distribution might resemble the local one more closely. In any case, the M32 distribution is much narrower than the closed-box model of chemical evolution. It remains an open question whether the missing metal-poor stars are absent entirely from M32 or whether they are stored at large radii.
- The M31 abundance distribution in the outer disk sampled by POS2 resembles the solar neighborhood if the stars there are mostly older than a few Gyr.
- The width of the giant branch remains significant at magnitudes well below the tip, also supporting the conclusion that the population has a large dispersion in metallicity.
- There is a strongly enhanced red clump at the bottom of the giant branch, consistent with Rose’s (1994) analysis based on broad-band colors and spectral indices, as well as the metallicity distribution implied by the giant branch morphology. At the same time, we cannot rule out a small minority population of extended-red or even blue horizontal branch stars, which would be expected to be present if the most metal-poor stars in M32 are older than 10 Gyr.
- We do not see the very luminous blue AGB stars found in previous ground-based investigations. Experiments reveal that many of these stars are artifacts of image crowding. In contrast, a small population of the [*K*]{}-bright AGB candidates identified by Freedman (1992) and Elston & Silva (1992) may be present in our sample but cannot be identified by their corresponding [*I*]{} and [*V*]{} luminosities alone.
- Whereas the metal poor giant branch extends to [*I*]{} $\approx -4.0$, the metal rich population reaches only to [*I*]{} $\approx -3.2$. This underscores the importance of obtaining color information and selecting only stars with \[Fe/H\] $< -0.7$ before applying the TRGB method to the determination of distances.
- The M32 CM diagram is consistent with the integrated line indices of González (1993), extrapolated to the same radius. Interpreted with Worthey (1994) models, the indices give a mean age of 8.5 Gyr and a mean abundance of $-0.25$ dex. If 8-Gyr isochrones are overlaid on the CM diagram, the mean stellar abundance from counting stars as a function of color is also $-0.25$ dex.
- The González indices indicate a strong radial gradient in the mean stellar population with radius, the nucleus being much younger and somewhat more metal rich than the outer parts studied here. This is because the metallic indices are nearly flat but slightly increasing toward the center and the broad-band colors nearly constant, whereas H$\beta$ increases strongly inwards.
- Two-age models are also consistent with both the CM diagram and the González (1993) indices, showing that there are many ways to mix ages and metallicities to match the observations. Depending on the age of the bulk of the stars, modest subpopulations of quite youthful stars are allowed. However at least half the stars [*must*]{} be at least as old as 8 Gyr. We are hopeful that future work will allow us to better constrain the options.
We thank David Silva for discussions concerning the [*K*]{}-bright AGB stars, and Shoko Sakai for discussions concerning detection of the TRGB. This research was conducted by the WF/PC Investigation Definition Team, supported in part by NASA Grant No. NAS5-1661. One of us (GW) is partially supported by NASA funds through grant HF-1066.01-94A from the Space Telescope Science Institute.
Ajhar, E. A., Grillmair, C. J., Lauer, T. R., Baum, W. A., Faber, S. M., Holtzman, J. A., Lynds, C. R., & O’Neil, E. Jr. 1996, , 111, 1110 Arimoto, N., & Yoshii, Y. 1987, , 173, 23 Baum, W. A. 1959, , 71, 106 Bica, E., Alloin, D., & Schmidt, A. A. 1990, å, 228, 23 Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., & Fagotto, F. 1994, , 94, 63 Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., & Tantalo, R. 1996, å, in press Burstein, D., & Heiles, C. 1982, , 87, 1165 Burstein, D., Faber, S. M., Gaskell, C. M., & Krumm, N. 1984, , 287, 586 Buzzoni, A. 1995, , 98, 69 Charlot, S., Worthey, G., & Bressan, A. 1996, , 457, 625 DaCosta, G. S., & Armandroff, T. E. 1990, , 100, 162 Davidge, T. J., & Nieto, J.-L 1992, , 391, L13 Davidge, T. J., & Jones, J. H. 1992, , 104, 1365 deVaucouleurs, G. 1958, , 128, 465 Elston, R., & Silva, D. R. 1992, , 104, 1360 Faber, S. M. 1972, , 20, 361 Faber, S. M. 1973, , 279, 423 Faber, S. M., Worthey, G., & González, J. J. 1992, in The Stellar Populations of Galaxies: Proceedings of IAU Symposium 149, ed. B. Barbuy, Kluwer Acedemic Publishers, Dordrecht, p. 255 Freedman, W. L. 1989, , 98, 1285 Freedman, W. L., 1992, , 104, 1349 Frogel, J. A., & Whitford, A. E. 1987, , 320, 199 González, J. 1993, PhD Thesis, Univ. California, Santa Cruz, G93 Hardy, E., Couture, J., Couture, C., & Joncas, G. 1994, , 107, 195 Hatzidimitriou, D. 1991, , 251 545
Hodge, P., & Kennicutt, R.C. 1982, , 87, 264 Holtzman, J. A., Burrows, C. J., Casertano, S., Hester, J. J., Trauger, J. T., Watson, A. M., & Worthey, G. 1995, , 107, 1065 Kent, S. M. 1987, , 94, 306 Larson, R. B. 1975, , 173, 671 Lee, M. G., Freedman, W. L. & Madore, B. F., 1993, , 417, 553 Lee, Y.-W., Demarque, P., Zinn, R. 1994, , 350, 155 Matteucci, F., & Tornambè, A. 1987, , 185, 51 Nieto, J. -L., & Prugniel, P. 1987, , 186, 30 O’Connell, R. W. 1980, , 236, 430 Rose, J. A. 1985, , 90, 1927 Rose, J. A. 1994, , 107, 206 Sakai, S., Madore, B. F., & Freedman 1996a, , in press Sakai, S., Madore, B. F., & Freedman 1996b, , in preparation Searle, L., & Sargent, W. L. W., 1972, , 173, 25 Silva, D. R., & Bothun, G. 1996, in preparation Stetson, P. 1987, , 99, 191 Stetson, P. B. 1994, , 106, 250 Stryker, L. L., Da Costa, G. S., & Mould, J. R. 1985, , 298, 544 Tantalo, R., Chiosi, C., Bressan, A., & Fagotto, F. 1996, å, in press Trager, S. C., Faber, S. M., Burstein, D., & Worthey, G. 1996, in preparation Walterbos, R., & Kennicutt, R. C. 1988, , 198, 61 Worthey, G. 1993, , 415, L91 Worthey, G. 1994, , 95, 107 Worthey, G., Faber, S. M., & González, J. J., 1992, , 398, 69 Worthey, G., Dorman, B., & Jones, L. A. 1996, , in press
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'High-resolution spectroscopy was obtained of the FUors FU Ori and V1057 Cyg between 1995 and 2002 with the SOFIN spectrograph at NOT and with HIRES at Keck I. During these years FU Ori remained about 1 mag.(in B) below its 1938–39 maximum brightness, but V1057 Cyg (B $\approx$ 10.5 at peak in 1970–71) faded from about 13.5 to 14.9 and then recovered slightly. Their photospheric spectra resemble that of a rotationally broadened, slightly veiled supergiant of about type G0 Ib, with $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ for FU Ori, and 55 km s$^{-1}$ for V1057 Cyg. As V1057 Cyg faded, P Cyg structure in H$\alpha$ and the IR lines strengthened, and a complex shortward-displaced shell spectrum of low-excitation lines of the neutral metals (including and ) increased in strength, disappeared in 1999, and reappeared in 2001. Several SOFIN runs extended over a number of successive nights so that a search for rapid and cyclic changes in the spectra was possible. These spectra show rapid night-to-night changes in the wind structure of FU Ori at H$\alpha$, including clear evidence of sporadic infall. The equivalent width of the P Cyg absorption varied cyclically with a period of 14.8 days, with phase stability maintained over 3 seasons. This is believed to be the rotation period of FU Ori. The internal structure of its photospheric lines also varies cyclically, but with a period of 3.54 days. A similar variation may be present in V1057 Cyg, but the data are much noisier and that result uncertain. As V1057 Cyg has faded and the continuum level fallen, the emission lines of a pre-existing low-excitation chromosphere have emerged. Therefore we believe that the ‘line doubling’ in V1057 Cyg is produced by these central emission cores in the absorption lines, not by orbital motion in an inclined Keplerian disk. No dependence of $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ on wavelength or excitation potential was detected in either FU Ori or V1057 Cyg, again contrary to expectation for a self-luminous accretion disk. It was found also that certain critical lines in the near infrared are not accounted for by synthetic disk spectra. It is concluded that a rapidly rotating star near the edge of stability, as proposed by Larson (1980), can better account for these observations. The possibility is also considered that FUor eruptions are not a property of ordinary T Tauri stars, but may be confined to a special sub-species of rapidly rotating pre-main sequence stars having powerful quasi-permanent winds.'
author:
- 'G. H. Herbig'
- 'P. P. Petrov'
- 'R. Duemmler[^1]'
title: 'High-Resolution Spectroscopy of FUors '
---
Introduction
=============
The variable star now known as FU Ori was originally believed to be a slow nova because of its leisurely rise from m$_{pg}$ = 16 to 10 over an interval of about a year in 1937–39. There were some misgivings at the time about that classification: the spectrum was quite unlike that of an ordinary nova, and for a nova the star was most unusually located in the dark cloud Barnard 35, itself in the OB association surrounding $\lambda$ Ori. It is now realized that FU Ori is no nova, but represents another phenomenon altogether. It is the prototype of a small class of pre-main sequence objects, named ‘FUors’ by Ambartsumian, that have received an increasing amount of attention over the past three decades.
Three additional stars, and possibly 2 more, now collectively define the FUor class on the grounds of a well-documented major rise in brightness, association with a molecular cloud, and a spectrum like that of FU Ori. These ‘classical FUors’ are V1057 Cyg, V1515 Cyg, V1735 Cyg, probably V346 Nor [@rei90], and possibly a star (CB34V = V1184 Tau) discussed most recently by @alv97. A number of other pre-main sequence stars have been proposed for membership, usually on the grounds of spectroscopic resemblance plus an infrared excess, but none have been observed to brighten up and remain so for years, as did the classical FUors mentioned above.
The time seems appropriate for a reexamination of the observational situation for two reasons. First, the other classical FUors remain not far from their maximum brightness, but V1057 Cyg has faded about 4 mag. (in B) since 1971.
Second, high-resolution spectroscopy has now become feasible for all FUors over a wider wavelength range (3500–9000 Å ) than was heretofore possible, and in the case of V1057 Cyg almost on an annual basis. The observations to be discussed here have been obtained by Petrov and collaborators with the SOFIN echelle spectrograph [@tuo99] of the Nordic Optical telescope at La Palma[^2] between 1996 and 2002 at a resolution of about 13 km s$^{-1}$; and by Herbig with the HIRES echelle at the Keck I telescope on Mauna Kea[^3] since 1996 at a resolution of about 7 km s$^{-1}$. Several of the SOFIN runs extended over a number of successive nights, offering the opportunity to search for rapid changes in the spectra. [^4] Some of the SOFIN material has already been discussed by @pet98 and by @laa00. We here expand upon those results.
It is now accepted that FUors represent an interesting phenomenon of early stellar evolution, but it is uncertain how universal it is, and there is disagreement on what is responsible for the outbursts. Hypotheses as to the latter fall into two classes: Hartmann, Kenyon, and their colleagues have proposed that the flare-up is a phenomenon not of the pre-outburst star itself, but is the result of a major increase in the surface brightness of the circumstellar accretion disk. Since the idea was first put forward by @har85 [hereafter HK], it has been elaborated extensively @har96. Building upon that proposition, theories of instabilities intrinsic to such an accretion disk have been examined by @cla90, by @kle99 and by @bel99 [which contains references to earlier papers].
The opposite hypothesis is that the star itself is responsible for the FUor flare-up. The absorption lines in the classical FUors are broad; if they are the result of axial rotation in a spherical limb-darkened star, fits to the optical-region line profiles (§ 4.2, below) yield values of $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ up to about 70 km s$^{-1}$ in the case of FU Ori. A periodic modulation of the line structure of FU Ori (described in § 4.4) leads to a radius of the order of 20 sin $i$ R$_{\odot}$. Given those parameters, the condition that FU Ori be rotationally stable (in the sense that the centrifugal acceleration at the equator of a oblate rotator equals the gravitational \[@por96\]) is (M/M$_{\odot}$) sin $i$ $>$ 0.79. Clearly, a not-unreasonable value of sin $i$ would require a substantial stellar mass to ensure the stability of such a rapid rotator.
An examination by @lar80 of the consequences of such very rapid rotation suggested that bar-like deformations would develop that could produce heating of the outer layers of the star, thus accounting for the flare-up and mass loss. One would think that such instabilities might produce detectable photometric variation with the rotation period. The only search for such variations is that reported for FU Ori by @ken00. They found only ‘random’ fluctuations of amplitude 3-4% on time scales of 1 day or less, but it would be worthwhile to repeat such observations with better time coverage. Later (§ 4.4) we describe the results of a search for cyclic variations in radial velocity and line structure in both FU Ori and V1057 Cyg.
Little more has been heard of the rapid-rotator hypothesis, perhaps because of the appeal of the disk-instability idea and the volume of publication that it has engendered. But on earlier occasions we have pointed out some difficulties and our reservations about the HK proposal [@her89; @pet92]. The theory was subsequently modified to explain one of those concerns @bel95. However the new results to be described here call into question the original observational justification for the HK hypothesis, on which that theory is based. In the following sections we examine three issues that have been regarded as crucial support for that hypothesis:
\(a) The ‘doubling’ of certain absorption lines is evidence of Keplerian motion in an inclined disk (§ 2.4);
\(b) A dependence on $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ on wavelength or excitation potential in the optical region up to 9000 Å is evidence of the decline in orbital velocity with radius expected under the disk hypothesis (§ 4.2); and
\(c) The theoretical disk spectrum, as a composite of annuli of temperature and surface brightness that decline with distance from the center, fits the observed spectra of FUors (§ 4.1).
When V1057 Cyg was bright, it was noticed that the spectral type became later with increasing wavelength across the optical region. The effect became striking when observations were extended to the near-IR [@mou78; @eli78] and H$_{2}$O and CO bands were found in the spectrum of an ostensible F- or G-type star. No evidence of radial velocity variation with time or with wavelength has been reported, so the spectrum apparently originates in a single object. The disk hypothesis does have the persuasive advantage of explaining, although not in detail (§ 4.1), this apparently composite nature of FUor spectra as the falloff of temperature with increasing radius in an accretion disk.
But it is now realized that the simple presence of the 2.3-$\mu$m CO bands in a G supergiant is not that unusual [@wal97]. They appear at about G0 Ib and are prominent by G8 Ib, although in FU Ori and V1057 Cyg they are as strong as in early M-type. It would be interesting to investigate if such an effect could be simulated in an extended envelope around a rapidly rotating single star.
We are not necessarily committed to the concept of an unstable rapid rotator as a final solution to the FUor phenomenon. But for lack of a more persuasive alternative, in what follows we examine the observational information in terms of that hypothesis. First we describe the spectrum of V1057 Cyg during its 1996–2002 fading, the period for which we have detailed high-resolution coverage (§ 2), followed by a discussion of its light curve (§ 3), and then we review the spectroscopic properties of FUors in general (§ 4).
The Spectrum of V1057 Cyg 1996–2002
====================================
Figure 1 shows the B/pg light curve of V1057 Cyg. Most of the high-resolution spectra of V1057 Cyg discussed in the literature were obtained in the 1980’s, when the star was descending to a plateau of brightness between about B = 13.0 and 13.3, which extended from 1985 to about 1994. Between 1994 and 1995 it began to fade again, and reached a minimum near 14.9 in 1999, since which it has recovered slightly. Briefly, following @pet98 and @laa00, this is what happened in the spectrum during the post-1994 minimum with respect to the 1980s:
the photospheric lines became much shallower, some with pronounced emission cores;\
the P Cyg absorptions in H$\alpha$, infrared and other lines became stronger;\
the shortward-shifted shell components in the low excitation lines increased in strength\
(1996-97), then essentially disappeared (1999), but reappeared in 2001;\
TiO bands in the expanding shell appeared for the first time, and\
a number of emission lines of low excitation appeared in the spectrum.\
Photospheric spectrum
----------------------
Simple inspection of the absorption spectrum of V1057 Cyg shows that it resembles that of a rotationally broadened early-G supergiant. To make this quantitative, the excitation temperature and gravity were determined as follows. Equivalent widths (hereafter abbreviated EW) were measured for 30 of the least blended photospheric lines of in the region 4950-8000 Å (shell components, which could distort the measurements, were almost absent in this spectral region in 1998–1999). The curve of growth gives T$_{exc}$ = 5300 $\pm$ 300 K. The single measurable line of , $\lambda$ 5991, lies on this curve at a position corresponding to log n$_{e}$ = 12. These are indeed values expected for a G1 supergiant. Furthermore, a comparison of V1057 Cyg with templates of 41 Cyg (F5 II), $\beta$ Aqr (G0 Ib), 9 Peg (G5 Ib) and 40 Peg (G8 II) show that the line ratios correspond to F7-G3 I-II.
The photospheric absorption lines in August 1997 appeared to be shallower than in the spectra found in the literature. Many of the lower- excitation lines appear double, as the result of what is clearly an emission component at the bottom of the absorption. With respect to spectra of the 1980’s, this line ‘doubling,’ measured as a velocity separation between the two absorption minima, had increased by October 1996, and even more by August 1997, as the result of what is clearly an emission component appearing at the bottom of the absorption line (see § 2.4). However, the line width of the absorptions near the continuum level remains the same as in the spectra taken, e.g., in 1983–84 by @ken88 and in 1992 by @har95. That is, the overall line width has not changed, but in those where the central reversal has become more prominent the line depth has been reduced. In this way many photospheric lines appear significantly shallower than in the accretion disk model of @ken88, which was designed to fit the spectrum of V1057 Cyg in 1985 (Fig. 13).
However, there is another effect as well: in the red, higher-excitation lines where no central emission is expected are also shallower than in the spun-up standards, as if a veiling continuum is superposed upon the absorption spectrum. Veiling factors of 0.3 to 0.5 are indicated.
Wind/P Cyg Features
--------------------
Table 1 gives the parameters of the P Cyg structure at H$\alpha$ as measured on all spectra either published or our own. One sees that the mass-loss in the wind of V1057 Cyg, as evidenced by the strength of the P Cyg absorption component at H$\alpha$, began to increase about 1984-85 [@laa00], near the beginning of the photometric plateau. It is tempting to speculate that the two may be connected. Earlier, the P Cyg absorption of H$\alpha$ was not saturated and its structure varied considerably at all velocities [@cro87 and Table 1]. During the post-plateau minimum (i.e., after 1994–95) the line remained strong, but the high velocity wing ($-200$ to $-400$ km s$^{-1}$) varied in depth from year to year while the low velocity section ($-60$ to $-120$ km s$^{-1}$) always remained deep (Figs. 7, 24).
The only known observations of H$\alpha$ during the plateau decade are those obtained in 1988 by @wlt92 and by Budge (unpublished). Those entries in Table 1 have been measured from their profiles. The EW of the P Cyg absorption component in that year was the largest that has been reported. No other observations of H$\alpha$ are known to have been made during 1986-95, but @rus01 measured the structure of H$\beta$ and H$\gamma$ between 1978 and 1990 (photographically and at a resolution of about 1000). His data indicate that the EW of H$\beta$ declined from 1978 to 1985 but had increased again by 1987 (no observation in 1986), continued to increase thereafter and by 1990 was the largest he had observed.
The lack of adequate spectroscopic coverage of V1057 Cyg during the 1986-95 decade is regrettable.
Figure 2 shows the P Cyg profiles of the H$\alpha$, H$\beta$, and $\lambda$8542 lines on the 1997 August SOFIN spectrogram. (Throughout we denote the measured (heliocentric) velocity of a features as $v$ and the stellar velocity as $v_{*}$, so velocity in the star’s rest frame is $RV$ = $v$ – $v_{*}$.) The H$\alpha$ profile is similar to that of FU Ori, where the mass-loss rate was estimated to be an order of magnitude larger than in V1057 Cyg in 1985 [@cro87].
Shell Features
---------------
The low excitation ($<$1 eV) photospheric absorption lines of V1057 Cyg have almost always been flanked shortward by narrow, often complex ‘shell’ features. They are prominent in the strong low-excitation lines of the neutral metals at shorter wavelengths. They are probably due to condensations in the expanding wind passing in front of the star. In 1996, by which time the star had faded by about 1 mag. (in B) from plateau brightness, both the P Cyg absorption at the Balmer lines and the shell lines had become stronger, to such a degree that the shell also became detectable at many lines in the red.
Figure 3 shows some shell line profiles at the 13 km s$^{-1}$ SOFIN resolution. The underlying photospheric spectrum has been subtracted, as described later (§ 2.5). The strong lines of higher excitation potential (hereafter EP), as $\lambda$5183 and $\lambda$5316, also contain shortward shell components but at more negative velocities, about $-120$ km s$^{-1}$. These absorptions are much broader than those at the low excitation lines, and so represent an intermediate case between shell and wind.
Another indicator of a cool expanding shell are the numerous TiO bands (Fig. 4). All the TiO bands were blue-shifted to RV = $-40$ to $-70$ km s$^{-1}$; i.e. to about the same velocity as the shell components of low excitation lines. These shell lines and the TiO bands in the red were strongest in 1996, weaker in 1997, and absent in 1998, 1999 and 2000. By 2001 the shell lines and TiO bands had reappeared, but with somewhat broader profiles and larger expansion velocities (see Fig. 3, bottom).
The complexity of the shell structure is more apparent at HIRES resolution, where at least five separate components are seen. The shell was so prominent in 1996–97 at low-level lines of neutral metals (, , , , ), as well as in , , and as to confuse the shortward wings of the underlying stellar features. The 4990–5020 Å region, containing a number of prominent lines, is shown in Figure 5. At the top of the figure is the same section in the G5 Ib star HD 190113, as broadened by $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ = 55 km s$^{-1}$, to represent the underlying photospheric spectrum.
At that time (1997 Aug. 12-13), the shell lines were at velocities of $-128$, $-107$, $-89$, $-78$, and $-61$ km s$^{-1}$; the velocity of the star itself is near $-16$ km s$^{-1}$. A number of these complex shell lines have been decomposed in the following way. Each component was represented as a pure absorption line of depth e$^{-\tau}$, where $\tau$ was gaussian (of the form exp$(-0.5(\delta v/\sigma)^{2}$)) whose velocity, depth, and FWHM could be adjusted; the observed profile followed by adding the individual $\tau$’s at every pixel across the line. Figure 6 shows fits to $\lambda$4999, where dashed lines outline the individual components, the solid line the observed profile, and a series of crosses show the representation. Table 2 gives the parameters found to fit 2 representative lines as well as $\lambda$6496, $\lambda$6707, and $\lambda\lambda$ 7800, 7947.
A source of uncertainty in these fits was the choice of continuum level under the shell line. Ideally that would be the underlying photospheric line spectrum as represented by an artificially broadened F-G supergiant (as in Fig. 5), but it was clear that an adequate match could be achieved only by adding in a veiling continuum as well. Until this effect could be understood, and applied in a consistent wavelength-dependent fashion, it was decided simply to interpolate the continuum level linearly between two points just outside either edge of the shell line. The equivalent widths of components 1 and 2 are particularly susceptible to errors in the continuum level so defined.
Nine unblended lines having lower levels between 0.0 and 1.4 eV were synthesized in this way. For each of the 5 shell components, the EWs were fitted to a theoretical pure-absorption curve of growth, and the values of the parameter $\xi_{0}$ (the Doppler width in velocity units), the excitation temperature $T_{exc}$ and the total column density N() extracted. They are listed in Table 3. These temperatures are estimated to be uncertain by several hundred degrees. For most components $\xi_{0}$ ranges between about 2 and 5 km s$^{-1}$, intermediate between the thermal velocities for Ti (1.1 km s$^{-1}$) and H (8 km s$^{-1}$) at the T$_{exc}$’s of Table 3. However the measured FWHMs of the individual shell lines scatter between about 8 and 19 km s$^{-1}$ (following allowance for the instrumental FWHM of 6 km s$^{-1}$). This shows that there is another source of line broadening in these expanding shells, possibly weak unresolved structure.
Eight unblended shell lines were analyzed in the same way. The scatter in the fit of the gaussian EWs to the curve of growth was much larger than for , possibly because of greater uncertainties in defining the continuum level. Only the results for the $-78$ and $-61$ km s$^{-1}$ components are considered reliable. The T$_{exc}$ for was very clearly lower than for , between about 1350 and 1500 K. The total column density if T$_{exc}$ = 1500 K is near log N() = 17.4. This difference between the T$_{exc}$’s of and is puzzling, because their identical velocity structures indicate that they originate in the same parcels of rising gas. Possibly non-LTE conditions in the shell are responsible.
The evolution of the shell and wind absorptions during the brightness minimum of 1996–2001 is shown in Figure 7, from SOFIN spectra. One might expect that the shell features would be stronger at minimum brightness, but in fact at minimum in 1998–1999 it was the [*wind*]{} features that were enhanced, while the shell components were strongest in 1996–97 and 2001. This is illustrated in Figure 8, which compares the 4660–4690 Åregion on the HIRES spectrogram of 1997 Aug. 12 (below) with that of 1998 Oct. 30 (above). The shell lines (4667.58 and 4681.91 Å) were strong on the first date but had essentially disappeared 15 months later. At that second date, weak, narrow emission lines (arrowed) at approximately the stellar velocity were detectable.
An unusual feature of the shell spectrum is the prominence of the lines of at 7800 and 7947 Å. Their EWs in the $-78$ km s$^{-1}$ component were 194 and 127 mÅ in 1997 August. The first ionization potential (IP) of Rb is 4.8 eV, so one would expect it to be ionized because barium, with first IP = 5.2 eV and a comparable meteoritic abundance to rubidium, is detectable only as ($\lambda$6496, EW = 267 mÅ). The non-detection of $\lambda$8521 is understandable because of the still lower first IP of cesium (3.9 eV) and a lower meteoritic abundance (Rb/Cs = 19), but the strength of remains unexplained.
The Emission Lines
-------------------
Before 1997, the only obvious optical emission lines in V1057 Cyg were the components of the P Cyg structure of H$\alpha$ and . In that year, when the star had begun its decline following the 1985–1994 plateau, a number of emission lines of low excitation appeared in the centers of the corresponding stellar absorptions [@pet98]. The most conspicuous were \[RMT 12\] 8047 and 8074 Å, followed by \[60\] 8514, \[40\] 6516, \[1\] 6572, and \[12\] 7912 Å: Figure 9. These emission peaks are at about the stellar velocity, and are narrower than the photospheric absorption lines. A higher-resolution HIRES spectrogram of 1997 August 13 confirms the asymmetry of the $\lambda\lambda$ 8047, 8074 lines that is apparent in Figure 9: their shortward edges are clearly steeper than the longward. Most of these same low-excitation emission lines were observed long ago in the G supergiant $\rho$ Cas by @sar61.
This appearance of emission in the centers of many low-excitation absorption lines is illustrated in Figure 10 which compares the 6400 Å region on a Lick coudé spectrogram of 1985 May 27 (resolution about 18 km s$^{-1}$) with the HIRES spectrogram of 1997 Aug. 13, slightly smoothed. In those intervening 12 years, the centers of the absorption lines $\lambda\lambda$ 6393, 6400 increased in brightness with respect to the continuum, rising at peak to almost the continuum level. (A second Lick spectrogram obtained on 1985 Sept. 25 showed no change had taken place during those 4 months.)
We believe that this emission spectrum is produced in a warm layer we call a ‘chromosphere’ that is almost overwhelmed by the photospheric continuum when the star is bright, except through its marginal appearance as emission cores in lower-excitation stellar absorption lines. However, that chromosphere must have become brighter by a factor of about 2 between 1985 and 1997. The reason: between those dates V1057 Cyg faded by only about 0.9 mag. in V, so if the 1997 emission cores in $\lambda\lambda$ 6393, 6400 had been present at that same absolute brightness in 1985, they would have filled those absorption lines up to about half the depth actually observed.
To determine whether there was any further change in the brightness level of the chromosphere, the EWs of several emission cores were measured in the SOFIN differential spectra (§ 2.5) of V1057 Cyg (minus $\beta$ Aqr spun up to $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ = 55 km s$^{-1}$ and not veiled) between 1996 and 2001. The results are given in Table 4. Over these years, the emission line EWs remained constant within the errors of measurement; i.e. as the star faded, the lines became weaker in the same proportion. We conclude that there was no further change in the absolute intensity of the chromosphere after the increase by a factor of approximately 2 sometime between 1985 and 1997.
This brightening of the chromosphere may have been related to the increase in the wind activity that began in 1984-85 (§ 2.2).
As V1057 Cyg has declined in brightness, the fading of the continuum has helped to reveal this chromospheric emission spectrum. We believe that it is this spectrum that is responsible for the apparent ‘doubling’ of some absorption lines that has been suggested as evidence of orbital motion in a Keplerian disk. In an earlier paper on the spectrum of FU Ori [@pet92] we argued for such an explanation of the ‘doubling’, a possibility in fact first mentioned by @goo87. The fading of V1057 Cyg has now provided strong support for that interpretation.
These central reversals which have emerged as distinct emission lines since 1995 are not very strong, e.g., $\lambda$8047 has a peak intensity of only 5–8% above the continuum level. If the continuum were one magnitude brighter (or the chromosphere fainter), the line would appear only as an emission core at the bottom of a broader photospheric absorption, as in 6707 Å(Fig. 9). For a quantitative analysis of this emission spectrum, the underlying photospheric contribution must first be subtracted. This is described below (§ 2.5), as is a comparison with the low-temperature (T$_{\rm exc}$ about 2700 K) emission spectrum of VY Tau at the time of a flare-up, to which it bears a strong resemblance.
The central intensities of such chromospheric emissions would, in the optically thick limit, rise to the Planck flux at that temperature. Therefore—depending in individual cases upon [*gf*]{} value and lower EP—the strengths of those lines with respect to the hotter photospheric continuum would tend to increase toward longer wavelengths. This would explain the greater prominence of line ‘doubling’ in the red than at shorter wavelengths that has been noted, for example, by HK.
The strong H & K emission lines at 3933, 3968 Å (discussed in § 4.5) and at the infrared triplet are probably produced in this chromosphere, presumably the same that @dan02a [@dan02b] found necessary to reproduce the H$\alpha$ profile of FU Ori. The Balmer emission lines that ought to be produced in the same region are concealed by the P Cyg structure of the wind, except for the longward emission fringe at H$\alpha$. The shortward edges of the emission lines are truncated by their own P Cyg absorptions. Clearly, the outflowing wind is located [*above*]{} this chromosphere, demonstrated also by the presence of fluorescent 4063 and 4132 Å lines in V1057 Cyg: those atoms “see" the exciting $\lambda$3968 emission line, although it is hidden from us by the wind component of H$\epsilon$.
A very broad emission, at peak only about 0.12 above continuum level, is present at 6297 Å on the HIRES spectrum of 1997 August 13 (that region falls between orders on other exposures). It must be \[\] $\lambda$ 6300.30 because the weaker \[\] line at 6363 Å is present on other HIRES and SOFIN spectra of 1996–1998. The central velocity of $\lambda$6300 is about $-135$ km s$^{-1}$, its total width at continuum level about 180 km s$^{-1}$. A similar broad, shortward-displaced emission line is also present at the position of \[\] $\lambda$7155. They have nearly the same velocity as the “intermediate case between shell and wind" components mentioned in § 2.3. No such features are found in FU Ori.
The reader should be aware that FUors are not unique in possessing broad absorption lines with emission cores and CO absorption in the 2 $\mu$m region: a number of normal (i.e. not pre-main sequence) F- and G-type high luminosity stars are known to have such spectra. Several examples were mentioned by @pet92 and more recently, the classical case of $\rho$ Cas has been rediscussed by @lob98.
To summarize, in addition to the photospheric spectrum, these sets of spectral features were present in V1057 Cyg during this period at different radial velocities:
wind at $-100$ to $-300$ km s$^{-1}$ (H$\alpha$, D$_{12}$ , , , I);\
shell at $-40$ to $-110$ km s$^{-1}$ (TiO and low excitation atomic lines in absorption);\
CO molecules at about the stellar velocity (§ 3.5); and\
low-excitation chromospheric emission at the stellar velocity.\
The Differential Spectrum
--------------------------
As already pointed out, a number of low excitation lines clearly went into emission above the continuum during the brightness minimum of 1996–2001. It is natural that the same feature should be present in higher excitation lines if only as an emission core at the bottom of the absorption line, but enough to cause those lines to appear double and shallow, as is observed [@pet92; @pet98]. Such line emission can be revealed by subtracting the underlying photospheric spectrum. As a template for the photospheric spectrum of V1057 Cyg we use $\beta$ Aqr spun up to $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ = 55 km s$^{-1}$ and veiled by a factor 0.3. Two fragments of this differential spectrum are shown in Figure 11 for the average spectrum of 1998–2000. Note that the relative strength of the emission lines is not the same as in the absorption spectrum.
Both the “true" emissions (that rise above the continuum) and those revealed in such a differential spectrum fall along a common curve of growth for T$_{\rm exc}$ = 3600 $\pm$ 300K, log n$_{e}$ = 7.5 $\pm$ 0.5. This temperature is significantly lower than photospheric. In the M-type dwarf VY Tau, the same emission lines appeared very strong by contrast with that low temperature continuum @her90. There is a good correlation between the equivalent widths of the low-temperature line emissions in VY Tau and those in the differential spectrum of V1057 Cyg: Figure 12.
The same method was used by @wlt92 to reveal the emission lines in the differential spectra of FUors, but the template they used for subtraction was the accretion disk model spectrum. The line depths in V1057 Cyg are now very different from both $\beta$ Aqr and that disk model (Fig. 13).
Although the observed line intensities can be explained as a sum of the photospheric and emission line spectra, the observed [*line profile*]{} is not just a sum of two gaussians. Weaker lines have a rather “boxy" shape, with sharp edges, while stronger lines (without shell components) have nearly normal rotational profiles except for the emission cores. This difference suggests some abnormality in the structure of the lower atmosphere, deserving of attention at high resolution $\ge$60,000 and S/N $\ge$ 300.
V1057 Cyg: Interpretation of the Light Curve
==============================================
Conventional assumption is that a FUor outburst represents only a temporary event and that the star will eventually return to its former brightness. The slow fading of FU Ori over the past 60 years, and the relatively rapid decline of V1057 Cyg since about 1971 might be explained in this way. But the spectrum of V1057 Cyg does not support this expectation. Before the 1970 outburst, the star possessed H$\alpha$ emission that, in order to have been detected at all in the first low-resolution surveys, by @har71 in the early 1950s and by @her58 in 1952–56, must have had an equivalent width of approximately 25–40 Å. No such emission has appeared at H$\alpha$ during the decline to the 1999–2000 minimum: the emission fringe has remained near EW(H$\alpha$) = 1–2 Å (Table 1).
Another departure from expectation is the following. Before the outburst a number of and emission lines were reported @her58, so they must have been fairly strong to have been detectable on that 1957 low-dispersion photographic spectrogram. Yet at the present time no emission lines are detectable in the blue-violet on modern, far superior digital spectrograms, although the fluorescent 4063, 4132 Å lines are weakly present.
Furthermore, as the star has declined one would have expected the absorption spectrum to approach that of a TTS-like K- or M-type dwarf. In 1998–1999 V1057 Cyg was only about 1.5 mag. (in B) above its pre-outburst level (B = 14.9) so if the star was returning to its original T Tau state, a late type photosphere and emission line spectrum ought to have emerged. But in spite of the drop in brightness, the spectral type of V1057 Cyg remained the same as in the 1980’s: in § 2.1 it was shown that the star continues to resemble a rapidly rotating G supergiant, unlike any other pre-main sequence star of which we are aware. But the spectroscopic similarity is deceptive: the M$_{V}$’s are quite different. If the surface brightness and (V-R)$_{J}$ color of V1057 Cyg at the time of the 1985–1994 plateau were the same as those of the standard G0 Ib $\beta$ Aqr, then correction for A$_{V}$ = 2.35 mag. leads to M$_{V} = +0.3$ for a distance of 600 pc.[^5] This compares to M$_{V} = -3.5$ for $\beta$ Aqr. That M$_{V}$ for V1057 Cyg would be produced by a single star of uniform surface brightness having a radius of about 9 R$_{\odot}$.
Given these considerations, and the fact that V1057 Cyg both pre- and post-outburst was unusual in its possession of a very massive high-velocity wind (§ 4.5), we later speculate that pre-outburst FUors are not normal TTS, but represent a special sub-species of that class.
We suggest that the behavior of V1057 Cyg as it has faded, as well as for the general spectroscopic properties of the classical FUors, may be understood in terms of a stratified atmosphere atop a rapid rotator with a strong quasi-permanent outflowing wind, a low effective $g$ being responsible for the line-spectrum resemblance. The emission spectrum which has appeared as the continuum of V1057 Cyg has faded is, as we have stressed, that of a low-excitation chromosphere atop the stellar atmosphere (§ 2.4).
The decline of V1057 Cyg from its 1971 peak brightness to the plateau level in 1985–94 can be represented by a continuous change in radius and surface brightness of a rapid rotator, those quantities being derivable from the procedure of @bar76 and the above values of extinction and distance. Observed $V$ and $(V-R)_{J}$ for 1971–2001 were taken from @kop02, for 1978–2001 from @ibr96 [@ibr99 and private communication], and for 1971 from @men72 and @rie72. The resulting values of R/R$_{\odot}$ are plotted in Figure 14. The symbols identifying the sources of the photometry are explained in the caption.[^6] Radii and surface brightnesses depend upon whose colors are used. If the Ibrahimov data, Figure 14 shows how R/R$_{\odot}$ fell from about 14 near maximum light to about 9 at the time of the plateau. The surface brightnesses declined from values appropriate a late A-type main sequence star in 1971, to a mid-K type in 1995.
We emphasize that such calculations [*do not prove*]{} that the source is a spherical star, only that the brightness and color can be represented by a circular surface of those dimensions and surface brightness.
In 1984–85 the wind flux began to increase (§ 2.2), and at about the same time the decline in brightness halted. Sometime between 1985 and 1997—we speculate that it may have been early in that interval—the chromosphere is known to have brightened with respect to the continuum. Thus all three phenomena may have been consequences of an upsurge of activity in the underlying rapidly rotating star.
The plateau episode ended when, between 1994 and 1995, the star abruptly became fainter by 0.78 mag. in B, and redder by 0.18 mag. in $B-V$ (seasonal averages); see the small plot of B-V vs time at the bottom of Figure 1. The ratio $\Delta B/\Delta(B-V) = 4.3$ is not far from the standard interstellar reddening value (4.1). Thereafter (§ 2.4) the continuum and chromosphere fluctuated in brightness together, so we ascribe the 1994–95 fading to screening by a dust layer somewhere higher in the atmosphere. This is not a new idea: the possibility of dust condensation in the outflowing wind of V1057 Cyg has already been raised by @kol97, and it will be recalled that @ken91 interpreted a relatively brief dimming of the FUor V1515 Cyg in 1980 as such an event. The formation of such a dust layer was also envisioned by @rao99 in the case of R CrB, also a high-luminosity G star.
However V1057 Cyg continued to fade, $\Delta B = 0.63$ mag. by 1999, apparently without any further change in color. Either more dust dominated by large particles, or a continuation of the slow post-1971 decline, could be responsible.
The foregoing is an attempt to pull together the photometric and spectroscopic phenomena exhibited by V1057 Cyg since the 1970–71 outburst. However, it is likely that the atmospheric structure is not radially homogeneous, as this picture may seem to imply. The day-to-day and secular fluctuations observed in the H$\alpha$ structure at both V1057 Cyg and FU Ori show that wind ejection is spasmodic, possibly coming from localized areas on the rotating star, rather as the fast solar wind emerges from ‘coronal holes’ on the Sun. It would then not be surprising if the wind fields above these stars contained much structure. The HST images of V1057 Cyg (§ 3.1) show that the distribution of dust near that star, whether formed in and ejected by the star or local dust shaped by the stellar wind, is highly structured.
The disappearance and reappearance of the shell spectrum of V1057 Cyg on a time scale of a few years cannot be due to pure radial expansion and the consequent decline in column density proportional to r$^{-2}$. It may be caused by the movement of inhomogeneities in the wind structure across the line of sight. The broad shortward-shifted \[\] and \[\] lines described in § 2.4 could then arise in this expanding, inhomogeneous envelope, their longward wings being occulted by the star.
Unexplained is the veiling mentioned earlier that was used to account for the general shallowing of the absorption spectrum. It is conceivable that the line shallowness is intrinsic, i.e., the result of integration over a very non-uniform stellar hemisphere, or of line formation in a highly non-spherical extended atmosphere, or of the contribution of a continuum originating in the chromosphere. If extrinsic, thermal emission by dust is an unlikely explanation, because although the energy absorbed in the hypothetical dust layer must reappear somewhere, dust would not survive at temperatures greater than about 1500 K so that that re-emission would be significant only at long wavelengths, not in the optical.
Direct Images of V1057 Cyg
---------------------------
If dust did form in the lower atmosphere of V1057 Cyg in 1994 and was subsequently expelled with the wind, then in time it might become detectable in scattered light. Given an ejection velocity of 200 km s$^{-1}$ and no subsequent deceleration, then the separation of dust and star in the plane of the sky would increase at the rate of 007 yr$^{-1}$, so that in the 5 years following 1994 that dust would in projection appear about 035 from the star.
Five WFPC2 images of V1057 Cyg are available in the HST archive. They were obtained with HST on 1999 Oct. 18 as part of a ‘snapshot’ program; the filters were F606W (central wavelength 5957 Å) and F814W (7940 Å). We are grateful to Karl Stapelfeldt, the Principal Investigator, for the opportunity to study this material. We did no more than obtain the pipeline processed images from the Archive and trim and clean up cosmic ray hits and other defects.
Those F606W images are shown in Figure 15. There is much scattered light and spurious structure surrounding the overexposed star image, so that nothing can be said whether structure exists as near as 03 from the star. However, at least three features at somewhat larger separations are present and appear to be real, judging from inspection of similar images of ordinary stars on other WFPC2 frames taken in the same series. They are identified by letters. C is the brightest; it appears as a structureless blob protruding from the star image to a distance of about 1$''$, while A and B are fainter, curved arcs reminiscent of the larger loops at V1057 Cyg and other FUors described by @goo87. The arc D is more distant, and is located at the base of a similar structure present on ground-based images of V1057 Cyg obtained in the 1970s [@dun81]. The reality of A, B and C is confirmed when the image of a single star (from another frame) is subtracted from the shortest F606W exposure: see the lower right panel of Figure 15. The feature C is apparently only a section of an extended nebulous bar. There is no persuasive correspondence of this structure very near the star with the molecular-line or 1.3 mm continuum maps of @mcm95.
If C is a slab of warm dust very near the star, consider the possibility that its thermal emission may contribute significantly to the integrated IR emission of V1057 Cyg. An estimate of its relative contribution can be made as follows. Assume that the true separation of star and slab is as projected, 08 (480 AU), and that the star radiates as a black body of $T_{\rm eff} = 5300$ K and radius 9 R$_{\odot}$. Then the equilibrium temperature of a small silicate particle exposed to that radiation field is obtained by balancing the energy absorbed by the amount re-radiated. Given the absorption cross-sections for ‘astronomical silicate’ [@dra85], the temperature of a 0.1 $\mu$m silicate particle at that position is found to be about 75 K, with a weak dependence on particle radius. If the slab, an assemblage of such particles, radiates as a black surface of dimensions 033 $\times$ 064 at 75 K, then its flux would be dominant over that of the star at wavelengths greater than about 14 $\mu$m. On the other hand, if the slab preserved the optical properties of its constituents, then the crossover wavelength would depend on particle radius, being at about 19 $\mu$m for 0.1 $\mu$m particles, at 16.5 $\mu$m for 0.4 $\mu$m, and at 15.5 $\mu$m for 1.0 $\mu$m. Obviously, thermal emission from such nearby dust must contribute to the SED’s of stars like V1057 Cyg, although to lesser degree than these estimates if the cloud were optically thin.
Dust formed in the atmosphere of V1057 Cyg and then ejected could have reached the slab’s present position in as short as 12 years. Nothing is known of the earlier history of V1057 Cyg but if there have been previous outbursts, each with its own dust-formation episode, such distant dust concentrations might be explained. Future high-resolution imaging will show whether these structures are moving with respect to V1057 Cyg.
Unfortunately no comparable HST imagery is available at this time for FU Ori. Conventional ground-based CCD images obtained with the 2.3-m telescope on Mauna Kea show extensive reflection nebulosity around that star, with brightness increasing toward the star before merging at about 3$''$ with the overexposed star image. Coronagraphic images reproduced by @nak95 extend this in to about 25. As at V1057 Cyg, this material and that detected at 2.3 $\mu$m very near FU Ori by @mal98 may contribute significantly to those SED’s.
FU Ori, V1057 Cyg and FUors in General
=======================================
Comparison with the Composite Spectrum of an Accretion Disk
------------------------------------------------------------
Accretion disk models were devised by @ken88 to explain the spectral energy distribution and the peculiar double-peak profiles of the photospheric lines in V1057 Cyg and FU Ori. In those models, the high-resolution spectra were synthesized by assuming that at any given radius the disk radiates as a stellar atmosphere of the appropriate spectral type. The variation of effective temperature with radius is given by the steady disk theory, and the variation of the rotational velocity with radius is assumed to be Keplerian. The integrated spectrum of the disk can then be represented as a composite of annuli of different temperature, surface brightness, and rotational velocity. The models reproduce reasonably well the atomic lines in the optical region and the molecular bands in the infrared. In addition to FU Ori and V1057 Cyg, the spectrum of Z CMa was compared to the disk model by @wlt92, revealing numerous emission lines in the differential spectrum (i.e., observed minus synthetic) of Z CMa, rather as is seen in V1057 Cyg near minimum brightness.
However not all spectral lines can be reproduced by the disk model. Some lines in regions of the spectrum not examined by @ken88 are in striking contradiction to the model prediction. Because the spectrum of V1057 Cyg has changed due to the increasing prominence of line emission as the star has faded toward minimum brightness, in what follows we first demonstrate these discrepancies in the spectrum of FU Ori because it has not changed significantly over the last two decades.
New synthetic disk spectra were calculated for FU Ori and V1057 Cyg using the parameters of the disk models given by @ken88 and a set of our own template spectra (see Table 5) obtained at the Nordic Optical Telescope with SOFIN. As an example, the synthetic and the observed spectra of FU Ori are shown in Figure 16 for the spectral range 5260-5320 Å. This synthetic spectrum looks identical to that shown in Figure 3 of @wlt92. The spectrum of FU Ori in 1998 was also very similar to that displayed by @wlt92.
In the accretion disk model for FU Ori, the relative contribution from different parts of the disk (i.e., from different spectral types) to the total flux radiated by the disk depends on wavelength as is shown in Table 6 \[contribution\]. At 5500 Å the spectrum of the disk is mostly of F-G type, while at 9000 Å all spectral types contribute about equally. This means that at 9000 Å one can find F-type spectral features along with M-type, e.g., both high-excitation lines and TiO bands.
If we consider relative line strengths, the composite spectrum of the accretion disk looks much the same as the spectrum of a normal G supergiant because the same atomic lines are changing smoothly from late F through G to early K types. The difference can be found only in early type F, where the lines of high-excitation species appear strongly, and in type M where molecular bands, mostly of TiO, appear very strong. Since both F and M spectral types contribute to the accretion disk model of FU Ori, we examine the observed spectrum in order to determine how these critical features behave.
The most suitable spectral region for such an analysis is around 8900 Å. It contains two lines having lower EP of 7.05 eV (8912.06 and 8927.35 Å) which are very strong only in type F, a line of V I at 8919.80 Å having EP = 1.2 eV which increases in strength from type G to M, and a strong TiO bandhead at 8860 Å, characteristic of type M.
The telluric spectrum was extracted from a spectrum of the O7e fast rotator $\xi$ Per, and with it weak terrestrial lines were removed from the FUor spectra. In order to reduce the noise, all the spectra of FU Ori taken in 1997–2000 were averaged. For V1057 Cyg, to avoid a possible contribution from the shell, only the 1998–2000 spectra were averaged because in those years the shortward-shifted TiO features were absent.
Comparison of the synthetic spectrum of the accretion disk and the observed spectrum of FU Ori is shown in Figure 17. Some of the template spectra are also displayed in the Figure to show the origin of the main features in the synthetic spectrum. As expected, the synthetic spectrum of the accretion disk shows all the F- and M-type features. In the observed spectrum of FU Ori the blend at 8860 Å resembles that in the synthetic spectrum, except that the TiO head is not obviously present probably on account of the overlap by Paschen line at 8862 Å. The absence of TiO is better shown in V1057 Cyg (Fig. 21, below). More obvious is the difference between the observed and synthetic spectra in the width of the and lines. That region is expanded in Figure 18. In the synthetic spectrum these lines have very different widths because they originate from the innermost and from the outermost regions of the disk, respectively rotating at very different Keplerian velocities, but in the observed spectrum the lines have about the same widths.
Another example is shown in Figure 19: the high-excitation line of $\lambda$7442.30, EP = 10.3 eV, is strong in the F-type spectra, is present and highly doubled in the synthetic spectrum of FU Ori but is absent in the observed one. Figure 20 shows that the ScO/TiO feature at 6036 Å is absent in the observed spectrum of FU Ori, while it is quite obvious in the synthetic.
The 8900 Å spectral region in V1057 Cyg also reveals a difference between observed and model spectra (Fig. 21). Since the rotational velocity is lower than in FU Ori, the TiO head is well resolved in the model spectrum. The TiO feature is clearly absent in the average spectrum of V1057 Cyg, or in the noisier 1998–2000 individual spectra.
Here we have considered only those spectral features detectable at the resolution of the SOFIN material. Much more could be done with spectra of higher resolution. But at the moment we conclude that comparison of the observed and synthetic spectra of FU Ori in the near infrared shows that some critical spectral features do not have the structure predicted by the multi-temperature disk model, although some elaboration of that model might be able to account for the mismatches. A rapidly rotating single star will have a latitude-dependent spectrum, whose appearance in integrated light will be a function of aspect angle. It remains to be seen if such an object might produce a FUor-like spectrum.
Rotational Line Widths
-----------------------
The value of $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ and the nature of the photospheric line broadening in FUors have been a subject of much discussion. @wlt90 [@wlt92] measured absorption line widths on V1057 Cyg spectrograms obtained in 1986 and 1988 when the star was brighter, and found them to depend on wavelength, being larger in the blue and smaller in the red. This they interpreted as demonstration of differential rotation in a Keplerian accretion disk, as predicted by the HK disk model.
The shortward-displaced shell spectrum had been present at some level on all our spectra of V1057 Cyg, but is most prominent at the shorter wavelengths where most of the low-level lines of the neutral metals are located. It was very strong in 1996–97, so $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ was measured only on the 1998–2000 SOFIN spectra and as an additional precaution, to avoid any marginal shell contribution, only the longward wings of the photospheric lines were fitted. Thirty selected lines were compared to the template spectrum ($\beta$ Aqr, G0 Ib) spun up to a set of discrete values of $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$. Since the line depth in V1057 Cyg at that time was smaller than in the template, a veiling contribution (which does not affect the line width) was applied to rescale the line depth.
The result was that in V1057 Cyg the average $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i =
55$ km s$^{-1}$, with a scatter of individual lines mostly between 50 and 60 km s$^{-1}$. No systematic trend with wavelength was present in the range 5000-9000 Å, nor was there any trend with EP in the range 1–8 eV. The minimal level of veiling is about 0.3. It is larger for individual lines filled in with emission, especially those of lower EP (see below).
This value of $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ (55 km s$^{-1}$) is larger than those published by @wlt90 (35–45 km s$^{-1}$). However, they measured line half-widths at half depth, which in a rotationally broadened profile is about 0.8 $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ (the precise value of the factor depending slightly upon the limb darkening assumed). We have also measured the half-widths of the red wings at half depth: the average value is 44 $\pm$ 4 km s$^{-1}$, in agreement with Welty et al., but again we found no dependence on wavelength or EP. It is possible, of course, that the spectrum of V1057 Cyg changed in this respect during the intervening decade.
The same procedure described above (fit of longward wings to the spun-up template) was carried out for FU Ori. The best fit was with $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$, and again no relationship between $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ and EP or wavelength was found. It would not seem likely that the spectrum of FU Ori has changed significantly since the Welty et al. observations.
CO Lines
---------
On 1999 Oct. 24 both V1057 Cyg and FU Ori were observed in the 2.3 $\mu$m region by K. Hinkle with the Phoenix infrared spectrometer [@hin98] at the KPNO[^7] 2.1 m telescope. The region covered was 4320 to 4340 cm$^{-1}$ (2.315 to 2.304 $\mu$m) in the 2-0 CO band. These spectrograms had been obtained at the request of Lee Hartmann, and we are grateful to him for access to the data and to Ken Hinkle for supplying us with the reduced spectra, as well as those of several early-type stars observed on the same occasion.
This region contains many terrestrial lines, mainly of CH$_{4}$. These are not removed completely by standard star division because of airmass mismatches. Instead, the value of optical thickness (required to reproduce the line depth as exp(-$\tau$)) was calculated at every pixel across these features in the standards, which was then scaled to cancel those features in the FUor spectra. These spectra of FU Ori and V1057 Cyg are shown in the upper rows of Figure 22. The dominant features are the broad R-branch lines of the CO 2-0 band (R(19) through R(27): lower EP 0.09 to 0.18 eV). Their equivalent widths are comparable to those of early to middle-M type giants and supergiants in the atlas of @wal96, from which the FTS spectrum of $\lambda$ Dra (type M0 III) in the bottom section of Figure 22 has been extracted. The same spectrum spun up to $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i = 60$ km s$^{-1}$ is shown just above. In $\lambda$ Dra the lines of the returning R-branch (R(75) through R(81): lower EP 1.33 to 1.55 eV) are strong, but they are not apparent in either FUor. Although they would be masked to some degree by the greater line widths, the lack of convincing and consistent asymmetries in the FUor lines due to these blends suggest a lower rotational temperature.
The CO lines have different shapes in the two FUors: in FU Ori they are broad and essentially symmetric, while in V1057 Cyg they are asymmetric, with a narrow core and an extended wing toward negative velocities. To reduce the effects of instrumental noise and that introduced by atmospheric line removal, the line profiles shown in Figure 23 were created by averaging the 4-5 least noisy CO lines for each star. These were fitted by a procedure similar to that described in § 2.3. The instrumental profile, represented by that of a narrow atmospheric CH$_{4}$ line of FWHM = 8 km s$^{-1}$, could be spun up to adjustable $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$, central velocity, and central depth. The parameters of the fits are given in Table 7. Although the off-center structure in FU Ori may be real, a single component serves to represent the overall profile reasonably well. In the case of V1057 Cyg, the observed profile is certainly [*not*]{} a narrower version of the stellar absorption lines. Formally, it can be fitted to two overlapping, rotationally broadened copies of the atmospheric line. Because of the complex structure, comparison of these $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$’s with the optical value cannot be very meaningful.
In neither star is there any evidence of shell structure at large negative velocities, perhaps understandably because the shell spectrum in the optical was very weak at the time of the CO observation. The CO velocity of FU Ori agrees closely with the conventional velocity of that star (+28 km s$^{-1}$), in agreement with @mou78, who found “from several CO and metal lines" a value of +28.2 $\pm$ 2.5 km s$^{-1}$. However, the velocities of both CO components of V1057 Cyg (Table 7) are displaced from the optical $-16$ km s$^{-1}$, nor do they agree with the Mould et al. value of $-13.4 \pm 3.5$ km s$^{-1}$.
In the case of FU Ori, the value of $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ from CO (48 km s$^{-1}$) is clearly smaller than that we obtain from the optical region (70 km s$^{-1}$), in the same sense as earlier work by the CfA group. @har87a measured total widths of cross-correlation peaks rather than $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$’s, so the two results cannot be compared directly, except to say that they found the CO lines in FU Ori to be narrower than the optical by a factor of about 0.75, as compared to our 0.69. In V1057 Cyg also, the stronger CO component (45 km s$^{-1}$) is narrower than the optical total $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ of 55 km s$^{-1}$, but this may not be significant because the CO profiles are peculiar. The only published CfA result for CO in V1057 Cyg is an estimate that $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ is about 20 km s$^{-1}$ [@har87b].
Search for Rotational Modulation in Line Profiles
--------------------------------------------------
In T Tauri stars (TTS), a period of axial rotation can be derived from rotational modulations of brightness and line profiles caused by surface inhomogeneities (cool or hot spots) and nonaxisymmetric structure of the wind [see, e.g., @pet01]. Unlike an ordinary star, an accretion disk has no single rotational period but a range of Keplerian orbital periods. In the accretion disk models for FU Ori and V1057 Cyg [@ken88], the Keplerian periods range from 3–4 days for the inner disk where the F-type spectrum is formed, to 30–40 days for the outer regions contributing to the M-type spectrum. Thus an observational test would be to search for rotational modulation in the wind, emission and photospheric line profiles. The most prominent wind feature is the H$\alpha$ P Cyg line. The emission lines of metals are present only in the spectrum of V1057 Cyg and are too weak to be used in such an analysis because the individual spectra of V1057 Cyg near minimum brightness are rather noisy. The photospheric lines, although also being weak, can however be analyzed by cross-correlation, which compensates for the poor signal-to-noise ratio of the individual spectra.
### Wind Profiles
Figures 24 and 25 show overplotted all the H$\alpha$ profiles from the SOFIN data of 1995–2001 for V1057 Cyg and FU Ori, the latter in two parts to emphasize the major changes in the longward emission component. The left panel is a superposition of all the profiles of FU Ori in which the emission peak intensity was greater than 1.20 (in continuum units), and the right panel all those with peak less than 1.10. As already mentioned, there is no obvious correlation between these emission peak intensities and the extension of the P Cyg absorption component to negative velocities.
The time scale of the variability is different in the two objects. In V1057 Cyg, the night-to-night variability is relatively small, but the average profile is quite different in different years (see also Fig. 7). In both objects, most variable is the central emission peak and the portion of the profile between about $-100$ and $-400$ km s$^{-1}$.
The same variations are seen in the P Cyg absorptions of the D$_{1,2}$ lines, which correlate well with H$\alpha$, although the lines have a somewhat smaller range in wind velocity. The absorption at the infrared lines also vary together with H$\alpha$ and but the velocity amplitude is much smaller. H$\alpha$ was chosen for analysis because it showed the largest range in wind velocity.
In FU Ori, the line profiles change considerably on a time scale of a day [as was noted most recently by @dan02a who give earlier references]. The following variability patterns are seen in the H$\alpha$ profile on SOFIN spectra: (1) There is no correlation between the changes of the absorption and emission components (we return to this matter in the following section). (2) Three sections of the absorption component vary independently of one another: (a) a “slow wind" at RV = $-50$ to $-110$ km s$^{-1}$, (b) a “fast wind" at $-110$ to $-270$ km s$^{-1}$, (c) an even faster wind at $-270$ to $-400$ km s$^{-1}$. (3) The fast wind portion shows quasi-periodic variations in EW, but (4) no periodicity is found in the emission component of H$\alpha$.
The dense time coverage of the SOFIN spectroscopy makes feasible a search for periodicity, so the EW of the P Cyg absorption between $-110$ and $-270$ km s$^{-1}$ was used as a parameter of the fast wind of FU Ori. Those EWs are listed in Table 8. The phase dispersion minimization method [@ste78] was used to search for periodicity in these data. When the velocities of only three seasons, 1997 to 1999, are examined (20 nights), the periodogram (Fig. 26, upper panel) shows a group of significant peaks at 13–18 days, with the most probable value being 14.847 days. Fisher’s method of randomization [@nem85] gives a false alarm probability (FAP) of $<$0.01 for that period. There are no other significant periods between 2 and 100 days. The phase diagram (Fig. 26, lower panel) shows that that period is defined largely by the 1997 and 1998 data. The data of 1999 also fit, but span a shorter phase interval. The periodicity is not present in the data of 2000 (7 nights) although the fast wind EW varied over almost the same range.
@err03 have recently published H$\alpha$ profiles of FU Ori obtained over 5 consecutive nights in January 1999. The variations in the P Cyg absorption (measured by them as velocity width at an intermediate depth) indicated that if periodicity was present, the period could be about 6–8 days, shorter by a factor 2 than found from our more extended set of EW measurements. Considering that our observations in 2000 show no periodicity, it may be that the 14.8 day cycle had already become undetectable in 1999. Our own data of October 1999 (4 nights) are too limited to pronounce upon the presence of a 6–8 day cycle in that year. We conclude that the variations of the wind absorption in FU Ori are quasi-periodic: in 1997–98 the period was 14.8 days but that periodicity had disappeared by 2000.
@err03 suggested that these cyclic variations in the wind of FU Ori are caused by the interaction of the stellar magnetic field with the disk outflow, assuming that the magnetic axis of the star is inclined to the disk rotational axis. However, in that model of an inclined magnetic rotator one would expect rather stable periodicity on a very long time scale. Instead, the [*quasi-periodic*]{} character of the variations is more like that observed in TTS, where surface inhomogeneities (spots) may appear and disappear due to changes in the star’s magnetic field structure.
We suggest that the longer period of 14.8 days suggested by the H$\alpha$ variations (because that line showed the largest velocity amplitude) is the rotational period of FU Ori. In case the wind is governed by the star’s magnetic field (as is believed to be the case in TTS), a relatively stable axial asymmetry of the field structure might cause the observed rotational modulation over at least two years (1997-98), or 50 rotational cycles. The observed $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ then leads to a value of R sin $i$ = 20.4 R$_{\odot}$.
In the accretion disk model for FU Ori (@ken88) a period of 14.8 days corresponds to a Keplerian orbit of radius 20 R$_{\odot}$, where the K-type spectrum is supposed to be formed, but it is not clear why a global disk wind should be modulated with any single period.
If the intrinsic optical colors of FU Ori are those of a normal G0 Ib, then the observed values for the 2000 season ($V = 9.58$, $V-R_{J} = +1.185$) correspond to $E(V-R)_{J} = 0.575$, so if the reddening is normal, the average $A_{V}$ is 1.38 mag., leading to $M_{V} = -0.1$ for the assumed distance of 450 pc. The visual flux in solar units is
$$\frac{F_{V}}{F_{V}(\odot)} = 2.512^{-M_{V}+M_{V}(\odot)}$$
If only a fraction $x$ of the surface is occupied by regions having the G0 Ib brightness, then the radius of such a spherical star is
$$\frac{R}{R_{\odot}} =
( \frac {F_{V}/F_{V}(\odot)}{xb} ) ^{1/2}$$
where $b$ (= 0.7) is the ratio of surface brightnesses at V calculated by the procedure of @bar76. If $x$ = 1, the result is that R = 11.3 R$_{\odot}$.
Consider whether this last result can be reconciled with R sin $i$ = 20.4 R$_{\odot}$. If the star’s surface brightness is not uniform, then any value of the coverage factor $x$ $\le$ 0.32 could bring the two into agreement, the inclination then following from sin $i$ = (20.4/11.3)$x^{1/2}$.
Another possibility: if the A$_{V}$ inferred from the color excess of FU Ori were ignored and instead taken to be 2.66 mag., regarded as the sum of conventional interstellar reddening in the foreground and a circumstellar component of unspecified reddening properties, then M$_{V}$ would become -1.3 and R = 20.4 R$_{\odot}$, in agreement with the axial rotation result for sin $i$ = 1. If the entire A$_{V}$ was circumstellar, then A$_{V}$/E(B-V) = 5.4, compared to the normal interstellar value of 3.1. A/E ratios greater than about 4.0 are not unprecedented, having been found in dusty regions and in dense molecular clouds [@car89; @chi98], there usually being ascribed to the presence of larger particles. That may not be inconceivable in the case of FU Ori because the local reddening of such a dusty object need not obey the normal interstellar extinction law. But there must surely be a normal interstellar contribution to A$_{V}$, in which case the A/E ratio of the circumstellar component would become even larger, as it also would if sin $i$ $<$ 1.0 for FU Ori.
So either hypothesis could reconcile the two results. We see no strong observational reason to favor one hypothesis over the other at this time, except that the dust explanation does require circumstellar extinction of unusual properties. The periodic variation in wind strength observed in FU Ori, with its implication of unevenly distributed active areas, favors the blotchy surface hypothesis. If precise photometry showed that FU Ori varies cyclically with that same period, it would strengthen that proposition. Dust formation low in the atmosphere, leading to a larger A$_{V}$ and an abnormal A/E and subsequent ejection, might explain dust structure very near the star. But at this time the question remains open.
### Photospheric Profiles
As remarked earlier, the double-peaked profiles of (some) photospheric lines have been used as one of the arguments in support of the accretion-disk model of FUors (HK). So far, no spectral time series have been available to determine how stable is this peculiar line structure, which we attribute (§ 2.4) to the presence of emission cores in the low-excitation lines. In our spectral series of V1057 Cyg and FU Ori (SOFIN data of 1995–2001) this line structure is found to be variable on a time scale of several days. In the following we use the cross-correlation method to give information about line profiles averaged over a certain spectral region, usually one spectral order. The spectrum of $\beta$ Aqr (G0 Ib) is used as a template.
As an example, Figures 27 and 28 show night-to-night variability of the cross-correlation functions (CCF’s) during one set of observations of V1057 Cyg and FU Ori. The CCF profile varies synchronously in different spectral regions: the line width at half-depth remains about the same, while the central part varies with either shortward or longward peak being stronger, sometimes becoming single and quite symmetric. Of course the CCF profile depends on the particular mix of low- and high-excitation lines in the sample, and this may be why different spectral orders show somewhat different CCF shapes, but the variations are similar in different orders. The spectral intervals selected for cross-correlation were chosen to avoid lines with shell components.
As a descriptor of line position we use the “center of gravity" of the CCF, namely its weighted mean radial velocity. This is the velocity of the star as if it had been measured from the “center of gravity" of a photospheric line profile, although variations of this quantity do not necessarily mean that the whole star moves around in radial velocity.
In the case of V1057 Cyg two spectral orders (6320–6440 and 6575–6640 Å) were combined; the resulting precision of RV is about $\pm$3 km s$^{-1}$. The spectra of FU Ori are of better quality, so 6 spectral orders (from 5560 to 7520 Å) were used, the resulting precision being $\pm$1 km s$^{-1}$. Table 9 contains the measured RV’s for both stars.
Since the individual CCFs are quite noisy, especially for V1057 Cyg, three groups of CCFs showing similar RVs were selected: shortward-shifted, centered, and longward-shifted. The three CCFs shown in Figure 29 are averages for these three groups, overplotted to illustrate typical variations of the CCF profile. For V1057 Cyg each CCF is an average of 8 spectra, for FU Ori each is an average of four. Obviously, the main source of the variability is the deformation of the central part of the line profile: the ratio of shortward-to-longward peak intensity is variable, while the width of the line remains about the same. This latter fact excludes the possibility of a double-line binary, where the line width must be narrower when the two components have the same radial velocity.
For FU Ori, the periodogram shown in the upper panel of Figure 30 was calculated using the data of the 1997, 1998 and 1999 seasons (20 nights). The most probable period is 3.542 days, with FAP $<$ 0.01. When phased with this period, the lower panel of Figure 30 shows the cyclic variation of RV in these three years. The semi-amplitude of the sinusoidal variations of RV is 1.8 km s$^{-1}$. The scatter of points around the sinusoidal curve is less than $\pm$1 km s$^{-1}$, which must be entirely due to the errors in RV. When all the data of 1995–2000 are used (29 nights), the period is still present but the data of 2000 are not well fit to the sinusoidal curve. It is concluded that the period of 3.542 days in the photospheric lines of FU Ori was stable during at least three years.
For V1057 Cyg, using all the data of 1995–2001 (42 nights), the periodogram reveals a group of peaks around 4.4–4.5 days, with the most probable period being 4.43 days. However, the semi-amplitude of the RV variations (3 km s$^{-1}$) is comparable to the errors in RV (3 km s$^{-1}$), which makes it unlikely that the periodicity is real, so we draw no conclusions from this result.
The nature of such variations in the photospheric line structure is not clear. In the case of a single star, variations like those shown in Figure 29 can be caused by an asymmetric polar starspot. However, a dark spot must also modulate the apparent stellar brightness. No such variation has been reported for FU Ori. Since the photospheric line doubling is due to the presence of emission cores, variations in the doubling may be caused by movement of those cores. It is also possible that the line emission originates from a volume of gas distributed non-axisymmetrically around the star. Such “emission spots" could also produce a rotational modulation of the photospheric line profile. On the other hand, if the wind cycle of 14.8 days is the rotational period, it is hard to explain why the period of the photospheric variations is 4 times shorter.
In case of the accretion disk model [@ken88], a period of 3.542 days corresponds to Keplerian rotation at a distance of 7.7 R$_{\odot}$ (if the mass of the central star is 0.5 M$_{\odot}$). This is the innermost part of the disk, where the F-type spectrum is supposed to be formed. If variability of the photospheric lines is caused by some kind of brightness asymmetry in the disk, the stability of such an asymmetry over three years (300 orbital periods) would be difficult to understand in a differentially rotating disk.
Apart from the deformation of the line profiles, small shifts of the CCF can be noticed in V1057 Cyg (Fig. 29): the change in the shortward-to-longward peak intensity is accompanied by shifts of the entire CCF profile by a few km s$^{-1}$. If these shifts are real, and not an artifact of cross-correlating noisy spectra, it could indicate the presence of a low mass secondary near the star. Series of better quality spectra are needed to check whether this effect is really present.
@unr98 have inferred the presence of hotspots on the rotating TTS DF Tau by an analysis of such cyclic deformations of absorption line profiles. Those hotspots, which they suggest are accretion shocks at mass-infall points, are clearly hotter than any of those on the classical FUors, where there is no sign of the lines at 5875 or 7065 Å in emission.
Infall
------
Our new spectroscopic material refutes a concern that we raised in 1992, namely that there was then no direct spectroscopic evidence of infall in FUors, such as “reversed P Cyg" structure. Disk theory yields an accretion rate onto the FUor central star of about 10$^{-4}$ M/M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ [@har96], as compared to $\approx$10$^{-7}$ M/M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ for classical T Tauri stars (CTTS. One would think that the movement of such massive amounts of material on to the star would surely be detectable.
The disk hypothesis has been extensively elaborated since HK and a number of possible explanations have been offered for the lack of evidence for infall: (a) much of the accreted material may be ejected from the disk surface as wind, and so never reaches the star; or (b) the accreting mass may accumulate in the disk; or (c) the central source may be so faint that absorption lines would not be detectable against its continuum; or (d) the disk may be so thick at its inner edge that any activity nearer the star is concealed (in fact @kle96 \[[-@kle96]\] predict that at an accretion rate of 10$^{-4}$ M/M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ “the entire stellar surface is engulfed by opaque disk gas”); or (e) an optically thin infall region may be hidden not because of disk thickness but because these FUors are observed at unfavorable aspect angles.
However, as a result of the detailed time coverage at SOFIN, evidence of what appears to be sporadic infall onto the continuum source can now be seen in the H$\alpha$ profiles of both FU Ori and V1057 Cyg. On two (of 29) SOFIN spectra a weak absorption component appeared at about RV = +90 km s$^{-1}$ in the longward wing of H$\alpha$. Figure 31 shows three of these spectra, demonstrating that the feature was present on JD 2450796.68, but not at comparable strength on the day before or two days later. The pattern was the same at H$\beta$, and the absorption was marginally detectable at the D$_{12}$ lines, but not at the $\lambda$ 7773 blend which in CTTS is sensitive to accretion. A similar absorption had appeared at H$\alpha$ at about the same velocity on JD 2450807.69, but had been absent on the day before. Clearly, these infall features in FU Ori vary rapidly in strength, on a time scale of one day or less. The longward wing of the absorption in H$\alpha$ extends to about +150 km s$^{-1}$, which is near the free fall velocity at the surface of a star of 1 solar mass and a radius of 20 R$_{\odot}$. A similar event has been seen in a HIRES observation of FU Ori in early 2003.
It is uncertain if the complete suppression of the longward component of H$\alpha$ as seen in the right-hand panel of Figure 25 can be ascribed to very heavy accretion of this kind.
Thus infalling material does appear sporadically in the line of sight to both FU Ori and V1057 Cyg, as is observed in many CTTS [@edw94]. It is there thought to be due to magnetically-channeled, free-falling disk material. A signature of such magnetospheric accretion is the presence of emission lines of and that are believed to originate in the hot spots where infalling material impacts the star [@ber01]. As already noted, no such emission lines appear in any of our spectra of the classical FUors.
It has been suggested that in CTTS a consequence of such infall may be the ejection of Herbig-Haro-like jets, and it is interesting that the spacing of structure in some H-H outflows does correspond to estimates of the time spacing of repetitive FUor events in TTS. A signature of such shocked gas is the presence of lines of \[\], \[\] and sometimes \[\] [@cab90]. All that we have found in the integrated spectra of the FUors that we have observed are the very weak, broad \[\] and \[\] emissions in V1057 Cyg (§ 2.4). They have large negative velocities and so must be formed in the outflowing wind. The \[\] or \[\] lines are not detected, although they would be expected to be much weaker. However, no H-H-like jets are seen in the direct images of the FUors we have observed, although a search at higher angular resolution with the proper filters would be worthwhile.
The H and K lines in FUors
---------------------------
An unusual feature of the pre-outburst spectrum of V1057 Cyg was that although the K line ($\lambda$ 3933) of was strong in emission, the H line ($\lambda$3968) was absent. The obvious explanation of this oddity, as was realized long ago, is that $\lambda$3968 is quenched by the P Cyg absorption component of H$\epsilon$ $\lambda$3970. The important conclusions are (a) that 12 years [*before*]{} the 1970 flare-up, V1057 Cyg was subject to a strong mass outflow: i.e. the high-velocity wind did not turn on at the time of the outburst; and (b) that wind was seen against the spectrum of the pre-outburst star.
The same anomaly was also present 28 years [*after*]{} the flare-up: a HIRES spectrogram obtained 1998 October 30, when the star was about 1 mag.(in B) above minimum brightness, is shown in Fig. 32. It demonstrates not only that the H$\epsilon$ wind is indeed responsible for the K:H anomaly, but implies that such a wind may be a quasi-permanent characteristic of the object.
This same wind suppression of $\lambda$3968 has been observed in FU Ori since the time of the first adequate spectroscopy (1948). It is seen not only in the other classical FUor that we have observed (V1515 Cyg) but also in Z CMa which has been called a FUor, as well as in V1331 Cyg to which attention was called long ago by @wel71 for that very reason. Only BBW76 [@rei90; @rei97; @rei02] does not conform: narrow emission is present in both lines. Figure 32 shows HIRES spectra of the 3900–3980 Åregion for all 6 stars. The presence of strong emission in all the FUors, both near or below maximum light, shows that a permanent chromosphere is characteristic of the group.
This K:H anomaly is not a common feature of TTS spectra. Most TTS outflows occur at modest negative velocities such that the absorption component at H$\alpha$ falls within the broad underlying emission line: see the atlases of H$\alpha$ profiles by @fer95 and by @rei96. FUor outflows are dramatically different, in that the mass involved is much larger and extends to much greater negative velocities, hence the characteristic P Cyg profile and the suppression of H$\epsilon$. If this K:H anomaly is indeed a FUor signature, can it be that there are unrecognized FUors among the host of ordinary TTS? There are 65 stars with emission in the atlas of TTS spectra by @val93 and of these only 3 (AS 353A, LkH$\alpha$ 321, V1331 Cyg) have the $\lambda$3968 line suppressed. The spectra of 3 additional stars apparently showing the same effect have been published by @per01. Detection of such stars by slitless spectroscopy would be an efficient means of searching for new FUor candidates.
Does the FUor Phenomenon Occur in Every T Tauri Star?
------------------------------------------------------
Before the 1970 outburst, V1057 Cyg was only one of some fifty faint H$\alpha$-emission stars scattered over the NGC 7000-IC 5070 region. Since it seemed to be just another TTS—on the slender evidence of that single pre-outburst low-resolution slit spectrogram—it was suggested in @her77 and then again in @her89 that such outbursts might be a characteristic of TTS in general. If so, from the number of such outbursts that had been detected (3 at that time) and a guess as to how many TTS exist within an observable distance around the Sun, it was estimated that “the mean time between successive FU Ori-like outbursts in an individual T Tau star" is about 10$^{4}$ years. That estimate has since been refined by others but the basic concept has survived.
As appealing as that idea is, and the way it can be worked into a larger picture of pre-main sequence evolution [@har96], it was a pure conjecture. Consider these points:
First, if every TTS is a potential and presumably recurrent FUor, then FUors would be expected to appear in clusters or associations rich in TTS. None of the classical FUors occur in the Orion Nebula, around $\rho$ Oph, or in other regions containing large numbers of TTS. V1057 Cyg lies in an isolated dark cloud containing only one other very faint H$\alpha$ emitter,[^8] no other TTS have been found in the elongated streamer northwest of IC 5146 where V1735 Cyg is located, while V1515 Cyg is one of several H$\alpha$ emitters scattered over an extended obscured region. BBW76 is alone in a small dark cloud, with no known TTS in the vicinity. There are exceptions, however: there are a number of TTS near the small dark cloud B35 in which FU Ori lies, and the heavily obscured L1551 IRS 5 is located in a loose grouping of TTS at the southern edge of the Taurus clouds. Another possible exception may be the candidate FUor CB34V which, according to @alv95, appears to lie on the near side of a heavily obscured aggregate of young stars.
Second, it was pointed out above (§ 4.6) that at minimum light, some 12 years before the outburst, V1057 Cyg exhibited the same strong outflowing wind that it has shown ever since the flare-up. The same P Cyg structure at H$\alpha$ is found in other FUors observed near maximum light. Such vigorous mass ejection is not a property of ordinary TTS, which is the reason it has become to be regarded as an indicator of FUor group membership.
Third, others have noted that FUors tend to have large values of $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$. Even higher than the $v_{eq}$ sin $i$’s found here for V1057 Cyg (55 km s$^{-1}$) and FU Ori (70 km s$^{-1}$) is the $~$ 145 $\pm$ 20 km s$^{-1}$ reported by @alv97 for the candidate FUor CB34V. FUors clearly have significantly higher rotational velocities than most TTS, although a minority of TTS are also rapid rotators: four of some 60 TTS listed by @har89 and by @bou86 have $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i > 50$ km s$^{-1}$. We are encouraged to believe that rapid rotation is an essential characteristic of the FUor phenomenon.
There is another property that, at first, would seem to distinguish FUors from most conventional TTS. @goo87 noted that all the FUors recognized at that time were located at the edge of either a complete loop or ring of reflection nebulosity; in some cases only a section of the loop is seen as a curved arc terminating at the star. In addition to the well-known outer arcs at V1057 Cyg, the HST images in Figure 15 show two curved filaments (A and B) that could be part of such a recently ejected loop. Interestingly, V1331 Cyg and Z CMa (both of which show the K:H anomaly), as well as BBW76 are also attached to such nebulae. But so are seemingly unrelated stars like SU Aur and AB Aur ($v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ about 65 km s$^{-1}$ and 80 km s$^{-1}$, respectively), showing that the presence of such a nebula is not exclusively a FUor signature, but may rather be the consequence of a very large $v_{\rm eq}$.
These reasons encourage the speculation that FUor events may not be a property of ordinary TTS, but may be confined to a special rapidly rotating sub-species among them. But if the FUor phenomenon is in fact favored in a certain kind of pre-main sequence object, it raises the question: what could be special about stars that so often occur in isolation, in contrast to those formed in groups or clusters?
Summary and Conclusions
========================
In @pet92, following a study of a high-resolution spectrogram of FU Ori obtained in 1987, we asserted that that spectrum could be reproduced by an emission-line shell (which in the present paper we call a ‘chromosphere’) overlain by a rising, cooler absorbing layer (now the ‘shell’) atop a G-type supergiant absorption spectrum whose lines were broadened by macroturbulence + rotation. It was also pointed out that some of the spectroscopic properties of FUors that have been argued as proof of the accretion disk picture (line doubling, the presence of CO bands in the near infrared, the possession of an IR excess) are found in a number of much older high-luminosity stars where there is no reason whatsoever to think that an accretion disk is present.
The new SOFIN and HIRES spectroscopy was intended to reexamine those assertions. With respect to the three issues critical to the accretion disk hypothesis that were raised in § 1, our conclusions are:
\(a) The emission cores responsible for the ‘doubling’ of low-excitation absorption lines that have become more apparent as V1057 Cyg has faded clearly are produced in a low-temperature chromosphere. We believe that it is they that caused those absorption lines to appear double when the star was brighter. Presumably such chromospheres are present in the other classical FUors as well, judging from the ubiquity of $\lambda$3933 emission.
\(b) We have been unable to confirm, with superior spectroscopic material, the dependence of $v_{\rm eq}\, \sin i$ upon either wavelength or lower EP that has been urged as evidence for the accretion disk model. However we do agree that the CO lines in the 2 $\mu$m region of FU Ori are narrower than are optical lines shortward of 0.9 $\mu$m; the situation for V1057 Cyg is uncertain. Whether this is unarguable support for the disk hypothesis is not clear: it would be interesting to determine if the same effect appears in the CO lines of normal G supergiants.
\(c) Synthetic disk spectra that resemble FUors at optical wavelengths fail to match certain critical lines in the near infrared, indicating that syntheses such as those described in § 4.1 can no longer be regarded as firm support for the disk hypothesis, although some elaboration of that hypothesis might reduce the discrepancies.
The point is that we find that some of the [*observational*]{} evidence that has been offered in support of the disk hypothesis can either be explained in another way or cannot be confirmed. Although details are somewhat different, the proposal of @pet92 and of @her89 is strengthened: namely, that the observable properties of the classic FUors are better explained by a single star rotating near the limit of stability and losing mass via a powerful wind, as was originally proposed by @lar80.
On slender evidence, V1057 Cyg is assumed to have been a classical TTS before the 1970 outburst. Although by 1999 it had declined to about 1.5 mag. (in B) above minimum, the spectrum still (by 2002) has not begun to resemble that of a conventional CTTS. In time it may do so, and some of the issues raised here may be resolved. Meanwhile, it is important that the star be monitored spectroscopically on a regular basis.
We are much indebted to the late V. Shevchenko and to M. Ibrahimov for providing us with their FUor photometry, to Keith Budge, Lee Hartmann, Ken Hinkle and Karl Stapelfeldt for material which we have found very useful in the course of this investigation, to Ted Simon for assistance with the CO data, to Ilya Ilyin for assistance with the SOFIN observations, and to Bo Reipurth for helpful comments. The work of G.H. on FUors has been partially supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under Grants AST 97-30934 and 02-04021. The work of P.P. and R.D. was supported by the EC Human Capital and Mobility Network project “Late-type Stars: activity, magnetism, turbulence," and of P.P. by the CAUP grant “Financiamento Plurianual."
Alves, J. F., & Yun, J. L. 1995, , 438, 107 Alves J., Hartmann, L., Briceño, C., & Lada, C. J. 1997, , 113, 1395 Barnes, T. G., Evans, D. S., & Parsons, S. B. 1976, , 174, 503 Bastien, U., & Mundt, R. 1985, , 144, 57 [bel99]{}Bell, K. R. 1999, , 526, 411 Bell, K. R., Lin, D. N. C., Hartmann, L. W., & Kenyon, S. J. 1995, , 444, 376 Beristain, G., Edwards, S., & Kwan, J. 2001, , 551, 1037 Bouvier, J., Bertout, C., Benz, W., & Mayor, M. 1986, , 165, 110 Cabrit, S., Edwards, S., Strom, S. E., & Strom, K.M. 1990, , 354, 687 Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, , 345, 245 Chini, R., & Wargau, W. F. 1998, , 329, 161 Clarke, C. J., Lin, D. N. C., & Pringle, J. E. 1990, , 242, 439 Croswell, K., Hartmann, L., & Avrett, E. H. 1987, , 312, 227 D’Angelo, G., Errico, L., Gomez, M. T., Smaldone, L. A., Teodorani, M. & Vittone, A. A. 2000b, , 356, 888 D’Angelo, G., Gomez, M. T., Errico, L., Smaldone, L. A., & Vittone, A. A. 2000a, Mem. Soc. Astr. Ital., 71, 1037 Draine, B. T. 1985, , 57, 587 Duncan, D. K., Harlan, E. A. & Herbig, G. H. 1981, , 86, 1520 Edwards, S., Hartigan, P., Ghandour, L., & Andrulis, C. 1994, , 108, 1056 Elias, J. H. 1978, , 223, 859 Errico, L., Vittone, A. A. & Lamzin, S. A. 2003, in press Fernández, M., Ortiz, E., Eiroa, C., & Miranda, L. F. 1995, , 114, 439 Goodrich, R. W. 1987, PASP, 99, 116 Haro, G. 1971, Inf. Bull. Var. Stars 565 Hartmann, L., & Calvet, N. 1995, , 109, 1846 Hartmann, L., & Kenyon, S. J. 1985, , 299, 462 (HK) Hartmann, L., & Kenyon, S. J. 1987a, , 312, 243 Hartmann, L., & Kenyon, S. J. 1987b, , 322, 393 Hartmann, L., & Kenyon, S. J. 1996, ARAA, 34, 207 Hartmann, L., & Stauffer, J. R. 1989, , 97, 873 Herbig, G. H. 1958, , 128, 259 Herbig, G. H. 1977, , 217, 693 Herbig, G. H. 1989, in ESO Workshop on Low-Mass Star Formation and Pre-Main Sequence Objects, ed. B. Reipurth (Garching: ESO), 233 Herbig, G. H. 1990, , 360, 639 Hinkle, K. H., Cuberly, R., Gaughan, N., Heynssens, J., Joyce, R., Ridgway, S., Schmitt, P., & Simmons, J. E. 1998, , 3354, 810 Ibrahimov, M. 1996, IBVS No. 4285 Ibrahimov, M. 1999, IBVS No. 4691 Kenyon, S. J., Hartmann, L., & Hewett, R. 1988, , 325, 231 Kenyon, S. J., Hartmann, L. W., & Kolotilov, E. A. 1991, , 103, 1069 Kenyon, S. J., Kolotilov, E. A., Ibragimov, M. A., & Mattei, J. A. 2000, , 531, 1028 Kley, W., & Lin, D. N. C. 1996, , 461, 933 Kley, W., & Lin, D. N. C. 1999, , 518, 833 Kolotilov, E. A., & Kenyon, S. J. 1997, IBVS No. 4494 Kopatskaya, E. N. 1984, Astrofiz., 20, 263 Kopatskaya, E. N., Grinin, V. P., Shakhovskoy, D. N., & Shulov, O. S. 2002, Astrofiz., 45, 175 Laakkonen, T. 2000, in Proc. 33rd ESLAB Symp., ed. F. Favata, A. A. Kaas, & A. Wilson, ESA SP-445 (Noordwijk, The Netherlands: ESA), 445 Larson, R. B. 1980, MNRAS 190, 321 Laugalys, V., & Straizys, V. 2002, Baltic Astr., 11, 205 Lobel, A., Israelian, G., de Jager, C., Musaev, F., Parker, J. W., & Mavrogiorgou, A. 1998, , 330, 659 Malbet, F., et al. 1998, , 507, 149 McMuldroch, S. 1995, PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, p. 72 Mendoza, E. E. 1972, , 169, L117 Mould, J. R., Hall, D. N. B., Ridgway, S. T., Hintzen, P., & Aaronson, M. 1978, , 222, L123 Nakajima, T., & Golimowski, D. A. 1995, , 109, 1181 Nemec, A. F. L., & Nemec, J. M. 1985, , 90, 2317 Pereira, C. B., Schiavon, R. P., de Araújo, F. X., & Laudaberry, S. J. C. 2001, , 121, 1071 Petrov, P. P., & Herbig, G. H. 1992, , 392, 209 Petrov, P., Duemmler, R., Ilyin, I., & Tuominen, I. 1998, , 331, L53 Petrov, P. P., et al. 2001, , 369, 993 Porter, J. M. 1996, , 280, L31 Rao, N. K., et al. 1999, , 310, 717 Reipurth, B. 1990, in IAU Symp. 137, Flare Stars in Star Clusters, Associations and the Solar Vicinity, ed. L. V. Mirzoyan, B. R. Petterson, & M. K. Tsvetkov (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 229 Reipurth, B., Pedrosa, A., & Lago, M. T. V. T. 1996, , 120, 229 Reipurth, B. 1997, in IAU Symp. 182 (poster proceedings), Low Mass Star Formation from Infall to Outflow, ed. F. Malbet & A. Castets (Grenoble: Laboratoire d’Astrophysique, Observatoire de Grenoble), 309 Reipurth, B., Hartmann, L., Kenyon, S. J., Smette, A., & Bouchet, P. 2002, , 124, 2194 Rieke, G., Lee. T., & Coyne, G. 1972, , 84, 37 Rustamov, B. N. 2001, , 27, 34 Sargent, W. L. W. 1961, , 134, 142 Stellingwerf, R. F. 1978, , 224, 953 Tuominen, I., Ilyin, I., & Petrov, P. 1999, in Astrophysics with the NOT, Proceedings of the Conference held in Turku in August 12–15, 1998, ed. H. Karttunen, & V. (Piikkio, Finland: University of Turku, Tuorla Observatory), 47 Unruh, Y. C., Collier Cameron, A., & Guenther, E. 1998, , 295, 781 Valenti, J. A., Basri, G., & Johns, C. M. 1993, , 106, 2024 Wallace, L., & Hinkle, K. 1996, , 107, 312 Wallace, L., & Hinkle, K. 1997, , 111, 445 Welin, G. 1971, , 12, 312 Welty, A. D., Strom, S. E., Strom, K. M., Hartmann, L. W., Kenyon, S. J., Grasdalen, G., & Stauffer, J. R. 1990, , 349, 328 Welty, A. D., Strom, S. E., Edwards, S., Kenyon, S. J., & Hartmann, L.W. 1992, , 397, 260
[llllclll]{}
BM & 1981 Jun 23 & 1.86 & 0.41, 0.40 && 0.77 & 0.19 & 11.2\
BM & 1982 May 15 & 0.24+0.24 & 0.15, 0.21 & & 1.00 & 0.27 & 11.35\
BM & 1982 Jul 12 & 1.36 & 0.55, 0.13 & & 0.99 & 0.22 & 11.35\
BM & 1982 Jul 13 & 1.40 & 0.55, 0.14 & & 0.95 & 0.22:& 11.35\
C & 1984 Oct 10 & 2.24+0.84 & 0.59, 0.56 & & 0.96 & 0.35 & 11.5\
C & 1984 Dec 6 & 3.44 & 0.52 & & 0.91 & 0.58:& 11.5\
Lick & 1985 Sep 23 & 4.2 & 0.66 & & 0.62 & 0.28 & 11.6\
C & 1985 Nov 24 & 0.14+1.60 & 0.32, 0.55 & & 1.79 & 0.93 & 11.6\
Budge & 1988 Aug 25 & 7.3 & 0.69 & & 0.65 & 0.34 & 11.6\
Welty & 1988 Nov 30 & 7.6 & 0.70 & & 2.2 & 0.92 & 11.6\
HC & 1992 Dec 7 & 5.8 & 0.90 & & & 0.04& 11.6\
SOFIN & 1996 Oct 30 & 3.52 & 0.89 & & 0.96 & 0.45 & 12.35\
HIRES & 1997 Aug 13 & 4.24 & 0.87 & & 1.03 & 0.51 & 12.45\
SOFIN & 1997 Aug 15–22 & 4.28 & 0.88 & & 1.13 & 0.56 & 12.45\
SOFIN & 1998 July 2-15 & 4.01 & 0.84 & & 1.66 & 0.83 & 12.95\
SOFIN & 1999 Jul 23–Aug 3 & 5.31 & 0.86 & & 0.60 & 0.52 & 12.82\
SOFIN & 2000 Aug7–10 & 3.57 & 0.86 & & 1.23 & 0.51 & 12.59\
SOFIN & 2001 Jul 29–Aug 9 & 3.26 & 0.92 & & 0.44 & 0.22 & 12.5\
HIRES & 2002 Dec 16 & 3.06 & 0.84 & & 1.71 & 0.62 & 12.5\
[ ]{}
[cclcccclcccclcc]{}
& & & & &\
\[3pt\]\
1 & & & & & & $-$128.& 0.08 & 3.9 & 13. & & $-$128.& 0.23 & 8.3 & 96.\
2 & $-$107.& 0.022: & 5.4: & 5.: & & $-$107.5 & 0.27 & 5.1 & 53. & & $-$107.& 0.27 & 6.5 & 86.\
3 & $-$90. & 0.26 & 3.6 & 36. & & $-$88.5 & 0.87 & 6.0 & 165. & & $-$92.5 & 0.33 & 5.5 & 89.\
4 & $-$78. & 0.33 & 4.5 & 56. & & $-$78. & 1.17 & 6.0 & 202. & & $-$80. & 0.82 & 7.8 & 267.\
5 & $-$59.5& 0.27 & 4.8 & 49. & & $-$61.5 & 1.77 & 5.1 & 221. & & $-$61. & 1.06 & 6.5 & 265.\
\
& & & & &\
\
1 & $-$128.& 0.17 & 8.0 & 72. & & $-$129.& 0.075 & 6.9 & 33. & & $-$126.& 0.078 & 4.9 & 25.\
2 & $-$104.& 0.31 & 8.7 & 136. & & $-$106.& 0.085 & 7.7 & 41. & & $-$100.& 0.065 & 4.9 & 21.\
3 & & & & & & & & & & & & & &\
4 & $-$82. & 0.96 & 8.3 & 326. & & $-$79.5& 0.32 &10.& 194. & & $-$81. & 0.21 & 9.8 & 127.\
5 & $-$60.5& 1.29 & 8.0 & 389. & & $-$58.5& 0.52 & 4.6 & 131. & & $-$60. & 0.32 & 5.3 & 101.\
[ ]{}
[cccc]{}
$-$128 & 1.3: & 4000.: & 13.38:\
$-$107 & 1.9 & 4350. & 14.08\
$-$89 & 3.1 & 3650. & 14.78\
$-$78 & 4.7 & 3600. & 15.05\
$-$61 & 4.8 & 3700. & 14.95\
[llllclll]{} 1996 Oct & 12.35 & 0.154 && 0.156 & 0.236 & 0.210\
1997 Aug & 12.45 & 0.237 & 0.310 & 0.220 & 0.319 & 0.266\
1998 Jul & 12.95 & 0.205 & 0.306 & 0.175 & 0.268 & 0.226\
1999 Jul & 12.82 & 0.179 & 0.285 & 0.190 & 0.246 & 0.180\
2000 Aug & 12.58 & 0.192 & 0.291 & 0.170 & 0.256 & 0.239\
2001 Aug & 12.48 & 0.260 & 0.240 & 0.200 & 0.271 & 0.245\
[ll]{} 32 Aql & F2 Ib\
41 Cyg & F5 II\
$\beta$ Aqr & G0 Ib\
9 Peg & G5 Ib\
40 Peg & G8 II\
43 Tau & K2 III\
$\beta$ And & M0 IIIa\
72 Leo & M3 Iab-Ib\
30 Her & M6 IIIa\
[llll]{} F2-F7: & 0.5 & 0.4 & 0.3\
F8-K2: & 0.4 & 0.4 & 0.35\
K5-M6: & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.35\
\
total: & 1.0 & 1.0 & 1.0\
[lcccc]{} V1057 Cyg & 1 & 12. & $-$26. & 0.085\
& 2 & 45. & $-$35. & 0.15\
FU Ori & 1 & 48. & +27. & 0.105\
[cccc]{}
0054.539 & 1.478 & 1092.721 & 2.035\
0055.575 & 1.177 & 1093.704 & 2.206\
0795.647 & 2.114 & 1094.713 & 1.999\
0796.676 & 2.007 & 1471.693 & 0.774\
0798.665 & 1.805 & 1472.722 & 0.516\
0799.706 & 1.432 & 1473.689 & 1.144\
0802.678 & 0.831 & 1475.717 & 1.808\
0804.697 & 0.897 & 1887.569 & 1.231\
0806.678 & 1.701 & 1888.527 & 1.133\
0807.695 & 1.530 & 1889.571 & 1.745\
0890.399 & 1.229 & 1890.572 & 1.000\
1088.672 & 1.504 & 1892.573 & 1.308\
1089.706 & 1.759 & 1893.568 & 1.308\
1090.704 & 1.890 & 1896.572 & 0.755\
1091.706 & 1.843 &&\
[rrcrr]{} 387.448 & $-$1.590 & & 54.538 & 1.139\
676.572 & $-$1.067 & & 55.575 & 0.461\
677.398 & $-$2.746 & & 795.647 & $-$0.800\
678.402 & 3.270 & & 796.676 & $-$2.501\
679.395 & $-$0.386 & & 798.665 & 0.029\
680.384 & $-$4.435 & & 799.705 & $-$4.599\
681.384 & $-$6.608 & & 802.677 & 0.256\
682.383 & $-$1.637 & & 804.697 & $-$1.040\
683.405 & 1.017 & & 806.678 & $-$1.536\
997.472 & 4.266 & & 807.694 & $-$1.601\
999.601 & $-$10.106 & & 890.398 & $-$0.140\
1000.562 & $-$1.914 & & 1088.672 & 0.330\
1002.532 & 0.967 & & 1089.706 & $-$1.186\
1003.546 & $-$8.107 & & 1090.703 & $$-$$4.049\
1005.521 & $-$5.065 & & 1091.706 & $-$0.190\
1008.545 & $-$0.917 & & 1092.721 & 0.730\
1383.554 & 1.829 & & 1093.704 & $-$1.470\
1384.603 & $-$2.308 & & 1094.713 & $-$1.849\
1385.556 & $-$10.181 & & 1471.693 & 0.371\
1386.550 & 5.770 & & 1472.722 & $-$1.709\
1387.515 & 0.604 & & 1473.689 & $-$2.569\
1388.529 & 1.606 & & 1475.717 & $-$0.206\
1389.522 & $-$8.802 & & 1887.569 & $-$0.369\
1390.555 & $-$0.839 & & 1888.527 & $-$1.780\
1391.524 & 0.689 & & 1889.571 & 1.290\
1392.552 & 2.195 & & 1890.572 & 3.721\
1393.586 & $-$3.338 & & 1892.573 & 1.160\
1394.561 & $-$4.708 & & 1893.568 & $-$0.624\
1764.606 & 4.634 & & 1896.572 & $-$1.344\
1765.611 & 2.115 & & &\
1766.599 & 3.804 & & &\
1767.609 & 9.921 & & &\
2120.480 & $-$0.997 & & &\
2121.493 & 1.509 & & &\
2123.571 & 3.578 & & &\
2124.495 & $-$2.060 & & &\
2125.540 & $-$2.953 & & &\
2127.595 & 2.997 & & &\
2128.557 & $-$3.084 & & &\
2129.584 & 0.271 & & &\
2130.568 & $-$1.492 & & &\
2131.501 & $-$1.674 & & &\
[^1]: Present address: Frankenallee 201, D-60326 Frankfurt/Main, Germany
[^2]: The Nordic Optical Telescope is operated on the island of La Palma jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias.
[^3]: The W. M. Keck Observatory is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W. M. Keck Foundation.
[^4]: The dates of the SOFIN observations are not tabulated here, but can be retrieved from the listing in Table 9, this paper.
[^5]: This distance is based on the colors of stars in the general vicinity of NGC 7000 [@her58; @lau02].
[^6]: @kop84 also used the Barnes, Evans, & Parsons formulation to calculate R/R$_{\odot}$, but from its dependence on $B-V$. Our radii come instead from the dependence on (V-R)$_{J}$, following the recommendation of Barnes et al., and the fact that an excess shortward of 4800 Å was present between 1971 and 1975–76 [@her77 Fig. 8], which would make $B-V$ suspect. It is of course unclear which color is more likely to be applicable to an unusual object like V1057 Cyg.
[^7]: KPNO is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.
[^8]: It is the star arrowed in Figure 1a of @dun81.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Many stochastic differential equations that occur in financial modelling do not satisfy the standard assumptions made in convergence proofs of numerical schemes that are given in textbooks, i.e., their coefficients and the corresponding derivatives appearing in the proofs are not uniformly bounded and hence, in particular, not globally Lipschitz. Specific examples are the Heston and Cox-Ingersoll-Ross models with square root coefficients and the Ait-Sahalia model with rational coefficient functions. Simple examples show that, for example, the Euler-Maruyama scheme may not converge either in the strong or weak sense when the standard assumptions do not hold. Nevertheless, new convergence results have been obtained recently for many such models in financial mathematics. These are reviewed here. Although weak convergence is of traditional importance in financial mathematics with its emphasis on expectations of functionals of the solutions, strong convergence plays a crucial role in Multi Level Monte Carlo methods, so it and also pathwise convergence will be considered along with methods which preserve the positivity of the solutions.'
address:
- |
Peter Kloeden, Institut für Mathematik, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universit[ä]{}t, Robert-Mayer-Strasse 10, D-60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany\
[[email protected]]{}
- |
Andreas Neuenkirch, Institut für Mathematik, Universität Mannheim, A5,6, D-68131 Mannheim, Germany\
[[email protected]]{}
author:
- Peter Kloeden and Andreas Neuenkirch
title: Convergence of Numerical Methods for Stochastic Differential Equations in Mathematical Finance
---
Introduction
============
Consider the Itô stochastic differential equation (SDE) in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ $$\label{itosde}
dX_t = a(X_t)dt + \sum_{j=1}^{m} b_{j}(X_t) dW^{(j)}_t, \quad t \in [0,T], \qquad X_0=x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^d$$ with drift and diffusion coefficients $a$, $b_{j}$ $:$ $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ $\rightarrow$ $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ for $j=1, \ldots, m$. Here $W_t$ $=$ $(W_t^{(1)},
\ldots, W_t^{(m)})$, $t \geq 0$, is an $m$-dimensional Brownian motion on a probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, \mathbf{P})$ and superscripts in brackets label components of vectors. Throughout this article it will always be assumed that equation (\[itosde\]) has a unique strong solution.
Explicit solutions of such equations are rarely known, thus one has to rely on numerical methods to simulate their sample paths $X_t(\omega)$ or to estimate functionals $\mathbf{E}\Phi(X)$ for some $\Phi: C([0,T];\mathbb{R}^d) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Typically, such a numerical method relies on a discretization $$0 \leq t_1 \leq t_2 \leq \ldots \leq t_n =T$$ and a global approximation on $[0,T]$ is obtained by interpolation.
In the case of the classical weak approximation the error of an approximation $\overline{X}$ to $X$ is measured by the quantity $$|\mathbf{E} \phi(X_T) - \mathbf{E} \phi(\overline{X}_T) |$$ for smooth functions $\phi: \mathbb{R}^{d} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. The test functions $\phi$ are a particular case of the general (path-dependent) functionals $\Phi$. In the strong approximation problem the $p$-th mean of the difference between $X$ and $\overline{X}$ is analyzed, i.e. $$\Big(\mathbf{E} \sup_{k=0, \ldots, n} | X_{t_{k}} - \overline{X}_{t_{k}} |^{p} \Big)^{1/p}$$ for the maximal error in the discretization points or $$\Big(\mathbf{E} \sup_{t \in [0,T]} | X_{t} - \overline{X}_{t} |^{p} \Big)^{1/p}$$ for the global error, where $p \geq 1$ and $| \cdot |$ denotes the Euclidean norm. Here the mean-square error, i.e. $p=2$, is usually studied. The recent development of the Multi-level Monte Carlo method for SDEs [@g1; @g2] has revealed that strong error bounds are crucial for the efficient computation of functionals $\mathbf{E}\Phi(X)$.
While the strong error measures the error of the approximate sample paths $\overline{X}$ on average, the pathwise error is the random quantity $$\sup_{k=0, \ldots, n}|X_{t_{k}}(\omega) - \overline{X}_{t_{k}}(\omega)|, \qquad \omega \in \Omega$$ and $$\sup_{t \in [0,T] }|X_{t}(\omega) - \overline{X}_{t}(\omega)|, \qquad \omega \in \Omega$$ respectively. Here the error is analyzed for a fixed $\omega \in \Omega$ without averaging. This quantity thus gives the error of the actually calculated approximation $\overline{X}_{t_k}(\omega)$, $k=0, \ldots,n$, respectively $\overline{X}(\omega)$.
The traditional weak and strong convergence analysis for numerical methods for stochastic differential equations (SDEs) relies on the global Lipschitz assumption, i.e. the SDE coefficients satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
|a(x)-a(y)| + \sum_{j=1}^m |b_{j}(x)-b_j(y)| \leq L \cdot |x-y|, \qquad x,y \in \mathbb{R}^d \end{aligned}$$ for some $L>0$. However, in many SDEs used for modelling in mathematical finance this assumption is violated, so the standard results (see [@KP; @M]) do not apply.\
The Constant Elasticity of Variance Model for asset prices [@cox:1975] , which was introduced by Cox in 1975, is given by the SDE $$\begin{aligned}
dS_t=\mu S_t \, dt + \sigma S_t^{\gamma} \, dW_t, \qquad S_0=s_0>0\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu \in {\mathbb R}$, $\sigma >0$ and $\gamma \in (0,1]$ and $W_t, t \geq 0,$ is a one-dimensional Brownian motion. For $\gamma =1$ this is the standard Black-Scholes model (i.e. a geometric Brownian motion), while for $\gamma \in (0,1)$ the diffusion coefficient of this SDE is clearly not globally Lipschitz continuous. This SDE has a unique strong solution if and only if $\gamma \in [1/2,1]$ and takes values in $[0,\infty)$.
The Ait-Sahalia model and its generalization [@AS; @SMHJ], which are stochastic interest rate models, follow the dynamics $$\begin{aligned}
dX_t = \big(\alpha_{-1} X_t^{-1} - \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 X_t - \alpha_2X_t^r \big)dt +\sigma X_t^{\rho} dW_t, \qquad X_0=x_0>0\end{aligned}$$ where $ \alpha_{i}, \sigma, r, \rho > 0$, $i=-1, \ldots, 2$. Under certain conditions on the parameters (see [@SMHJ]), this SDE has a unique strong solution with values in $(0, \infty)$. Note that here the diffusion coefficient grows superlinearly for large values of $x$ while the drift coefficient has a singularity at $x=0$.
The Heston model [@heston], which is an asset price model with stochastic volatility, is another example for an SDE with non-Lipschitz coefficients. This SDE takes non-negative values only and contains square root coefficients: $$\begin{aligned}
dS_t &= \mu
S_t \, dt + \sqrt{V_t} S_t \, \big( \sqrt{1-\rho^2} \, d W^{(1)}_t + \rho\, dW^{(2)}_t\big),& \quad S_0=s_0 > 0 \\
dV_t &= \kappa( \lambda - V_t) \, dt + \theta \sqrt{V_t} \, dW^{(2)}_t, & \quad V_0=v_0 > 0. $$ The parameters satisfy $\mu \in \mathbb{R}$, $\kappa, \lambda, \theta > 0$ and $\rho \in (-1,1)$. The second component of this SDE is the Cox-Ingersoll-Ross process, which is also used as a short rate model [@cox:1985].
Finally, the use of the inverse of the CIR process as volatility process leads to the so-called $3/2$-model $$\begin{aligned}
dS_t &= \mu
S_t \, dt + \sqrt{V_t} S_t \, \big( \sqrt{1-\rho^2} \, d W^{(1)}_t + \rho\, dW^{(2)}_t\big),& \quad S_0=s_0 > 0
\\
dV_t &= c_1 V_t( c_2 - V_t) \, dt + c_3 V_t^{3/2} \, dW^{(2)}_t, & \quad V_0=v_0> 0
$$ where $c_1,c_2,c_3 >0$, see e.g. [@heston_2].\
Motivated by these and other examples, the investigation of numerical methods for SDEs with non-Lipschitz coefficients has been an active field of research in recent years. This article, provides an overview of the new developments using the above equations as illustrative examples and discussing, in particular, Euler-type schemes. For some of the above equations exact simulation methods exist, see e.g. [@bk; @gm] and also [@roberts] for a class of one-dimensional equations, which are superior for the simulation of the SDEs at a single or a few time points. However, if a full sample path of the SDE has to be simulated or if the SDEs under consideration are part of a larger SDE system, then discretization schemes are typically more efficient.
Pathwise Convergence Rates of the Euler Scheme and general Itô-Taylor Methods
=============================================================================
The pathwise error criteria are very robust with respect to the global Lipschitz assumption. One of the simplest approximation schemes for equation (\[itosde\]) is the Euler scheme $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{X}_{t_{k+1}} &= \overline{X}_{t_{k}} + a(\overline{X}_{t_{k}}) \Delta + \sum_{j=1}^m b_j (\overline{X}_{t_{k}}) \Delta_k W^{(j)}, \qquad k=0,1, \ldots, \end{aligned}$$ with $\overline{X}_{0} =x_0$, where $\Delta =T/n$, $t_k=k\Delta$ and $\Delta_k W = W_{t_{k+1}}-W_{t_k}$. The Euler scheme (and all other approximation methods that will be introduced below) depend on the stepsize $\Delta>0$, hence on $n \in \mathbb{N}$, but this dependence will be omitted whenever it is clear from the context.
From the results of Gyöngy [@gyoengy] it follows that the Euler scheme has pathwise convergence order $1/2-\varepsilon$ also if the SDE coefficients are only locally Lipschitz continuous: for all $\varepsilon >0 $ $$\sup_{k=0, \ldots, n}|X_{t_{k}} - \overline{X}_{t_{k}}| \leq \eta_{{\varepsilon}}^{E} \cdot n^{-1/2 + \varepsilon}$$ almost surely for a finite and non-negative random variable $\eta_{\varepsilon}^E$ under the assumption that for all $N \in \mathbb{N}$ there exist constants $L_N>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
|a(x)-a(y)| + \sum_{j=1}^m |b_{j}(x)-b_j(y)| \leq L_N \cdot |x-y|, \qquad |x|,|y| \leq N. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, the pathwise convergence rate of the Euler scheme coincides up to an arbitrarily small $\varepsilon >0$ with its strong convergence rate $1/2$, but for the pathwise convergence rate no global Lipschitz assumption is required.
Jentzen, Kloeden & Neuenkirch [@JKN] observed that this is not a specific feature of the Euler scheme but, in fact, holds for general Itô-Taylor schemes of order $\gamma =
0.5, 1.0, 1.5, \ldots$. For the definition of these schemes, see e.g. [@KP]. The Euler scheme corresponds to $\gamma=0.5$, while $\gamma=1.0$ yields the Milstein scheme $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{X}_{t_{k+1}} &= \overline{X}_{t_{k}} + a(\overline{X}_{t_{k}}) \Delta + \sum_{j=1}^m b_j (\overline{X}_{t_{k}}) \Delta_k W^{(j)} + \sum_{j_1,j_2=1}^m L^{j_1}b_{j_2}(\overline{X}_{t_{k}}) I_{j_1,j_2}(t_k,t_{k+1})\end{aligned}$$ with the differential operators $$L^{j} =\sum_{k=1}^{d} b_j^{(k)} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^{k}}, \qquad j = 1 , \ldots, m$$ and the iterated Itô-integrals $$I_{j_1,j_2}(s,t) = \int_{s}^{t}
\int_{s}^{\tau_2} d W^{(j_{1})}_{\tau_{1}} \, d W^{(j_2)}_{\tau_2}, \qquad j_1,j_2=1, \ldots, m.$$ The Itô-Taylor scheme of order $1.5$ is usually called the Wagner-Platen scheme.
\[thm\_pw\_1\] Let $\gamma$ $=$ $0.5$, $1.0$, $1.5$, $\ldots$. Assume that $a$, $b_1$, $\ldots$, ${b_m}$ $\in$ $C^{ 2 \gamma +1}(\mathbb{R}^d ;\mathbb{R}^{d})$ and moreover let ${ \overline{X}}^{\gamma ,n}$ be the Itô-Taylor scheme of order $\gamma$ with stepsize $\Delta =T/n$. Then for every $\varepsilon >0$ there exists a non–negative random variable $\eta_{\varepsilon}^{\gamma} $ such that $$\sup_{k=0, \ldots, n} \left |X_{t_k}(\omega ) -{ \overline{X}}^{\gamma,n}_{t_k}(\omega)
\right| \leq \eta_{ \varepsilon}^{\gamma}(\omega)
\cdot n^{-\gamma + \varepsilon}$$ for almost all $\omega \in \Omega$.
The main ingredients to obtain this result are the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality, which implies that all moments of an Itô-integral are equivalent, the following Borel-Cantelli-type Lemma, and a localization procedure.
(see [@lms]) Let $\alpha >0$, $c_p \geq 0$ for $p \geq 1$ and let $(Z_{n})_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of random variables with
$$( {\bf E}
|Z_{n}|^{p})^{1/p} \leq c_p \cdot n^{-\alpha}$$ for all $p \geq 1$ and $n \in \mathbb{N}$. Then for every $\varepsilon > 0$ there exists a finite and non-negative random variable $\eta_{{\varepsilon}}$ such that $$|Z_{n}| \leq \eta_{\varepsilon}\cdot n^{-\alpha + \varepsilon}$$ almost surely for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$.
The Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality and the Borel-Cantelli-type Lemma allow one to show that the Itô-Taylor scheme of order $\gamma$ has pathwise convergence rate $\gamma- \varepsilon$ for smooth and bounded coefficients with bounded derivatives, thereby extending the classical mean-square convergence analysis in [@KP]. Then a localization argument is applied to avoid the boundedness assumptions. Roughly speaking, this localization argument works as follows: A fixed sample path $X_t(\omega), \, t \in [0,T],$ of the SDE solution is bounded, i.e. stays in some open set $B(\omega)$. However for the SDE $$dY_t =\widetilde{a}(Y_t)\,dt + \sum_{j=1}^m \widetilde{b}_j(Y_t)\, d W^{(j)}_t, \qquad Y_0=x_0$$ with smooth and bounded coefficients $\widetilde{a}$, $\widetilde{b}_j$ with bounded derivatives, which coincide with the ones of the original SDE on $B(\omega)$, the solution sample path $Y_t(\omega), t \in [0,T]$, coincides with $X_t(\omega), t \in [0,T]$. Asymptotically this also holds for the corresponding sample paths of the $\gamma$-Itô-Taylor schemes, so the pathwise convergence rates carry over.
Note that all the examples of SDEs given in the introduction take non-negative values only, so good approximation schemes should preserve this structural property. The (explicit) Euler scheme is, in general, not such a scheme, since its increments are conditionally Gaussian. For example, in case of the CIR process $$dX_t= \kappa(\lambda- X_t) \,d t + \theta \sqrt{X_t} \, dW_t, \qquad X_0=x_0 >0$$ the transition density of the Euler scheme reads as $$p(y;x)= \frac{1}{ \sqrt{2 \pi \theta^2 x \Delta}} \exp \left( -\frac{\big(y -( x +\kappa(\lambda -x) \Delta \big)^2}{2 \theta^2 x \Delta}\right), \qquad y \in \mathbb{R}, \, x >0,$$ so negative values can be obtained with positive probability even in the first step. This has lead to many ad-hoc corrections to prevent termination of the Euler scheme. The truncated Euler scheme $$\begin{aligned}
\label{euler_2}
{ \overline{X}}_{t_{k+1}} &= { \overline{X}}_{t_k} + \kappa( \lambda - { \overline{X}}_{t_k} ) \, \Delta + \theta \sqrt{ { \overline{X}}_{t_k}^+ } \, \Delta_k W , \qquad k=0, 1, \ldots\end{aligned}$$ was proposed in [@delbaen], while the scheme $$\begin{aligned}
\label{euler_3}
{ \overline{X}}_{t_{k+1}} &= { \overline{X}}_{t_k} + \kappa( \lambda- { \overline{X}}_{t_k} ) \Delta + \theta \sqrt{ |{ \overline{X}}_{t_k}| } \, \Delta_k W , \qquad k=0, 1, \ldots\end{aligned}$$ was studied in [@hm]. Both approaches extend the mapping $[0, \infty) \ni x \mapsto \sqrt{x} \in [0, \infty)$ suitably to negative values of $x$. For the CIR process this idea was taken further by Lord, Koekkoek & van Dijk [@lkd], who also proposed modifications of the drift coefficient for negative values of the state space.\
\[cir\_scen\_def\]
The following table shows the average number of negative steps per path for the above Euler approximations of the CIR process. Scenario I (taken from [@AS_K]), corresponds to the parameters $$x_0 = 0.05 , \qquad \kappa =5.07 , \qquad \lambda = 0.0457, \qquad \theta = 0.48, \qquad T=5$$ while Scenario II (taken from [@bk]) uses $$x_0=0.09, \qquad \kappa = 2, \qquad \lambda =0.09, \qquad \theta =1, \qquad T=5.$$ The stepsize for the Euler schemes is given by $\Delta =T/n$ with $n=512$.
average negative steps of / for Scenario I Scenario II
--------------------------------- ------------ -------------
Euler scheme 0.9141 64.8611
Euler scheme 1.0590 74.5017
The empirical frequency of negative paths is 0.4913 in Scenario I and 0.9990 in Scenario II. These results were obtained by a Monte Carlo simulation with $N=10^6$ repetition. They clearly indicate that the Euler scheme has a tendency for negative “excursions". This can also be seen in Figure \[figure\_euler\_exc\], which shows a sample path of the (linearly interpolated) Euler schemes and using the same path of the driving Brownian motion. The parameters used in this figure correspond to Scenario II.
$\diamond$
For general SDEs the procedure of modifying the coefficients outside the support of the solution has been introduced systematically in [@JKN]. For an SDE $$\label{snew.sde2}
dX_t = a(X_t)\, dt + \sum_{j=1}^{m} b_{j}(X_t)\, dW^{(j)}_t, \qquad X_0=x_0$$ which takes values in a domain $D$ $\subset$ $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{P}(X_t \in D, \,\, t \geq 0)=1, \label{support_sde} \end{aligned}$$ the auxiliary coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{a}(x) &= a(x) \cdot \mathbf{1}_{D}(x) + f(x) \cdot\mathbf{1}_{E}(x), & \qquad x \in \mathbb{R}^{d} &
\\[2ex]
\widetilde{b}_j(x)&= b_j(x) \cdot \mathbf{1}_{D}(x) + g_j(x) \cdot \mathbf{1}_{E}(x), &\qquad x \in \mathbb{R}^{d}, &\quad j=1, \ldots, m \end{aligned}$$ with $E= \mathbb{R}^d \setminus D$ are introduced there. A modified Itô-Taylor scheme of order $\gamma$ based on the auxiliary functions $f$ and $g$ is then the corresponding standard Itô-Taylor scheme for the SDE $$dX_t = \widetilde{a}(X_t)\, dt + \sum_{j=1}^{m} \widetilde{b}_{j}(X_t)\, dW^{(j)}_t,$$ with a suitable definition of the derivatives of the coefficients on $\partial D$, see [@JKN] for details. This method is well-defined as long as the coefficients of the equation are $(2\gamma+1)$-times differentiable on $D$ and the auxiliary functions are $(2\gamma-1)$-times differentiable on $E$. The purpose of the auxiliary functions is twofold: to obtain a well-defined approximation scheme and to bring the numerical scheme back to $D$ if it leaves $D$. In particular, the auxiliary functions can always be chosen to be affine or even constant. It was shown by Jentzen, Kloeden & Neuenkirch [@JKN] that Theorem \[thm\_pw\_1\] adapts to modified Itô-Taylor schemes for SDEs on domains $ D \subset \mathbb{R}^{d}$.
\[taylor\_mod\] Let $X$ be the solution of SDE satisfying condition . Moreover let $\gamma = 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, \ldots$ and assume that $$a\in C^{ 2 \gamma +1 }( D ;
{\mathbb R}^{d}), \qquad b \in C^{ 2 \gamma +1 }( D ;
{\mathbb R}^{d,m})$$ and $$f \in C^{2
\gamma -1 }( E ;
{\mathbb R}^{d} ), \qquad g \in C^{ 2
\gamma -1}( E ;
{\mathbb R}^{d,m}) .$$ Finally let $ \widetilde{X}^{\gamma,n}$ be the modified Itô-Taylor method for $X$ based on the auxiliary functions $f$ and $g$ with stepsize $\Delta=T/n$. Then for every $\varepsilon >0$ there exists a finite and non-negative random variable $\eta_{\gamma, \varepsilon}^{f,g} $ such that $$\sup_{k=0, \ldots, n} \big |X_{t_k}(\omega ) -\widetilde{X}^{\gamma,n}_{t_k}(\omega)
\big | \leq \eta_{\gamma, \varepsilon}^{f,g}(\omega)
\cdot n^{-\gamma + \varepsilon}$$ for almost all $\omega \in \Omega$ and all $n \in {\mathbb N}$.
In the case of the Euler scheme, i.e. $\gamma =0.5$, the assumptions on $a$ and $b$ can be weakened to the assumption that $a$ and $b$ are locally Lipschitz continuous on $D$. For SDEs on domains in mathematical finance this condition is typically satisfied. In fact, in most cases the coefficients are infinitely differentiable.
The CIR process satisfies $$\mathbf{P}(X_t > 0 \,\,\, {\textrm{for all}} \, \,\, t \geq 0)=1$$ if and only if $2 \kappa \lambda \geq \theta^2$. The latter assumption is typically satisfied in interest rate applications of the CIR process. Hence, modified Taylor schemes can be used here with $D=(0, \infty)$. The truncated Euler scheme (\[euler\_2\]) corresponds to the auxiliary functions $f(x)=a(x)$, $g(x)=0$, $x \leq 0$, while the scheme (\[euler\_3\]) uses the auxiliary functions $f(x)=a(x)$, $g(x)=\sqrt{-x}$, $x \leq 0$. Note that $2\kappa \lambda \geq \theta^2$ is satisfied in Scenario I, but not in Scenario II.
For structure preserving integration of the CIR process also the symmetrized Euler method $$\begin{aligned}
\label{euler_1}
\widetilde{X}_{t_{k+1}} &= \Big | \widetilde{X}_{t_k} + \kappa( \lambda
- \widetilde{X}{t_k} ) \Delta + \theta \sqrt{
\widetilde{X}_{t_k}} \, \Delta_k W \Big|, \qquad k=0,1, \ldots \end{aligned}$$ was proposed in [@diop; @diop_2]. While the modified Euler schemes and may leave $(0, \infty) $ and are then forced back in the next steps, this scheme is always non-negative. Adapting this to general SDEs, which take values in a domain $D$, leads to the reflected Euler schemes, see e.g. [@NZ], which are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{X}^{\psi}_{t_{k+1}} = H^{\psi}_{t_{k+1}} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{D}( H^{\psi}_{t_{k+1}}) + \psi(H^{\psi}_{t_{k+1}}) \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{R}^d \setminus D}( H^{\psi}_{t_{k+1}}) \end{aligned}$$ with $ \widetilde{X}^{\psi }_{0} = x_{0},$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H^{\psi}_{t_{k+1}} = \widetilde{X}^{\psi}_{t_{k}} + a(\widetilde{X}^{\psi}_{t_{k}}) \Delta + \sum_{j=1}^m b_j (\widetilde{X}^{\psi}_{t_{k}}) \Delta_k W^{(j)}\end{aligned}$$ and a measurable projection function $\psi: \mathbb{R}^d \setminus D \rightarrow D \cup \partial D$. A straightforward modification of the above theorem yields a pathwise convergence order $1/2-\varepsilon$ for these reflected Euler schemes if the SDE coefficients are twice continuously differentiable on $D$. In the same way reflected Itô-Taylor schemes of arbitrary order can be constructed and analyzed.
The symmetrized Euler scheme corresponds to the reflection function $\psi(x)=|x|$. The results on modified Itô-Taylor schemes and reflected Euler methods apply also to the generalized Ait-Sahalia model with $D=(0,\infty)$ if $r>1, \rho < (1+r)/2$, to the Heston model with $D=(0,\infty)^2$ if $2 \kappa \lambda \geq \theta^2$ and to the 3/2-model with $D=(0,\infty)^2$ and no further restrictions on the parameter.
To illustrate the above results consider Scenario I for the Cox-Ingersoll-Ross process. Figure \[figure\_cir\_path\] shows for two different sample paths $\omega \in \Omega$ the maximum error in the discretization points, i.e. $$\sup_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k}(\omega)-\overline{X}_{t_{k}}
(\omega)|,$$ of
- the truncated Euler scheme
- the symmetrized Euler scheme
- the modified Milstein scheme with auxiliary functions $f(x)=\kappa(\lambda- x)$, $g(x)=0$, i.e. a truncated Milstein scheme.
To estimate the pathwise maximum error for the above approximation schemes the Cox-Ingersoll-Ross process have been discretized with a very small step size using scheme .
In Figure \[figure\_cir\_path\] log-log-coordinates are used, so the dots indicate the convergence orders $0.5$ and $1$. The pathwise convergence rates of all three approximation schemes are in good accordance with the theoretically predicted rates for moderate and small step sizes. For small step sizes both Euler schemes do not take negative values and hence coincide. Moreover, for small step sizes the Milstein scheme is superior due to its first order convergence.
$\diamond$
Numerical methods with pathwise convergence rates of high order are thus available also for SDEs with non-globally Lipschitz coefficients. However, while pathwise convergence rates are very important for the analysis of random dynamical systems [@arnold; @GAKN], one of the main objectives in mathematical finance is the pricing of (path-dependent) European-type derivatives, which means to compute real numbers $ {\mathbf{E}}\Phi(X)$ where $\Phi : C([0,T]; {\mathbb{R}}^d) \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ is the discounted payoff of the derivative. Since the integrability of the random constants in the error bounds is an open problem, the above pathwise convergence rates do not imply weak or strong convergence rates. Nevertheless, if $\Phi$ is bounded and continuous and if ${ \overline{X}}^{\gamma}=({ \overline{X}}^{\gamma}_t)_{ t \in [0,T]}$ is the piecewise linear interpolation of the $\gamma$-Itô-Taylor scheme (standard, modified or reflected) then $$\mathbf{E} \Phi({ \overline{X}}^{\gamma}) \longrightarrow \mathbf{E} \Phi(X)$$ for $n \rightarrow \infty$, so for bounded and continuous pay-offs (e.g. put options) one obtains at least the convergence of the corresponding standard Monte Carlo estimators for the option price. The same is true for barrier options with payoff of the form $$\Phi(X)= \phi(X_T) \mathbf{1}_{ \{ K_1 \leq |X_t| \leq K_2, \,\, t \in [0,T] \} }$$ with $0 \leq K_1 \leq K_2 < \infty$, if $\phi$ is bounded and continuous and the law of $\sup_{t \in [0,T]} |X_t|$ and $\inf_{t \in [0,T]} |X_t|$ has a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure.
The Explicit Euler Scheme: Criteria for Weak and Strong Convergence
===================================================================
It was shown by Higham, Mao & Stuart in [@HMS] that the explicit Euler scheme $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{X}_{t_{k+1}} &= \overline{X}_{t_{k}} + a(\overline{X}_{t_{k}}) \Delta + \sum_{j=1}^m b_j (\overline{X}_{t_{k}}) \Delta_k W^{(j)}, \qquad k=0,1, \ldots,
\\ \overline{X}_{0} &=x_0 \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ is strongly convergent if the coefficients are locally Lipschitz continuous on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and a moment condition for the SDE and its Euler approximation is satisfied. This result can be extended to SDE on domains and the modified or reflected Euler scheme.
\[euler\_hms\_thm\] Let $X$ be the solution of SDE satisfying condition . Moreover, let $ \widetilde{X}^{n}$ be the modified Euler scheme based on the auxiliary functions $f \in C(E; {\mathbb{R}}^d)$, $g \in C(E; {\mathbb{R}}^{d,m}) $ with stepsize $\Delta=T/n$ or let $ \widetilde{X}^{n}$ be the reflected Euler scheme based on the projection function $\psi : E \rightarrow D \cup \partial D$ with stepsize $\Delta=T/n$. Assume that $$a\in C^{ 2 }( D ;
{\mathbb R}^{d}), \qquad b \in C^{ 2 }( D ;
{\mathbb R}^{d,m})$$ and furthermore, assume that for some $p >2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \, \mathbf{E} \max_{k=0, \ldots n} |\widetilde{X}^n_{t_k} |^p + \mathbf{E} \sup_{t \in [0,T]} |X_t|^p < \infty. \label{euler_moment}\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \mathbf{E} \max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k}- \widetilde{X}^n_{t_k} |^2=0.$$
From the results of the previous section $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k}- \widetilde{X}^n_{t_k} |= 0$$ hold, almost surely. However, assumption (\[euler\_moment\]) implies the uniform integrability of $$\max_{k=0, \ldots n} |X_{t_k}- \widetilde{X}_{t_k}^{n} |^2, \,\,\,\, n \in \mathbb{N}.$$ The assertion now follows, since uniform integrability allows integration to the limit.
Note that assumption is easily verified if the SDE coefficients have linear growth on $D$, i.e. $$|a(x)| + \sum_{j=1}^m |b_{j}(x)| \leq C \cdot (1+ |x|) , \qquad x \in D,$$ for some $C>0$. Turning back to the Cox-Ingersoll-Ross process this gives us strong convergence of the Euler schemes , and under the assumption $ 2 \kappa \lambda \geq \theta^2.$ Note that for the Euler schemes and strong convergence without a restriction on the parameter has been shown in [@delbaen] and [@hm] using a Yamada function technique. This technique has also been applied by Gyöngy & Rásonyi in [@Gyoengy_Rasonyi] to obtain the following result:
\[euler\_hoelder\] Let $a_1,a_2,b: \mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Consider the one-dimensional SDE $$dX_t = (a_1(X_t) +a_2(X_t))\,dt + b(X_t)\, dW_t, \quad t \in [0,T], \qquad X_0=x_0 \in \mathbb{R}$$ and let ${ \overline{X}}^n$ be the corresponding Euler scheme with stepsize $\Delta=T/n$. Moreover, let $a_2$ be monotonically decreasing and assume that there exists constants $\alpha \in [0,1/2]$, $\beta \in (0,1]$ and $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
|a_1(x)-a_1(y)| \leq C \cdot |x-y|, \qquad |a_2(x)-a_2(y)| \leq C \cdot |x-y|^{\beta},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
|b(x)-b(y)| \leq C \cdot |x-y|^{\frac{1}{2} + \alpha}\end{aligned}$$ for all $x,y \in \mathbb{R}$. Then, for all $p \in \mathbb{N}$, there exist constants $K_p^{\alpha,\beta} >0$ such that $$\mathbf{E} \max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k}- { \overline{X}}_{t_k}^n |^p \leq \left \{ \begin{array}{lcl}K_p^{0,\beta} \cdot \frac{1}{\log(n)} & \textrm{for}& \alpha=0 \\ K_p^{\alpha,\beta} \cdot \left( \frac{1}{n^{\alpha}} + \frac{1}{n^{\beta/2}} \right) & \textrm{for}& \alpha \in (0,1/2)\\
K_p^{\alpha,\beta} \cdot \left( \frac{1}{n^{p/2}} + \frac{1}{n^{\beta p/2}} \right) & \textrm{for}& \alpha =1/2\\
\end{array} \right.$$
This result can be applied to the CEV model $$dX_t=\mu X_t \, dt + \sigma X_t^{\gamma} \, dW_t,$$ if the mapping $[0, \infty) \ni x \mapsto x^{\gamma} \in [0, \infty) $ is extended to $(-\infty, 0)$, e.g. as $(x^+)^{\gamma}$ or $|x|^{\gamma}$. Theorem \[euler\_hoelder\] then yields strong convergence of the corresponding Euler schemes.
Whether the convergence rates predicted from Theorem \[euler\_hoelder\] are sharp for the CEV model remains an open problem. The following simulation study suggests that the Euler scheme has strong convergence order 1/2, at least for some parameter constellations. To better preserve the positivity of the CEV process, the Euler scheme is applied to the SDE $$dX_t= \mu |X_t| \, dt + \sigma (X_t^+)^{\gamma} \, dW_t$$ which still fulfills the assumptions of Theorem \[euler\_hoelder\] with $a_2=0$, i.e. $\beta=1$, and $\alpha=\gamma-1/2$. Its solution coincides with the CEV process.
Figure \[figure\_cev\_conv-rate\] shows the empirical root mean square maximum error in the discretization points versus the step size for the parameters $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{\,Set I:} &\qquad \mu=0.1, \quad \sigma =0.3, \quad \gamma=0.75, \quad T=1, \quad x_0=0.2\\
\textrm{Set II:} & \qquad \mu=0.2, \quad \sigma =0.5, \quad \gamma =0.55, \quad T=1, \quad x_0=0.5\end{aligned}$$ The empirical mean square maximum error in the discretization points is estimated by $$\left( \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k}^{*,(i)}- { \overline{X}}_{t_k}^{n,(i)} |^2\right)^{1/2}$$ with $N=5 \cdot 10^4$. Here $X^{*}$ is the numerical reference solution obtained by using the same Euler scheme with very small step size and $X^{*,(i)}, { \overline{X}}^{n,(i)}$ are independent copies of $X^{*}, { \overline{X}}^{n}$. For both sets of parameter a good accordance with the convergence order $1/2$ is obtained. (The dots in the figure indicate convergence order $1/2$).
A regression of the numerical data yields moreover the empirical convergence order 0.493923 for set I, respectively 0.509903 for set II.
$\diamond$
But do Theorems \[euler\_hms\_thm\] and \[euler\_hoelder\] have any consequences for the other examples? Unfortunately not: for the Heston, Ait-Sahalia and 3/2-models, no linear growth condition is satisfied. Even worse, for the Ait-Sahalia model and the 3/2-model the moments of the Euler scheme explode! In the case of the 3/2-model the latter can be deduced from the following Theorem, which was obtained by Hutzenthaler, Jentzen & Kloeden in [@HMS1].
\[ref\_euler\_mom\_exp\] Let $a,b: {\mathbb R}\rightarrow {\mathbb R}$ and assume that the one-dimensional SDE $$dX_t = a(X_t)\,dt + b(X_t)\,dW_t, \quad t \in [0,T],
\qquad
X_0 = x_0 \in \mathbb{R}$$ has a unique strong solution with $$\sup_{t \in [0,T]} \mathbb{E} | X_t |^p
< \infty$$ for one $p \in [1,\infty)$. Moreover, let $b(x_0) \neq 0$ and let $ C \geq 1 $, $ \beta > \alpha > 1 $ be constants such that $$ \max\!\big(\left| a(x) \right|,
\left| b(x) \right|
\big) \geq
\frac{1}{C} \cdot
\left| x \right|^{\beta}
\quad
\text{and}
\quad
\min\!\big(\left| a(x) \right|,
\left| b(x) \right|
\big) \leq
C \cdot | x |^{\alpha}$$ for all $ |x| \geq C $. Then, the corresponding Euler scheme ${ \overline{X}}^n$ with stepsize $\Delta=T/n$ satisfies $$\label{eq:euler_divergence}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}
\mathbb{E}
|X_T - { \overline{X}}^n_{T}|^p= \infty
\quad
\text{and}
\quad
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}
\big|
\mathbb{E}|X_T|^p
-
\mathbb{E}| { \overline{X}}^n_T|^p
\big|
= \infty .$$
In the case of the 3/2-model, which has finite moments up to order $p < 2+ \frac{2c_1}{c_3^2}$, the coefficients are $$a(x)=- c_2 x^2 + c_1 c_2 x, \qquad b(x)= c_3(x^{+})^{3/2}, \qquad x \in \mathbb{R},$$ so the assumptions of the above Theorem are satisfied for $\alpha=3/2$, $\beta=2$ and $C$ sufficiently large.
Concerning the Ait-Sahalia model, the moments of the Euler scheme already explode in the second step. Here the first step of the Euler scheme has a Gaussian distribution with mean $x_0 + (\alpha_{-1}x_0^{-1} - \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 x_0 - \alpha_2 x_0^{r}) \Delta $ and variance $\alpha_3^2 x_0^{2 \rho}\Delta$. The inverse of the first step must be computed for the second step of the Euler scheme, so the moments of the second step are infinite, since inverse moments of a Gaussian random variable do not exist.
Why the moments of the Euler scheme diverge for superlinearly growing coefficients – even without a singularity – can be nicely illustrated by considering the SDE $$\label{exsde2}
d X_t =
- X_t^3\,dt + \sigma dW_t,
\qquad
X_0 = x_0$$ with $\sigma \geq 0$ for which the Euler scheme reads as $$\label{exeuler2}
{ \overline{X}}^n_{t_{k+1}}
= { \overline{X}}^n_{t_k} \left(1 - |{ \overline{X}}^n_{t_k}|^2 \Delta \right)
+ \sigma \Delta_k W.$$
In the deterministic case, i.e., and with $\sigma=0$, the Euler approximation of the deterministic equation is known to be unstable if the initial value is large (see e.g. Chapter 6 in [@db02]). For example, if $x_0=n$, $T=1$ and $\Delta = n^{-1}$ then $${ \overline{X}}_{t_1}^n= n \left(1- \frac{n^2}{n}\right)
\approx-n^2$$ and therefore $${ \overline{X}}_{t_2}^n = { \overline{X}}_{t_1}^n \left(1 - |{ \overline{X}}^n_{t_1}|^2 \Delta \right)
\approx n^5.$$ Iterating this further, one obtains $$\left| { \overline{X}}^n_{t_k} \right|
\gtrapprox n^{ \left( 2^k \right) }$$ for $k=0,1,\dots,n$. Thus, ${ \overline{X}}_{t_n}^n$ grows double-exponentially fast in $n$. In the presence of noise ($\sigma>0$) there is an exponentially small event that the Brownian motion leaves the interval $[-2 n,2 n]$ and on this event the approximations grow double-exponentially fast due to the deterministic dynamics. Consequently this double-exponentially growth can not be compensated by the exponentially small probability of this event, which leads to the moment explosion of the Euler approximation.
That rare events lead to the explosion of the moments of the Euler scheme can be also seen from the following numerical example. Consider the volatility process in the 3/2-model $$dV_t = c_1 V_t( c_2 - V_t) \, dt + c_3 V_t^{3/2} \, dW_t, \quad V_0=v_0> 0$$ with $$c_1=1.2, \qquad c_2=0.8, \qquad c_3=1, \qquad T=4, \qquad v_0= 0.5$$ and try to compute $${\mathbf E} |X_T|= 0.566217$$ using the standard Monte Carlo estimator $$\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} |{ \overline{X}}_{T}^{n,(i)}|$$ where ${ \overline{X}}_{T}^{n,(1)}, \ldots, { \overline{X}}_{T}^{n,(N)}$ are iid copies of ${ \overline{X}}_{T}^{n}$. The exact value for ${\mathbf E} |X_T|$ is computed using the inverse moments of the CIR process, see e.g. [@HK]. While for a moderate number of repetitions the estimator seems to converge for small step sizes (and the ’Inf’-outputs seem to be some numerical instabilities due to the large step sizes), the estimator explodes even for small step sizes when increasing the number of repetitions – as predicted by Theorem \[ref\_euler\_mom\_exp\]. Despite of this the Euler scheme for this SDE converges pathwise with rate $1/2-\varepsilon$ due to Theorem \[taylor\_mod\].
Repetitions $N$ / stepsize $\Delta$ $2^0$ $ 2^{-2}$ $ 2^{-4 }$ $2^{-6}$ $ 2^{-8}$ $2^{-10}$
------------------------------------- ---------- ----------- ------------ ---------- ----------- -----------
$10^3$ 6.327232 Inf Inf 0.550185 0.553499 0.555069
$10^4$ 6.894698 Inf Inf Inf 0.562716 0.563352
$10^5$ 7.430606 Inf Inf Inf 0.566218 0.567106
$10^6$ 7.227379 Inf Inf Inf Inf 0.565750
$10^7$ 7.279187 Inf Inf Inf Inf Inf
A similar moment explosion arises if a Multi-level Monte Carlo method is used to estimate $ {\mathbf E} |X_T|$. This is shown, also for more general SDEs, in [@MLMC_expl].
$\diamond$
However, in some cases using the Euler scheme one still obtains a convergent Monte Carlo estimator for functionals of the type $\mathbf{E} \phi(X_T)$. The standard Euler-based estimator for the latter quantity is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi \big({ \overline{X}}_{T}^{n,(i)} \big). \label{MC_st}\end{aligned}$$ In the classical case, i.e. if $a,b,\phi \in C^{4}({\mathbb R}; {\mathbb R})$ with at most polynomially growing derivatives and $a$, $b$ globally Lipschitz, one has $$\mathbf{E}
\left|
\frac{1}{N}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi \big({ \overline{X}}_{T}^{n,(i)} \big) - \mathbf{E} \phi(X_T)
\right|^2
\leq K_{Bias} \cdot \frac{1}{n^2} + K_{MC} \cdot \frac{1}{N},$$ see e.g. [@KP]. The first term on the right hand side corresponds to the squared bias of the Euler scheme, while the second term corresponds to the variance of the Monte Carlo simulation. It is thus optimal to choose $N=n^2$ for balancing both terms with respect to the computational cost (number of arithmetic operations, function evaluations and random numbers used), see [@DG]. The corresponding Monte Carlo estimator has then convergence order $1/3$ in terms of the computational cost.
Hutzenthaler & Jentzen could show in [@HuJe] that if the global Lipschitz assumption on the drift-coefficient is weakened to $$\label{snew.onesided}
(x-y) ( a (x) - a (y) ) \leq
L\left(x-y\right)^2,
\quad \, x,y\in\mathbb{R}$$ for some $L>0$, then one still has $$ \left|
\frac{1}{N^2}
\sum_{i=1}^{N^2} \phi ({ \overline{X}}_{T}^{N,(i)} ) - \mathbf{E} \phi(X_T)
\right|
\leq \eta_{\varepsilon} \cdot N^{-(1-\varepsilon)}$$ almost surely for all $\varepsilon >0$ and almost-surely finite and non-negative random variables $\eta_{\varepsilon}$.
Weak approximation under non-standard assumptions is also studied by Milstein & Tretyakov in [@Miltret]. In their approach, simulations which leave a ball with sufficiently large radius are discarded. In the context of the Euler scheme with equidistant stepsize this estimator reads as $$\frac{1}{N}
\sum_{i=1}^{N} \phi \big ({ \overline{X}}_{T}^{n,(i)} \big) \cdot \mathbf{1}_{ \{ \sup_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k}^{n,(i)}| \leq R \} }.$$ For coefficients $a,b$ and functions $\phi$ satisfying a Lyapunov-type condition still a convergent Monte Carlo estimator is obtained, when matching the discarding radius $R$ appropriately to the number of repetitions $N$ and the stepsize of the discretization $n$.
Condition on the drift coefficient is the so-called one-sided Lipschitz condition. This condition is also very useful to obtain strong convergence results for implicit Euler methods and tamed Euler schemes, which will be explained in the next section. Very recently a unifying framework for the analysis of Euler-type methods has been provided in [@HJ_uni].
Strong convergence of implicit and tamed Euler schemes
======================================================
The condition in Theorem \[euler\_hms\_thm\] for the strong convergence of the Euler scheme which is usually difficult to verify is the finiteness of its moments, i.e. $$\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \, \mathbf{E} \max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |\overline{X}_{t_k}^n|^p < \infty$$ for some $p>2$. Moreover, this condition may even fail to hold for specific equations, see Theorem \[ref\_euler\_mom\_exp\]. However, both problems can be overcome in some situations if appropriate drift-implicit Euler schemes are used. The split-step backward Euler scheme is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sses}
X^{*}_{t_{k}} &= { \overline{X}}_{t_k} + a(X^*_{t_{k}})\Delta, \qquad \quad
\overline{X}_{t_{k+1}} = X^{*}_{t_{k}} + \sum_{j=1}^m b_j(X^*_{t_{k}}) \Delta_k W^{(j)}\end{aligned}$$ for $k=0,1, \ldots $ with $ \overline{X}_{0}=x_0$, while the backward or drift-implicit Euler scheme reads as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bes}
\overline{X}_{t_{k+1}} = \overline{X}_{t_{k}} + a(\overline{X}_{t_{k+1}}) \Delta+ \sum_{j=1}^m b_j(\overline{X}_{t_{k}}) \Delta_k W^{(j)}.
\end{aligned}$$ Both schemes are defined via an implicit equation, whose solvability relies on the properties of the drift-coefficient $a$. The following result has been obtained by Higham, Mao & Stuart in [@HMS].
\[euler\_sses\_thm\] Let $a, b_j \in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^d; \mathbb{R}^d)$, $j=1, \ldots, m$, and assume that there exist constants $L_1,L_2>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle x-y,a(x)-a(y) \rangle & \leq L_1 \cdot |x-y|^2, \qquad x,y \in \mathbb{R}^d, \\
\sum_{j=1}^m |b_j(x)-b_j(y)|^2 & \leq L_2 \cdot |x-y|^2, \qquad x,y \in \mathbb{R}^d. \end{aligned}$$ Then, the split-step backward Euler scheme given by with stepsize $\Delta =T/n$ is well defined for $\Delta < \Delta_*:=1/ \max \{ 1+ 2L_1, 4L_2 \} $ and satisfies $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \mathbf{E} \max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k}- { \overline{X}}_{t_k}^n |^2=0.$$
The conditions on the coefficients imply that the SDE has bounded moments of any order, and also allow one to show that the split-step Euler method has moments of any order. The implicitness of the method is crucial for the latter. Furthermore, the split-step Euler method coincides with the explicit Euler method for the perturbed SDE $$\begin{aligned}
dX_t^{\Delta}= a(h_{\Delta}(X_t^{\Delta}))\,dt + \sum_{j=1}^m b_j(h_{\Delta}(X_t^{\Delta})) \, dW^{(j)}(t), \qquad X_0^{\Delta}=x_0.
\label{pertub_sde} \end{aligned}$$ Here the function $h_{\Delta}: \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ is defined as the unique solution of the equation $$h_{\Delta}(x) = x + a(h_{\Delta}(x)) \Delta, \qquad x \in \mathbb{R}^d$$ with $\Delta < \Delta_*$. Since $h_{\Delta}$ converges to the identity for $\Delta \rightarrow 0$ this perturbed SDE is close to original SDE. To establish Theorem \[euler\_sses\_thm\], it thus remains to show that the split-step backward Euler scheme is close to , which can be done along the lines of the proof of Theorem \[euler\_hms\_thm\].
If the drift-coefficient is additionally also polynomially Lipschitz, then the standard strong convergence rate $1/2$ can even be recovered.
\[euler\_sses\_bes\_thm\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[euler\_sses\_thm\] hold and assume additionally that there exist $C,q>0$ such that $$|a(x)-a(y)| \leq C \cdot (1+|x|^q + |y|^q) \cdot |x-y|, \qquad x,y \in \mathbb{R}^d.$$ Then, the split-step backward Euler scheme given by and the backward Euler scheme given by are well defined for $\Delta < \Delta^*$ and have strong convergence order $1/2$, i.e. for both schemes there exists a constant $K>0$ such that $$\mathbf{E} \max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k}- { \overline{X}}_{t_k}^n |^2 \leq K \cdot n^{-1}.$$
As pointed out above, in each step of both schemes an implicit equation has to be solved. If the function $h_{\Delta}$ is not known explicitly, this has to be done numerically and may be time-consuming. Solving implicit equations can be avoided by using the so-called tamed Euler method, which has been proposed by Hutzenthaler, Jentzen & Kloeden in [@HMS2]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tamed_euler}
\overline{X}_{t_{k+1}} = \overline{X}_{t_{k}}
+ \frac{1}{ 1 + | a(\overline{X}_{t_{k}})| \Delta} a(\overline{X}_{t_{k}}) \Delta + \sum_{j=1}^m b_j(\overline{X}_{t_{k}}) \Delta_k W^{(j)}.
\end{aligned}$$
Here the drift-term is “tamed" by the factor $ \frac{1}{1+ | a(\overline{X}_{t_k}) | \Delta} $ in the $k$-th step, which prevents a possible explosion of the scheme.
\[euler\_tamed\_thm\] Let the assumptions of Theorem \[euler\_sses\_bes\_thm\] hold. Then, there exists a constant $K>0$ such that the tamed Euler scheme given by satisfies $$\mathbf{E} \max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k}- { \overline{X}}_{t_k}^n |^2 \leq K \cdot n^{-1}.$$
Here, the difficulty is again to control the moments of the approximation scheme. For this appropriate processes are used that dominate the tamed Euler scheme on subevents whose probabilities converge sufficiently fast to one.
The Theorems given so far in this section require the diffusion coefficient to be globally Lipschitz, which is often not fulfilled in SDEs arising from mathematical finance. However, the backward Euler method can be also successfully applied to the Ait-Sahalia interest rate model $$\begin{aligned}
\label{as_sde}
dX_t = \big(\alpha_{-1} X_t^{-1} - \alpha_0 + \alpha_1 X_t - \alpha_2X_t^r \big)dt +\sigma X_t^{\rho} dW_t\end{aligned}$$ where $ \alpha_{i}, \sigma > 0$, $i=-1, \ldots, 2$ and $ r, \rho > 1$. The following result has been obtained by Szpruch et al. in [@SMHJ]:
Consider the SDE and assume that $$r+1 >2 \rho.$$ Then the corresponding backward Euler method with stepsize $\Delta=T/n$ is well defined if $\Delta \leq 1/\alpha_1$, and $$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \mathbf{E} \max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k}- { \overline{X}}_{t_k}^n |^2=0.$$
Here the drift coefficient is still one-sided Lipschitz on the domain of the SDE, i.e. $$(x-y) (a(x)-a(y)) \leq \alpha_1 |x-y|^2, \qquad x,y>0,$$ and, moreover, $-a$ is coercive on $(0, \infty)$, i.e. $$\lim_{x \rightarrow 0} a(x)= \infty \qquad \quad \lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} a(x)= -\infty.$$ These two properties ensure that the drift-implicit Euler scheme for is well-defined and, in particular, takes only strictly positive values.
The drift coefficient in the volatility process $$dV_t = c_1 V_t( c_2 - V_t) \, dt + c_3 V_t^{3/2} \, dW_t, \quad V_0=v_0> 0$$ in the 3/2-model is also one-sided Lipschitz on $(0, \infty)$. It does not, however, satisfy the coercivity assumption. Consequently, the drift-implicit Euler scheme cannot be applied here, since the implicit equation may not be solvable. Note that very recently, Higham et al. introduced in [@mils_szp] a double-implicit Milstein scheme, which is strongly convergent for the 3/2-model and similar SDEs.
Strong Convergence Rates for the approximation of the Cox-Ingersoll-Ross process and the Heston model
=====================================================================================================
Strong convergence rates for the approximation of the CIR process $$dX_t = \kappa (\lambda - X_t) \, dt + \theta \sqrt{X_t} \, dW_t, \quad t \in [0,T], \qquad X_0=x_0>0$$ with $\kappa, \lambda, \theta >0$ have been a long standing open problem, even in the regime where the CIR process does not hit zero, i.e. when $2 \kappa \lambda \geq \theta^2$.
The first non-logarithmic rates were derived by Berkaoui, Bossy & Diop for the symmetrized Euler scheme , i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
{ \overline{X}}_{t_{k+1}} &= \Big | { \overline{X}}_{t_k} + \kappa( \lambda
- { \overline{X}}_{t_k} ) \Delta + \theta \sqrt{
{ \overline{X}}_{t_k}} \, \Delta_k W \Big| . \end{aligned}$$ They showed in [@diop_2] that $${\mathbf{E}}\max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k} - { \overline{X}}_{t_k}|^{2p} \leq C_p\cdot \Delta^p$$ under the assumption $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2 \kappa \lambda}{\theta^2} > 1+ \sqrt{8} \, \max \left \{ \frac{\sqrt{\kappa}}{\theta} \sqrt{16p-1}, 16p-2 \right \}, \end{aligned}$$ where the constant $C_p>0$ depends only on $p, \kappa,
\lambda, \theta, x_0$ and $T$. Strong convergence rates for a drift-implicit Euler-type scheme were recently obtained under mild assumptions by Dereich, Neuenkirch & Szpruch in [@dns]. Their key tool is the use of the Lamperti-transformation: by the Itô formula, the transformed process $Y_t = \sqrt{X}_t$ satisfies the SDE $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sqr_X}
dY_t = \frac{\alpha}{Y_t} \,dt + \beta Y_t \, dt + \gamma \, dW_t, \quad t \geq 0,
\qquad Y_0=\sqrt{x_0} \end{aligned}$$ with $$\alpha = \frac{4 \kappa \lambda - \theta^2}{8}, \qquad \beta = - \frac{\kappa}{2}, \qquad \gamma = \frac{\theta}{2}.$$ At first glance this transformation does not help at all, since the drift coefficient of the arising SDE is singular. However, $$a(x)= \frac{\alpha}{x} + \beta x, \qquad x > 0,$$ satisfies for $\alpha >0$, $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$ the restricted one-sided Lipschitz condition $$\begin{aligned}
(x-y)(a(x)-a(y)) \leq \beta (x-y)^2, \qquad x,y > 0
\end{aligned}$$ The drift-implicit Euler method with stepsize $\Delta>0$ in this case is $$\begin{aligned}
{ \overline{Y}}_{t_{k+1}} = { \overline{Y}}_{t_{k}} + \left( \frac{\alpha}{{ \overline{Y}}_{t_{k+1}}} + \beta { \overline{Y}}_{t_{k+1}} \right) \Delta + \gamma \Delta_k W , \qquad k=0,1, \ldots \end{aligned}$$ with $\overline{Y}_0 = \sqrt{x_0}$, which has the explicit solution $$\begin{aligned}
{ \overline{Y}}_{t_{k+1}}= \frac{{ \overline{Y}}_{t_{k}} + \gamma \Delta_k W}{2(1- \beta \Delta)} + \sqrt{ \frac{({ \overline{Y}}_{t_{k}} + \gamma \Delta_k W)^2}{4(1- \beta \Delta)^2} + \frac{\alpha \Delta}{1- \beta \Delta} }.\end{aligned}$$ Setting $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sqr_euler} { \overline{X}}_{t_k} = { \overline{Y}}^2_{t_k}, \qquad k=0,1, \ldots , \end{aligned}$$ gives a positivity preserving approximation of the CIR process, which is called drift-implicit square-root Euler method. This scheme had already been proposed in [@alfonsi], but without a convergence analysis. Piecewise linear interpolation, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{X}_t=\frac{t_{k+1}-t}{\Delta}{ \overline{X}}_{t_k}+ \frac{t -t_k}{\Delta}{ \overline{X}}_{t_{k+1}}, \qquad t \in [t_k,t_{k+1}], \end{aligned}$$ gives a global approximation $(\overline{X}_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ of the CIR process on $[0,T]$. The main result of [@dns] is:
\[mainthm\_sqr\_euler\] Let $2\kappa \lambda > \theta^2$, $x_0>0$ and $T>0$. Then, for all $$1 \leq p < \frac{2 \kappa \lambda}{\theta^2}$$ there exists a constant $K_p >0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left( {\mathbf{E}}\max_{t \in [0,T]} |X_{t} - \overline{X}_t |^p \right)^{1/p} \leq K_p \cdot \sqrt{\log(\Delta)|} \cdot \sqrt{\Delta}, \end{aligned}$$ for all $\Delta \in (0, 1/2]$.
The restriction on $p$ arises in the proof of the convergence rate when controlling the inverse $p$-th moments of the CIR process, which are infinite for $p \geq 2 \kappa \lambda /\theta^2$. For further details, see [@dns]. Note that for SDEs with Lipschitz coefficients the convergence rate $\sqrt{| \log(\Delta)|} \cdot \sqrt{\Delta}$ is best possible with respect to the above global error criterion, see [@tmg]. So the convergence rate given in Theorem \[mainthm\_sqr\_euler\] matches the rate that is optimal under standard assumptions.
Other approximation schemes for the strong approximation of the CIR process can be found in [@alfonsi; @jk; @hal]. Among them is the drift-implicit Milstein scheme $$\begin{aligned}
{ \overline{Z}}_{t_{k+1}} ={ \overline{Z}}_{t_{k}} & + \kappa( \lambda -{ \overline{Z}}_{t_{k+1}}) \Delta + \theta \sqrt{{ \overline{Z}}_{t_{k}}} \Delta_k W + \frac{\theta^2}{4} \big( (\Delta_k W)^2 - \Delta \big) \end{aligned}$$ with $Z_0=x_0$, see [@jk]. It can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dimp_niceform}
{ \overline{Z}}_{t_{k+1}} = \frac{1}{1+\kappa \Delta } \left( \sqrt{{ \overline{Z}}_{t_k}} + \frac{\theta}{2} \Delta_k W \right)^2 + \frac{1}{1+\kappa \Delta } \left( \kappa \lambda - \frac{\theta^2}{4} \right) \Delta, \end{aligned}$$ so this scheme preserves the positivity of the CIR process if $4\kappa \lambda \geq \theta^2$. It coincides up to a term of second order with the drift-implicit square-root Euler method, since the latter can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
{ \overline{X}}_{t_{k+1}} = & \frac{1}{1+\kappa \Delta } \left( \sqrt{{ \overline{X}}_{t_{k}}} + \frac{\theta}{2} \Delta_k W \right)^2 + \frac{1}{1+\kappa \Delta } \left( \kappa \lambda - \frac{\theta^2}{4} \right) \Delta \\
& \qquad - \frac{1}{1+\kappa \Delta} \left( \frac{4 \kappa \lambda - \theta^2}{8 \sqrt{{ \overline{X}}_{t_{k+1}}}} - \frac{\kappa}{2} \sqrt{{ \overline{X}}_{t_{k+1}}} \right)^2 \Delta^2.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover the drift-implicit Milstein scheme dominates the drift-implicit square-root Euler method:
\[dom\_Z\] Let $2\kappa \lambda > \theta^2$, $x_0>0$ and $T>0$. Then $$\mathbf{P} ({ \overline{Z}}_{t_k} \geq { \overline{X}}_{t_k}, \,\, k=0,1, \ldots ) =1.$$
The numerical flow for the drift-implicit Milstein scheme is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\overline{Z}}(x;k,\Delta)= \frac{1}{1+\kappa \Delta } \left( \sqrt{x} + \frac{\theta}{2} \Delta_k W \right)^2 + \frac{1}{1+\kappa \Delta }\left( \kappa \lambda - \frac{\theta^2}{4} \right) \Delta \end{aligned}$$ and for the drift-implicit square-root Euler method it satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{\overline{X}}(x;k,\Delta) & + \frac{1}{1+\kappa \Delta} \left( \frac{4 \kappa \lambda - \theta^2}{8 \sqrt{\varphi_{\overline{X}}(x;k,\Delta) }} - \frac{\kappa}{2} \sqrt{ \varphi_{\overline{X}}(x;k,\Delta)} \right)^2 \Delta^2 \\ & \qquad = \frac{1}{1+\kappa \Delta } \left( \sqrt{x} + \frac{\theta}{2} \Delta_k W \right)^2 + \frac{1}{1+\kappa \Delta } \left( \kappa \lambda - \frac{\theta^2}{4} \right) \Delta.\end{aligned}$$ From [@alfonsi] it is known that $\varphi_{\overline{X}}$ is monotone, i.e. $$\varphi_{\overline{X}}(x_1;k,\Delta) \geq \varphi_{\overline{X}}(x_2;k,\Delta)$$ for $x_1 \geq x_2$. Thus it remains to show that $$\varphi_{\overline{Z}}(x;k,\Delta) \geq \varphi_{\overline{X}}(x;k,\Delta)$$ for arbitrary $\Delta>0$, $k=0, 1, \ldots$, $x >0$. However, this follows directly by comparing both flows.
The above property allows one to show the strong convergence of the drift-implicit Milstein scheme, which seems not to have been established yet in the literature.
\[conv\_dimp\_mil\] Let $2\kappa \lambda > \theta^2$, $x_0>0$ and $T>0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \mathbf{E} \max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k}- { \overline{Z}}^n_{t_k} |^2=0.
\end{aligned}$$
First note that the drift-implicit square-root Euler method can be rearranged as $$\begin{aligned}
X_{t_{k+1}} &= \varphi_{\overline{Z}}(X_{t_k};k, \Delta) - \kappa \int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}} (X_t-X_{t_{k+1}})\,dt
\\ & \qquad + \theta \int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}} (\sqrt{X_t} - \sqrt{X_{t_k}} )\,dW_t - \frac{\theta^2}{4} ( \Delta_k W^2 - \Delta) \end{aligned}$$ where $\varphi_{\overline{Z}}$ is the numerical flow of the drift-implicit Milstein scheme defined in the proof of the above Lemma. Thus the error $e_k=X_{t_k}-{ \overline{Z}}_{t_k}$ satisfies the recursion $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rec_1}
e_{k+1} &= e_k - \kappa e_{k+1} \Delta + \theta \Big(\sqrt{X_{t_k}}- \sqrt{{ \overline{Z}}_{t_k}} \Big) \Delta_k W + \rho_{k+1}
\end{aligned}$$ with $e_0=0$, where $$\rho_{k+1} = -\kappa \int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}} (X_s-X_{t_{k+1}})\,ds + \theta \int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}} (\sqrt{X_s} - \sqrt{X_{t_k}} )\,dW_s.$$ Now gives $$\begin{aligned}
e_{k+1} &= \frac{1}{1+ \kappa \Delta} \left( e_k + \theta \Big(\sqrt{X_{t_k}}- \sqrt{{ \overline{Z}}_{t_k}} \Big) \Delta_k W + \rho_{k+1} \right),
\end{aligned}$$ so $$e_k = \sum_{\ell=0}^{k-1} \frac{\theta}{(1+ \kappa \Delta)^{k-\ell}} \Big(\sqrt{X_{t_{\ell}}}- \sqrt{{ \overline{Z}}_{t_{\ell}}} \Big) \Delta_{\ell} W +\sum_{\ell=0}^{k-1} \frac{1}{(1+ \kappa \Delta)^{k-\ell}} \rho_{\ell+1}.$$ Straightforward calculations using yield $$\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \sup_{k=0, \ldots, n} \, \mathbf{E} { \overline{Z}}_{t_k} < \infty.$$ Then applying the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality to the martingale $$M_{k}= \sum_{\ell=0}^{k-1} (1+ \kappa \Delta)^{\ell} \Big(\sqrt{X_{t_{\ell}}}- \sqrt{{ \overline{Z}}_{t_{\ell}}} \Big) \Delta_{\ell} W, \qquad k=0,1, \ldots$$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{crucial_est}
\mathbf{E} \sup_{k=0, \ldots, n} e_k^2 & \leq c \sum_{\ell=0}^{n-1} (1+ \kappa \Delta)^{2\ell} \mathbf{E} \left| \sqrt{X_{t_\ell}}- \sqrt{{ \overline{Z}}_{t_\ell}} \right|^2 \Delta \\ & \qquad \quad \nonumber + c \, \mathbf{E} \sup_{k=1, \ldots,n} \left| \sum_{\ell=0}^{k-1} \frac{1}{(1+ \kappa \Delta)^{k-\ell}} \rho_{\ell+1} \right|^2 .\end{aligned}$$ Here and below constants whose particular value is not important will be denoted by $c$ regardless of their value.
It remains to estimate the terms on the right side of the equation . The previous Lemma implies that $$\mathbf{E}|\overline{Z}_{t_k} - \overline{X}_{t_k}| = \mathbf{E}(\overline{Z}_{t_k} - \overline{X}_{t_k}),$$ so $$\mathbf{E}|\overline{Z}_{t_k} - X_{t_k}| \leq 2 \, \mathbf{E}|\overline{X}_{t_k} - X_{t_k}| + |\mathbf{E}(\overline{Z}_{t_k} - {X}_{t_k}) |.$$ Clearly, Theorem \[mainthm\_sqr\_euler\] yields $$\max_{k=0, \ldots, n} \mathbf{E} |\overline{X}_{t_k} - X_{t_k}| \leq c \cdot \sqrt{| \log(\Delta)|} \cdot \sqrt{\Delta}.$$ Moreover, $$\mathbf{E} \overline{Z}_{t_{k+1}} = \mathbf{E} \overline{Z}_{t_k} + \kappa (\lambda - \mathbf{E} \overline{Z}_{t_{k+1}}) \Delta,$$ which is the drift-implicit Euler approximation of $$\mathbf{E} X_t = x_0 + \int_0^t \kappa(\lambda - \mathbf{E} X_s) \,ds, \qquad t \in [0,T],$$ at the discretization points $t_k=k \Delta$, so $$\max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |\mathbf{E} ({X}_{t_k} - { \overline{Z}}_{t_k})| \leq c \cdot \Delta.$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{k=0, \ldots, n} \mathbf{E} |\overline{X}_{t_k} - X_{t_k}| \leq c \cdot \sqrt{| \log(\Delta)|} \cdot \sqrt{\Delta} \end{aligned}$$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=0}^{n} (1+ \kappa \Delta)^{2k} \mathbf{E} \left| \sqrt{X_{t_k}}- \sqrt{{ \overline{Z}}_{t_k}} \right|^2 \Delta \leq c \cdot \sqrt{| \log(\Delta)|} \cdot \sqrt{\Delta} \label{est_dimp_1}\end{aligned}$$ since $|\sqrt{x}-\sqrt{y}|\leq \sqrt{|x-y|}$ for $x,y >0$ and $\sup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \sup_{k=0, \ldots, n} (1+ \kappa \Delta)^{2k} < \infty$.
For the second term, applying the Burkholder-Davies-Gundy inequality and Jensen’s inequality yield $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbf{E} \sup_{k=1, \ldots, n} \left| \sum_{\ell=0}^{k-1} \frac{1}{(1+ \kappa \Delta)^{k-\ell}} \rho_{\ell+1} \right|^2 \\ & \qquad \leq c \cdot \frac{1}{\Delta} \, \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \mathbf{E}\left| \int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}} (X_t-X_{t_{k+1}}) \, dt \ \right|^2 + c \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \mathbf{E} \int_{t_k}^{t_{k+1}} \left| \sqrt{X_t}- \sqrt{X_{t_k}} \right|^2 \,dt .
\end{aligned}$$ Now $$\mathbf{E} |X_t-X_s|^2 \leq c \cdot |t-s|, \qquad s,t \in [0,T],$$ so it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{E} \sup_{k=1, \ldots, n} \left| \sum_{\ell=0}^{k-1} \frac{1}{(1+ \kappa \Delta)^{k-\ell}} \rho_{\ell+1} \right|^2 \leq c \cdot \sqrt{\Delta}, \end{aligned}$$ which completes the proof of the proposition.
Alternatively, Proposition \[conv\_dimp\_mil\] could have been obtained by deriving the pathwise convergence of the drift-implicit Milstein scheme and establishing the uniform integrability of the squared maximum error. Note that the above proof gives also the convergence order 1/4 up to a logarithmic term. However this rate seems to be suboptimal, see the following numerical example.
The Figures \[fig\_cir\_path\_msq\_1\] and \[fig\_cir\_path\_msq\_2\] show the empirical root mean square maximum error in the discretization points, i.e. $$\left( \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \max_{k=0, \ldots, n} |X_{t_k}^{*,(i)}- { \overline{X}}_{t_k}^{n,(i)} |^2\right)^{1/2},$$ versus the step size for the approximation of the CIR process. Consider the
- truncated Euler scheme
- drift-implicit square-root Euler
- drift-implicit Milstein scheme
for the Scenarios I and II (see Example \[cir\_scen\_def\]). Scenario I satisfies the condition of Theorem \[mainthm\_sqr\_euler\] and Proposition \[conv\_dimp\_mil\] since $2 \kappa \lambda/\theta^2=2.011276\ldots $.This condition is violated in Scenario II where $2 \kappa \lambda /\theta^2=0.36$. In the latter scenario, the truncation $\sqrt{x^+}$ in the definition of the schemes (ii) and (iii) is used, since both discretization schemes may take negative values here. The numerical reference solution $X^*$ is computed in Scenario I using scheme (ii) with very small stepsize and in Scenario II with scheme (i) with a very small stepsize. The number of repetitions of the Monte Carlo simulation is $N=5\cdot 10^4$.
In the log-log coordinates here, the dots indicate the convergence orders $0.5$ and $1.0$ in Figure \[fig\_cir\_path\_msq\_1\] and 0.25 and 0.5 in Figure \[fig\_cir\_path\_msq\_2\], respectively. For Scenario I the empirical mean square error for the truncated Euler scheme seems to decay with the order $0.5$, while the other schemes seem to have an empirical convergence order close to $1.0$. (For smooth and Lipschitz coefficients the Milstein scheme is of order one for the maximum error in the discretization points.)
For Scenario II, these convergence orders deteriorate and for all schemes are significantly lower than one half, see also the following table, where the convergence orders have been estimated by a linear regression.
empirical conv. order / for Sc. I ’part’ Sc. II ’part’ Sc. I ’full’ Sc. II ’full’
------------------------------ -------------- --------------- -------------- ---------------
truncated Euler 0.5739 0.3193 0.6446 0.2960
drift-imp. square-root Euler 0.9281 0.2734 0.8491 0.2837
drift-imp. Milstein 0.9447 0.3096 0.8719 0.2871
Here ’part’ denotes the results for the linear regression using only the step sizes $\Delta=5\cdot 2^{-j}$, $j=7, \ldots, 13$, while ’full’ uses the full data set, i.e. the step sizes $\Delta=5\cdot 2^{-j}$, $j=4, \ldots, 13$.
$\diamond$
Applying the Lamperti-transformation also to the asset price in the Heston model gives the log-Heston model $$\begin{aligned}
d \log(S_t) &= \left( \mu -\frac{1}{2} Y_t^2 \right) dt + Y_t \left( \sqrt{1-\rho^2} d W^{(1)}_t + \rho dW^{(2)}_t \right), & \quad S_0=s_0 >0 \\
dY_t &= \left( \frac{4 \kappa \lambda - \theta^2}{8}\frac{1}{Y_t} - \frac{\kappa}{2} Y_t \right) \, dt + \frac{\theta}{2} dW^{(2)}_t, & \quad Y_0=y_0 >0.\end{aligned}$$ The approximation of the log-Heston price is then a simple integration problem. Using the Euler scheme for the log-price equation and the drift-implicit square-root Euler scheme for the volatility process yields an approximation $\overline{H}_{t_k}$ of $\log(S_{t_k})$ given by $$\overline{H}_{t_k}= \log(s_0)+ \sum_{\ell=0}^{k-1}\left( \mu -\frac{1}{2} \overline{Y}_{t_{\ell}}^2 \right)\Delta + \sum_{\ell=0}^{k-1} \overline{Y}_{t_{\ell}} \left( \sqrt{1-\rho^2} \Delta_{\ell} W^{(1)} + \rho \Delta_{\ell} W^{(2)} \right).$$ This is extended by piecewise linear interpolation to $[0,T]$.
\[maincor\_sqr\_euler\] Let $2\kappa \lambda > \theta^2$, $x_0>0$ and $T>0$. Then, for all $$1 \leq p < \frac{2 \kappa \lambda}{\theta^2}$$ there exists a constant $K_p >0$ such that $$\left( {\mathbf{E}}\max_{t \in [0,T]} |\log(S_{t}) - \overline{H}_t |^p \right)^{1/p} \leq K_p \cdot \sqrt{| \log(\Delta)|} \cdot \sqrt{\Delta},$$ for all $\Delta \in (0, 1/2]$.
Note that in the Heston model moment explosions may appear according to the parameters of the SDE. In particular, for $p>1$ one has $ \mathbf{E}S_t^p < \infty$ for all $t>0$ if and only if $$\rho \leq -\frac{\sqrt{p-1}}{\sqrt{p}} + \frac{\kappa}{\theta p}.$$ For more details see e.g. [@and_pit]. Whether this phenomenon also arises for discretization schemes for the Heston model is unknown at the time of writing.
In this example we test the efficiency of the Multi-level Monte Carlo estimator $\widehat{P}_{ml}$ see [@g1; @g2], based on the above approximation scheme for the valuation of a European Call option, i.e. for $$p = e^{-rT} \mathbf{E} (S_T-K)^+.$$ The parameters for the Heston model are $$\begin{aligned}
& v_0=0.05, \quad \kappa=5.07, \quad \lambda=0.0457,\quad \theta=0.48, \quad T=1 \\ & s_0=100, \quad \mu=r=0.0319, \quad\rho=-0.7, \quad K=105.\end{aligned}$$ (Since the riskfree measure is used for the valuation we have $\mu=r$.) In view of the above convergence result for the log-Heston model, we use the number of levels $L=\lceil \log_{2}(T \varepsilon^{-1}) \rceil$ and the number of repetitions $N_l = \lceil L \varepsilon^{-2} T 2^{-\ell} \rceil$, $\ell=0, \ldots, L,$ for a given input accuracy $\varepsilon >0$, see [@g1].
The table below shows the empirical root mean square error $$\textrm{rmsq}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^{M} | p - \widehat{P}^{(i)}_{ml}|^2}$$ for the Multi-level estimator versus the required number of total Euler steps. The latter is proportional to the overall computational cost of the estimator, i.e. the number of used random numbers, number of function evaluations and number of arithmetic operations. The $\widehat{P}^{(i)}_{ml}$ are iid copies of the Multi-level estimator $\widehat{P}_{ml}$ and we use $M=5 \cdot 10^4$. The reference value $p=7.46253$ was obtained by a numerical evaluation of its Fourier transform representation, see e.g. [@CM].
For comparison, we also provide the corresponding numerical data for the standard Monte Carlo estimator $\widehat{P}_{st}$, see , for which we use the relation $\Delta^2 = T/N$ to match stepsize $\Delta$ and numbers of repetitions $N$. For the same parameters as above the empirical root mean square error of $\widehat{P}_{st}$ is again estimated using $M=5\cdot 10^4$ repetitions.
$\varepsilon$ Euler steps of $\widehat{P}_{ml}$ $\textrm{rmsq}_{\textrm{emp}} $ of $\widehat{P}_{ml}$ Euler steps of $\widehat{P}_{st}$ $\textrm{rmsq}_{\textrm{emp}} $ of $\widehat{P}_{st}$
--------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
$2^{-3}$ 1056 1.369616 512 1.444497
$2^{-4}$ 7168 0.685299 4096 0.714207
$2^{-5}$ 43520 0.352762 32768 0.357962
$2^{-6}$ 245760 0.181384 262144 0.179231
$2^{-7}$ 1318912 0.093485 2097152 0.089618
$2^{-8}$ 6815744 0.047139 16777216 0.044821
The numerical data are in good accordance with the predicted convergence behavior, that is
- for the Multi-level estimator a root mean square error of order $\varepsilon$ for a computational cost of order $\varepsilon^{-2} |\log(\varepsilon)|^2$
- and for the standard estimator a root mean square error of order $\varepsilon$ for a computational cost of order $\varepsilon^{-3}$.
In particular halving the input accuracy leads for both estimators (approximately) to a halving of the empirical root mean square error. Moreover, these results illustrate nicely the superiority of the Multi-level estimator for small input accuracies.
Summary and Outlook
===================
In this article we gave a survey on recent results on the convergence of numerical methods for stochastic differential equations in mathematical finance. The presented results include:
- the pathwise convergence of general Itô-Taylor schemes for strictly positive SDEs with smooth but not globally Lipschitz coefficients (Section 2);
- the construction of structure, i.e. positivity, preserving approximation schemes (Sections 2 and 5);
- the strong convergence of Euler-type methods for the CEV model and the CIR process (Section 3);
- the explosion of the moments of the Euler scheme for SDEs for the 3/2-model (Section 3);
- the strong convergence of the drift-implicit Euler scheme for the Ait-Sahalia model (Section 4);
- strong convergence rates for the approximation of the CIR and the log-Heston model using a drift-implicit Euler-type method (Section 5).
However many unsettled questions are remaining: the exact strong convergence rate of the Euler scheme for the CEV and CIR processes, the existence or non-existence of moment explosions for approximation schemes of the Heston model, how to prevent moment explosions (if they happen) by simple modifications of the scheme etc. And even if these questions are answered, the question remains whether there is a ’general theory’ for numerical methods for SDEs from mathematical finance or do these SDEs have to analysed one by one. So, the numerical analysis of SDEs arising in finance will be still an active and challenging field of research in the future.
[**[Acknowledgements.]{}**]{} The authors would like to thank Martin Altmayer, Martin Hutzenthaler and Arnulf Jentzen for valuable comments and remarks on an earlier version of the manuscript. Moreover, the authors would like to thank Mike Giles for a helpful discussion concerning the numerical evaluation of Fourier transforms.
[99]{}
Ait-Sahalia, A.: Testing continuous-time models of the spot interest rate. [*Rev. Financ. Stud.*]{} [**9**]{}, no. 2, 385–426 (1996)
Ait-Sahalia, A., Kimmel, R.: Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Stochastic Volatility Models. [*J. Financ. Econ.*]{} [**83**]{}, 413–452 (2007)
Albrecher, H., Mayer, Ph., Schoutens, W., Tistaert, J.: The Little Heston Trap. [*Wilmott Magazine*]{}, January Issue, 83–92. (2007)
Alfonsi, A.: On the discretization schemes for the CIR (and Bessel squared) processes. [*Monte Carlo Methods Appl.*]{} [**11**]{}, 355–384 (2005)
Alfonsi, A.: High order discretization schemes for the CIR process: Application to affine term structure and Heston models. [*Math. Comput.*]{} **79**, no. 269, 209–237 (2010)
Andersen, L., Piterbarg, V.: Moment explosions in stochastic volatility models. [*Finance Stoch.*]{} **11**, no. 1, 29–50 (2007)
Arnold, L.: [*Random Dynamical Systems*]{}, Springer, Berlin (1998)
Berkaoui, A., Bossy, M., Diop, A.: Euler scheme for SDEs with non-Lipschitz diffusion coefficient: strong convergence. [*ESAIM, Probab. Stat.*]{} **12**, 1–11 (2008)
Beskos, A., Papaspiliopoulos, O., Roberts G.: Retrospective exact simulation of diffusion sample paths with applications. [*Bernoulli*]{} **12**, no. 6, 1077–1098 (2006)
Bossy, M., Diop, A.: An efficient discretization scheme for one dimensional SDEs with a diffusion coefficient function of the form $|x|^a, a \in [1/2,1).$ Working paper, INRIA (2007)
Broadie, M., Kaya, Ö.: Exact simulation of stochastic volatility and other affine jump diffusion processes. [*Oper. Res.*]{} [**54**]{}, 217–231 (2006)
Cox, J.: Notes on option pricing I: Constant elasticity of variance diffusions. Working paper, Stanford University (1975)
Cox, J., Ingersoll, J., Ross, S.: A theory of the term structure of interest rates. [*Econometrica*]{} [**53**]{}, 385–408 (1985)
Deelstra, G., Delbaen, F.: Convergence of discretized stochastic (interest rate) processes with stochastic drift term. [*Appl. Stochastic Models Data Anal.*]{} [**14**]{}, 77–84 (1998)
Dereich, S., Neuenkirch, A., Szpruch, L.: An Euler-type method for the strong approximation of the Cox-Ingersoll-Ross process. [*Proc. Roy. Soc. A*]{}, to appear
Deuflhard, P., Bornemann, F.: [*Scientific computing with ordinary differential equations.*]{} Springer, New York (2002)
Garrido-Atienza, M.J., Kloeden, P.E., Neuenkirch, A.: Discretization of stationary solutions of stochastic systems driven by fractional Brownian motion, [*J. Appl Math. Optim.*]{} [**60**]{}, 151–172 (2009)
Duffie, D., Glynn, P.: Efficient Monte Carlo simulation of security prices. [*Ann. Appl. Probab.*]{} **5**, no. 4, 897–905 (1995)
Giles, M.: Multi-level Monte Carlo path simulation. [*Oper. Res.*]{} **56**, no. 3, 607–617 (2008)
Giles, M.: Improved multilevel Monte Carlo convergence using the Milstein scheme. In: Keller, A. (ed.) et al., [*Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods 2006, Proceedings*]{}. Berlin, Springer, 343–354 (2007)
Günther, M., Kahl, C., Ro[ß]{}berg, T.: Structure preserving stochastic integration schemes in interest rate derivative modeling. [*Appl. Numer. Math.*]{} **58**, no. 3, 284–295 (2008)
Makarov, R., Glew, D.: Exact simulation of Bessel diffusions. [*Monte Carlo Methods Appl.*]{} **16**, no. 3-4, 283–306 (2010)
Gyöngy, I.: A note on Euler’s approximations, [*Potential Anal.*]{} **8**, 205–216 (1998)
Gyöngy, I., Rásonyi, M.: A note on Euler approximations for SDEs with Hölder continuous diffusion coefficients, [*Stochastic Processes Appl.*]{} **121**, no. 10, 2189–2200 (2011)
Halidas, H.: Semi discrete approximations for stochastic differential equations and applications. [*Int. J. Comput. Math.*]{} **89**, no. 6, 780—794 (2012)
Heston, S.: A closed form solution for options with stochastic volatility, with applications to bonds and currency options. [*Rev. Financial Stud.*]{} [**6**]{}, 327–343 (1993)
Heston, S.: A simple new formula for options with stochastic volatility. Working paper, Washington University of St. Louis (1997)
Higham, D., Mao, X.: Convergence of Monte Carlo simulations involving the mean-reverting square root process. [*J. Comp. Fin.*]{} **8**, 35–62 (2005)
Higham, D., Mao, X., Stuart, A.: Strong convergence of Euler-type methods for nonlinear stochastic differential equations. [*SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*]{} **40**, 1041–1063 (2002)
Higham, D., Mao, X., Szpruch, L.: Convergence, Non-negativity and Stability of a New Milstein Scheme with Applications to Finance. Working paper (2012) [arXiv:1204.1647]{}
Hurd, T.R., Kuznetsov, A.: Explicit formulas for Laplace transforms of stochastic integrals. [*Markov Process. Relat. Fields*]{} **14**, no. 2, 277–290 (2008)
Hutzenthaler, M., Jentzen, A.: Convergence of the stochastic Euler scheme for locally Lipschitz coefficients. [*Found. Comput. Math.*]{} **11**, no. 6, 657–706 (2011)
Hutzenthaler, M., Jentzen, A.: Numerical approximations of stochastic differential equations with non-globally Lipschitz continuous coefficients. Working paper (2012) [arXiv:1203.5809]{}
Hutzenthaler, M., Jentzen A., Kloeden, P.: Strong and weak divergence in finite time of Euler’s method for stochastic differential equations with non–globally Lipschitz coefficients. [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London A*]{} [**467**]{}, no. 2130, 1563–1576 (2011)
Hutzenthaler, M., Jentzen A., Kloeden, P.: Strong convergence of an explicit numerical method for SDEs with non–globally Lipschitz continuous coefficients. [*Ann. Appl. Probab*]{}, to appear
Hutzenthaler, M., Jentzen A., Kloeden, P.: Divergence of the multilevel Monte Carlo Euler method for nonlinear stochastic differential equations. Working paper (2011) [arXiv:1105.0226]{}
Jentzen, A., Kloeden, P., Neuenkirch, A.: Convergence of numerical approximations of stochastic differential equations on domains: higher order convergence rates without global Lipschitz coefficients. [*Numer. Math.*]{} [**112**]{}, no. 1, 41–64 (2009)
Kloeden, P., Neuenkirch, A.: The pathwise convergence of approximation schemes for stochastic differential equations. [*LMS J. Comput. Math.*]{} **10**, 235–253 (2007)
Kloeden, P., Platen, E.: [*Numerical Solution of Stochastic Differential Equations.*]{} 3rd edn, Springer, Berlin (1999)
Lord, R., Koekkoek, R., van Dijk, D.: A comparison of biased simulation schemes for stochastic volatility models. [*Quant. Finan.*]{} **10**, no. 2, 177–194 (2010)
Milstein, G.: [*Numerical Integration of Stochastic Differential Equations.*]{} Kluwer, Doordrecht (1995)
Milstein, G., Tretyakov, M.: Numerical integration of stochastic differential equations with nonglobally Lipschitz coefficients. [*SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*]{} **43**, 1139–1154 (2005)
Müller-Gronbach, T.: The optimal uniform approximation of systems of stochastic differential equations. [*Ann. Appl. Probab.*]{} **12**, no. 2, 664–690 (2002)
Neuenkirch, A., Zähle, H.: Asymptotic error distribution of the Euler method for SDEs with non-Lipschitz coefficients. [*Monte Carlo Methods Appl.*]{} **15**, no.4, 335–353 (2009)
Szpruch, L., Mao, X., Higham, D., Pan, J.: Numerical simulation of a strongly nonlinear Ait-Sahalia-type interest rate model. [*BIT*]{} **51**, 405–425 (2011)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
*${}^a$TRIUMF, 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 2A3\
*${}^b$Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195**
author:
- 'FRANK X. LEE,$^{a}$ DEREK B. LEINWEBER,${}^{b}$ XUEMIN JIN$\, {}^a$'
title: NEW QCD SUM RULES FOR NUCLEON AXIAL VECTOR COUPLING CONSTANTS
---
We study the predicative ability of the QCD Sum Rule method for $g_A$, using a comprehensive Monte Carlo based uncertainty analysis [@leinweber2]. This is the first application of such analysis to a three-point function.
In this approach, the complete QCD parameter space is explored, allowing a quantitative study of how the uncertainties in the QCD input parameters propagate to the phenomenological fit parameters. The Borel window over which the phenomenological and QCD sides of the sum rules are matched is determined by the following criteria: a) OPE convergence — the last term of the truncated OPE series is less than 10% of the total OPE side, b) ground-state dominance — all excited state contributions are no more than 50% of the phenomenological side. Those sum rules which do not meet these criteria are considered invalid and are discarded.
Two sets of new QCD sum rules for $g_A$ are derived in the external field method, using generalized nucleon interpolating fields. Three sum rules are derived from the correlator $<\eta_{\scriptscriptstyle
1/2}\bar{\eta}_{\scriptscriptstyle 1/2}>$ of spin-1/2 interpolating fields: $\eta_{\scriptscriptstyle 1/2}=\eta_1+\beta\,\eta_2$ where $\beta$ is a real parameter, $\eta_1=\epsilon^{abc}\left(u^{aT}C\gamma_5 d^b\right)u^c$, and $\eta_2=\epsilon^{abc}\left(u^{aT}Cd^b\right)\gamma_5 u^c$. The Ioffe current may be recovered by setting $\beta=-1$. However, Ioffe’s choice is not optimal. Another set of 8 sum rules is derived from the mixed correlator $<\eta_{\scriptscriptstyle
\mu,1/2}\bar{\eta}_{\scriptscriptstyle \nu,3/2}>$ of spin-1/2 and spin-3/2 fields: $\eta_{\scriptscriptstyle
\mu,1/2}=\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\, \eta_{\scriptscriptstyle 1/2}$ and $\eta_{\scriptscriptstyle \nu,3/2}=\epsilon^{abc}[
(u^{aT}C\sigma_{\rho\lambda} d^b)\sigma^{\rho\lambda} \gamma_\nu u^c
-(u^{aT}C\sigma_{\rho\lambda} u^b)\sigma^{\rho\lambda} \gamma_\nu
d^c]$, the latter has both spin-1/2 and spin-3/2 components.
Our analysis reveals that the sum rule from the spin-1/2 interpolators which was chosen in previous works [@old], does not have a valid Borel window. Therefore the previous predictions for $g_A$ are unreliable. On the other hand, the sum rule at the structure $iZ_\mu\sigma^{\mu\nu}p_\nu\gamma_5$ has a valid Borel window of 0.91 GeV to 1.16 GeV with the optimal mixing [@leinweber2] $\beta=-1.2$. A combined analysis of this sum rule together with the nucleon mass sum rules [@leinweber2] yields $g_A=1.48\pm^{1.06}_{0.65}$. The relative error of approximately 60% is large compared to a 10% error for the nucleon mass obtained from the same input parameters. Fig. \[bin6\] shows distributions for selected fit parameters drawn from 1000 sets of QCD input parameters. Fig. \[corr4\] shows two of the parameters that have significant correlations with $g_A$. The origin of the large error in $g_A$ is mainly due to the poorly determined pole residue, as $g_A$ is extracted from the form $\lambda^2\,g_A\,e^{-M_N^2/M^2}$. The vacuum susceptibility $\kappa_v$ also contributes to this large uncertainty. Preliminary analysis of the sum rules from the mixed correlator shows no improvement over this conclusion. Analysis of other axial couplings is under way.
This work is supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and U.S. DOE under grant DE-FG06-88ER40427.
[10]{}
D. B. Leinweber, “QCD Sum Rules for Skeptics,” UW-17-N95, nucl-th/9510051; Phys Rev. [**D51**]{}, 6383 (1995).
V.M. Belyaev and Ya.I. Kogan, Phys. Lett. [**136B**]{}, 273 (1984);\
C. Chiu, J. Pasupathy, and S. Wilson, Phys. Rev. D [**32**]{}, 1786 (1985);\
E.M. Henley [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**46**]{}, 431 (1992).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Luigi Lombardo$^{12*}$, Thomas Opitz$^3$, Raphael Huser$^1$\'
bibliography:
- 'landslides.bib'
title: 'Point process-based modeling of multiple debris flow landslides using INLA: an application to the 2009 Messina disaster'
---
We develop a stochastic modeling approach based on spatial point processes of log-Gaussian Cox type for a collection of around $5000$ landslide events provoked by a precipitation trigger in Sicily, Italy. Through the embedding into a hierarchical Bayesian estimation framework, we can use the Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation methodology to make inference and obtain the posterior estimates. Several mapping units are useful to partition a given study area in landslide prediction studies. These units hierarchically subdivide the geographic space from the highest grid-based resolution to the stronger morphodynamic-oriented slope units. Here we integrate both mapping units into a single hierarchical model, by treating the landslide triggering locations as a random point pattern. This approach diverges fundamentally from the unanimously used presence-absence structure for areal units since we focus on modeling the expected landslide count jointly within the two mapping units. Predicting this landslide intensity provides more detailed and complete information as compared to the classically used susceptibility mapping approach based on relative probabilities. To illustrate the model’s versatility, we compute absolute probability maps of landslide occurrences and check its predictive power over space. While the landslide community typically produces spatial predictive models for landslides only in the sense that covariates are spatially distributed, no actual spatial dependence has been explicitly integrated so far for landslide susceptibility. Our novel approach features a spatial latent effect defined at the slope unit level, allowing us to assess the spatial influence that remains unexplained by the covariates in the model. For rainfall-induced landslides in regions where the raingauge network is not sufficient to capture the spatial distribution of the triggering precipitation event, this latent effect hence provides valuable imaging support on the unobserved rainfall pattern.
[**Keywords:**]{} Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation, Landslide susceptibility, Log-Gaussian Cox process, Mapping Units, Spatial point pattern\
Introduction
============
Landslide susceptibility maps are typically the result of spatial predictive models [@brenning2005spatial; @chen2017landslide]. However, the spatial dimension in these models is often only carried through the observed predictors, which vary over space. No actual spatial dependence in a stochastic sense has so far been considered in the geomorphological literature despite the fact that the geostatistical community routinely investigates such spatial effects, which may account for unobserved predictors such as the spatially varying intensity of the precipitation trigger; for a comprehensive review of geostatistical models and methods, see, e.g., the books of @Cressie:1993 [@Stein:1999; @Wackernagel:2003; @Diggle.Ribeiro:2007] and @Cressie.Wikle:2011. The principal aim of our contribution is to bridge the gap between the geomorphological and the geostatistical communities by accounting for latent spatial effects in landslide modeling, while predicting multiple debris flows scenarios.
The model we advocate in this paper can essentially be represented as the Bayesian formulation of a Generalized Additive Model [GAM; @Hastie.Tibshirani.1990; @brenning2008statistical]. However, we propose several modifications to the current literature [see, e.g., @goetz2011integrating]. The primary difference resides in the probability distributions fitted to describe the landslide scenario. The landslide community unanimously pursues a binary presence-absence set-up corresponding to a Bernoulli probability distribution. Alternatively, we will here rely upon a Poisson probability distribution for event counts in small-area units. The Poisson distribution characterizes the random number of events contained in a given spatial unit, which extends the common binary situation. More precisely, we work with a spatial point process model defined over continuous space, which allows us to aggregate event counts and probabilities over any area of interest, independently of the initial spatial pixel discretization used for estimation. A major benefit for landslide modeling is the possibility to calculate the spatial landslide *intensity* in addition to the *susceptibility*. While the latter represents the relative (and potentially rescaled) probability of observing at least one landslide in a given mapping unit, the former indicates the expected number of landslides in such a unit [@erener2012landslide]; the intensity therefore contains more information than the susceptibility for landslide risk assessment. In the geomorphological literature, there is often a misunderstanding that the notion of susceptibility actually corresponds to the *exact* probability of observing a landslide in a given mapping unit. However, susceptibility maps are often calculated from estimated logistic regression models, which are typically fitted to an artificially created, balanced [@lombardo2014test] or unbalanced [@heckmann2014sample], dataset of landslide presences and absences. Therefore, instead of characterizing the “true” landslide probability, the susceptibility rather describes a sort of relative likelihood of unstable versus stable terrain conditions. @petschko2014assessing recognized this misconception and clearly stated the fundamental difference between “true” probability and susceptibility; the authors first compute the odds based on a balanced dataset and then correct them to obtain the “true” probability odds. Using our point process approach, “true” probabilities can be naturally and directly calculated for any area of interest.
Another key feature of our proposed modeling approach is to account for spatially correlated unobserved factors, which affect a given landslide scenario. We assume that available (i.e., observed) covariates do not explain the whole spatial variability of landslide occurrence. Part of the unexplained component may be captured via a latent spatial effect. Here, we try to characterize the observed and latent effects in a Bayesian modeling framework with a log-Gaussian Cox point process using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation [INLA, @Rue.Martino.Chopin.2009; @Illian.al.2012; @Rue.al.2016] for fast and accurate estimation.
Compared to the current geomorphological literature, we also propose a different take on ordinal predictors, often discretized into a number of categories treated as independent. The community constantly uses estimation techniques that neglect the ordered structure of the categories, whose integration may considerably improve estimation and interpretation through the realistic assumption that neighboring categories tend to have similar estimated coefficients, as compared to distant ones. The traditional assumption of independent categorical classes is surely valid when using geology or land use; however, it may represent a gross simplification and loss of information for covariates such as the aspect, or the slope, which are often transformed into corresponding categorical variables. In this contribution, we account for the internal dependence between adjacent categorical classes.
Our novelties fit into the big picture of methodological developments for more precise and informative modeling of high-dimensional geomorphological datasets, bridging state of the art in geostatistical Bayesian inference and geomorphology. However, we also present novel and purely geomorphological considerations for the studied dataset. A number of papers have been published on the disaster that occurred in Messina, Italy, in 2009, focusing only on the catchments that sustained most of the damages [@cama2016exploring; @lombardo2015binary], and only few cases take into account the basins at the margin of the storm [@lombardo2016a; @zini2015rusle]. In this paper, we develop a statistical model for the entire region affected by the landslides triggered on October 1, 2009, as a result of heavy rainfall, and we study the effects of both the predisposing factors and the precipitation trigger event. We offer a detailed discussion of this natural disaster, while highlighting how advanced statistical models and methods may be more broadly applied to assess the risk of landslide in other regions and contexts.
The following Section \[sec:data\] presents available data and preprocessing steps. Hierarchical statistical modeling with log-Gaussian Cox processes is developed in Section \[sec:modeling\], and we provide the description of the specific models that we propose for our data. We discuss important statistical details of estimation results in Section \[sec:estimation\]. Owing to a number of innovating model features as compared to state-of-the-art approaches in landslide modeling, we provide a profound geomorphological interpretation of these statistical results in a separate Section \[sec:interpretation\] before concluding the paper in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Landslide inventory and geomorphological dataset {#sec:data}
================================================
Study region
------------
Our region of study encompasses twelve catchments spanning from the southernmost Fiumedinisi to the northernmost Larderia (see Figure \[fig:map\]). These catchments correspond to the geographic entities that suffered from landslide activations on October 1, 2009. In particular, $68.3\%$ of the mass movements are actually concentrated in the epicentral sector corresponding to the catchments of Itala, Racinazzi, Giampilieri and Briga, but because our aim is to model the spatial effect due to the precipitation trigger, we include all the basins up to the margins of the storm. The catchments to the south, namely Fiumedinisi, Schiavo, Alí and Calamaci, account for $26.3\%$ of total landslides whereas Santo Stefano, Galati, Mili and Larderia to the north suffered the remaining $5.4\%$. Minor intermediate catchments are aggregated to the adjacent major ones in these estimations. These percentages may already give indications of the spatial evolution of the main storm, but it will be crucial to correctly disentangle geomorphological effects susceptible to present strong spatial heterogeneity (morphometry, landforms, lithology, land-use) from the effect of the intensity of the trigger. The analysis of @aronica2012flash has already revealed that an initial cloudburst to the south quickly migrated to the center of the study area where the convective system released the majority of the total discharge.
![Italy (a); Study area (b); Outcropping Lithologies and tectonic lineaments (c); Landslide inventory (LIPs) on October 1, 2009 (d).[]{data-label="fig:map"}](Fig1.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Measurements at the weather station of Briga close to the epicenter report $250$mm of rain on the day of the disaster, in addition to two smaller precipitation events ($190$mm and $75$mm in a single day) that took place one and two weeks before the main event, respectively. In this situation, the weathered mantle draping over a medium to high metamorphic bedrock became saturated and brought to the brink of instability, owing to this very intense climatic stress, unprecented over the past 30 years [@cama2015predicting]. The bedrock primarily consists of paragneiss, gneiss, micaschists and phyllites, which have been weakened by several tectonic cycles piling up the lower groups into numerous duplexes [@giunta1996nuove] and slicing the uppermost groups with synorogenic normal faults [@somma2005syn]. Consideration should also be given to the catchment morphology since the distance of around $7$km from the coastline to the highest ridge is associated with a $1$km variation in elevation, making catchments short and steep. The steepness reaches peak values of $86\degree$ with a mean of $29\degree$ and standard deviation of $13\degree$. These values already indicate a general morphology prone to fail since slopes steeper than $20\degree$ are often reported to be the triggering threshold for debris flows under unfavorable conditions [e.g., @imaizumi2006hydrogeomorphic].
Landslide inventory
-------------------
Several remote sensing scenes have been analyzed to create a full inventory [@malamud2004landslide] of the 2009 Messina event. The initial interpretation relied on post-event orthophotos at $0.17$m resolution provided by the Italian National Civil Protection (PCN). Landslide signatures were refined on the basis of Kompsat-2 scenes at $4$m resolution together with information from Google Earth, ESRI and Bing Basemaps. A comparison with pre-event orthophotos provided by the Territory and Environment Department (ARTA) of the Sicilian Regional Council at $0.25$m resolution allowed for isolating the slope responses belonging to the $2009$ event. As a result, detailed polygon-shaped landslide scars were identified in the epicentral area, along with an additional landslide database for the marginal sectors consisting of the highest points along the landslide crowns. In order to generate a global homogeneous landslide inventory, we first resampled each landslide polygon from the epicentral area into points at a $2$m interdistance. Second, we extracted the planar coordinates of the highest point in each polygon, producing so-called Landslide Identification Points (LIPs); see, e.g., @lombardo2014test for full details on this procedure. Our final inventory contains $4879$ LIPs in the entire area, which are represented in Figure \[fig:map\](d).
Covariates
----------
We selected and preprocessed thirteen covariates to support subsequent statistical analyses. Nine of them are computed from a pre-event Digital Elevation Model (DEM) generated during a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) survey in 2008[^1]. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) is computed from the ASTER scene acquired on May 10, 2009. In addition, we include the distance to tectonic fault lines shown in Figure \[fig:map\](c), the outcropping lithology (see Figure \[fig:map\](c)) from the local $1$:$25000$ scale geological map[^2] and the land use[^3]. The full list of covariates is summarized in Table \[table1\]. Predictors represented as categorical covariates in the geomorphologic literature have always been used without taking into account the ordinal or neighborhood relationships between categories, i.e., by considering categories as completely independent. This simplification may be reasonable for the lithology or land use, but other common predictors may strongly deviate from the initial hypothesis of independence. Therefore, important information can be borrowed from neighboring categories during parameter estimation, and in doing so, a higher number of categories can be used to refine estimated effects. Alternatively, it would also be possible to consider a continuous function represented through B-spline basis functions for continuous ordinal covariates. An important example covariate is the aspect (Asp), which denotes a planar angle in $[0, 360)$ reflecting the orientation of the slope with respect to the North; it is cyclic (as $\mbox{Asp}=0^\circ$ is equivalent to $\mbox{Asp}=360^\circ$), and neighboring classes are linked to each other. Furthermore, any reclassification of a continuous ordinal covariate will produce a new categorical one where each level is dependent on the previous and subsequent ones. Notice that such variable transformations are common in the statistical literature, where a single continuous variable is sliced into several classes to assess nonlinear effects while keeping the inter-class dependence, for instance through a Bayesian prior specification with inter-class dependence. In this work we will check both scenarios of linearity (through fixed effects) and nonlinearity (through random effects) for each continuous covariate in Table \[table1\].
\[table1\]
**Covariate** **Original Type** **Acronym** **Unit**
---------------------------------------- -------------------- ------------- -------------------
Aspect Cyclic Categorical Asp degree ($^\circ$)
Distance to Faults Continuous Dist2F meter (m)
Elevation Continuous Elev meter (m)
Landform Classification Categorical LandC *unitless*
Land Use Categorical Use *unitless*
Normalized Difference Vegetation Index Continuous NDVI *unitless*
Outcropping Lithology Categorical Litho *unitless*
Planar Curvature Continuous Plc m$^{-1}$
Profile Curvature Continuous Prc m$^{-1}$
Relative Slope Position Continuous RSP *unitless*
Slope Continuous Slo degree ($^\circ$)
Stream Power Index Continuous SPI *unitless*
Topographic Wetness Index Continuous TWI *unitless*
: List of geomorphological covariates used in our statistical analysis, their original types, their acronyms, and their units.
Mapping units
-------------
We focus on two types of mapping units: (i) a high-resolution regular grid comprising $449250$ squared pixels of area $225$m$^2$ covering the entire study region; and (ii) slope units [@carrara1995gis]. Covariates are expressed at the fine spatial grid resolution; if a covariate was initially available at a higher resolution, we resample it at the $15$m cell-size by computing its mean value over the coarser pixel. This reduces computational costs, while keeping the mapping units to a reasonably small size, shown to produce good results for our specific study region; see @arnone2016effect [@cama2017improving] and @lombardo2016b. The partitioning into slope units (see Figure \[fig:slopeunits\]) was achieved using the `r.slopeunit` software[^4], and parametrized as in [@alvioli2016automatic] and [@rossi2016land] for the catchment of Giampilieri. As a result, we generate a total number of 3848 slope units.
![Slope Units partition underlain by Aspect. The right panel shows a zoom where arrows indicate the interpreted path of a potential debris flow for each slope unit. This highlights the independence of the slope response in neighboring slope units.[]{data-label="fig:slopeunits"}](Figure_slope_units2.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
In our subsequent statistical analysis, the latent spatial effect is defined at the slope unit level. Slope units therefore play a key role in the present paper. Defining the latent spatial effect over the high-resolution grid would not only be extremely computationally demanding, but the strong dependence between neighboring pixels would also induce numerical instabilities. Slope units are also attractive from an interpretation perspective, because they form geomorphologically independent spatial entities that provide a homogeneous response of a given slope when a landslide occurs; see the illustration on the right panel of Figure \[fig:slopeunits\].
Hierarchical Bayesian modeling of point patterns {#sec:modeling}
================================================
Spatial point processes for random point patterns
-------------------------------------------------
The response variable to model and predict consists of the occurrence positions of the landslide events (i.e., the LIPs shown in Figure \[fig:map\](d)), considered as random because they are unknown before the event takes place. The natural approach for representing a collection of random points over continuous space is through spatial point processes whose realizations are point patterns. We here discuss their appealing properties for predicting event probabilities and intensities over arbitrary spatial supports. Event positions are random but they may be more or less dense in certain regions of space, and they may exhibit clustering or repulsion properties at small scales. In the landslide context, the modeling of clustering structures due to unobserved effects (such as the precipitation trigger in our case) is of principal interest.
The main characteristic of a point process is its intensity function $\lambda(s)\geq 0$: up to a constant factor, the intensity $\lambda(s)$ may be interpreted as the expected number of points falling into an infinitesimal region around the location $s$. More precisely, the count of events occurring in an area $A$ is a non-negative random variable $N(A)\geq0$, whose expectation is given by the integral of the intensity function over $A$, i.e., $E(A)=\int_A \lambda(s)\, \mathrm{d}s$.
The fundamental point process model is the Poisson point process, which is characterized by two probabilistic properties: (i) the number of events $N(A)$ occurring in a bounded area $A$ follows the Poisson distribution, i.e., $\mathrm{pr}\{N(A)=k\}=\exp\{-E(A)\} E(A)^k/k!$, $k=0,1,\ldots$; (ii) if $A_1$ and $A_2$ denote two disjoint areas of space, then $N(A_1)$ and $N(A_2)$ are independent. In other words, the events are randomly scattered over space, yet according to the Poisson distribution defined in terms of a *deterministic* intensity $\lambda(s)$ that may vary spatially. In particular, the probability of absence of any event in $A$ is given by $\mathrm{pr}\{N(A)=0\}=\exp\{-E(A)\}=\exp\{-\int_A \lambda(s)\, \mathrm{d}s\}$. The simplest case consists of homogeneous Poisson processes, which have a constant intensity $\lambda(s)\equiv \lambda$: the expected number of events in an area $A$ is $E(A)=\lambda|A|$, and the probability density of the occurrence position for a point picked at random from overall $N(A)$ points is the uniform density $1/|A|$ over the area $A$.
This probabilistic framework based on point processes is richer than the dichotomous presence-absence setting for specific areal units, fixed a priori, either based on a fine-scale regular grid (at pixel resolution) or larger-scale administrative or geological areal units (such as slope units or catchments). In classical geomorphology-driven landslide modeling, estimation and prediction is tailored to the concept of susceptibility by contrasting areal units touched by landslides with a random selection of the same number of the untouched units. Through its capability to provide probabilities of the type $\mathrm{pr}\{N(A)=0\}$ for any area $A$, our modeling paradigm may be used to derive susceptibility maps in the traditional sense, but it also gives valuable additional information on the point intensity over space and probabilities of the type $\mathrm{pr}\{N(A)=k\}$ or $\mathrm{pr}\{N(A) > k\}$ for $k=0,1,\ldots$, and any areal unit $A$.
Log-Gaussian Cox processes for random effect modeling
-----------------------------------------------------
A spatial Cox point process is essentially a Poisson point process with a *random* intensity function, denoted $\Lambda(s)\geq 0$, $s\in S$. In other words, conditional on $\Lambda(s)=\lambda(s)$, we obtain a Poisson point process with intensity $\lambda(s)$. Through their doubly stochastic construction, Cox point processes are natural models for capturing clustering of points, i.e., the fact that even after taking into account the effect of observed covariates in the Poisson intensity, there remain areas with relatively higher or lower point intensity. In such cases, the point pattern shows clustering structures that cannot be fully explained by the available covariates; however, this may be modeled by assuming that the intensity function is random and contains a latent spatial effect that governs the remaining variation of the intensity over space.
The Gaussian process is the workhorse of spatial statistics, while the log-Gaussian Cox process has risen as its counterpart for modeling point patterns. In this model, the Poisson intensity $\Lambda(s)$ is assumed to be a log-Gaussian process, allowing for the inclusion of fixed and random effects. More precisely, the log-intensity $\log\{\Lambda(s)\}$ is described as a Gaussian random field, in which fixed covariate effects and random effects are embedded through an additive structure of the form $$\label{eq:gauss}
\log\{\Lambda(s)\} = \beta_0+\sum_{j=1}^J \beta_j z_j(s) + \sum_{k=1}^K W_{\bm z_k}(s),$$ where $\beta_0$ is the intercept, $z_j$ are fixed (linear) covariate effects with coefficient $\beta_j$, $j=1,\ldots,J$, and $W_{\bm z_k}$ encodes additional (nonlinear) random effects according to some functional form defined with respect to a covariate set $\bm z_k$, $k=1,\ldots,K$. Notice that we require the vector $\{W_{\bm z_k}(s_1),\ldots,W_{\bm z_k}(s_d)\}^T$ to be multivariate Gaussian for any set of sites $\{s_1,\ldots,s_d\}\subset S$.
Specifically, for $k=1$, we model the spatial random effect $W_{\bm z_1}$ in as a conditional autoregressive [CAR; @Besag.1975; @Rue.Held.2005] Gaussian process defined over the study region at the slope unit level. Hence, $\bm z_1$ denotes here the collection of slope units, $W_{\bm z_1}$ represents a random vector (one variable per slope unit) described by a multivariate Gaussian distribution, and $W_{\bm z_1}(s)$ extracts the Gaussian variable associated to the slope unit containing the location $s$. The CAR model further specifies the Gaussian mean and covariance structures. It is intrinsically defined through the conditional relation of the Gaussian variable $W_\ell$ associated to the $\ell$th slope unit with the variables $W_{m}$ of neighboring slope units (i.e., sharing a common border with the $\ell$th slope unit): $$\label{eq:spateff}
W_\ell\mid W_{\bm z_1}\sim \mathcal{N}\left(\frac{1}{n_\ell}\sum_{m\in\mathrm{NB}(\ell)} W_m, \frac{1}{n_\ell\tau_1}\right),$$ where $\mathrm{NB}(\ell)$ is the set of size $n_\ell=|\mathrm{NB}(\ell)|$ comprising the indices of neighboring slope units. Thus, the spatial effect for the $\ell$th slope unit is the mean of its neighboring slope units, with some additional noise of variance $1/(n_{\ell}\tau_1)$. The precision hyperparameter $\tau_1>0$ is crucial as it determines the spatial dependence strength, i.e., whether the random effects of neighboring slope units are strongly or weakly correlated, and we estimate it from the data.
The other random effects for $k=2,\ldots,K$ in correspond to nonlinear covariate effects. While a nonlinear model is clearly necessary for the Aspect (treated as a cyclic covariate), other continuous covariates such as the Slope or Distance to Faults may be considered as linear or nonlinear. By including additional nonlinear random effects for these covariates, our goal is to check whether or not the nonlinear component significantly improves the model. We here propose to discretize the continuous covariates into a sufficiently large number of equidistant bins such that $\bm z_k$ denotes a list of $L_k$ bins, $W_{\bm z_k}=(W_{\bm z_k,1},\ldots,W_{\bm z_k,L_k})^T$ is a Gaussian random vector of size $L_k$ defined on the bins, and $W_{\bm z_k}(s)$ extracts the random variable associated to the bin corresponding to the specific covariate value observed at location $s$. We further assume that $W_{\bm z_k}$ has first-order random walk structure, i.e., $$\label{eq:rw}
W_{\bm z_k,\ell}-W_{\bm z_k,\ell-1}\sim \mathcal{N}(0,1/\tau_k), \qquad \ell=2,3,\ldots,L_k.$$ Notice that we impose the condition $W_{\bm z_k,L_k}=W_{\bm z_k,1}$ for cyclic variables such as the Aspect. To ensure identifiability of the Gaussian variables in non-cyclic cases, we use the sum-to-zero constraint $\sum_{\ell=1}^{L_k} W_{\bm z_k,\ell}=0$. The hyperparameter $\tau_k>0$ determines the strength of dependence among neighboring covariate classes.
Closed-form expressions of the likelihood function are not available for this model since it is not possible to integrate out the latent log-Gaussian random effects in its density expression. Therefore, the use of Bayesian simulation-based techniques, either based on Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods, or on astutely designed analytical approximations of the high-dimensional integrals involved, such as the approach of Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation [INLA, @Rue.Martino.Chopin.2009; @Illian.al.2012; @Rue.al.2016; @Opitz.2017], is common for estimating such complex models. In this work, we accurately estimate model parameters and predictive distributions by taking advantage of INLA (implemented in the R package `R-INLA`), which bypasses the intricate updating schemes of simulation-based MCMC methods for high-dimensional and complex hierarchical models with non-gaussian responses. Appendix \[sec:INLA\] provides further details on Bayesian inference based on INLA and some guidance on the choice of prior distributions; for reproducibility purposes, we also make the `R` code available on GitHub; see <https://github.com/ThomasOpitz/popland>.
Poisson regression formulation
------------------------------
We now describe a slightly modified formulation of the above point process model based on Poisson regression. It represents the standard inference approach for log-Gaussian Cox processes, which we use here, and it also provides an alternative interpretation of the model.
Suppose that space is discretized into a grid of $n_{\mathrm{grid}}$ pixels of area $C$. Denoting by $N_i$ the number of landslides triggered in the $i$th pixel, $i=1,\ldots,n_{\mathrm{grid}}$, we can formulate a Poisson regression model conditionally on the intensity function $\Lambda(s)$ as follows: $$\label{eq:ppdiscr}
N_i\mid \Lambda(s) \ind \mathrm{Poisson}(C\Lambda(s_i)),\qquad i=1,\ldots, n_{\mathrm{grid}}.
%\RN{Thomas: Shouldn't this be $N_i \sim \mathrm{Poisson}(C\Lambda(s_i))$? Because for a homogeneous Poisson process, one has $E(A)=\lambda |A|$, and $N(A)$ is Poisson with mean $E(A)$. If I'm correct, are the estimated intensities displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:intensity}, and the estimated probabilities used to compute the ROC and AUC, correctly computed?? :-S (I hope so...)}$$ In comparison to the original point process formulation, we here assume that the Poisson intensity function $\Lambda(s)$ is constant within each pixel, which represents a negligible approximation if the pixel size is small. In the following, we choose the pixel according to the discretization of the environmental covariates, i.e., $C=(\mbox{15m})^2=225$m$^2$. Covariate influence can be estimated by embedding into the framework of a generalized additive regression model. The multiplicative constant $C$ appears as an offset $\log(C)$ in the intercept of the regression. Using the approximation remains possible with a random intensity. Since the linear predictor containing fixed and random effects may be expressed as $X_i=\log\{\Lambda(s_i)\}=\beta_0+\ldots $ for pixel $i$ as in , we are using the canonical log-link function of classical Poisson regression.
With this model, the probability $p_i$ of observing at least one event within the pixel $i$ is $$\label{eq:pi}
p_i=1-\exp\{-C\Lambda(s_i)\}=1-\exp\{-C\exp(X_i)\}, \quad i=1,\ldots, n_{\mathrm{grid}}.%\RN{Where is $C$ in this expression??}$$ For relatively small probability values $p$, we may use the well-known approximation $\exp(p)\approx 1+p$, whose application to yields $p_i\approx C\exp(X_i)=C\Lambda(s_i)$. Notice that for logistic binary regression models traditionally used for presence-absence data, we have the following relationship between $p_i$ and the linear predictor $X_i$: $$p_i= \frac{C\exp(X_i)}{1+C\exp(X_i)}, \quad i=1,\ldots, n_{\mathrm{grid}}.$$ For small $p_i$, this also corresponds to the approximation $p_i\approx C\exp(X_i)$. Thus, the link between the linear predictor $X_i$ and the predicted probabilities is approximately the same in both modeling approaches (traditional one and ours) as long as the probabilities are small, which is usually the case when considering landslide events at a high pixel resolution, and provided the logistic regression model is fitted to a full (unbalanced) presence-absence dataset. However, we stress that our discretized Poisson model (and any more general point process model) provides important additional information by predicting also the probabilities for the exact number of events (i.e., for $k=0,1,2,\ldots$), and it allows coherent aggregation of intensities and probabilities over any areal support. Moreover, by using count data and not only binary presence-absence information, the estimation algorithm also uses more precise information about the spatial event distribution, and one can expect a reduced estimation uncertainty, even when the ultimate goal is only to estimate presence-absence probabilities.
For any areal unit $A$, a simple way of obtaining the fitted intensity $\hat\lambda(A)$ (i.e., the predicted number of events in $A$, which is an estimate of $C\int_A \Lambda(s)\,\mathrm{d}s$) and the fitted probability $\hat p(A)$ of observing at least one event in $A$ proceeds as follows. Aggregating the fitted intensities $\hat\lambda_i$ over all pixels included in $A$ yields the fitted intensity for $A$, i.e., $$\label{eq:aggr}
\hat \lambda(A)=\sum_{s_i\in A} \hat\lambda_i.$$ The event probability for $A$ can be estimated as $\hat p(A)=1-\exp\{-\hat \lambda(A)\}$.
Structure of fitted models
--------------------------
We consider four models (denoted Mod1, Mod2, Mod2b and Mod3) of varying complexity, which incorporate covariates in a linear and possibly nonlinear fashion, and include or not a latent spatial effect. The Aspect is treated as a nonlinear covariate in every model, assuming a cyclic random walk structure over $16$ equidistant angle classes. To ensure identifiability of fixed effect coefficients for the non-ordinal categorical covariates related to lithology, land use and landforms, we impose sum-to-zero constraints on the corresponding regression coefficients. We fix a precision parameter of $2$ (i.e., standard deviation $1/\sqrt{2}\approx0.7$) in the centered Gaussian prior for the fixed effects given by continuous covariates, except for the intercept with prior mean $-2$ and precision $1$. For the categorical fixed effects (lithology, land use, landforms) with more than $40$ categories overall, we use stronger priors with precision $100$ (i.e., standard deviation $0.1$).
For the continuous covariates except Aspect, we allow for nonlinearities in some of the models by including both the fixed linear effect and a first-order random walk used to capture potential nonlinearities; if the latter is not significantly different from zero, then the simpler linear model is deemed to be more appropriate. In these random walk models, we slice the range of each continuous covariate into $20$ equidistant classes, assuming that the coefficients of neighboring classes are correlated. We fix the prior precision $\tau_k$ of the jump sizes between two neighboring classes to $25$ (i.e., standard deviation $0.2$), although it remains possible to obtain much larger jumps in the estimated values if the data provide strong evidence for it. Decomposing the covariate effect into a linear and nonlinear part allows us to check separately for the presence of some monotonous effect of the covariate on the landslide intensity (linear part) and of more complex residual nonlinearities (random walk part).
Since including such nonlinearities into the model makes its estimation more challenging, we proceed constructively as follows to build our four models:
1. Mod1 has only linear effects, except for Aspect;
2. Mod2 has a nonlinear structure for all continuous covariates;
3. Mod2b has a nonlinear structure in some of the covariates, based on the inspection of the significance of the nonlinear components in Mod2;
4. Mod3 is partially nonlinear as Mod2b, and additionally includes a latent spatial effect defined through .
\[table2\]
**Model ID** **Covariate Use** **Latent Spatial Effect**
-------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------
Mod1 All linear except for Aspect Absent
Mod2 All nonlinear Absent
Mod2b Non-linear subset based on Mod2 Absent
Mod3 Non-linear subset based on Mod2 Present
: Summary of fitted models.
These four models are summarized in Table \[table2\]. The subset of covariates with nonlinear effects selected for Mod2b and Mod3 is: Elevation, Slope, Distance to Faults (and Aspect). Mod1, Mod2 and Mod2b are similar in spirit to the modeling paradigm routinely implemented in the current geomorphology literature, in which the spatial dimension enters into the model only through the observed covariates, whereas Mod3 is a significant step forward.
We have endowed our models with sensible choices of prior parameters, making them informative enough to avoid instabilities in the INLA-based estimation procedure. The only hyperparameter to be estimated is the precision of the spatial effect governing the strength of spatial dependence between slope units in Mod3. All continuous covariates (except for Aspect) have been rescaled prior to the analyses by subtracting their empirical mean value and dividing by their empirical standard deviation, which simplifies the comparison of fitted effects since they are expressed on the same unit-less scale.
Estimation results {#sec:estimation}
==================
Covariate effects
-----------------
Figure \[fig:fixedeffects\] shows the estimated fixed effect coefficients (except for the intercept whose interpretation is of minor interest here) for our four models. Recall that covariates have been rescaled to have mean $0$ and variance $1$. For better visualization, two estimates do not appear on this graph for Model Mod1: the coefficient for the Elevation has posterior mean $-0.85$ and $95\%$ credible interval $(-0.90,-0.80)$, while the Slope coefficient has posterior mean $0.75$ and $95\%$ credible interval $(0.72,0.81)$. Overall, a number of strongly positive and negative influences on landslide activation with relatively narrow credible intervals can be detected thanks to the large number of observed events and our fine spatial grid resolution. Estimated values are comparable across the most complex models, while the linear model Mod1 has several significantly higher coefficients in absolute value. An explanation is that part of these linear effects become part of the nonlinear and spatial effects in the other models; in particular, there may be some correlation between observed covariates on the one hand and unobserved covariates on the other hand, such as the intensity of the precipitation trigger. From a modeling point of view, the intensity variation may be better captured by the unobserved covariate effect rather than by the observed covariates. Moreover, the prior distribution of fixed and random effects may have a stronger influence in more complex models, yielding slightly smoother posterior estimates.
![Posterior means (black dots) of fixed linear effects (except the Intercept) with $95\%$ credible intervals (vertical segments) for the Models 1, 2, 2b, 3. For Mod1, the coefficients of Elevation and Slope do not appear on the graph and are represented by arrows. Their posterior means ($95\%$ credible intervals) are equal to $-0.85$ $(-0.90,-0.80)$ and $0.75$ $(0.72,0.81)$, respectively. Acronyms of covariates can be found in Table \[table1\].[]{data-label="fig:fixedeffects"}](Fixedeffects){width="0.99\linewidth"}
We now consider Model Mod2, in which all continuous covariates are treated nonlinearly. Figure \[fig:mod2\] displays the overall covariate effect (linear plus nonlinear) with estimated $95\%$ credible intervals; a fully linear model would yield straight lines, while this more flexible nonlinear model allows for departures from this idealistic situation. Covariate values where all three lines (posterior estimate and credible envelopes) lie above $0$ indicate a significant positive contribution to landslide intensity, and by symmetry values below $0$ of all three lines correspond to significant negative effects.
![Pointwise posterior means (black curves) and $95\%$ credible envelopes (blue curves) for the overall (linear and nonlinear) continuous covariate effects in Model Mod2. Acronyms of covariates can be found in Table \[table1\].[]{data-label="fig:mod2"}](AspectModel2.pdf "fig:"){width=".32\linewidth"} ![Pointwise posterior means (black curves) and $95\%$ credible envelopes (blue curves) for the overall (linear and nonlinear) continuous covariate effects in Model Mod2. Acronyms of covariates can be found in Table \[table1\].[]{data-label="fig:mod2"}](DEMFullModel2.pdf "fig:"){width=".32\linewidth"} ![Pointwise posterior means (black curves) and $95\%$ credible envelopes (blue curves) for the overall (linear and nonlinear) continuous covariate effects in Model Mod2. Acronyms of covariates can be found in Table \[table1\].[]{data-label="fig:mod2"}](Dist2FaultFullModel2.pdf "fig:"){width=".32\linewidth"}\
![Pointwise posterior means (black curves) and $95\%$ credible envelopes (blue curves) for the overall (linear and nonlinear) continuous covariate effects in Model Mod2. Acronyms of covariates can be found in Table \[table1\].[]{data-label="fig:mod2"}](NDVIFullModel2.pdf "fig:"){width=".32\linewidth"} ![Pointwise posterior means (black curves) and $95\%$ credible envelopes (blue curves) for the overall (linear and nonlinear) continuous covariate effects in Model Mod2. Acronyms of covariates can be found in Table \[table1\].[]{data-label="fig:mod2"}](PlanCurvFullModel2.pdf "fig:"){width=".32\linewidth"} ![Pointwise posterior means (black curves) and $95\%$ credible envelopes (blue curves) for the overall (linear and nonlinear) continuous covariate effects in Model Mod2. Acronyms of covariates can be found in Table \[table1\].[]{data-label="fig:mod2"}](ProfCurvFullModel2.pdf "fig:"){width=".32\linewidth"}\
![Pointwise posterior means (black curves) and $95\%$ credible envelopes (blue curves) for the overall (linear and nonlinear) continuous covariate effects in Model Mod2. Acronyms of covariates can be found in Table \[table1\].[]{data-label="fig:mod2"}](SlopeFullModel2.pdf "fig:"){width=".32\linewidth"} ![Pointwise posterior means (black curves) and $95\%$ credible envelopes (blue curves) for the overall (linear and nonlinear) continuous covariate effects in Model Mod2. Acronyms of covariates can be found in Table \[table1\].[]{data-label="fig:mod2"}](SPIFullModel2.pdf "fig:"){width=".32\linewidth"} ![Pointwise posterior means (black curves) and $95\%$ credible envelopes (blue curves) for the overall (linear and nonlinear) continuous covariate effects in Model Mod2. Acronyms of covariates can be found in Table \[table1\].[]{data-label="fig:mod2"}](TWIFullModel2.pdf "fig:"){width=".32\linewidth"}
The Aspect has a strongly nonlinear effect; broadly speaking, SSW-facing slopes are the most prone to landsliding and N-facing ones are the least prone, with a smooth transition in between. Elevation has an overall negative correlation with landsliding with the exception of the range from $0$ to $200$m.a.s.l. (positive effect of increasing strength) and above $900$m.a.s.l. (negative effect of decreasing strength). The significant positive effect of the Distance to Fault lines peaks at approximately $700$m, whilst it does not seem to be important up to $500$m and beyond $1000$m. NDVI is quite noisy, but it still appears to be negatively correlated with landsliding overall, with lower NDVI values having slightly stronger effects. Planar and profile curvatures are clearly positively and negatively correlated with landslides, respectively, and they do no show any significant departures from linearity. In particular, sidewardly (respectively upwardly) convex morphologies are more prone to landsliding than concave ones. Slope steepness is among the most significant effects with very narrow credible intervals up to roughly $50\degree$. As expected, steeper slopes are more at risk. The Slope effect appears to be highly nonlinear with increasingly unstable conditions up to $50\degree$, beyond which the Slope effect tends to stabilize although with greater uncertainty due to the lack of observations in this range of slope values. The Stream Power Index (SPI) effect is quite irregular and does not seem to be significant overall, although it is slightly stronger for $\mbox{SPI}>6$. Finally, the Topographic Wetness Index (TWI) effect is not significant overall, although smaller TWI values appear more strongly correlated with landsliding.
To simplify the model and achieve more efficient inference, we now examine the significance of nonlinear effects in Mod2, illustrated in Figure \[fig:mod2\]. Based on statistical and geomorphological arguments, we finally retain Aspect, Elevation, Distance to Faults and Slope as the only nonlinear covariates in Model Mod2b. The remaining continuous covariates are treated linearly. As the results were quantitatively the same for Mod2 and Mod2b, we do not report all results for the simplified model. However, as suggested by Figure \[fig:fixedeffects\], estimated fixed effects in Mod2b are comparable to Mod2, but they tend to be slightly stronger with shorter credible intervals. Figure \[fig:litho.land\] shows estimates and $95\%$ credible intervals for all non-ordinal categorical covariate effects in Mod2b. Amongst $22$ Lithology classes $8$ levels appear to be significant, together with $11$ levels out of the $13$ Land Use classes and $7$ levels out of $10$ Land Form classes. A considerable number of other classes miss significance by little.
![Posterior means (black dots) of estimated effects, with $95\%$ credible intervals (vertical segments) based on Model Mod2b, for Lithology (top), Land Use (bottom left) and Land Form (bottom right). Lithology categories with very few occurrences in the study region are summarized in “Other".[]{data-label="fig:litho.land"}](LithologyIIDModel2b "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}\
![Posterior means (black dots) of estimated effects, with $95\%$ credible intervals (vertical segments) based on Model Mod2b, for Lithology (top), Land Use (bottom left) and Land Form (bottom right). Lithology categories with very few occurrences in the study region are summarized in “Other".[]{data-label="fig:litho.land"}](LanduseIIDModel2b "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"} ![Posterior means (black dots) of estimated effects, with $95\%$ credible intervals (vertical segments) based on Model Mod2b, for Lithology (top), Land Use (bottom left) and Land Form (bottom right). Lithology categories with very few occurrences in the study region are summarized in “Other".[]{data-label="fig:litho.land"}](LandformIIDModel2b "fig:"){width="0.49\linewidth"}
In our last model Mod3, we keep the same selection of nonlinear covariates as in Mod2b, but we now also include a latent spatial effect to account for unexplained variations in the landslide intensity function. The results for linear and nonlinear effects are generally quite similar to those obtained for Mod2 and Mod2b (recall Figure \[fig:fixedeffects\] for fixed linear effects), although certain covariates (such as Distance to Faults for example) are “absorbed” into the latent spatial effect, and therefore lose significance in Mod3. Section \[sec:SpatialEffect\] further describes the estimated spatial effect.
Characterization of the estimated latent spatial effect {#sec:SpatialEffect}
-------------------------------------------------------
![Posterior mean of the slope-unit based latent spatial effect in Model Mod3.[]{data-label="fig:SpatialEffect"}](Figure_spatial_effect2.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Figure \[fig:SpatialEffect\] shows the posterior mean surface of the latent spatial effect $W_{\bm z_1}(s)$ defined through and used in our model Mod3. The fitted spatial effect is piecewise constant over slope units. Spatial dependence is strong, as estimated values vary quite smoothly over space. The highest values are observed near the coast in the middle of the study region, where lots of landslides occurred, while lower values are found in the Northern subregion. An obvious negative gradient is visible when moving away from the epicentral area. Unreported results show that the estimated spatial effect is clearly significant in terms of slope unit-wise credible intervals in the high and low value regions, implying that the spatial effect as a whole is extremely significant and therefore plays a crucial role in explaining the spatial variability of the landslide intensity function. The spatial precision parameter $\tau_1$ in the CAR model, recall , has posterior mean $2.7$ with a relatively narrow $95\%$ credible interval given by $[2.3,3.3]$, which confirms that neighboring slope units are strongly correlated. Compared to the simpler models (Mod1, Mod2 and Mod2b) in which only the observed covariate effects are present, this spatial effect modifies the intensity to have values that are up to $5$ times lower (minimum spatial effect value $-1.6$) or up to $8$ times higher (maximum spatial effect value $2.1$). It therefore corrects for the strong over-dispersion of counts in the Poisson process models without spatial effect, and it can capture complex clustering patterns.
Predictive performance and comparison of models
-----------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:intensity\] displays the predicted intensities for Models Mod1, Mod2 and Mod3 on the pixel level, and aggregated to the slope unit scale. Recall that the intensity may be interpreted, up to a constant, as the expected number of landslides likely to occur at a specific location. While the estimated intensity function appears to be fairly similar for Mod1 and Mod2, there are significant differences with Mod3. The presence of the spatial effect in Mod3 allows to capture abrupt variations in the intensity function and is able to simultaneously estimate very high and very low intensities in different regions of space. Without the spatial effect, Mod1 and Mod2 are more rigid and do not adequately represent the complex landslide point pattern characterized by a high density of events located in the epicentral area and sparse events in the marginal sectors (recall Figure \[fig:map\](d)).
![Predicted intensity maps for Models Mod1 (top), Mod2 (middle) and Mod3 (bottom), using a spatial resolution based on pixels (left) or an aggregation to slope units (right).[]{data-label="fig:intensity"}](Intensities2.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
To assess the *within-sample* performance of each model, we then computed the fitted probabilities of observing at least one landslide in each pixel and slope unit in the study region, using the formulae and . We computed the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, as well as the Area Under the Curve (AUC), by comparing fitted values with observed data. The latter are the most common performance metrics used in geomorphological studies. The larger the AUC the better the fit: for $\mbox{AUC}=0.5$, the fitted model arbitrarily discriminates between stable and unstable conditions, while for $\mbox{AUC}=1$, the model fits the data perfectly. We did similar calculations to check the *predictive* (i.e., *out-of-sample*) performance of each model. More precisely, we conducted a $4$-fold cross-validation experiment by removing approximately $1/4$ of the slope units (randomly selected, but each slope unit removed only once) from the data. Figure \[fig:performances\] summarizes the results.
![ROC curves and corresponding AUC values for Models Mod1 (red), Mod2 (blue), Mod2b (green) and Mod3 (pink). These performances are displayed for the actual fit (top row) and the cross-validation (bottom row), on pixel (left) and slope unit (right) levels.[]{data-label="fig:performances"}](ROCs_AUCs2.pdf){width="60.00000%"}
The models without spatial effect have excellent performances according to @hosmer2000 with AUC values slightly higher for pixel-based predictions ($0.836 < \mbox{AUC} < 0.842$) than for slope units ($0.792 < \mbox{AUC} < 0.822$). The same pattern arises in the cross-validation results for the models without spatial effect, with pixel-based AUC values ranging between $0.828$ and $0.832$, whereas the slope unit partitioning yields a stronger drop in prediction skill ($0.776 < \mbox{AUC} < 0.817$). Prediction results for the spatial effect model Mod3 are outstanding, reaching an AUC of $0.929$ for the cross-validation based on slope units, and clearly outperform the simpler models. This level of accuracy is unprecedented in the geomorphology literature. Moreover, the gap between pixel- and slope unit-based performances is extenuated thanks to the inclusion of the spatial latent effect. Our good results for both within-sample and out-of-sample prediction experiments confirm that our models fit the data well, while avoiding overfitting, which is crucial for reliable risk assessment.
Geomorphological interpretation of statistical results {#sec:interpretation}
======================================================
Summary of modeling novelties
-----------------------------
Our new technique assesses the landslide susceptibility to activation for multiple debris flow. Beyond estimating the spatial probability of landslide occurrence, we also predict the potential number of landslides per (arbitrary) unit area resulting from an extreme storm. We also integrated a linear versus nonlinear evaluation of causative predictors and the extraction of a latent spatial effect from the data. We now provide a more detailed geomorphological interpretation of the statistical results described in Section \[sec:estimation\].
Linear versus nonlinear effects in continuous covariates
--------------------------------------------------------
Linear and nonlinear covariate effects have a tendency to show a general agreement concerning the overall trend, but the nonlinear implementation allows for a more detailed interpretation and reveals some important nonlinear effects. In particular, the Aspect variable is strongly correlated to landslides in SE, S, SW and W directions, in agreement with other studies of the area. [@cama2017improving] obtained negative regression coefficients for Eastness and Northness indicating West and South as preferential instability directions. [@lombardo2016a] show an increase in landslide susceptibility in SE, S, SW directions; however, slight dissimilarities may be due to the study area they investigated, limited to the catchment of Mili located in the Northern part of our study area.
Many papers covering the studied event [e.g., @lombardo2014test; @cama2015predicting] have shown that Elevation is negatively correlated to landslides, although it is often included into models as a proxy for precipitation. The latent unobserved effect displayed in Figure \[fig:SpatialEffect\] provides good insight into the rainfall pattern that might have occurred during the Messina disaster, while elevation is shown to have a positive and increasingly strong effect up to $200$m.a.s.l. and then decreases to reach a relatively negative effect. This may be due to the storm dissipating its discharge at lower altitudes without reaching the catchment ridges. Similar hypotheses and related plots are given in [@lombardo2015binary] but limited to the epicentral catchments of Giampilieri and Briga.
Distance to fault lines contributes to slope instability at relatively large distances from around $500$m to $1000$m, with a peak at $700$m. We interpret this as being due to the absence of the tectonic effect for near distances where tectonized materials are easily weathered and then already removed prior to the landslide occurrences through common erosional processes. Conversely, very far from the fault lines the mantle draping over the bedrock is less susceptible to average climatic stresses and requires a greater rainfall discharge to mobilize and evolve into debris flows. A similar conclusion was observed by [@lombardo2016a]. However, the latter estimated a slightly shorter distance to fault lines up to which the probability of landslide is positive (the maximum effect was roughly estimated to be $600$m).
The NDVI, which captures the density of the vegetation, negatively contributes to the intensity of landslides. This result agrees with the general assumption [e.g., @elkadiri2014remote] that the bare soil is more directly exposed to the trigger when the vegetation is sparser.
Slope steepness positively affects landslide intensities, especially from $28\degree$ to $70\degree$. This result is in good agreement with the general assumption that debris flows initiate in channels steeper than $20\degree$ [@imaizumi2006hydrogeomorphic].
The SPI effect is not significant overall, but appears slightly positive from values greater then $6$. As SPI is a proxy for runoff erosive power, the increasing trend from low to high SPI values appears to be reasonable and in agreement with other contributions correlating high SPI values with greater landslide occurrences [@devkota2013landslide].
The TWI effect is not significant but is markedly negative beyond the value of $4$. The effect appears to be slightly positively correlated at very low TWI values, followed by a smooth attenuation towards topographic conditions more prone to retain water (i.e., plains). This trend agrees well with other papers where the same pattern is shown in landslide frequencies [@pourghasemi2012landslide].
Categorical covariates
----------------------
The categorical covariates in the nonlinear model have slightly different coefficient estimates compared to the linear one, see Figure \[fig:litho.land\], which we attribute to the higher model complexity in the nonlinear model leading to some loss in statistical power for detecting significance of effects. *Recent Alluvial Deposits* are not included among the significant classes for the nonlinear model, despite the significant negative contribution in the linear model. Similarly, significant linear Landforms include *Midslope drainage*, *Plains* and *High ridges*, which are not significant in the nonlinear counterpart. However, their effects appear to be consistent across models, namely positive, negative and positive, respectively, both in the linear and nonlinear cases. Consistency can also be found between estimated significant Land Uses in terms of class signs. However, there are still a few differences between linear and nonlinear models. For example, the linear model finds *Olive groves*, *Beach, dunes and sand*, and *Shrubland* to be significant, whereas the nonlinear one finds *Coniferous* and *Natural Grassland*.
From an interpretative perspective, *Muscovite Marbles*, *Paragneiss to Micaschists* and *Phyllites to meta-arenites* correspond to metamorphic lithotypes known to be strongly weathered in the area [@lombardo2014test] making them unstable under strong meteorological stresses. As for *Mixed groves*, *Moors and heatland* and *Natural grassland*, these land uses correspond to areas with low vegetation density. This condition offers a greater soil exposure to the impact of rainfall and hence to erosion. Similar results are shown for Southern Italy [e.g., @Pisano2017] and are generally emphasized by abandonment of agricultural practices. Conversely, *Vineyards*, *Pastures* and *Temporary cropping* imply active care and constant control by local farmers, which plays a counter-effect to landslide activations. *Degradated Forest* is shown to behave similarly, which is in line with the considerations of [@reichenbach2014influence] in the catchment of Briga, where forested areas have been shown to favor terrain stability. Finally, *Upland Drainages*, *Upper Slopes* and *Midslope Ridges* play a positive role to landsliding. These landforms correspond to steep or very steep portions of the landscape where instabilities take place due to gravitational processes.
Spatial intensity and precipitation trigger
-------------------------------------------
The predicted landslide intensity is shown in Figure \[fig:intensity\]. Spatial patterns coincide with those already stated in the literature. Out of the twelve major catchments investigated in the present contribution, only a subset has been taken into consideration in other studies. In particular, Giampilieri has been assessed several times in terms of landslide susceptibility. [@deguidi2013] used the index method proposed by [@van1997statistical] producing analogous predictive patterns in the left bank. Similarly, the Briga catchment is depicted as highly susceptible both in the left and right flanks in [@rossi2016land] based on logistic regression techniques, which is also the case for predicted intensities in the present work. Further analogies can be drawn between the current results for the catchments of Itala and Mili with [@cama2017improving] and [@zini2015rusle], respectively. However, the introduction of the latent spatial effect changes the spatial predictive patterns, differentiating them from those compared above. The intensities are shown to focus in the epicentral sector where the climatic stress has reached its maximum discharge; moreover, this increases the predictive performance, recall Figure \[fig:performances\]. It further allows us to correctly disentangle covariate effects from the precipitation trigger (encoded into the spatial effect), therefore avoiding confusion when the precipitation trigger is not included into the model. The spatial effect modeling is particularly relevant; a step forward for a better risk management could be made by keeping the estimated covariate coefficients fixed while varying the latent spatial effect by simulating different predictive precipitation scenarios.
Ultimately, we speculate that the estimated latent spatial effect, recall Figure \[fig:SpatialEffect\], provides important information on the spatial distribution of the trigger. For the specific case of the 2009 Messina disaster, researchers have tried to reconstruct the evolution of the storm [e.g., @aronica2012flash]. However, due to the coarse raingauge network in the area, no reliable patterns could have been revealed at a small scale. On the other hand, the latent spatial effect appears to depict a clear spatial trend oriented in the NW-SE direction and centered at the epicentral sector. This information could be used to infer the spatio-temporal evolution of small convective storms in cases where poor weather station coverages represent a physical limitation for rainfall data availability. Our perspective is that in a small region such as the present study area, the effect of the trigger tends to dominate the slope response compared to the other causative factors. Therefore, we have used the landslide scenario to extract the latent spatial effect, which in turn can provide useful information on the trigger itself.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We propose a point process-based modeling framework for debris flow susceptibility with latent random effects embedded into a statistical hierarchical model. Three main novelties arise when contrasting our approach to state-of-the-art approaches currently used in the geomorphological literature.
The first novelty consists of the prediction of landslide intensity in addition to the more common susceptibility. This provides supplementary information for master planners since we do not only predict where potential landslides could occur under similar climatic stresses, but also how many mass movements might actually take place.
The second novelty concerns the latent spatial effect. Its inclusion in the model strongly increases the overall prediction performances from excellent to outstanding. We envision future applications of latent spatial effect constructions both to gain better insight into the space-time evolution of the trigger and to simulate alternative predictive landslide scenarios. In fact, the latent spatial effect model can be numerically simulated with many preferential directions offering supplementary information on how the prediction could change as the trigger pattern changes.
Our third novelty has less practical impact with respect to the previous two, but we believe it to be very important from an interpretative standpoint. It concerns the way covariates are treated in the model. Classical modeling uses continuous covariate in a linear way or discretizes them to a small number of independent categories. We here investigate differences between linear and nonlinear representations by expressing the latter as a linear effect plus a residual nonlinearity, and we impose prior dependence between adjacent categorical classes. This procedure ensures a relatively smooth regression curve even in cases when some single classes contain only very few data. Moreover, nonlinearity provides a stronger support for interpretative purposes compared to the common linear counterparts, whose use is mainly motivated by computational and modeling convenience.
Ultimately, we would like to point out the strength of combining pixel- and slope-unit-based models into a hierarchical model structure. For complex methods such as the log-Gaussian Cox point-process models fitted with INLA, one can take advantage from the finely resoluted grid structure, whereas the computationally demanding estimation of the latent spatial effect is done at the slope-unit scale. In summary, this procedure optimizes the structures of the data and model with respect to the computational costs while maintaining a correct geomorphological and spatial hierarchy.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
Part of the satellite images used to generate the landslide inventory were obtained thanks to the European Space Agency Project (ID: 14151) titled: A remote sensing based approach for storm triggered debris flow hazard modelling: application in Mediterranean and tropical Pacific areas. Principal Investigator: Dr. Luigi Lombardo.
Inference through Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation {#sec:INLA}
=========================================================
The presence of random effects and the use of Gaussian prior distributions on fixed effect coefficients $\beta_j$ and latent effects $W_{\bm z_k}$ in the latent Gaussian field makes it impossible to directly calculate closed-form expressions of the likelihood or the posterior estimates. We here use the approach of Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation (INLA), implemented in the `R-INLA` package, for “integrating out" the latent random components. This approach has already been successfully applied to regression modeling for Poisson responses and point processes [@Illian.al.2012; @Taylor.Diggle.2014; @Gabriel.al.2016; @Opitz.2017], and the related theory [@Rue.Martino.Chopin.2009; @Rue.al.2016] confirms that we get accurate approximations of the posterior estimations and predictions in our context of Poisson regression, in particular when compared to Markov chain Monte Carlo inference which may be hampered by bad mixing of Markov chains for models with complex latent Gaussian structure such as ours.
While using INLA does not impose any restrictions on the Gaussian variables in the additive structure of $\log \{\Lambda(s)\}$ that jointly determine a high-dimensional multivariate Gaussian random vector, the number of hyperparameters to be estimated (such as the precision parameters $\tau_k$, $k=1,\ldots, K$, in the spatial effect and the random walk effects) should be kept to a minimum since INLA conducts repeated numerical integrations (the word “Integrated" in INLA) with respect to the hyperparameter vector. Giving a full presentation of INLA would be far beyond the scope of this paper, but we shortly describe the principal issues that it solves. Denote by $\bm x=(x_1,\ldots,x_{n_{\mathrm{grid}}})$ the latent (Gaussian) log-intensity for the fine-grid pixels such that $\lambda_i=\exp(x_i)$, by $\bm n=(n_1,n_2,\ldots,n_{n_{\mathrm{grid}}})^T$ the observed landslide counts, and by $\bm{\tau} =(\tau_1,\tau_2,\ldots)^T$ the vector of precision hyperparameters. The calculation of univariate posterior densities of $x_i$, $\lambda_i$ and hyperparameters $\tau_k$ is the principal inference goal, but it is hampered by the high-dimensional numerical integration with respect to the latent Gaussian vector $\bm x$: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(\tau_k \mid \bm n) &= \int \pi(\bm x, \bm \tau \mid \bm n)\,
\mathrm{d}\bm x\, \mathrm{d}\bm\tau_{-k}, \label{eq:posttau}\\
\pi(x_i\mid \bm n) &= \int\int \pi(\bm x, \bm\tau\mid \bm n) \mathrm{d}\bm x_{-i}\, \mathrm{d}\bm \tau = \int \pi(x_i \mid \bm \tau, \bm y)
\pi(\bm \tau\mid \bm n)\,\mathrm{d}\bm\tau, \quad i=1,\ldots,n_{\mathrm{grid}} \label{eq:postlambda}.\end{aligned}$$ While astutely designed numerical integration schemes allow integration with respect to all hyperparameters ($\mathrm{d}\bm\tau$) or all except for the $k$th one ($ \mathrm{d}\bm\tau_{-k}$), INLA uses Laplace approximation techniques [essentially a Gaussian density approximation of the integrand function, see @Tierney.Kadane.1986] to integrate over the Gaussian components ($\mathrm{d}\bm x$) in the first step, and then in a nested way in the second step ($\mathrm{d}\bm x_{-i}$, the word “Nested" in INLA).
For hyperparameters to be estimated, we must give a nondegenerate prior distribution, while the others must be fixed to a deterministic value (i.e., technically we use a Dirac prior distribution). With highly complex models such as ours, prior distributions should give some guidance to stabilize the estimation procedure by concentrating mass relatively close to a simple reference model; we then let the data decide if significant deviations from the reference model are detected. In our latent Gaussian model, it is natural to concentrate the prior disributions for precision parameters on moderately large values, such that prior mass concentrates around $0$ in the latent Gaussian random vector, the value for “no effect", i.e., for non-significant fixed covariate effects, for small random walk innovations, and for moderately strong spatial dependence allowing us to borrow strength across neighboring slope units.
[^1]: <http://www.sitr.regione.sicilia.it/geoportale/it/metadata/details/502>
[^2]: <http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/Media/carg/601_MESSINA_REGGIO/Foglio.html>
[^3]: <http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/clc-2006-raster>
[^4]: <http://geomorphology.irpi.cnr.it/tools/slope-units>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The aim of this paper is to present and validate two new procedures to enforce the Geometric Conservation Law (GCL) on a moving grid for an Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian (ALE) formulation of the Euler equations discretized in time for either the Non Linear Frequency Domain (NLFD) or Time-Spectral (TS) methods. The equations are spatially discretized by a structured finite-volume scheme on a hexahedral mesh. The derived methodologies follow a general approach where the positions and the velocities of the grid points are known at each time step. The integrated face mesh velocities are derived either from the Approximation of the Exact Volumetric Increments (AEVI) relative to the undeformed mesh or exactly computed based on a Trilinear Mapping (TRI-MAP) between the physical space and the computational domain. The accuracy of the AEVI method highly depends on the computation of the volumetric increments and limits the temporal-order of accuracy of the deduced integrated face mesh velocities to between one and two. Thus defeating the purpose of the NLFD method which possesses spectral rate of convergence. However, the TRI-MAP method has proven to be more computationally efficient, ensuring the satisfaction of the GCL once the convergence of the time derivative of the cell volume is reached in Fourier space. The methods are validated numerically by verifying the conservation of uniform flow and by comparing the integrated face mesh velocities to the exact values derived from the mapping.
**Keywords :** Non Linear Frequency Domain (NLFD) method; Time-Spectral method; Geometric Conservation Law (GCL); Deforming mesh; Computational fluid dynamics; Numerical method
address: 'Department of Mechanical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 0C3, Canada'
author:
- Marc Benoit
- Siva Nadarajah
bibliography:
- 'mybibfile.bib'
title: 'On the Geometric Conservation Law for the Non Linear Frequency Domain and Time-Spectral Methods'
---
Introduction {#sec_Intro}
============
The accurate computation of unsteady aerodynamic flows in a reasonable amount of time still presents a challenge in the field of computational fluid dynamics. Compared to steady flow problems which only require an accurate spatial discretization, unsteady flow solvers have to provide an accurate time resolution of the flow. Until lately, the most popular approaches were time marching techniques for which the solution is constructed in time from an initial free-stream solution. Despite acceleration techniques such as multigrid or local time stepping, these methods remain computationally costly, partly because of the transient effects, requiring numerous time steps to converge. However in the case of periodic flows encountered in problems such as aeroleastic simulations or turbomachinery, the Fourier collocation method can be used to accurately and efficiently represent the solution. A nonlinear harmonic method known as the Harmonic Balance (HB) was initially introduced by Hall et al. [@Hall2002]. Then, McMullen et al. [@McMullen2002a; @McMullen2006a; @McMullen2006] developed the Non Linear Frequency Domain (NLFD) method in order to solve the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations directly in frequency domain. An alternative to this approach is the Time-Spectral (TS) method presented by Gopinath et al. [@Gopinath2005; @Gopinath2006], it avoids the explicit use of a Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) and discretizes the temporal derivative operator through a Fourier collocation matrix. These various methods prove to significantly decrease the required time to obtain the solution compared to time marching solvers.
The NLFD method was used to develop a two dimensional aeroelastic flow solver [@Kachra2006] and then expanded to three-dimensional cases on moving grids [@Tardif2017]. In order to study aeroelastic problems, the mesh is moved in time and additional care has to be taken to compute the mesh velocities and the metrics from the physical to the computational space. Thomas et al. [@Thomas1979] were the first to formally define the necessity to solve additional laws to preserve the conservation of the solver numerical scheme. Termed as the Geometric Conservation Law, it is composed of two subsets of laws known as the Surface Conservation Law (SCL) and the Volume Conservation Law (VCL). A mathematical interpretation of the SCL relates that any cell volume has to be closed by its surfaces whereas the VCL states that the temporal rate of change of the cell volume is equal to the sum of the temporal rate of change of the algebraic volumes swept by each face enclosing it through time. SCL differs from the VCL in the way that they need to be verified even for fixed grids (steady state) while the VCL appears only on deforming grids. The violation of any of these laws may result in error in the flow solution, for instance it was reported that the violation of the GCL leads to inaccurate flutter prediction for aeroelastic cases [@Lesoinne1996]. Further investigation on time marching schemes clarified the theoretical status of the GCL, exposing its link to temporal-order accuracy [@Herve2000], or stability conditions [@Farhat2001]. In addition, the Discrete Geometric Conservation Law (DGCL) were derived in order to preserve the time accuracy for high temporal-order schemes [@Mavripilis2006]. These methods are well adapted for time marching approaches, but their extension to the NLFD or Time-Spectral methods is not straightforward since it becomes necessary to compute all quantities : state vector, fluxes, mesh positions and mesh velocities, at all time steps before applying the Fourier discretization.
In this work, we focus on the VCL part of the GCL which arises from the unsteadiness of the flow. The framework of our study is based on the previous development of a three dimensional aeroelastic solver by Tardiff et al. [@Tardif2017] who introduced a methodology to enforce the GCL. The expression of the governing equations according to an Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian formulation, the principles of the NLFD discretization and the dynamic mesh deformation using Radial Basis Functions are presented in section \[sec\_ALE\_NLFD\_RBF\]. Additional analytical developments are introduced to demonstrate the limitations of the approach of Tardiff et al. [@Tardif2017]. A modified method is derived to satisfy the GCL by computing the integrated face mesh velocities at a second-order accuracy in time. Since such a condition limits the inherent spectral in time accuracy of the NLFD approach, an alternative method based on a trilinear mapping between the physical and computational space is introduced. The results are then extent to the Time-Spectral method. These various approaches are presented section \[sec\_GCL\]. The different methodologies are numerically investigated in order to verify that the GCL are enforced through a correct computation of the integrated face mesh velocities in section \[sec\_num\] and the results discussed in section \[sec\_con\_disc\].
Discretization of the governing equation and mesh deformation {#sec_ALE_NLFD_RBF}
=============================================================
This section presents the formulation of the Euler equations on a moving mesh using the Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian approach, its discretization using the Non-Linear Frequency Domain, and the mesh deformation method through the Radial Basis Functions.
Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian formulation of the Euler equations {#subsec_ALE}
----------------------------------------------------------------
When solving the Euler equations on a moving grid a popular approach is to use an Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) formulation [@Blazek2005]. For a control volume $\Omega$ enclosed by a boundary $\partial \Omega$ and without source terms, the integral form of this formulation is given as follows : $$\int_{\Omega} \mathbf{w} \text{d}\Omega + \oint_{\partial \Omega} \mathbf{F_c^M} \text{d}S = 0,
\label{eq_ALE_int}$$ with the state vector $\mathbf{w}$ and the vector of the convective fluxes on a moving grid $\mathbf{F_c^M}$ expressed as : $$\mathbf{w}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\rho \\ \rho u \\ \rho v \\ \rho w \\ \rho E
\end{array}
\right\}
\text{ ; }
\mathbf{F_c^M} = \mathbf{F_c}-V_t \mathbf{w} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\rho V \\ \rho u V + n_x p\\ \rho v V + n_y p\\ \rho w V + n_z p \\ \rho H V
\end{array}
\right\}
-
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\rho V_t\\ \rho u V_t\\ \rho v V_t\\ \rho w V_t \\ \rho E V_t
\end{array}
\right\},
\label{eq_WR_vectors}$$ where $\mathbf{F_c}$ would be the convective flux vector on a fixed grid and $\rho$, $u$, $v$, $w$, $E$, $p$ and $H$ are respectively, the density, the Cartesian velocities of the fluid, the total energy per unit mass, the pressure and the total enthalpy per unit mass defined by : $$H=E+\frac{p}{\rho}.
\label{eq_H}$$
In order to close the system of equations, the pressure is evaluated under the assumption of ideal gas through the state equation (\[eq\_P\]) : $$p = (\gamma - 1) \left( \rho E- \frac{(\rho u)^2+(\rho v)^2 + (\rho w)^2}{2 \rho}\right).
\label{eq_P}$$
Also, $V$ is the contravariant velocity of the fluid and $V_t$ is the contravariant velocity of the boundary enclosing the control volume. $n_x$, $n_y$ and $n_z$ are the components of the boundary unit normal vector pointing outward of the control volume. It yields : $$\begin{array}{lcl}
V = un_x + vn_y + wn_z,\\
V_t = \dfrac{\partial x}{\partial t}n_x + \dfrac{\partial y}{\partial t}n_y + \dfrac{\partial z}{\partial t}n_z.
\end{array}
\label{eq_contravariant_velocities}$$
By introducing a discretized control volume and an artificial dissipation flux vector $\mathbf{F_d}$ to avoid an odd-even decoupling of the solution and to increase the accuracy at discontinuities, the equation (\[eq\_ALE\_int\]) can be written under a semi-discretized form as : $$\frac{\partial (\Omega \mathbf{w})}{\partial t} + \sum_{\partial \Omega} \left[ (\mathbf{F_c^M})S-\mathbf{F_d} \right] = 0.
\label{eq_semi_discrete_Euler_1}$$
The previous set of equations has to hold for each control volume and can be expressed as a semi-discrete system of ordinary differential equations in time : $$\frac{\partial (\Omega \mathbf{w})}{\partial t} + \mathbf{R(\mathbf{w})} = 0,
\label{eq_semi_discrete_Euler_2}$$ where $\mathbf{R}(\mathbf{w})= \displaystyle \sum_{\partial \Omega} \left[ (\mathbf{F_c^M})S-\mathbf{F_d} \right]$ is the discrete residual vector. In this work, the discretization in space is performed according to the finite volume method on a structured hexahedral grid, the modified convective flux is computed as the average of the fluxes at a cell face and the artificial dissipation is evaluated using the JST scheme [@JAMESON1981]. The residual vector is calculated as the summation over the faces of the control volume of the different fluxes.
Temporal discretization using the Non-Linear Frequency Domain method {#subsec_NLFD}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The temporal discretization of the flow solver employs the NLFD approach developed by McMullen et al. [@McMullen2002a]. Under the assumption that both the modified state vector $\bar{\mathbf{w}}=\Omega\mathbf{w}$ and the residual vector $\mathbf{R}(\mathbf{w})$ are periodic in physical time, the two quantities can be expanded as discrete Fourier series using a finite number of harmonics equations (\[eq\_DFT\_w\]) and (\[eq\_DFT\_R\]) : $$\bar{\mathbf{w}}(t)=\sum_{k=-N}^N \mathbf{\hat{w}}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t},
\label{eq_DFT_w}$$ $$\mathbf{R(\mathbf{w}}(t))=\sum_{k=-N}^N \mathbf{\hat{R}}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t},
\label{eq_DFT_R}$$ where $i=\sqrt{-1}$ is the imaginary unit, $T$ is the time period, $k$ is the wave number, and $N$ is the number of modes employed in the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT). The $k^{th}$ Fourier coefficients $\mathbf{\hat{w}}_k$ and $\mathbf{\hat{R}}_k$ are given by the following equations (\[eq\_Fourier\_coeff\_w\]) and (\[eq\_Fourier\_coeff\_R\]), for $-N \leq k \leq N$ : $$\mathbf{\hat{w}}_k = \frac{1}{2N+1}\sum_{n=0}^{2N} \Omega(t_n)\mathbf{w}(t_n)\text{e}^{-i(2\pi k/T)t_n},
\label{eq_Fourier_coeff_w}$$ $$\mathbf{\hat{R}}_k = \frac{1}{2N+1}\sum_{n=0}^{2N} \mathbf{R(\mathbf{w}}(t_n))\text{e}^{-i(2\pi k/T)t_n},
\label{eq_Fourier_coeff_R}$$ where their computations require the sampling of the modified state vector and the residual vector for $N_{ts}=2N+1$ time steps at equally spaced time instances such that the $n^{th}$ time sample $t_n$ is : $$t_n = \frac{n}{2N+1}T \mbox{, for }n=0,..,2N.
\label{eq_time_instance}$$
At this point, it is important to emphasize that the state and residual vectors need to be evaluated at all time instances before transferring in the Fourier domain, this is a fundamental difference with the time marching approach. The Fourier representation is then substituted into the semi-discrete form of the Euler equations (\[eq\_semi\_discrete\_Euler\_2\]) to yield : $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\sum_{k=-N}^N \mathbf{\hat{w}}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t}\right) + \sum_{k=-N}^N \mathbf{\hat{R}}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t} = 0,$$ $$\Leftrightarrow \sum_{k=-N}^N \frac{i2\pi k}{T}\mathbf{\hat{w}}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t} + \sum_{k=-N}^N \mathbf{\hat{R}}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t} = 0.
\label{eq_semi_discrete_Euler_2_NLFD}$$
By exploiting the orthogonality property of the Fourier basis, this leads to a set of $2N+1$ equations (\[eq\_semi\_discrete\_Euler\_NLFD\_wavenumber\]), each being associated to a wave number $k$ : $$i\frac{2\pi k }{T}\hat{\mathbf{w}}_k+\hat{\mathbf{R}}_k=0 \mbox{ for } -N \leq k \leq N.
\label{eq_semi_discrete_Euler_NLFD_wavenumber}$$
Since the representation of $\hat{\mathbf{R}}_k$ as a function of $\hat{\mathbf{w}}_k$ is not straightforward, an unsteady residual $\hat{\mathbf{R}}_k^*$ is defined and driven to zero using a pseudo-time marching approach such that : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\hat{\mathbf{R}}_k^* = i\dfrac{2\pi k }{T}\hat{\mathbf{w}}_k+\hat{\mathbf{R}}_k \\
\\
\dfrac{\partial \hat{\mathbf{w}}_k}{\partial t^*} +\hat{\mathbf{R}}_k^* = 0
\end{array}
\right.
\mbox{, for } -N \leq k \leq N.
\label{eq_pseudo_time_NLFD}$$ Thus at convergence, $\hat{\mathbf{R}}_k^*=0$ and the equations (\[eq\_pseudo\_time\_NLFD\]) are satisfied for each wave number.
The new periodic solution is then transferred back to the physical time domain using an Inverse Fourier Discrete Transform (IDFT) and evaluated at each time instance $t_n$ by dividing by the volume : $$\mathbf{w}(t_n) = \frac{\bar{\mathbf{w}}(t_n)}{\Omega(t_n)} \mbox{, for } 0 \leq n \leq 2N.
\label{eq_solution_physical_time}$$
The equation in pseudo-time can be solved using any time-stepping scheme. In this work, we use an hybrid five-stage Runge-Kutta scheme with blending coefficients for the artificial dissipation [@Jameson1995].
Dynamic mesh deformation using the Radial Basis Function {#subsec_RBF}
--------------------------------------------------------
The deformation of the mesh is performed using the Radial Basis Functions (RBF) [@Tardif2017]. The method is based on the assumption that the movement of all grid points can be interpolated from the *a priori* known motion of a set of points called the RBF points. In this study, the RBF points are always a subset of the grid points at the boundary of the domain, their displacements relative to the undeformed mesh are prescribed at each time instance using analytical functions. Because of the NLFD method, the mesh positions and velocities are therefore computed and stored for all $N_{ts}$ time steps. For any grid point $p$ of position vector $\mathbf{x}_p$ in the undeformed mesh, its displacement in the $x$-direction $s_x(\mathbf{x}_p,t)$ is defined as : $$s_x(\mathbf{x}_p,t) = \sum_{i=1}^{N_{rbf}} \alpha_i (t) \phi(||\mathbf{x}_p - \mathbf{x}_i||_2),
\label{eq_disp_RBF}$$ where $N_{rbf}$ is the number of RBF points, $\alpha_i$ are the interpolating coefficients, $\mathbf{x}_i$ is the position vector of the $i^{th}$ RBF point in the undeformed grid and $\phi$ is some basis function depending on the Euclidean distance $||\mathbf{x}_p- \mathbf{x}_i||_2$ between the points $p$ and $i$. In this work, Wendland C0’s basis function [@Wendland1995] is considered, it is defined as follows : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
(1-\xi)^2 & \text{ if } \xi < 1 \\
0 & \text{ if } \xi \ge 1
\end{array}
\right.
,
\text{ with }
\xi=\frac{||\mathbf{x}_p- \mathbf{x}_i||_2}{R},
\label{eq_WendlandC0}$$ where $R$ is the support radius relative to the surface of RBF points. Since the equation (\[eq\_disp\_RBF\]) holds for any grid point whether it is an RBF point or a standard grid point, in the following, the RBF points are denoted with the subscript $r$ while the grid (or volume) points are denoted with the subscript $v$. Then in the $x$-direction, the displacements of all RBF points and the interpolated displacements of all grid points are regrouped respectively in the vector $\mathbf{\Delta x}_r$ and in the vector $\mathbf{\Delta x}_v$. Therefore the *a priori* unknown displacements $\mathbf{\Delta x}_v$ are obtained through equation (\[eq\_disp\_volume\_points\_matrix\_form\]) : $$\mathbf{\Delta x}_v = \mathcal{A}(\mathcal{M}^{-1}) \mathbf{\Delta x}_r,
\label{eq_disp_volume_points_matrix_form}$$ where : $$\mathcal{M} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi_{r_1 r_1} & \phi_{r_1 r_2} & \hdots & \phi_{r_1 r_{N_{rbf}}} \\
\phi_{r_2 r_1} & \ddots & & \vdots \\
\vdots & & & \\
\phi_{r_{N_{rbf}} r_1} & \cdots & & \phi_{r_{N_{rbf}} r_{N_{rbf}}}
\end{array}
\right)
,
\mathcal{A} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi_{v_1 r_1} & \phi_{v_1 r_2} & \hdots & \phi_{v_1 r_{N_{rbf}}} \\
\phi_{v_2 r_1} & \ddots & & \vdots \\
\vdots & & & \\
\phi_{v_{N_{grid}} r_1} & \cdots & & \phi_{v_{N_{grid}} r_{N_{rbf}}}
\end{array}
\right)
\label{eq_RBF_matrix}$$ with : $$\phi_{v_i r_j} = \phi\left(||\mathbf{x}_{v_i}- \mathbf{x}_{r_j}||_2 \right)$$ and $N_{grid}$ is the total number of grid points. The displacements in the $y$ and $z$ directions can be computed with the same matrices given in equation (\[eq\_RBF\_matrix\]), by considering the RBF points displacements in the corresponding direction.
Similarly, the mesh velocities for any grid point are computed using the Radial Basis Functions for Velocities (RBFV) by interpolating the *a priori* known velocities of the RBF points which leads to the following expression : $$\mathbf{v}_{dir,v} = \mathcal{A}(\mathcal{M}^{-1}) \mathbf{v}_{dir,r},$$ where $\mathbf{v}_{dir,v}$ is the vector of the velocities of the grid points and $\mathbf{v}_{dir,r}$ is the vector of the velocities of the RBF points and the direction is given by $dir=x,y, \mbox{ or }z$.
Derivation and enforcement of the Geometric Conservation Law {#sec_GCL}
============================================================
Derivation of the GCL in the NLFD framework {#subsec_DerivGCL}
-------------------------------------------
As previously stated our interest is focused on the Volume Conservation Law aspect of the GCL. Under integral form the VCL for a control volume $\Omega$ enclosed by a boundary $\partial \Omega$ can be written as follows : $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\int_{\Omega} \text{d}\Omega - \oint_{\partial \Omega} (\mathbf{V}_t \cdot \mathbf{n}) \text{d}S = 0.
\label{eq_GCL_int}$$ where $\mathbf{V}_t = \displaystyle \left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial t},\frac{\partial y}{\partial t},\frac{\partial z}{\partial t}\right)$ is the mesh velocity vector and $\mathbf{n}$ is the normal vector to the surface $\partial \Omega$. The law relates only on geometrical considerations and is always satisfied under continuous form and implicitly satisfied for rigid grid motion. It arises from the deformation of the mesh and is closely related to the preservation of uniform flow by the numerical scheme. Therefore in order to obtain a consistent solution method, the GCL must be discretized using the same numerical scheme employed to discretize the primary conservation laws [@Herve2000]. In our case, it yields a hexahedral stuctured finite-volume framework and a temporal discretization using the NLFD method. A first approach to enforce the VCL in the NLFD context was presented by Tardiff et al. [@Tardif2017] but more investigation is needed to determine its limitations. In this section, further developments are added to this approach which expose its analytical limits and a new method is proposed.
Considering any discretized control volume $\Omega$ enclosed by $N_f$ faces, then equation (\[eq\_GCL\_int\]) can be written as : $$\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t} - \sum_{m=1}^{N_f} \iint_{\partial\Omega_{m}} (\mathbf{V}_t \cdot \mathbf{n_{m}} ) dS =0,
\label{eq_semi_discrete_GCL_1}$$ where $\mathbf{n_{m}}$ is the unit normal vector to the face $\partial \Omega_m$. Then the integrated face mesh velocities (IFMV) $G_m(t)$ corresponding to the temporal rate of change of the algebraic volume swept by each face through time are introduced in equation (\[eq\_IFV\_int\]) : $$G_m(t)=\iint_{\partial\Omega_{m}} (\mathbf{V}_t \cdot \mathbf{n_{m}} ) dS,
\label{eq_IFV_int}$$ and also $G(t)$ is the sum of the IFMV over all faces of the control volume : $$G(t)=\sum_{m=1}^{N_f}G_m(t).
\label{eq_G_split}$$ Then equation (\[eq\_semi\_discrete\_GCL\_1\]) can be written as : $$\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t} - G(t) = 0.
\label{eq_semi_discrete_GCL_2}$$ Under the assumption that the volume $\Omega$ and the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities $G$ are periodic functions of time, the NLFD discretization can be applied : $$\Omega(t) = \sum_{k=-N}^{N} \hat{\Omega}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t},
\label{eq_DFT_Omega}$$ $$G(t) = \sum_{k=-N}^{N} \hat{G}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t}.
\label{eq_DFT_G}$$ By substituting these expressions into equation (\[eq\_semi\_discrete\_GCL\_2\]), yields : $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\sum_{k=-N}^N \hat{\Omega}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t}\right) - \sum_{k=-N}^N \hat{G}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t} = 0$$ $$\Leftrightarrow \left(\sum_{k=-N}^N \frac{i2\pi k}{T}\hat{\Omega}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t}\right) - \sum_{k=-N}^N \hat{G}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t} = 0.$$ Then by exploiting the orthogonality property of the Fourier basis, it leads to a system of $2N+1$ equations, each corresponding to a wave number $k$ : $$\frac{i2\pi k}{T}\hat{\Omega}_k = \hat{G}_k \mbox{ for } -N \leq k \leq N.
\label{eq_GCL_NLFD_compact}$$ The set of equations (\[eq\_GCL\_NLFD\_compact\]) provides the necessary condition to enforce the GCL in the NLFD approach. Such criterion is not satisfied in general and has to be enforced through the correct computation of the cell volume and the integrated face mesh velocities, in a way consistent with the solver numerical scheme. Since the volume is usually exactly known, one popular approach in time marching methods is to split the GCL over each face [@Zhang1993; @Mavripilis2006; @Mavripilis2011]. In the current framework, the volume of a cell can be expressed as the sum of the volume at a reference initial instant $t_0$ and the algebraic (positive or negative) volumetric increments due to each face $\Omega_m$ relative to this reference instant : $$\Omega(t) =\Omega(t_0) + \sum_{m=1}^{N_f} \Omega_{m}(t).
\label{eq_Omega_split}$$ By substituting relations (\[eq\_Omega\_split\]) and (\[eq\_G\_split\]) into the equation (\[eq\_semi\_discrete\_GCL\_2\]), yields : $$\sum_{m=1}^{N_f} \left( \frac{\partial \Omega_{m}}{\partial t}- G_{m}(t) \right)=0.
\label{eq_GCL_split_sum}$$ Then for each face $m$ enclosing the discretized control volume, we need to ensure the relation (\[eq\_GCL\_split\]) : $$\frac{\partial \Omega_m}{\partial t}=G_m(t).
\label{eq_GCL_split}$$ However, even if the positions of the mesh vertices and their velocities are known at all time instances from the dynamic mesh deformation, the implementation of the GCL using this relation is not straightforward using the NLFD method. In the following, volumetric increments are always considered as algebraic values which can either be positive or negative.
Approach of Tardiff et al. [@Tardif2017] {#subsec_Tardiff_approach}
----------------------------------------
The first approach developed by Tardiff et al. [@Tardif2017] is based on a linear representation of the volumetric [increments]{} relative to a reference time instance $t_0$. For any face $m$ defined by its vertices the induced volumetric [change]{} would simply be represented by drawing straight lines from their initial position at $t_0$ to their position at time instant $t$, see Figure \[fig\_linear\_Omegam\].
(0,0)rectangle(8,6); (2.5,2)rectangle(5.5,4); (2.5,2)–(1.8,1.3); (5.5,2)–(6.5,0.8); (5.5,4)–(6.8,5.3); (2.5,4)–(1,5); (1.8,1.3)–(6.5,0.8)–(6.8,5.3)–(1,5)–cycle; at (2.5,2) [$\mathbf{r}_1(t_0)$]{}; at (5.5,2) [$\mathbf{r}_2(t_0)$]{}; at (5.5,4) [$\mathbf{r}_3(t_0)$]{}; at (2.5,4) [$\mathbf{r}_4(t_0)$]{}; at (1.8,1.3) [$\mathbf{r}_1(t)$]{}; at (6.5,0.8) [$\mathbf{r}_2(t)$]{}; at (6.8,5.3) [$\mathbf{r}_3(t)$]{}; at (1,5) [$\mathbf{r}_4(t)$]{}; at (4,3) [$\Omega(t_0)$]{}; at (4,1.3) [$\Omega_1(t)$]{}; at (6,3) [$\Omega_2(t)$]{}; at (4,4.7) [$\Omega_3(t)$]{}; at (2,3) [$\Omega_4(t)$]{};
This approach has two advantages : first, it is easy to compute the volumetric [increments]{} at each time instant using standard cell volume computational algorithms ; second, the volumetric [increments]{} due to each face are time periodic as long as the movement of the vertices is periodic.
Once the volumetric [increments]{} are known for $2N+1$ time instances defined by equation (\[eq\_time\_instance\]), their Fourier representations are calculated : $$\Omega_{m}(t) = \sum_{k=-N}^{N} \hat{\Omega}_{m,k} \text{e}^{(i2\pi k/T)t},
\label{eq_Omegam_Fourier}$$ and the Fourier formulations of the integrated face mesh velocities for each face $m$ are introduced : $$G_{m}(t) = \sum_{k=-N}^{N} \hat{G}_{m,k} \text{e}^{(i2\pi k/T)t}.
\label{eq_Gm_Fourier}$$
Then by substituting, the Fourier representations into criteria (\[eq\_GCL\_split\]), and exploiting the orthogonality of the Fourier basis, a system of $2N+1$ equations (\[eq\_GCL\_split\_NLFD\_simplified\]) is obtained for each face $m$ : $$\frac{i2\pi k}{T}\hat{\Omega}_{m,k} = \hat{G}_{m,k} \mbox{ for } -N \leq k \leq N.
\label{eq_GCL_split_NLFD_simplified}$$ Therefore, the GCL are satisfied independently for each face of the control volume by computing the Fourier coefficients $\hat{G}_{m,k}$ and then applying an IDFT to transfer back the integrated face mesh velocities to the temporal domain. Despite its attractiveness, this method is restricted to linear movements due to the manner in which the volumetric increments are computed. In general, the motion would not be linear and such representation of the volumetric increments will not be sufficient to ensure the correct computation of the IFMV.
Moreover the NLFD method is based on the assumption that the quantities are time periodic and can be expanded in Fourier series, but having a time periodic movement of the vertices does not guarantee time periodic volumetric increments but only that their temporal derivative will be periodic. This statement will be demonstrated through the following example.
A 2D quadrilateral element is considered with the following motion defined by equation (\[eq\_non\_periodic\_OmegaM\_move\]) and shown Figure \[fig\_non\_periodic\_OmegaM\_move\] : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\alpha(t) & = & 2\pi t, \\
\mathbf{r_1} & = & \mathbf{r_{1,0}}, \\
\mathbf{r_2} & = & \mathbf{r_{2,0}}, \\
\mathbf{r_3} & = & \mathbf{r_{3,0}}+R(1-\cos(\alpha(t)))\mathbf{e_x}+R(\sin(\alpha(t))) \mathbf{e_y}, \\
\mathbf{r_4} & = & \mathbf{r_{4,0}}, \\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_non_periodic_OmegaM_move}$$ where the index $0$ refers to the initial position of the grid, $R$ is the radius defining the amplitude of the circular motion and $\mathbf{e_x}$ and $\mathbf{e_y}$ are the unit vectors in respectively the $x$ and $y$ directions.
[0.5]{}
(0,0)rectangle(7,5); (0,0) – (1,0) node\[above\][$x$]{}; (0,0) – (0,1) node\[above,right\][$y$]{}; (1,1) – (4,1) – (4,2.999) – (1,3) – cycle; (1,1) – (4,1) – (5,4) – (1,3) – cycle; (1,1) – (4,1) – (5,2) – (1,3) – cycle; plot ([5+cos()]{}, [3+sin()]{}); plot ([5+cos()]{}, [3+sin()]{}); at (1,1) [$\mathbf{r}_{1,0}$]{}; at (4,1) [$\mathbf{r}_{2,0}$]{}; at (4,3) [$\mathbf{r}_{3,0}$]{}; at (1,3) [$\mathbf{r}_{4,0}$]{};
[0.5]{}
(0,0)rectangle(7,5); (0,0) – (1,0) node\[above\][$x$]{}; (0,0) – (0,1) node\[above,right\][$y$]{}; (1,1)rectangle(4,3); (1,1) – (4,1) – (5,2) – (1,3) – cycle; plot ([5+cos()]{}, [3+sin()]{}); plot ([5+cos()]{}, [3+sin()]{}); (4,1) – (5,2) – (4,3) – cycle; at (1,1) [$\mathbf{r}_{1}$]{}; at (4,1) [$\mathbf{r}_{2}$]{}; at (5,2) [$\mathbf{r}_{3}$]{}; at (1,3) [$\mathbf{r}_{4}$]{};
For the face defined by the vertices $\mathbf{r}_2$ and $\mathbf{r}_3$, the derivation of the expression of the exact volumetric [increment]{} in the $x$ direction and its time derivative leads to the following expressions respectively (\[eq\_exact\_volinc\]) and (\[eq\_exact\_dvolinc\]) : $$\Omega_{23,x}(t) = \frac{R^2}{2}(\alpha(t)-\sin(\alpha(t)))+\frac{Ry_{3,0}}{2}(1-\cos(\alpha(t))),
\label{eq_exact_volinc}$$ $$\frac{\partial \Omega_{23,x}(t)}{\partial t} = \frac{R^2}{2}\frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial t}(1-\cos(\alpha(t)))+\frac{Ry_{3,0}}{2}\frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial t}\sin(\alpha(t)),
\label{eq_exact_dvolinc}$$ where the length $y_{3,0}=(\mathbf{r}_{3,0} \cdot \mathbf{e_y})$.
Thus the time derivative of the volumetric [increment]{} is periodic whereas the volumetric [increment]{} is the sum of a linear term and a periodic term and the direct application of the NLFD method on the exact volumetric [increment]{} is not possible since the linear term is not expandable as a Fourier serie. Additional work is required to ensure equation (\[eq\_GCL\_split\]) is compliant with the NLFD method.
Modified approach based on the exact volumetric [increments]{} {#subsec_modified_approach}
--------------------------------------------------------------
### Method {#subsubsec_method}
In this section, we are going to demonstrate the following theorem \[th\_new\_method\],
Let $\Omega$ be a discretized control volume, enclosed by $N_f$ faces, and subjected to a periodic motion of its vertices. Then given the knowledge of the exact volumetric [increments]{} $\Omega_m$ for $m=1,...,N_f$, a sufficient condition to ensure the satisfaction of GCL in the NLFD framework is the computation of the integrated face mesh velocities, where the zeroth and higher modes can be expressed as $$\hat{G}_{m,0} = \frac{\Omega_{m}(T)}{T},
\label{eq_Gm0}$$ $$\hat{G}_{m,k} = \frac{i2\pi k}{T}\hat{p}_{m,k} \mbox{ for } -N \leq k \leq N, \mbox{ } k \neq 0,
\label{eq_GCL_NLFD_Gmk}$$ where $\hat{G}_{m,k}$ and $\hat{p}_{m,k}$ are the Fourier coefficients of respectively the integrated face mesh velocities and the periodic part of the exact volumetric increments given by, $$p_{m}(t) = \Omega_{m}(t)-\left( \frac{\Omega_{m}(T)}{T}\right) t.
\label{eq_alpha2_periodic_simplified}$$ \[th\_new\_method\]
Under the assumption that the motion of the vertices is periodic, the temporal rate of change of the algebraic volume swept by each face through time is periodic. Thus the temporal derivative of the volumetric increments and the integrated face mesh velocities are periodic, the DFT is applied to the equation (\[eq\_GCL\_split\]) leading to : $$G_m(t) = \frac{\partial \Omega_m}{\partial t} = \hat{G}_{m,0} + \sum_{k=-N,k\neq 0}^{N} \hat{G}_{m,k} \text{e}^{i\frac{2\pi}{T}kt},
\label{eq_DFT_Gm}$$ where $\hat{G}_{m,k},\mbox{ for }-N\leq k \leq N$ are the Fourier coefficients of both the derivative of the volumetric increment and the integrated face mesh velocity of a face $m$.
By integrating the equation in time, the volumetric increment is expressed as : $$\Omega_{m}(t) = \int \frac{\partial \Omega_{m}}{\partial t} dt = \hat{\Omega}_{m,0} + \hat{G}_{m,0} t + \sum_{k=-N,k \neq 0}^{N} \frac{T}{i2\pi k}\hat{G}_{m,k} e^{i\frac{2\pi}{T}kt}.
\label{eq_int_dOmegam}$$ where $\hat{\Omega}_{m,0}$ is a constant of integration. Then any volumetric [increment]{} can be interpreted as the sum of a linear term $l_{m}(t)$ and a periodic function $p_{m}(t)$ defined by : $$l_{m}(t) = \hat{G}_{m,0} t,
\label{eq_Omegam_lm}$$ $$p_{m}(t) = \hat{\Omega}_{m,0}+\sum_{k=-N,k \neq 0}^{N} \frac{T}{i2\pi k}\hat{G}_{m,k} e^{i\frac{2\pi}{T}kt}.
\label{eq_Omegam_pm}$$ Knowing the values of the volumetric increment at $t=t_0$ and $t=t_0+T$, and exploiting the periodicity of the function $p_{m}$, yields : $$\begin{array}{lcl}
\Omega_{m}(t_0) & = & \hat{G}_{m0}t_0 + p_{m}(t_0) \\
\Omega_{m}(t_0+T) & = & \hat{G}_{m0} (t_0+T) + p_{m}(t_0+T) \\
p_{m}(t_0) & = & p_{m}(t_0+T)
\end{array}$$
$$\hat{G}_{m,0} = \frac{\Omega_{m}(t_0+T)-\Omega_{m}(t_0)}{T}
\label{eq_Gm0_proof}$$
Hence the zeroth Fourier coefficients of the integrated face mesh velocities are known through equation (\[eq\_Gm0\_proof\]) applied for each face $m$ and the linear part $l_{m}$ of the volumetric increments can be computed at each instant. Then, an expression of the periodic part of any volumetric increment $p_{m}$ is obtained as : $$p_{m}(t) = \Omega_{m}(t)-l_{m}(t) = \Omega_{m}(t)-\left( \frac{\Omega_{m}(t_0+T)-\Omega_{m}(t_0)}{T}\right) t.
\label{eq_pm_periodic_proof}$$ Usually $t_0$ would be taken as the initial time instant $t_0=0$ corresponding to the undeformed configuration of the mesh, for this specific reference time instant $\Omega_{m}(0)=0$, and the previous expression can be further simplified into equation (\[eq\_pm\_periodic\_simplified\_proof\]) : $$p_{m}(t) = \Omega_{m}(t)-\left( \frac{\Omega_{m}(T)}{T}\right) t.
\label{eq_pm_periodic_simplified_proof}$$ Therefore, at each instant $t$ the periodic part of the volumetric increments $p_{m}$ are known and we introduce the Fourier coefficients for $p_{m}$, noted as $\hat{p}_{m,k}$ for $-N \leq k \leq N$. By calculating the temporal derivative in Fourier space of $p_{m}$ and exploiting the orthogonality of the Fourier basis functions, the rest of the Fourier coefficients of the integrated face mesh velocities $\hat{G}_{m,k}$ are deduced from a system of $2N$ equations $$\hat{G}_{m,k} = \frac{i2\pi k}{T}\hat{p}_{m,k} \mbox{ for } -N \leq k \leq N, \mbox{ } k \neq 0.
\label{eq_GCL_NLFD_Gmk_proof}$$ Since the derivation in Fourier space puts to zero the contribution from the zeroth coefficient, the value of the integration constant $\hat{\Omega}_{m,0}$ is not relevant to compute the integrated face mesh velocities.
Finally the procedure to compute the IFMV to enforce GCL by deducing the time derivative of the volumetric increments for each face is given by the pseudo-code (Algorithm \[algo\_method\]).
It is important to note that since the values of the volumetric increments are required at $t=T$ in order to deduce the zeroth Fourier coefficients $\hat{G}_{m,0}$ through equation (\[eq\_Gm0\]), one additional time step is needed $t_{2N+1}$ compared to the number of time steps for the flow solver. However for this final time step the configuration of the mesh is the same as the initial (the undeformed mesh), thus no additional time step is needed for the mesh deformation. For this procedure, the key point is to compute the exact volumetric increments as accurately as possible in order to preserve the spectral convergence of the NLFD method.
### Practical enforcement and error estimation {#subsubsec_prac_enf}
In practice the accuracy of the previous method highly depends on the accuracy of the computation of the volumetric increments. For an hexahedral grid, as each face $m$ sweeps through the computational domain, they form hexahedra between time intervals. The volume of any hexahedreon can be computed using a trilinear mapping [@Dukowicz1988] between the physical space and the computational domain Figure \[fig\_tri\_mapping\]. This yields the following definitions.
The volume of any hexahedron as a function of the position vectors of the vertices in the physical space $\mathbf{r}_i$ for $i=1,...,8$, is evaluated through, $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\Omega_{h}=(\Omega_{4321}+\Omega_{5678}+\Omega_{3487}+\Omega_{1256}+\Omega_{4158}+\Omega_{2376}), \\
\\
\mbox{with } \Omega_{ijkl}=\dfrac{1}{12}(\mathbf{r}_j+\mathbf{r}_k)\cdot ((\mathbf{r}_i+\mathbf{r}_j)\times(\mathbf{r}_i+\mathbf{r}_l)).
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_tri_mapping_volume}$$ \[def\_vol\_hex\]
(0,0)–(7,0) (7,5)–(0,5)–(0,0); (0,0) – (1,0) node\[above right\][$x$]{}; (0,0) – (0.85,0.35) node\[above\][$y$]{}; (0,0) – (0,1) node\[above,right\][$z$]{};
(7,0)–(14,0)–(14,5)–(7,5); (8,0) – (9,0) node\[above right\][$\xi$]{}; (8,0) – (8.85,0.35) node\[above\][$\eta$]{}; (8,0) – (8,1) node\[above,right\][$\zeta$]{};
(1,1.5)–(3.5,0.35)–(2.8,2.7)–(0.7,3.5)–cycle; (4,1.7)–(6.4,1.3); (6.4,1.3)–(6,4.5)–(3,4.5); (3,4.5)–(4,1.7); (3.5,0.35)–(6.4,1.3); (2.8,2.7)–(6,4.5); (0.7,3.5)–(3,4.5); (1,1.5)–(4,1.7);
(10,0.6)–(12.5,0.6)–(12.5,3.1)–(10,3.1)–cycle; (11,1.75)–(13.5,1.75); (13.5,1.75)–(13.5,4.25)–(11,4.25); (11,4.25)–(11,1.75); (12.5,0.6)–(13.5,1.75); (12.5,3.1)–(13.5,4.25); (10,3.1)–(11,4.25); (10,0.6)–(11,1.75);
at (1,1.5) [1]{}; at (3.5,0.4) [2]{}; at (2.8,2.7) [6]{}; at (0.7,3.5) [5]{}; at (4,1.7) [4]{}; at (6.4,1.3) [3]{}; at (6,4.5) [7]{}; at (3,4.5) [8]{}; at (10,0.6) [1]{}; at (12.5,0.6) [2]{}; at (12.5,3.1) [6]{}; at (10,3.1) [5]{}; at (11,1.75) [4]{}; at (13.5,1.75) [3]{}; at (13.5,4.25) [7]{}; at (11,4.25) [8]{};
(7,2.75) – (8,2.75) node\[above\] at (7.5,2.75)[$\mathcal{T}$]{} ; (7,2.25) – (8,2.25) node\[below\] at (7.5,2.25)[$\mathcal{T}^{-1}$]{} ;
For any face $m$ of an hexahedral cell, the exact volumetric increment is estimated through a sum of hexahedra each corresponding to the approximated volumetric increment between two time samples $t_{n-1}$ and $t_n$ and noted as $\Omega_{m,h}(t_n)$, (see Figure \[fig\_OmegaM\_move\]) : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\Omega_m(t_0) = 0,\\
\\
\Omega_m(t_n) = \left( \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^n \Omega_{m,h}(t_k) \right) + \epsilon^T_m(t_{n}) \mbox{, for }1 \leq n \leq 2N+1,
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_Omegam_practice}$$ where $t_0=0$ is the initial instant corresponding to the undeformed mesh and $\epsilon^T_m(t_{n})$ is the truncation error at time instant $t_n$. \[def\_vol\_inc\]
[0.5]{}
(0,0)rectangle(7,5); (1,1) – (4,0.5) – (4,2.5) – (1,3) – cycle; (1,1)–(2.7,1.3); (4,0.5)–(5.7,1.3); (4,2.5)–(6.5,3.3); (1,3)–(3.5,4.4); (2.7,1.3)–(5.7,1.3); (5.7,1.3)–(6.5,3.3); (6.5,3.3)–(3.5,4.4); (3.5,4.4)–(2.7,1.3); at (1,1) [$\mathbf{r}_a(t_{n-1})$]{}; at (4,0.5) [$\mathbf{r}_b(t_{n-1})$]{}; at (4,2.5) [$\mathbf{r}_c(t_{n-1})$]{}; at (0.8,3.1) [$\mathbf{r}_d(t_{n-1})$]{}; at (2.7,1.3) [$\mathbf{r}_a(t_{n})$]{}; at (5.7,1.3) [$\mathbf{r}_b(t_{n})$]{}; at (6.5,3.3) [$\mathbf{r}_c(t_{n})$]{}; at (3.5,4.4) [$\mathbf{r}_d(t_{n})$]{};
[0.5]{}
(0,0)rectangle(7,5); (1,1)–(3,0.5)–(3,1.5)–(1,2)–cycle; at (3,0.5) [$n-1$]{}; (2.5,3)–(4,1.5)–(4,2.5)–(2.5,4)–cycle; at (4,1.5) [$n$]{}; (6.5,2.7)–(5.3,1.7)–(5.3,2.5)–(6.5,3.7)–cycle; at (5.3,1.7) [$n+1$]{}; (1,1)–(2.5,3)–(6.5,2.7); (3,0.5)–(4,1.5)–(5.3,1.7); (3,1.5)–(4,2.5)–(5.3,2.5); (1,2)–(2.5,4)–(6.5,3.7); plot \[smooth\] coordinates [(0.5, 0.5) (1,1) (2.5,3) (6.5,2.7) (6.9,2.65)]{}; plot \[smooth\] coordinates [(2.5, 0.4) (3,0.5) (4,1.5) (5.3,1.7) (5.8,1.6)]{}; plot \[smooth\] coordinates [(2.5, 1.4) (3,1.5) (4,2.5) (5.3,2.5) (5.8,2.4)]{}; plot \[smooth\] coordinates [(0.8, 1.8) (1,2) (2.5,4) (6.5,3.7) (6.8,3.65)]{}; at (2.5,2) [$\Omega_{h}(t_n)$]{}; at (4.8,3.4) [$\Omega_{h}(t_{n+1})$]{};
Now that the mathematical tools to compute the volumetric increments are introduced, the accuracy of the procedure presented in section \[subsec\_modified\_approach\] can be established, we have the first lemma \[lemma\_Gm0\],
In the context of theorem \[th\_new\_method\], and under the definitions \[def\_vol\_hex\] and \[def\_vol\_inc\], for any face $m$ the temporal-order of accuracy of the zeroth Fourier coefficient of the integrated face mesh velocity $\hat{G}_{m,0}$ is limited to one. \[lemma\_Gm0\]
For each face $m$ the path of the four corresponding vertices between two time steps is linearly approximated, as shown in Figure \[fig\_non\_periodic\_OmegaM\_move\]. Then, for any of these vertices $\mathbf{r}_i, \mbox{ }i=a,b,c,d$ at the $n^{th}$ time sample, we have the Taylor expansion : $$\mathbf{r}_i(t_n) = \mathbf{r}_i(t_{n-1}) + \left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}_i}{\partial t}(t_{n-1})\right)(t_n-t_{n-1}) + \underset{\text{Truncation error on the vertex path}}{\underbrace{\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{r}_i}{\partial t^2}(t_{n-1})\right)(t_n-t_{n-1})^2 + \mathcal{O}((t_n-t_{n-1})^3)}}.$$ The volumetric increment is then defined by the vertices positions with the following indexation, $$\left\{
\begin{array}{lclclclclclclcl}
\mathbf{r}_1 & = & \mathbf{r}_a(t_{n-1}), & \mathbf{r}_2 & = & \mathbf{r}_b(t_{n-1}), & \mathbf{r}_3 & = & \mathbf{r}_c(t_{n-1}), & \mathbf{r}_4 & = & \mathbf{r}_d(t_{n-1}), \\
\mathbf{r}_5 & = & \mathbf{r}_a(t_{n}), & \mathbf{r}_6 & = & \mathbf{r}_b(t_{n}), & \mathbf{r}_7 & = & \mathbf{r}_c(t_{n}), & \mathbf{r}_8 & = & \mathbf{r}_d(t_{n}).
\end{array}
\right.$$ By substitution of the Taylor expansion of the vertex positions at instant $t_n$ into equation (\[eq\_tri\_mapping\_volume\]), and exploiting the linearity of the function, the error committed during the estimation of the volumetric increment between two time steps is found to be of order two in $\tau=(t_n-t_{n-1})$ (see Appendix \[appendix\_trunc\_error\]). Recalling that the number of time steps $N_{ts}=2N+1$ and using the definition of the time instance, the difference $(t_n-t_{n-1})$ is written as $$\tau=\frac{[n-(n-1)]T}{2N+1}=\frac{T}{N_{ts}}.$$ Thus the truncation error during the estimation of the volumetric increment between two time steps at the $n^{th}$ instant and noted $\epsilon_{m,h}^T(t_n)$ is of order two in $\tau$ and can be expanded as : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\epsilon^T_{m,h}(t_{0})=0, \\
\\
\epsilon^T_{m,h}(t_n) = \mathcal{E}_m^T(t_{n-1})\tau^2 + \mathcal{O}(\tau^3) \mbox{, for }1 \leq n \leq 2N+1,
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_truncation_error_h}$$ where $\mathcal{E}_m^T(t)$ is a scalar periodic function depending on $\mathbf{r}_i(t)$, and $\displaystyle \frac{\partial^2 \mathbf{\mathbf{r}_i}}{\partial t^2}$, for $i=a,b,c,d$ (see Appendix \[appendix\_trunc\_error\]).
In order to estimate the error committed on the exact volumetric increment approximated at the $n^{th}$ time sample, these errors have to be summed, and yields : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\epsilon^T_m(t_{0})=0, \\
\\
\epsilon^T_m(t_{n}) = \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^n\epsilon^T_{m,h}(t_{k}) = \left( \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^n\mathcal{E}_m^T(t_{k-1}) \right)\tau^2 + n\mathcal{O}(\tau^3) \mbox{, for }1 \leq n \leq 2N+1.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_truncation_error}$$ Hence, for $1 \leq n \leq 2N+1$ : $$|\epsilon^T_m(t_{n})| \leq n\left( \max_{1 \leq n \leq 2N+1} |\mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{n-1})| \right) \tau^2 + n\mathcal{O}(\tau^3) = n \mathcal{O}(\tau^2)$$ Thus for $n=N_{ts}$ : $$|\epsilon^T_m(t_{N_{ts}})| \leq N_{ts} \mathcal{O} \left( \left( \frac{T}{N_{ts}} \right) ^2 \right) = \cal{O}(\tau)$$ The order of the error to approximate the exact volume of the volumetric increment may decrease over a period from 2 to 1 for the final value. Thus for any face $m$, the order of the truncation error $\epsilon^T_m(t_{N_{ts}})$ done to compute the zeroth Fourier coefficient of any integrated face mesh velocity $\hat{G}_{m,0}$ is one.
Recalling that the zeroth Fourier coefficient is then used to extract the periodic part of any volumetric increment see theorem \[th\_new\_method\], the error committed on the rest of the Fourier coefficients of the integrated face mesh velocities is given by the following lemma \[lemma\_Gmk\],
In the context of theorem \[th\_new\_method\], and under the definitions \[def\_vol\_hex\] and \[def\_vol\_inc\], for any face $m$ the temporal-order of accuracy of the Fourier coefficients $\hat{G}_{m,k}$, for $-N \leq k \leq N$ with $k \neq 0$, is limited to between one and two. \[lemma\_Gmk\]
For $1\leq n \leq N_{ts}$, the periodic part of the volumetric increment can be further expanded as : $$\begin{array}{lcl}
p_{m}(t_n) & = & \Omega_m(t_n)-\dfrac{\Omega_m(t_{N_{ts}})}{T}t_n \\
\\
& = & \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^n \Omega_{m,h}(t_k) + \epsilon^T_m(t_{n}) - \left( \dfrac{\displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^{N_{ts}} \Omega_{m,h}(t_k) +\epsilon^T_m(t_{N_{ts}}) }{T} \left(\dfrac{nT}{N_{ts}} \right)\right)\\
\\
\end{array}$$ From equation (\[eq\_truncation\_error\]), we have : $$\begin{array}{lcl}
p_{m}(t_n) & = & \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^n \Omega_{m,h}(t_k) + \left( \sum_{k=1}^n \mathcal{E}_m^T(t_{k-1})\right)\tau^2 + n \mathcal{O}(\tau^3)
\\
& & - \displaystyle \left( \dfrac{ \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^{N_{ts}} \Omega_{m,h}(t_k) +\left( \displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^{{N_{ts}}} \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k-1})\right)\tau^2 + ({N_{ts}}) \mathcal{O}(\tau^3) }{T} \left(\dfrac{nT}{N_{ts}} \right)\right)\\
\\
& = & \displaystyle \left( \sum_{k=1}^n \Omega_{m,h}(t_k) - \dfrac{n}{N_{ts}} \sum_{k=1}^{N_{ts}} \Omega_{m,h}(t_k) \right)
+ \displaystyle \left[ \sum_{k=1}^n \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k-1}) - \dfrac{n}{N_{ts}}\sum_{k=1}^{N_{ts}} \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k-1}) \right]\tau^2 + n\mathcal{O}(\tau^3). \\
\\
\end{array}$$ Then the truncation error on the periodic part of any volumetric increment $p_{m}(t)$ is given for $1\leq n \leq N_{ts}$ by : $$\epsilon^T_{p_{m}}(t_n) = \left[ \sum_{k=1}^n \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k-1}) - \dfrac{n}{N_{ts}}\sum_{k=1}^{N_{ts}} \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k-1}) \right]\tau^2 + n\mathcal{O}(\tau^3).
\label{eq_truncation_error_pm}$$
Since the bracketed term in equation (\[eq\_truncation\_error\_pm\]) is dependent of $n$, the order of accuracy for any $n$ is still unclear. To refine the determination of the order of accuracy during the computation of $p_{m}$, the approximation of an integral using the Riemann sum is exploited.
For any $T$-periodic function $f$ at least three times continuous ($f\in \mathcal{C}^3([0;T])$, we have the following asymptotic development (\[eq\_development\_asymptotic\]) where $f'=\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}$ : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
R_{N_{ts}} & = & \displaystyle \frac{T}{N_{ts}}\sum_{k=0}^{N_{ts}-1} f\left( t_k \right), \\
\\
R_{N_{ts}} & = & \displaystyle \int_0^T f(t)dt - \frac{T}{2N_{ts}}(f(T)-f(0))+\frac{T^2}{12(N_{ts})^2}(f'(T)-f'(0))+\mathcal{O} \left( \left(\frac{T}{N_{ts}}\right)^3 \right). \\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_development_asymptotic}$$ Then applying this result to the truncation error $\epsilon^T_{p_m}(t_n)$, for $1\leq n \leq N_{ts}$ : $$\begin{array}{lcl}
\epsilon^T_{p_{m}}(t_n)
& = & \displaystyle \left[ \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k}) - \dfrac{n}{T} \dfrac{T}{N_{ts}}\sum_{k=0}^{N_{ts-1}} \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k}) \right]\tau^2 + n\mathcal{O}(\tau^3) \\
\\
& = & \displaystyle \left[ \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \mathcal{E}^T_m (t_{k}) - \dfrac{n}{T} \left( \int_0^T \mathcal{E}^T_m (t)dt - \frac{\tau}{2}(\mathcal{E}^T_m (T)-\mathcal{E}^T_m (0))+\frac{\tau^2}{12}({\mathcal{E}^T_m}' (T)-{\mathcal{E}^T_m}' (0))+\mathcal{O}(\tau^3) \right) \right]\tau^2 \\
\\
& + & n\mathcal{O}(\tau^3) \\
\\
& = & \displaystyle \left[ \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k}) - n \left( \langle \mathcal{E}^T_m \rangle_T - \frac{\tau}{2T}(\mathcal{E}^T_m(T)-\mathcal{E}^T_m(0))+\frac{\tau^2}{12T} ({\mathcal{E}^T_m}'(T)-{\mathcal{E}^T_m}'(0)) \right) \right]\tau^2 \\
\\
& + & n\mathcal{O}(\tau^3) \\
\\
& = & \displaystyle \left[ \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k}) - n \langle \mathcal{E}^T_m \rangle_T \right]\tau^2 + n\mathcal{O}(\tau^3) \\
\\
& = & \displaystyle \left[ \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \left( \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k}) - \langle \mathcal{E}^T_m \rangle_T \right) \right]\tau^2 + n\mathcal{O}(\tau^3), \\
\\
\end{array}
\label{eq_calculus_truncation_error_pm_1}$$ where $\langle . \rangle_T$ represents the mean of a function on the segment $[0;T]$. Taking advantage of the fact that the function $ \Delta\mathcal{E}^T_m = \mathcal{E}^T_m - \langle \mathcal{E}^T_m \rangle_T$ is $T$-periodic with zero mean value and exploiting a second time the expression (\[eq\_development\_asymptotic\]), yields for $n=N_{ts}$ : $$\begin{array}{lcl}
\displaystyle \left\{ \sum_{k=0}^{N_{ts}-1} \left[ \left( \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k}) - \langle \mathcal{E}^T_m \rangle_T \right) \right] \right\}\tau & = & \underset{=0}{\underbrace{\int_0^T \left( \Delta\mathcal{E}^T_m \right)dt}} - \frac{\tau}{2}(\Delta\mathcal{E}^T_m(T)-\Delta\mathcal{E}^T_m(0)) +\mathcal{O}(\tau^2) \\
\\
& = & \displaystyle -\frac{\tau}{2}(\mathcal{E}^T_m(T)-\mathcal{E}^T_m(0)) +\mathcal{O}(\tau^2). \\
\\
\end{array}
\label{eq_calculus_truncation_error_pm_2}$$ Substituting back the expression (\[eq\_calculus\_truncation\_error\_pm\_2\]) into the final equation in (\[eq\_calculus\_truncation\_error\_pm\_1\]) for $n=N_{ts}$, leads to : $$\epsilon^T_{p_{m}}(t_{N_{ts}}) = -\tau^2(\mathcal{E}^T_m(T)-\mathcal{E}^T_m(0)) + N_{ts}\mathcal{O}(\tau^3) = \mathcal{O}(\tau^2).
\label{eq_calculus_truncation_error_pm_Nts}$$
In summary the truncation error committed on the periodic part of any volumetric increment follows the equation : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\epsilon^T_{p_{m}}(t_0)=0, \\
\\
\epsilon^T_{p_{m}}(t_n) = \displaystyle \left\{ \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \left[ \left( \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k}) - \langle \mathcal{E}^T_m \rangle_T \right) \right] \right\}\tau^2 + n\mathcal{O}(\tau^3)\mbox{, for }1\leq n \leq 2N. \\
\\
\epsilon^T_{p_{m}}(t_{N_{ts}}) = \mathcal{O}(\tau^2).
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_truncation_error_pm_order}$$
In general, the order of the truncation error on the approximation of the periodic part of the volumetric increment used as input for the NLFD method is of order between one and two. Analytically, we observe that this order is determined by the sum $\displaystyle \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \left[ \left( \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k}) - \langle \mathcal{E}^T_m \rangle_T \right) \right]$, which is bounded for $1 \leq n \leq N_{ts}$ by $ \left\{ N_{ts} \displaystyle \max_{1 \leq k \leq N_{ts}} |\left( \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k}) - \langle \mathcal{E}^T_m \rangle_T \right)| \right\}$. This upper bound ensures that in the worst case, the order of accuracy is 1. However asymptotically it is reasonable to assume that for small and high values of $n$, the term $\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \left[ \left( \mathcal{E}^T_m(t_{k}) - \langle \mathcal{E}^T_m \rangle_T \right) \right]$ is small enough to consider that the truncation error is of order 2 whereas for $n$ in the middle of the range $[1;N_{ts}]$, the order is greater than 1 but lesser than 2.
Assuming that the spectral convergence of the Fourier transform is reached and taking advantage of its bijectivity, the truncation error on the Fourier coefficients $\hat{G}_{m,k}$ and finally on the integrated face mesh velocities is of order between 1 and 2. Therefore the accuracy of the procedure is given by the following corollary \[th\_error\] :
In the context of theorem \[th\_new\_method\], and under the definitions \[def\_vol\_hex\] and \[def\_vol\_inc\], for any face $m$ the temporal-order of accuracy of the integrated face mesh velocities is limited to between one and two. \[th\_error\]
Thus it is important to note that even if the method described in section \[subsec\_DerivGCL\] enforced the Geometric Conservation Law, the integrated face mesh velocities are determined within an accuracy of order 1 to 2. This is a disadvantage since the benefit of the spectral convergence of the NLFD method.
Alternative approach based on the exact integrated face mesh velocities
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
### Trilinear mapping {#subsec_tri_mapping}
The computation of the metrics of a grid is often easier in a Cartesian grid, for this reason a mapping between the curvilinear physical space and a Cartesian computational space can be performed. In this work, a trilinear mapping is already used to compute any hexahedron volume [@Dukowicz1988], but it can also be used to compute the time derivative of any hexahedron, its surface vectors and the exact integrated face mesh velocities as long as the position and velocity vectors of the vertices are known. This section develops the derivation of these expressions.
### Notation : {#notation .unnumbered}
$$\begin{array}{ccl}
\cal{T} & \leftrightarrow & \text{Trilinear mapping} \\
p & \leftrightarrow & \text{physical space : }(x,y,z) \\
r & \leftrightarrow & \text{reference space : }(\xi,\eta,\zeta) \\
m & \leftrightarrow & \text{any faces of an hexahedron} \\
\mathbf{n} & \leftrightarrow & \text{normal vector} \\
\hat{\mathbf{n}} & \leftrightarrow & \text{unit normal vector}
\end{array}
\label{eq_Notations_mapping}$$
### Derivation : {#derivation .unnumbered}
The mapping $\cal{T}$ from the physical to the computational space is introduced : $$\cal{T} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\cal(D_C) \rightarrow \cal(D_P) \\
(\xi,\eta,\zeta) \rightarrow (x,y,z) = \cal(T(\xi,\eta,\zeta)),
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_mapping}$$ where $\cal(D_C)$ is the computational domain and $\cal(D_P)$ is the physical domain. The application is defined by considering a reference cube in the computational space which enables the mapping of any general hexahedron in the physical space. A necessary and sufficient condition to ensure the invertibility of the mapping is the strict positivity of the Jacobian for any point of the element. However no simple relations exist in order to verify the positivity of the Jacobian in 3D [@Lopez2017; @Knabner2003].
In this work, the position vector $\mathbf{r}_p=(x,y,z)$ in the physical space is mapped through $\mathbf{r}_r=(x(\xi,\eta,\zeta),y(\xi,\eta,\zeta),z(\xi,\eta,\zeta))$ based on the location vectors in the physical space $\mathbf{r_i}_{,p}=[x_i,y_i,z_i]$ $i=1,...,8$ of the vertices with the following convention derived from Figure \[fig\_tri\_mapping\] : $$\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{r}_r=(1-\xi)(1-\eta)(1-\zeta)\mathbf{r_1}_{,p}+\xi(1-\eta)(1-\zeta)\mathbf{r_2}_{,p}+\xi\eta(1-\zeta)\mathbf{r_3}_{,p}+(1-\xi)\eta(1-\zeta)\mathbf{r_4}_{,p}\\
+(1-\xi)(1-\eta)\zeta \mathbf{r_5}_{,p}+\xi(1-\eta)\zeta \mathbf{r_6}_{,p}+\xi\eta\zeta \mathbf{r_7}_{,p}+(1-\xi)\eta\zeta \mathbf{r_8}_{,p}, \\
\end{array}
\label{eq_position_mapping}$$ where $0 \leq \xi,\eta,\zeta \leq 1$.
The velocity vector $\mathbf{v}_p=(v_x,v_y,v_z)$ in the physical domain is mapped in the same way $\mathbf{v}_r=(v_x(\xi,\eta,\zeta),v_y(\xi,\eta,\zeta),v_z(\xi,\eta,\zeta))$ based on the velocity vectors of the vertices $\mathbf{v_i}_{,p}=[v_{xi},v_{yi},v_{zi}]$ $i=1,...,8$ : $$\begin{array}{c}
\mathbf{v}_r=(1-\xi)(1-\eta)(1-\zeta)\mathbf{v_1}_{,p}+\xi(1-\eta)(1-\zeta)\mathbf{v_2}_{,p}+\xi\eta(1-\zeta)\mathbf{v_3}_{,p}+(1-\xi)\eta(1-\zeta)\mathbf{v_4}_{,p}\\
+(1-\xi)(1-\eta)\zeta \mathbf{v_5}_{,p}+\xi(1-\eta)\zeta \mathbf{v_6}_{,p}+\xi\eta\zeta \mathbf{v_7}_{,p}+(1-\xi)\eta\zeta \mathbf{v_8}_{,p}. \\
\end{array}
\label{eq_velo_mapping}$$
For any face $m$ of a cell, the normal vector is given by one of the following expressions : $$\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{n}_{r,\zeta =0}= -\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \xi}\right)\text{x}\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \eta} \right),&
\mathbf{n}_{r,\zeta =1}= +\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \xi}\right)\text{x}\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \eta} \right),
\\
\\
\mathbf{n}_{r,\xi =0}=- \left( \dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \eta} \right) \text{x}\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \zeta}\right),&
\mathbf{n}_{r,\xi =1}=+ \left( \dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \eta} \right) \text{x}\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \zeta}\right),
\\
\\
\mathbf{n}_{r,\eta =0}=- \left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \zeta}\right)\text{x}\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \xi} \right), &
\mathbf{n}_{r,\eta =1}=+ \left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \zeta}\right)\text{x}\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \xi} \right),
\\
\end{array}
\label{eq_normal_mapping}$$ where the sign is determined in order to have the normal pointing outward of the cell volume. The Jacobian matrix $J(\xi,\eta,\zeta)$ is expressed as : $$J(\xi,\eta,\zeta)=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \xi} & \dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \eta} & \dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \zeta}
\end{array}
\right)$$ and its determinant can be calculated with one of the following expressions : $$|J| = \left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \xi}\right)\cdot \left[\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \eta}\right) \mbox{x} \left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \zeta}\right)\right]
=\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \eta}\right)\cdot \left[\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \zeta}\right) \mbox{x} \left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \xi}\right)\right]
=\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \zeta}\right)\cdot \left[\left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \xi}\right) \mbox{x} \left(\dfrac{\partial \mathbf{r}_r}{\partial \eta}\right)\right].$$ Once the position vector, velocity vector, normal vectors and Jacobian are known, these quantities are used to compute the integrals of the volume and mesh velocity through a change of variables.
### Volume integral {#volume-integral .unnumbered}
Trough the application of the divergence theorem, the volume of the hexahedron can be evaluated as such, $$V_{p} = \int_{\Omega_{p}} dV_{p} = \oiint_{\partial \Omega_{p}} \frac{1}{3} \mathbf{r}_{p}\cdot \mathbf{dS}_{p}
= \frac{1}{3} \oiint_{\partial \Omega_{p}} (\mathbf{r}_{p}\cdot \mathbf{\hat{n}}_{p} )dS_{p}$$ We can then write the integral for the computational domain through the trilinear mapping to acquire, $$\begin{array}{cl}
V_{p} = \displaystyle \frac{1}{3} \oiint_{\partial \Omega_{p}} (\mathbf{r}_{p}\cdot \mathbf{\hat{n}}_{p} )dS_{p}
&\displaystyle = \dfrac{1}{3} \oiint_{\partial \Omega_{r}} (\mathbf{r}_{r}\cdot \mathbf{\hat{n}}_{r} )|J_{r}| dS_{r} \\
&\\
&\displaystyle = \dfrac{1}{3} \sum_{m=1}^{N_f} \iint_{\partial \Omega_{r,m}} (\mathbf{r}_{r,m}\cdot \mathbf{\hat{n}}_{r,m} )|J_{r,m}| dS_{r,m},
\end{array}$$ where $dS_{c,r,m}$ is either $d\xi d\eta$, $d\eta d\zeta$ or $d\zeta d\xi$ and the integral boundaries are $[0\mbox{ }1]^2$. **N.B. :** On any face of the hexahedron only one of the variables in the reference space $\xi$, $\eta$ or $\zeta$ has a fixed value. Thus the quantity $(\mathbf{r}_{c,r,m}.\mathbf{\hat{n}}_{r,m} )|J_{r,m}|$ is still a function of two variables which has to be integrated over the face.
For each face, the computation of the integral over the surface under this form is not straightforward (the difficulty comes from the unit normal vector) and needs to be simplified *a priori*. This is done by exploiting the relation (\[eq\_simplification\_rational\]), for the derivation of this expression see Appendix B in [@Zwanenburg2016] : $$\mathbf{\hat{n}}_{r,m} |J_{r,m}|=C_{r,m}\mathbf{\hat{N}}_{r,m},
\label{eq_simplification_rational}$$ where $C_{r,m}=C(\xi,\eta,\zeta)$ is the cofactor matrix of the Jacobian matrix $J$ for the trilinear mapping and $\mathbf{\hat{N}}_{r,m}$ is the constant unit normal vector to the corresponding face in the reference space : $$\begin{array}{cc}
\mathbf{\hat{N}}_{\zeta =0}= [ \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & -1\end{array} ]^T, &
\mathbf{\hat{N}}_{\zeta =1}= [ \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & +1\end{array} ]^T,
\\
\\
\mathbf{\hat{N}}_{\eta =0}= [ \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & -1 & 0\end{array} ]^T, &
\mathbf{\hat{N}}_{\eta =1}= [ \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & +1 & 0\end{array} ]^T,
\\
\\
\mathbf{\hat{N}}_{\xi =0}= [ \begin{array}{ccc} -1 & 0 & 0\end{array} ]^T, &
\mathbf{\hat{N}}_{\xi =1}= [ \begin{array}{ccc} +1 & 0 & 0\end{array} ]^T.
\\
\end{array}
\label{eq_unormal_mapping}$$ Once the equation (\[eq\_simplification\_rational\]) is substituted into the integrals over the surfaces, an explicit expression of the volume as a function of $\mathbf{r}_i$, $i=1,...,8$ is obtained : $$\begin{array}{c}
( V_{c,p} )_{\cal{T}}=(V_{4321}+V_{5678}+V_{3487}+V_{1256}+V_{4158}+V_{2376})_{\cal{T}},
\end{array}
\label{eq_any_volume}$$ where for any set $i,j,k,l$, the volumetric contribution of the face $S_{ijkl}$ is given by (\[eq\_surface\_increment\]) : $$(V_{ijkl})_{\cal{T}}
= \frac{1}{3} \iint_{\partial \Omega_{r,ijkl}} \mathbf{r}_{r,ijkl}\cdot (C_{r,ijkl}\mathbf{\hat{N}}_{r,ijkl}) dS_{r,ijkl}
=\frac{1}{12}(\mathbf{r}_j+\mathbf{r}_k)\cdot ((\mathbf{r}_i+\mathbf{r}_j)\text{x}(\mathbf{r}_i+\mathbf{r}_l)).
\label{eq_surface_increment}$$
### Time derivative of the volumetric integral {#time-derivative-of-the-volumetric-integral .unnumbered}
The temporal derivative of the volumetric integral can be expressed as, $$\frac{\partial V_{p}}{\partial t} = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \int_{\Omega_{p}} dV_{p}.$$ By substituting the results of the previous section, primarily equations (\[eq\_any\_volume\]) and (\[eq\_surface\_increment\]), an explicit expression of the temporal derivative of the volume as a function of $\mathbf{r}_i$ and $\mathbf{v}_i$, $i=1,...,8$ is derived : $$\left( \frac{\partial V_{p}}{\partial t} \right)_{\cal{T}} = \left(\frac{\partial V_{4321}}{\partial t}
+\frac{\partial V_{5678}}{\partial t}
+\frac{\partial V_{3487}}{\partial t}
+\frac{\partial V_{1256}}{\partial t}
+\frac{\partial V_{4158}}{\partial t}
+\frac{\partial V_{2376}}{\partial t} \right)_{\cal{T}},
\label{eq_dvol}$$ where for any set $i,j,k,l$, the time derivative volumetric contribution of the face $S_{ijkl}$ is given by (\[eq\_dsurface\_increment\]) : $$\begin{array}{r}
\left( \dfrac{\partial V_{ijkl}}{\partial t} \right)_{\cal{T}}=
\dfrac{1}{12}(\mathbf{v}_j+\mathbf{v}_k) \cdot ((\mathbf{r}_i+\mathbf{r}_j)\text{x}(\mathbf{r}_i+\mathbf{r}_l)) \\
\\
+ \dfrac{1}{12}(\mathbf{r}_j+\mathbf{r}_k) \cdot ((\mathbf{v}_i+\mathbf{v}_j)\text{x}(\mathbf{r}_i+\mathbf{r}_l)) \\
\\
+ \dfrac{1}{12}(\mathbf{r}_j+\mathbf{r}_k) \cdot ((\mathbf{r}_i+\mathbf{r}_j)\text{x}(\mathbf{v}_i+\mathbf{v}_l)).
\end{array}
\label{eq_dsurface_increment}$$
### Integrated face mesh velocities {#integrated-face-mesh-velocities .unnumbered}
The integral of the face mesh velocity in the physical domain for a face $m$ is given by, $$G_{p,m} =\iint_{\partial\Omega_{c,p,m}} ({\mathbf{v}}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{n}_{p,m}} ) dS_{c,p,m}.$$ By introducing the trilinear mapping, we can express the integrated face mesh velocities as, $$G_{p,m} =\iint_{\partial \Omega_{r,m}} \mathbf{v}_{r,m} \cdot (\mathbf{\hat{n}}_{r,m} |J_{r,m}|) dS_{r,m}
=\iint_{\partial \Omega_{r,m}} \mathbf{v}_{r,m} \cdot (C_{r,m}\mathbf{\hat{N}}_{r,m}) dS_{r,m}.$$ Once the integration is performed, the explicit expressions of the integrated face mesh velocities are obtained as a function of $\mathbf{r}_i$ and $\mathbf{v}_i$, $i=1,...,8$. For a face with the set $(i,j,k,l)\in \left\{4321;5678;3487;1256;4158;2376 \right\}$ : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
\mathbf{v}_t= & (\mathbf{v}_i+\mathbf{v}_j+\mathbf{v}_k+\mathbf{v}_l) \\
&\\
\mathbf{S}_{i,j,k,l}= & \left( (\mathbf{r}_i \mbox{ x } \mathbf{r}_j) + (\mathbf{r}_j \mbox{ x } \mathbf{r}_k) + (\mathbf{r}_k \mbox{ x } \mathbf{r}_l) + (\mathbf{r}_l \mbox{ x } \mathbf{r}_i) \right)\\
&\\
\mathbf{S}_{a,b,c}= & \left( (\mathbf{r}_a\mbox{ x } \mathbf{r}_b) + (\mathbf{r}_b \mbox{ x } \mathbf{r}_c) + (\mathbf{r}_c \mbox{ x } \mathbf{r}_a) \right) \text{ for any set } a,b,c\\
&\\
(G_{i,j,k,l})_{\cal{T}} =& \dfrac{1}{12} \left( \mathbf{v}_t \cdot \mathbf{S}_{i,j,k,l} + \mathbf{v}_j \cdot \mathbf{S}_{i,j,k} + \mathbf{v}_k \cdot \mathbf{S}_{j,k,l}
+ \mathbf{v}_l \cdot \mathbf{S}_{k,l,i} + \mathbf{v}_i \cdot\mathbf{S}_{l,i,j} \right)
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_tri_mapping_IFMV}$$
It was checked that with these expressions for the IFMV and the time derivative of the volume as functions of velocity and position vectors of the vertices, the semi-discrete equation of the GCL (\[eq\_semi\_discrete\_GCL\_2\]) is analytically retrieved. In other words, the sum of equation (\[eq\_tri\_mapping\_IFMV\]) applied to the 6 sets $\left\{4321;5678;3487;1256;4158;2376 \right\}$ is equal to expression (\[eq\_dvol\]).
### Derivation of the GCL in the NLFD framework {#derivation-of-the-gcl-in-the-nlfd-framework}
The methods presented in sections \[subsec\_Tardiff\_approach\] and \[subsec\_modified\_approach\] to enforce the GCL are based on equation (\[eq\_GCL\_split\]), and the integrated face mesh velocities are deduced from the calculation of the volumetric increments as input. The approach presented in this section using the trilinear mapping is quite different because no volumetric increments are computed, the integrated face mesh velocities are directly evaluated in physical time using equation (\[eq\_tri\_mapping\_IFMV\]). In addition the cell volumes are computed using equation (\[eq\_tri\_mapping\_volume\]). Hence in the GCL equation as established in (\[eq\_semi\_discrete\_GCL\_1\]), both $\Omega$ and $G = \sum_{m=1}^{N_f} G_m$ are exactly calculated, the only degree of freedom remaining to enforce the equation is the discretization of the temporal derivative operator $\displaystyle \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right)$. In the NLFD framework, this operator is discretized in the Fourier domain and is a function of the number of harmonics $N$ employed in the temporal discretization. Therefore the GCL equation will be satisfied if and only if the time derivative of the cell volume expressed in Fourier space converge to the Fourier time differentiation applied to the cell volume, $$\text{DFT} \left\{ \left( \frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t} \right)_{\cal{T}} \right\} = \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right)_{Fourier} \left( \text{DFT}\left\{ (\Omega_{\cal{T}}) \right\} \right),
\label{eq_conv_volume_DFT}$$ where $\cal{T}$ refers to the trilinear mapping. Hence, this method will not enforce the GCL for any number of time steps contrary to the method presented in section \[subsec\_modified\_approach\], but for a sufficient number of harmonics ensuring the convergence of the equations (\[eq\_conv\_volume\_DFT\]). Since this approach is based on the exact integrated face mesh velocities and ensures the GCL with a spectral rate of convergence depending on the mesh motion, it provides a good alternative to the method exploiting the volumetric increments with an order of accuracy comprised between one and two. In the section \[sec\_num\], we will present the numerical results of these different methods for several test cases.
Extension of the results to Time-Spectral method
------------------------------------------------
In this section, we extent the previous results to Time-Spectral (TS) method presented by Gopinath and Jameson [@Gopinath2005; @Gopinath2006]. Compared to the NLFD method which solves the governing equations in the frequency domain, the Time-Spectral method solves the governing equations in the time domain but exploits the features of a spectral approach.
### Time-Spectral method
Assuming a periodic flow and a periodic deformation of the mesh, we recall the temporal discretization of the modified state vector $\bar{\mathbf{w}}=\Omega\mathbf{w}$ equations (\[eq\_DFT\_w\]) and (\[eq\_Fourier\_coeff\_w\]), $$\bar{\mathbf{w}}(t)=\sum_{k=-N}^N \mathbf{\hat{w}}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t},$$ with : $$\mathbf{\hat{w}}_k = \frac{1}{2N+1}\sum_{n=0}^{2N} \Omega(t_n)\mathbf{w}(t_n)\text{e}^{-i(2\pi k/T)t_n},$$ where $T$ is the time period, $N$ is the number of modes considered in the DFT and $t_n$ the equally spaced time instances given by, $$t_n = \frac{n}{2N+1}T \mbox{, for }n=0,..,2N.$$ In Fourier space, the time discretization operator leads to, $$\frac{\partial \mathbf{\bar{w}}}{\partial t}(t) = \sum_{k=-N}^N \frac{i2 \pi k}{T} \mathbf{\hat{w}}_k \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t},$$ $$\Leftrightarrow \frac{\partial \mathbf{\bar{w}}}{\partial t}(t) = \frac{2\pi}{T} \sum_{k=-N}^N ik \left( \frac{1}{2N+1}\sum_{K=0}^{2N} \Omega(t_K)\mathbf{w}(t_K)\text{e}^{-i(2\pi k/T)t_K} \right) \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t}.$$ By evaluating this expression for each time instance $t_n$, we have for $n=0,...,2N$, $$\frac{\partial \mathbf{\bar{w}}}{\partial t}(t_n) = \frac{2\pi}{T} \sum_{k=-N}^N ik \left( \frac{1}{2N+1}\sum_{K=0}^{2N} \Omega(t_K)\mathbf{w}(t_K)\text{e}^{-i(2\pi k/T)t_K} \right) \text{e}^{i(2\pi k/T)t_n},$$ $$\Leftrightarrow \frac{\partial \mathbf{\bar{w}}}{\partial t}(t_n) = \sum_{K=0}^{2N} \left[ \Omega(t_K)\mathbf{w}(t_K) \left( \frac{2\pi}{T} \frac{1}{2N+1} \sum_{k=-N}^N ik \text{e}^{i(2\pi k)(n-K)/(2N+1)} \right) \right].$$ We introduce, the coefficients $d_{n,K}$, defined for $n=0,...,2N$ by, $$d_{n,K} = \frac{2\pi}{T} \frac{1}{2N+1} \sum_{k=-N}^N ik \text{e}^{i(2\pi k)(n-K)/(2N+1)},$$ the compact form of the coefficients for an odd number of time steps is written as follows (for the derivation see Reference [@Gopinath2006]), $$d_{n,K} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\displaystyle \frac{2\pi}{T} \frac{1}{2}(-1)^{n-K} \csc \left(\frac{\pi(n-K)}{2N+1}\right), &\mbox{ if }& K \neq n \\
0 , &\mbox{ if }& K = n,
\end{array}
\right.$$ and, $$\frac{\partial \mathbf{\bar{w}}}{\partial t}(t_n) = \sum_{K=0}^{2N} d_{n,K} \bar{\mathbf{w}}(t_K).$$ The temporal-derivation operator appears as the multiplication of a matrix $\mathcal{D}=(d_{n,K})_{0\leq n,K \leq 2N}$ with each vector $(\mathbf{\bar{w}}_i(t_K))_{0\leq K \leq 2N}$, for $i=1,...,5$ where the index $i$ refers to the component of the modified state vector in the governing equations. In addition, this matrix is skew-symmetric, independent of any state variables and completely determined by the number of harmonics used in the DFT and the temporal period. Then a pseudo-time $t^{*}$ is introduced and the equations are solved in the time domain through, $$\frac{\partial \mathbf{\bar{w}}}{\partial t^{*}}(t_n) + \frac{\partial \mathbf{\bar{w}}}{\partial t}(t_n) + \mathbf{R(w(}t_n\mathbf{))} = 0, \mbox{ for }n=0,...,2N.$$
### Derivation and enforcement of the GCL
Recall that in order to obtain a consistent solution method, the GCL must be discretized using the same numerical scheme employed to discretize the governing equations. In the case of Time-Spectral method, it leads to the following theorem \[th\_new\_method\_TS\],
Let $\Omega$ be a discretized control volume, enclosed by $N_f$ faces, and subjected to a periodic motion of its vertices. Then given the knowledge of the exact volumetric [increments]{} $\Omega_m$ for $m=1,...,N_f$, a sufficient condition to ensure the satisfaction of GCL in the TS framework is the computation of the integrated face mesh velocities through the following relations, $$\mathbf{G}_{m} = (\mathcal{D}) \boldsymbol{p}_{m} + \left\langle G_{m} \right\rangle_T (\mathcal{I_{N}}),
\label{eq_GCL_TS_Gmk}$$ where for all $m$, $\left\langle G_{m} \right\rangle_T$ are the temporal mean values of the integrated face mesh velocities, $\mathcal{I_{N}}$ is the identity matrix of dimension $2N+1$, $\mathbf{G}_{m}=(G_m(t_n))_{0 \leq n \leq 2N}$ and $\boldsymbol{p}_{m}=(p_{m}(t_n))_{0 \leq n \leq 2N}$ are the vectors grouping the time instances of respectively the integrated face mesh velocities and the periodic part of the exact volumetric [increments]{} given by, $$p_{m}(t) = \Omega_{m}(t)-\left( \frac{\Omega_{m}(T)}{T}\right) t,
\label{eq_pm_periodic_simplified_TS}$$ and $\mathcal{D}=(d_{n,K})_{0\leq n,K \leq 2N}$ is the matrix representing the temporal derivation operator of the Time-Spectral method, defined by its coefficients $d_{n,K}$ for $0\leq n,K \leq 2N$, $$d_{n,K} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\displaystyle \frac{\pi}{T}(-1)^{n-K} \csc \left(\frac{\pi(n-K)}{2N+1}\right), &\mbox{ if }& K \neq n \\
0 , &\mbox{ if }& K = n.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_D_matrix_TS}$$ \[th\_new\_method\_TS\]
Under the assumption that the motion of the vertices is periodic, the temporal rate of change of the algebraic volume swept by each face through time is periodic. Thus the temporal derivative of the volumetric [increments]{} and the integrated face mesh velocities are periodic, the DFT is applied to equation (\[eq\_GCL\_split\]) leading to : $$G_m(t) = \frac{\partial \Omega_m}{\partial t} = \hat{G}_{m,0} + \sum_{k=-N,k\neq 0}^{N} \hat{G}_{m,k} \text{e}^{i\frac{2\pi}{T}kt},
\label{eq_DFT_Gm_TS}$$ where for any face $m$, $\hat{G}_{m,k}$ are the Fourier coefficients of both the derivative of the volumetric [increment]{} and the integrated face mesh velocity. The mean of a function expandable in Fourier serie is given by its zeroth Fourier coefficient thus, $$\left\langle G_{m} \right\rangle_T = \hat{G}_{m,0}.
\label{eq_Gm0_mean_Gm_TS}$$ From the proof of theorem \[th\_new\_method\], we have the following relations, $$\Omega_{m}(t) = l_{m}(t)+p_{m}(t),
\label{eq_int_dOmegam_TS}$$ $$l_{m}(t) = \hat{G}_{m,0} t = \frac{\Omega_{m}(T)}{T}t,
\label{eq_Omegam_lm_TS}$$ $$p_{m}(t) = \hat{\Omega}_{m,0}+\sum_{k=-N,k \neq 0}^{N} \frac{T}{i2\pi k}\hat{G}_{m,k} e^{i\frac{2\pi}{T}kt},
\label{eq_Omegam_pm_TS}$$ $$p_{m}(t) = \Omega_{m}(t)-\left( \frac{\Omega_{m}(T)}{T}\right) t.
\label{eq_pm_periodic_simplified_proof_TS}$$ Then, by exploiting these results and applying the Time-Spectral temporal derivation to the periodic part of the volumetric increments, we can write for each time instance $t_n$, with $n=0,...,2N$, $$\begin{array}{lcl}
G_m(t_n) & = & \displaystyle \frac{\partial \Omega_m}{\partial t}(t_n) \\
\\
& = & \displaystyle \frac{\partial (l_{m}+p_{m})}{\partial t}(t_n) \\
\\
& = & \displaystyle \left\langle G_{m} \right\rangle_T + \frac{\partial p_{m}}{\partial t}(t_n) \\
\\
& = & \displaystyle \left\langle G_{m} \right\rangle_T + \sum_{K=0}^{2N} d_{n,K} p_{m}(t_K), \\
\\
\end{array}$$ Finally, if we group all the time instances in a vector $\mathbf{G}_m$, we obtain, $$\mathbf{G}_{m} = (\mathcal{D}) \boldsymbol{p}_{m} + \left\langle G_{m} \right\rangle_T (\mathcal{I_{N}}),
\label{eq_GCL_TS_proof}$$ where $\mathcal{I_{N}}$ is the identity matrix of dimension $2N+1$ and $\mathcal{D}=(d_{n,K})_{0\leq n,K \leq 2N}$ is the matrix representing the temporal derivation operator of the Time-Spectral method. The condition given by equation (\[eq\_GCL\_TS\_proof\]) is a criteria to ensure that the GCL are enforced in the Time-Spectral framework.
Numerical results {#sec_num}
=================
The new approaches to enforce the Geometric Conservation Law developed in section \[sec\_GCL\] are numerically tested in order to validate their procedures. The protocol, test cases and results are presented in the following sections.
Protocol
--------
The physical interpretation of the GCL is that any uniform flow must be preserved by the numerical scheme employed for the flow solver and independently of the mesh movements. This law imposes constraints on the manner to compute some geometrical quantities such as the volume and the integrated face mesh velocities. Thus the first step of our test is to ensure the preservation of uniform flow by computing the relative error between the initially defined uniform state vector $\mathbf{W}_0$ and the computed state vector $\mathbf{W}$ by the flow solver, $$RelErr= \max_{0\leq n \leq 2N} \left\{ \max_{1\leq n_v \leq N_{cell}} \left( \max_{1\leq j \leq 5} \left| \frac{W_j(n_v,t_n)-W_{0,j}(n_v,t_n)}{W_{0,j}(n_v,t_n)} \right| \right) \right\},
\label{eq_results_rel_error_W}$$ where $W_1=\rho$, $W_2=\rho u$, $W_3=\rho v$, $W_4=\rho w$ and $W_5=\rho E$ and $n_v$ is the index pointing to the grid cell with $N_{cell}$ the number of cells in the mesh.
However the verification of uniform flow preservation only guarantees that the GCL are satisfied “by summing over the faces”, but not that the computed integrated face mesh velocities are correct. Indeed as long as the sum of the time derivative of the volumetric increments is equal to the time derivative of the cell volume, $$\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t} = \sum_{m=1}^{N_f} \frac{\partial \Omega_m}{\partial t},
\label{eq_dOmega_sum_dOmegam}$$ the deduced integrated face mesh velocities from the time derivative of the volumetric increments from equation (\[eq\_GCL\_split\]) enforce the GCL after the summation through the faces (see equation (\[eq\_semi\_discrete\_GCL\_2\])) but the integrated face mesh velocities themselves may not converge to the correct value.
Thus in order to verify that the GCL are enforced with a correct evaluation of the integrated face mesh velocities, the values derived from the trilinear mapping equations (\[eq\_dvol\]) and (\[eq\_tri\_mapping\_IFMV\]) based on the location and velocity vectors of the grid points retrieved from the dynamic mesh deformation, are considered as reference. Therefore for each motion of the mesh and for various number of harmonics $N$, four different implementations of the integrated face mesh velocities are compared :
1. the IFMV deduced from the linear volumetric increments from Tradiff et al. [@Tardif2017] see Figure \[fig\_linear\_Omegam\] noted as “NLFD-LVI” ;
2. the IFMV calculated with the new method based on the exact volumetric increments approximated as a sum of hexahedron see Figure \[fig\_OmegaM\_move\] noted as “NLFD-AEVI” ;
3. the previous approximation obtained by taking the average of the velocity of the four vertices defining a face and projected along the surface normal vector noted as “AVG”;
4. the method based on the trilinear mapping noted as “TRI-MAP” and used as reference for the exact values of the IFMV.
For each of these approaches, the preservation of uniform flow is tested. Then different quantities are compared by computing the maximum absolute error :
- comparison of the sum of the IFMV to the NLFD time derivative of the cell volume computed using the numerical scheme of the flow solver. This comparison is similar to a demonstration of the preservation of uniform flow: $$AbsErr_1 = \max_{0\leq n \leq 2N} \left\{ \max_{1\leq n_v \leq N_{cell}} \left| \left( \sum_{m=1}^{N_f} G_m(n_v,t_n) \right)_{METHOD} - \left(\frac{\partial \Omega}{\partial t}(n_v,t_n) \right)_{NLFD} \right| \right\};
\label{eq_comparison_abserr_1}$$
- comparison of the IFMV to the reference integrated face mesh velocities (TRI-MAP) in each direction $dir=$ $x$, $y$ or $z$ : $$AbsErr_2 = \max_{0\leq n \leq 2N} \left\{ \max_{1\leq n_v \leq N_{cell}} \left| \left(G_{m,dir}(n_v,t_n) \right)_{METHOD} - \left( G_{m,dir}(n_v,t_n) \right)_{TRI-MAP} \right| \right\}.
\label{eq_comparison_abserr_2}$$
Test cases
----------
This section presents the different mesh motions impose as test cases. The time period is always taken to be unity. All tests are performed on a square mesh of size $10\times10\times10$, and of lengths $L_x=3.2$, $L_y=2.8$, and $L_z=2.4$. The undeformed positions of the mesh are indexed with the subscript $0$, if needed the RBF points are indexed with the subscript $r$. The two parameters in the JST scheme are $\kappa^{(2)}=1$ and $\kappa^{(4)}=1/32$. The simulations are run for a number of harmonics, $N$ from 1 to 20. The mesh deformations for cases 2, 4 and 5 at an arbitrary time instant are presented on Figure \[fig\_def\_mesh\].
### Without RBF
Three test cases are performed by directly imposing the mesh deformation to the entire mesh. The velocity of the vertices is computed based on the analytic time derivation of the vector position of the vertices. For any vertex, its initial position is noted $(x_0,y_0,z_0)$. The parameters $A_x$, $A_y$, $A_z$, $R$, and $\alpha_0$ can be arbitrarily chosen as long as no degenerative cells (cells with negative volume) appear during the motion. The analytic functions employed for the motions are as follows :
Case 1 :
: 1-harmonic sinusoidal perturbation of the mesh with a linear motion, the direction is held fixed while each point has its own motion amplitude based on its initial position : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
x(t)=x_{0}+A_x \sin \left( \frac{\pi x_{0}}{L_x} \right) \sin \left( \frac{\pi y_{0}}{L_y} \right) \sin \left( \frac{\pi z_{0}}{L_z} \right) \sin \left( 2 \pi t \right)\\
y(t)=y_{0}+A_y \sin \left( \frac{\pi x_{0}}{L_x} \right) \sin \left( \frac{\pi y_{0}}{L_y} \right) \sin \left( \frac{\pi z_{0}}{L_z} \right) \sin \left( 2 \pi t \right)\\
z(t)=z_{0}+A_z \sin \left( \frac{\pi x_{0}}{L_x} \right) \sin \left( \frac{\pi y_{0}}{L_y} \right) \sin \left( \frac{\pi z_{0}}{L_z} \right) \sin \left( 2 \pi t \right)
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_3D_pert_1}$$
Case 2 :
: 2D perturbation of the mesh with a non linear motion; however the time-average volume swept by a face, $\hat{G}_{m,0} = 0$ in (\[eq\_DFT\_Gm\]). For any cell the projection of the motion along a plane $z=constant$ is shown in Figure \[fig\_motion\_case2\] : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\alpha(t) = \alpha_0 \sin(2\pi t) \\
x(t)=x_{0}+y_{0}\cos (\frac{\pi}{2}-\alpha(t))\\
y(t)=y_{0}\sin (\frac{\pi}{2}-\alpha(t))\\
z(t)=z_{0}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_3D_pert_2}$$
Case 3 :
: 2D perturbation of the mesh with a non linear motion and $\hat{G}_{m,0} \neq 0$ in (\[eq\_DFT\_Gm\]), the deformation is prescribed only for the interior grid points while the boundary points are fixed. The projection of the motion along a plane $z = constant$ is identical to the movement of the 3rd node on the Figure \[fig\_non\_periodic\_OmegaM\_move\] presented in section \[subsec\_Tardiff\_approach\] : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\alpha(t) = 2 \pi t\\
x(t)=x_{0}+R(1-\cos (\alpha(t))\\
y(t)=y_{0}+R \sin(\alpha(t))\\
z(t)=z_{0}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_3D_pert_3}$$
### With RBF
Two test cases are performed by deforming the mesh through the RBF. The analytic functions employed for the RBF motions are as follows :
Case 4 :
: 3D perturbation of the mesh using the RBF, with each point having its own linear motion (amplitude and direction) : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
s_x(t)=r_x (x_{0,r},y_{0,r},z_{0,r}) \sin(2\pi y_{0,r}) \sin(2\pi z_{0,r}) \sin(2 \pi t)\\
s_y(t)=r_y (x_{0,r},y_{0,r},z_{0,r}) \sin(2\pi x_{0,r}) \sin(2\pi z_{0,r}) \sin(2 \pi t)\\
s_z(t)=r_z (x_{0,r},y_{0,r},z_{0,r}) \sin(2\pi y_{0,r}) \sin(2\pi z_{0,r}) \sin(2 \pi t)\\
\text{where }r_x (x_{0,r},y_{0,r},z_{0,r}); r_y (x_{0,r},y_{0,r},z_{0,r})\text{ and } \\
r_z (x_{0,r},y_{0,r},z_{0,r}) \text{ are randomly generated }
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_3D_pert_5}$$
Case 5 :
: simulation of a sinusoidal pitching motion : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\alpha(t) = \alpha_0 \cos(2\pi t) \\
x_p = 0.621 L_x\\
s_x(t)=(x_{0,r}-x_p)[\cos (\alpha(t))-1] + y_{0,r}\sin (\alpha(t))\\
s_y(t)=-(x_{0,r}-x_p)\sin (\alpha(t)) + y_{0,r}[\cos (\alpha(t))-1] \\
s_z(t)=z_{0,r}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_3D_pert_8}$$
[0.48]{} ![Mesh deformations of the exterior grid points for cases 2, 4 and 5 at an arbitrary chosen time step[]{data-label="fig_def_mesh"}](deformed_mesh_2.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Mesh deformations of the exterior grid points for cases 2, 4 and 5 at an arbitrary chosen time step[]{data-label="fig_def_mesh"}](deformed_mesh_4.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Mesh deformations of the exterior grid points for cases 2, 4 and 5 at an arbitrary chosen time step[]{data-label="fig_def_mesh"}](deformed_mesh_5.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
Freestream preservation
-----------------------
The results demonstrating uniform flow preservation are shown for all test cases in Figure \[fig\_results\_uniform\_flow\]. The evolution of the relative error defined by equation (\[eq\_results\_rel\_error\_W\]) is presented as a function of the number of time steps $N_{ts}$.
[0.48]{} ![Relative error regarding the uniform flow preservation for each test case[]{data-label="fig_results_uniform_flow"}](fig_results_uniform_flow_1_TRI_MAP.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Relative error regarding the uniform flow preservation for each test case[]{data-label="fig_results_uniform_flow"}](fig_results_uniform_flow_2_TRI_MAP.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Relative error regarding the uniform flow preservation for each test case[]{data-label="fig_results_uniform_flow"}](fig_results_uniform_flow_3_TRI_MAP.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Relative error regarding the uniform flow preservation for each test case[]{data-label="fig_results_uniform_flow"}](fig_results_uniform_flow_4_TRI_MAP.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Relative error regarding the uniform flow preservation for each test case[]{data-label="fig_results_uniform_flow"}](fig_results_uniform_flow_5_TRI_MAP.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
The results show that the two methods employing the IFMV deduced from the Fourier discretization preserve uniform flow, while the approximation derived from the AVG yields the least accurate results. This is consistent since for both methods NLFD-LVI and NLFD-AEVI, despite different definitions of the volumetric increments, they still ensure that the sum of the temporal derivative of the volumetric increments is equal to the temporal derivative of the cell volume evaluated in the frequency domain (equation (\[eq\_dOmega\_sum\_dOmegam\])).
It is also observed that using the (TRI-MAP) integrated face mesh velocities preserves uniform flow and thus satisfies the GCL given a sufficient number of harmonics (see cases 2, 4 and 5) which is expected. Its rate of convergence should be exactly the same as the rate of convergence of the time derivative of the cell volume in the Fourier space. This is verified in the next section.
Comparison of the integrated face mesh velocities to the reference value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results are shown on Figures \[fig\_results\_comparison\_case\_1\] through \[fig\_results\_comparison\_case\_5\]. It is important to note that for all figures, the graph (a) refers to equation (\[eq\_comparison\_abserr\_1\]) as the function of the number of time steps and is not the sum of the graphs from (b), (c) and (d) which refer to equation (\[eq\_comparison\_abserr\_2\]). The errors that appear on the $y$-axis of the figures are the max norm between the investigated approaches, both NLFD-based and AVG and the reference approach (TRI-MAP).
[0.48]{} ![Case 1 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the reference values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_1"}](fig_results_conv_sum_IFV_to_REF_1_TRI_MAP.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 1 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the reference values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_1"}](fig_results_conv_I_IFV_to_REF_1.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 1 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the reference values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_1"}](fig_results_conv_J_IFV_to_REF_1.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 1 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the reference values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_1"}](fig_results_conv_K_IFV_to_REF_1.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
Regarding the comparison of the [*sum of the*]{} integrated face mesh velocities (IFMV) to the NLFD temporal derivative of the volume from Figures \[fig\_results\_comparison\_case\_1\](a) through Figure \[fig\_results\_comparison\_case\_5\](a), the results show that the sum of the IFMV computed with the methods NLFD-LVI, NLFD-AEVI and TRI-MAP converge to the expected value for all cases while the AVG method provides the correct value only for cases 1 through 3 and yields a constant absolute error above $10^{-5}$ for cases 4 and 5. Recall that the maximum error in the sum of the IFMV is a measure of the level to which GCL is satisfied as given in the semi-discrete GCL equation (\[eq\_semi\_discrete\_GCL\_2\]). Hence the NLFD-based approaches prove to satisfy the GCL for all considered grid deformation and for any number of harmonics which is expected by design. The reference approach (TRI-MAP) satisfies this requirement exactly for linear deformation cases as shown for Cases 1 (Figure \[fig\_results\_comparison\_case\_1\](a)) and 4 (Figure \[fig\_results\_comparison\_case\_4\](a)) for any number of harmonics and converged spectrally for nonlinear deformation cases (Cases 2, 3, and 5). The spectral rate of convergence is observed compared to the first-order backward finite-difference ($\Delta t^{(1)}$) and second-order centered finite-difference ($\Delta t^{(2)}$) approximating the time derivative of the cell volume. As expected, this rate of convergence is found to be similar for the preservation of uniform flow using the reference TRI-MAP method. However, the AVG approach is not designed to enforce the GCL, it is only an approximation based on the mesh velocities and face metrics and hence for the cases considered in this article, the method proved to ensure the GCL with an accuracy up to $10^{-5}$.
A comparison of the [*individual*]{} integrated face mesh velocities for each direction reveals the limits and provides interesting insights of the investigated approaches. Two primary observations can be made. First, the NLFD based approaches converge at most at second order as expected based on corollary \[th\_error\], if the mesh deformation along the observed direction is nonlinear. For Cases 2, 3, and 5, the mesh deformation in both the $x$-and $y$-directions are nonlinear as shown in sub-figures (b) and (c) of Figures \[fig\_results\_comparison\_case\_2\], \[fig\_results\_comparison\_case\_3\], and \[fig\_results\_comparison\_case\_5\]. One exception is the spectral rate of convergence for the $y$-direction in Case 2. These results can be explained by analyzing in details the mesh movement. Since the motion is in two dimensions, let us consider a constant $z$ plane, then the deformation of any cell can be represented as shown in Figure \[fig\_motion\_case2\].
(0,0) – (1,0) node\[above\][$x$]{}; (0,0) – (0,1) node\[above,right\][$y$]{}; (-2,0)rectangle(9,6); (1.5,2)rectangle(5,5); plot ([1.5+6\*cos()]{}, [-1+6\*sin()]{}) – plot ([5+6\*cos(90-30\*((-60)/30))]{}, [-1+6\*sin(90-30\*((-60)/30))]{}) – cycle; plot ([1.5+3\*cos()]{}, [-1+3\*sin()]{}) – plot ([1.5+6\*cos(90-30\*((-60)/30))]{}, [-1+6\*sin(90-30\*((-60)/30))]{}) – cycle; plot ([1.5+3\*cos()]{}, [-1+3\*sin()]{}); plot ([5+3\*cos()]{}, [-1+3\*sin()]{}); plot ([1.5+6\*cos()]{}, [-1+6\*sin()]{}); plot ([5+6\*cos()]{}, [-1+6\*sin()]{}); (3,1.6)–(6.5,1.6)–(8,4.2)–(4.5,4.2)–cycle;
We observe that in the $y$-direction, the area swept by the faces can be exactly evaluated using a linear approximation of the curved boundaries shown in blue. Therefore in the $y$-direction, the volumetric increments are exactly computed and the [*individual*]{} IFMV are correctly computed using either the LVI or AEVI methods once the temporal derivative operator is converged in Fourier space. In the $x$-direction, a linear approximation is insufficient to compute exactly the volumetric increments thus the AEVI method converges at an order between one and two as stated in corollary \[th\_error\].
Second, even if the numerical scheme enforces the GCL by preserving uniform flow, the employed method may not converge to the correct integrated face mesh velocities. The method based on the approximation of the exact volumetric increment (AEVI) is found to be converging toward the reference values at an order between one and two in the worst test cases considered here (4 & 5). This is consistent with the derivation of the error from section \[subsubsec\_prac\_enf\] and the resulting corollary (see corollary \[th\_error\]). The NLFD-LVI and AVG methods may present significant inaccuracies depending on the mesh deformation.
[0.48]{} ![Case 2 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_2"}](fig_results_conv_sum_IFV_to_REF_2_TRI_MAP.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 2 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_2"}](fig_results_conv_I_IFV_to_REF_2.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 2 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_2"}](fig_results_conv_J_IFV_to_REF_2.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 2 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_2"}](fig_results_conv_K_IFV_to_REF_2.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 3 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_3"}](fig_results_conv_sum_IFV_to_REF_3_TRI_MAP.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 3 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_3"}](fig_results_conv_I_IFV_to_REF_3.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 3 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_3"}](fig_results_conv_J_IFV_to_REF_3.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 3 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_3"}](fig_results_conv_K_IFV_to_REF_3.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 4 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_4"}](fig_results_conv_sum_IFV_to_REF_4_TRI_MAP.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 4 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_4"}](fig_results_conv_I_IFV_to_REF_4.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 4 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_4"}](fig_results_conv_J_IFV_to_REF_4.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 4 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_4"}](fig_results_conv_K_IFV_to_REF_4.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 5 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_5"}](fig_results_conv_sum_IFV_to_REF_5_TRI_MAP.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 5 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_5"}](fig_results_conv_I_IFV_to_REF_5.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 5 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_5"}](fig_results_conv_J_IFV_to_REF_5.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
[0.48]{} ![Case 5 : (a) Comparison of the sum of the integrated face mesh velocities to the NLFD time derivative of the volume (b) Comparison of the individual integrated face mesh velocity to the values (TRI-MAP) in the $x$ direction (c) in the $y$ direction (d) in the $z$ direction[]{data-label="fig_results_comparison_case_5"}](fig_results_conv_K_IFV_to_REF_5.eps "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
Time-Spectral Method
--------------------
The numerical results for the Time-Spectral method are the same as that shown for NLFD-LVI and NLFD-AEVI depending on which approach is retained to compute the volumetric increments. For this reason, the graphs are not reproduced in this article. The comparisons and conclusions derived for the NLFD approach hold for the Time-Spectral method as well.
Discussion and Conclusion {#sec_con_disc}
=========================
The limits of the previous method of Tardiff et al. [@Tardif2017] (NLFD-LVI) were clarified and demonstrated numerically and a modified approach (NLFD-AEVI) has been presented that ensures the satisfaction of the Geometric Conservation Law for a flow solver based on either the NLFD or Time-Spectral discretization of the ALE formulation of the Euler equations. The methods NLFD-AEVI and NLFD-LVI aim to satisfy the GCL by computing the integrated face mesh velocities according to the numerical discretization of the flow solver and take as input the face volumetric increments. The accuracy of the methods was shown to be highly dependent on the computation of the correct volumetric increments and in the worst cases considered converged at first-to-second-order for the NLFD-AEVI approach (corollary \[th\_error\]) or zeroth-order for the NLFD-LVI procedure. The integrated face mesh velocities themselves may not converge to the correct value as demonstrated in our numerical test. Although the approaches have been verified to preserve uniform flow for any number of harmonics; such a low order of accuracy defeats the purpose of spectral in time methods. Hence an alternate novel approach has been developed based on a trilinear mapping between the physical domain and the computational space which allows the evaluation of the exact cell volume and integrated face mesh velocities. The disadvantage of this method is that it is not consistent with the discretization of the flow solver, meaning that freestream preservation is not satisfied for any number of harmonics as it is with the modified approach, NLFD-AEVI. However such inconvenience is compensated by its spectral rate of convergence, which is sufficient to ensure the satisfaction of the GCL and preserve uniform flow.
Acknowledgment
==============
We would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and McGill University.
Appendix
========
Truncation error on the volumetric increment between two successive time steps {#appendix_trunc_error}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of the theorem \[th\_new\_method\], and under the definitions \[def\_vol\_hex\] and \[def\_vol\_inc\], for any face $m$ the truncation error $\epsilon_{m,h}^T$ on the volumetric increment between two time steps $t_{n-1}$ and $t_n$ is of order two and can be written as, $$\epsilon_{m,h}^T(t_n) = \mathcal{E}_m^T(t_{n-1})\tau^2 + \mathcal{O}(\tau^3).$$ where $\mathcal{E}_m^T$ is a scalar periodic function and $\tau=t_n-t_{n-1}$.
We introduce the scalar triple product application $\cal{L}$ defined by, $$\cal{L}=\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{lcl}
\mathbb{R}^3\times\mathbb{R}^3\times\mathbb{R}^3 & \rightarrow & \mathbb{R} \\
(v_1,v_2,v_3) & \rightarrow & v_1 \cdot (v_2 \times v_3) = \text{det}(v_1,v_2,v_3)
\end{array}
\right.$$ due to the properties of the determinant this application is a 3-linear alternating form meaning that if any of the three vector is a linear combination of the two others the result is zero.
Recalling that the volume of any hexahedra is computed as a function of the position vectors of the vertices in the physical space $\mathbf{r}_i$ for $i=1,...,8$ through the following equation (see definition \[def\_vol\_hex\]) : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
\Omega_{h} & = &(\Omega_{4321}+\Omega_{5678}+\Omega_{3487}+\Omega_{1256}+\Omega_{4158}+\Omega_{2376}), \\
\\
\mbox{with } \Omega_{ijkl} & = &\dfrac{1}{12}\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{r}_j+\mathbf{r}_k,\mathbf{r}_i+\mathbf{r}_j,\mathbf{r}_i+\mathbf{r}_l). \\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq_trimap_hexvol}$$
Let $m$ be a face defined by the vertices $\mathbf{r}_i, \mbox{ }i=a,b,c,d$ (see Figure \[fig\_non\_periodic\_OmegaM\_move\]), at the $n^{th}$ time sample a Taylor expansion gives : $$\left\{
\begin{array}{llcl}
& \mathbf{r}_i(t_n) & = & \mathbf{l}_i(t_n) + \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i(t_n), \\
\text{Linear approximation : } & \mathbf{l}_i(t_n) & = & \displaystyle \mathbf{r}_i(t_{n-1}) + \left( \frac{\partial \mathbf{r}_i}{\partial t}(t_{n-1})\right)\tau, \\
\text{Truncation error : } & \boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i(t_n) & = & \displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{r}_i}{\partial t^2}(t_{n-1})\right)\tau^2 + \mathcal{O}(\tau^3).
\end{array}
\right.$$
The volumetric increment between the two time instances $t_{n-1}$ and $t_n$ is approximated by a hexahedra defined using the vertex positions with the following indexation, $$\left\{
\begin{array}{lclclclclclclcl}
\mathbf{r}_1 & = & \mathbf{r}_a(t_{n-1}), & \mathbf{r}_2 & = & \mathbf{r}_b(t_{n-1}), & \mathbf{r}_3 & = & \mathbf{r}_c(t_{n-1}), & \mathbf{r}_4 & = & \mathbf{r}_d(t_{n-1}), \\
\mathbf{r}_5 & = & \mathbf{r}_a(t_{n}), & \mathbf{r}_6 & = & \mathbf{r}_b(t_{n}), & \mathbf{r}_7 & = & \mathbf{r}_c(t_{n}), & \mathbf{r}_8 & = & \mathbf{r}_d(t_{n}).
\end{array}
\right.$$
By substituting the Taylor expansions into the vertex positions to compute the volume of the volumetric increment through equation (\[eq\_trimap\_hexvol\]), and then by exploiting the 3-linearity of the triple product application the order of the truncation error is evaluated. The lowest order terms of the truncation error are given by one of the following generic forms : $$\begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{r}_i(t_{n-1}),\mathbf{r}_j(t_{n-1}),\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_k(t_{n})) = \displaystyle \left\{ \mathbf{r}_i(t_{n-1}) \cdot \left[ \mathbf{r}_j(t_{n-1}) \times \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{r}_k}{\partial t^2}(t_{n-1})\right) \right] \right\} \tau^2 + \mathcal{O}(\tau^3),\\
\\
\mathcal{L}(\mathbf{r}_i(t_{n-1}),\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_j(t_{n}),\mathbf{r}_k(t_{n-1})) = \displaystyle \left\{ \mathbf{r}_i(t_{n-1}) \cdot \left[ \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{r}_j}{\partial t^2}(t_{n-1})\right) \times \mathbf{r}_k(t_{n-1}) \right] \right\} \tau^2 + \mathcal{O}(\tau^3),\\
\\
\mathcal{L}(\boldsymbol{\epsilon}_i(t_{n}),\mathbf{r}_j(t_{n-1}),\mathbf{r}_k(t_{n-1})) = \displaystyle \left\{ \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{r}_i}{\partial t^2}(t_{n-1})\right) \cdot \left[ \mathbf{r}_j(t_{n-1}) \times \mathbf{r}_k(t_{n-1}) \right] \right\} \tau^2 + \mathcal{O}(\tau^3).
\end{array}
\label{eq_low_order_trunc_error}$$ where $i,j$ and $k$ are the vertices indices.
Therefore for any face $m$, the truncation error $\epsilon_{m,h}^T$ on the volumetric increment between two time steps $t_{n-1}$ and $t_n$ is of order two. In addition, it is possible to write the lowest order term of the error as a linear combination of the previous forms equation (\[eq\_low\_order\_trunc\_error\]), thus there exists a scalar function $\mathcal{E}_m^T$ depending on the vertices paths $\mathbf{r}_i$ and their second temporal derivatives $\dfrac{\partial^2 \mathbf{r}_i}{\partial t^2}$ such that, $$\epsilon_{m,h}^T(t_n) = \mathcal{E}_m^T(t_{n-1})\tau^2 + \mathcal{O}(\tau^3).$$ Due to the temporal periodicity of the vertices paths $\mathbf{r}_i$, the function $\mathcal{E}_m^T$ is also periodic.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the results of a *Chandra* X-ray survey of the 8 most massive galaxy clusters at $z>1.2$ in the South Pole Telescope 2500 deg$^2$ survey. We combine this sample with previously-published *Chandra* observations of 49 massive X-ray-selected clusters at $0 < z < 0.1$ and 90 SZ-selected clusters at $0.25 < z < 1.2$ to constrain the evolution of the intracluster medium (ICM) over the past $\sim$10 Gyr. We find that the bulk of the ICM has evolved self similarly over the full redshift range probed here, with the ICM density at $r>0.2R_{500}$ scaling like $E(z)^2$. In the centers of clusters ($r\lesssim0.01R_{500}$), we find significant deviations from self similarity ($n_e \propto E(z)^{0.1 \pm 0.5}$), consistent with no redshift dependence. When we isolate clusters with over-dense cores (i.e., cool cores), we find that the average over-density profile has not evolved with redshift – that is, cool cores have not changed in size, density, or total mass over the past $\sim$9–10 Gyr. We show that the evolving “cuspiness” of clusters in the X-ray, reported by several previous studies, can be understood in the context of a cool core with fixed properties embedded in a self similarly-evolving cluster. We find no measurable evolution in the X-ray morphology of massive clusters, seemingly in tension with the rapidly-rising (with redshift) rate of major mergers predicted by cosmological simulations. We show that these two results can be brought into agreement if we assume that the relaxation time after a merger is proportional to the crossing time, since the latter is proportional to $H(z)^{-1}$.'
author:
- 'M.McDonald, S.W.Allen, M.Bayliss, B.A.Benson, L. E. Bleem, M.Brodwin, E.Bulbul, J. E. Carlstrom, W. R. Forman J.Hlavacek-Larrondo, G. P. Garmire, M.Gaspari$^{\dagger}$, M.D.Gladders, A.B.Mantz, S. S. Murray'
title: 'The Remarkable Similarity of Massive Galaxy Clusters From $\lowercase{z}\sim0$ to $\lowercase{z}\sim1.9$'
---
Introduction
============
As the most massive collapsed structures in the Universe, galaxy clusters provide unique laboratories for studying physics on very large and energetic scales. In particular, X-ray observations of galaxy clusters, which probe the hot ($\gtrsim$10$^7$K) intracluster medium (ICM), lead to an understanding of cluster-cluster mergers, the most energetic phenomena in the Universe [e.g., @markevitch02; @sarazin02], allow detailed studies of the effects of active galactic nuclei (AGN) on large scales [see reviews by @fabian12; @mcnamara12], and provide some of the tightest constraints on the amount and distribution of matter in our Universe [e.g., @mantz10; @dehaan16]. The cores of galaxy clusters represent one of the least understood regimes outside of our galaxy [see review by @kravtsov12], with runaway cooling of the hot ICM [e.g., @fabian94; @mcdonald12c] being seemingly held in check by frequent outbursts of AGN feedback [e.g., @rafferty08; @hlavacek15] – a phenomenon that simulations are only recently beginning to reproduce [e.g., @gaspari11; @gaspari16].
While the detailed physics of the ICM in nearby clusters has been studied in depth, the *evolution* of the ICM has only recently become an active area of research. This change is due, in large part, to the success of Sunyaev-Zel’dovich [SZ; @sunyaev72] surveys, which select galaxy clusters via their imprint on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) – an effect that is, in principle, independent of redshift. Since the first discovery of a galaxy cluster via the SZ effect [@staniszewski09], the number of new, distant, SZ-selected galaxy clusters has, on average, more than doubled every year [@vanderlinde10; @marriage11; @planck11; @hasselfield13; @reichardt13; @planck14; @bleem15; @planck15]. At the same time, optical and near-infrared (NIR) selection (based on galaxy overdensity) has matured, yielding complementary stellar mass-selected galaxy cluster catalogs over similar redshift ranges to the SZ surveys [e.g., @eisenhardt08; @muzzin09; @brodwin13; @rettura14; @stanford14].
With the rapid growth of NIR- and SZ-selected cluster catalogs has come the ability to study galaxy cluster evolution over an unprecedented range in redshift. However, the majority of the X-ray follow-up of the most distant clusters has focused on single extreme objects, such as XMMXCS J2215.9-1738 at $z=1.46$ [@hilton10], XDCP J0044.0-2033 at $z=1.579$ [@tozzi15], IDCS1426.5+3508 at $z=1.75$ [@brodwin16], and 3C294 at $z=1.786$ [@fabian03]. This relative lack of statistically-complete X-ray studies of distant clusters, with few exceptions [e.g., @fassbender11], is broadly due to the small number of known high-$z$ clusters and the increased exposure times necessary at such high redshifts. Without such samples, our ability to make general conclusions about cluster evolution is severely limited.
In recent years, we have completed a survey of 90 SZ-selected clusters with the *Chandra* X-ray Observatory, spanning $0.25 < z < 1.2$ and with M$_{500} \gtrsim 3 \times10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$. These clusters were drawn from the South Pole Telescope (SPT) 2500 deg$^2$ survey [@bleem15], and observed to uniform depth with *Chandra* from 2011–2014. These data have advanced our understanding of the evolution of the ICM substantially, allowing detailed evolutionary studies of: ICM cooling in cluster cores [@semler12; @mcdonald13b], the average entropy and pressure profiles [@mcdonald14c], AGN feedback [@hlavacek15], ICM metallicity [@mcdonald16a], and ICM morphology [@nurgaliev16], while also providing tight constraints on the amount and distribution of matter in the Universe [@bocquet15; @chiu16; @dehaan16]. These studies benefit from the unique combination of the SPT selection function, which is roughly independent of both redshift [e.g., @bleem15] and the dynamical state of the cluster [e.g., @nurgaliev16; @sifon16], and uniform-depth *Chandra* follow-up, meaning that each cluster was observed for sufficient time to collect $\sim$1500–2000 X-ray photons. The latter allows a consistent analysis over the full redshift range of the sample, free from any biases that are signal-to-noise dependent.
Here we extend those previous studies by including new *Chandra* observations of a mass-selected sample of 8 SPT-selected clusters at $1.2 < z < 1.9$. This represents the first X-ray analysis of a mass-complete cluster sample at $z>1.2$, providing new constraints on the thermodynamic state of massive galaxy clusters only $\sim$1–2 Gyr after their collapse. This epoch is roughly the peak of both star formation [see review by @madau14] and AGN activity [e.g., @wolf03], two processes that can alter the chemical and thermodynamic state of the ICM, respectively. In this work, we focus specifically on properties determined from the X-ray surface brightness, deferring detailed spectroscopic analyses to a future paper. In §2 we describe the data used in this paper, including the low-$z$ cluster sample from [@vikhlinin09a] and intermediate-$z$ sample from [@mcdonald13b]. In §3 we discuss our main results, focusing on ICM density profiles and the X-ray morphology of high-$z$ clusters. In §4 we place these results in the context of previous works and state-of-the-art simulations, before providing a summary and look towards the future in §5.
Throughout this work we assume $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with H$_0$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_M$ = 0.3, $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ = 0.7, and define M$_{500}$ and R$_{500}$ in terms of the critical density: M$_{500} \equiv \frac{4\pi}{3}500\rho_{crit}(z)R_{500}^3$.
Data & Analysis
===============
[c c c c c c | c c | c c]{}\[h!\]\
SPT-CLJ0156-5541 & 29.0405 & -55.6976 & 1.281 & 3.90$_{- 0.40}^{+ 0.57}$ & 0.69 & 0.09$_{- 0.06}^{+ 0.25}$ & 0.83$_{- 0.14}^{+ 0.17}$ & 0.09$_{- 0.05}^{+ 0.10}$ & 0.81$_{- 0.06}^{+ 0.06}$\
SPT-CLJ0205-5829 & 31.4459 & -58.4849 & 1.322 & 3.44$_{- 0.40}^{+ 0.63}$ & 0.65 & 0.73$_{- 0.20}^{+ 0.36}$ & 0.93$_{- 0.27}^{+ 0.37}$ & 0.55$_{- 0.18}^{+ 0.36}$ & 0.60$_{- 0.17}^{+ 0.24}$\
SPT-CLJ0313-5334 & 48.4813 & -53.5718 & 1.474 & 2.01$_{- 0.31}^{+ 1.54}$ & 0.56 & 0.12$_{- 0.20}^{+ 0.64}$ & 0.75$_{- 0.26}^{+ 0.41}$ & 0.11$_{- 0.21}^{+ 0.38}$ & 0.64$_{- 0.24}^{+ 0.37}$\
SPT-CLJ0459-4947 & 74.9240 & -49.7823 & 1.85$^{\dagger}$ & 2.40$_{- 0.27}^{+ 0.25}$ & 0.49 & 0.46$_{- 0.09}^{+ 0.07}$ & 4.54$_{- 1.09}^{+ 1.43}$ & 0.51$_{- 0.10}^{+ 0.07}$ & 1.98$_{- 0.19}^{+ 0.21}$\
SPT-CLJ0607-4448 & 91.8940 & -44.8050 & 1.482 & 2.65$_{- 0.36}^{+ 0.55}$ & 0.56 & 0.07$_{- 0.03}^{+ 0.05}$ & 5.98$_{- 1.27}^{+ 1.61}$ & 0.10$_{- 0.05}^{+ 0.05}$ & 3.81$_{- 1.12}^{+ 1.58}$\
SPT-CLJ0640-5113 & 100.0720 & -51.2176 & 1.313 & 2.92$_{- 0.24}^{+ 0.61}$ & 0.63 & 0.08$_{- 0.02}^{+ 0.03}$ & 3.03$_{- 0.51}^{+ 0.61}$ & 0.07$_{- 0.02}^{+ 0.03}$ & 3.30$_{- 0.47}^{+ 0.55}$\
SPT-CLJ2040-4451 & 310.2417 & -44.8620 & 1.478 & 3.10$_{- 0.47}^{+ 0.79}$ & 0.60 & 0.35$_{- 0.12}^{+ 0.22}$ & 1.91$_{- 0.62}^{+ 0.91}$ & 0.36$_{- 0.14}^{+ 0.26}$ & 0.54$_{- 0.16}^{+ 0.22}$\
SPT-CLJ2341-5724 & 355.3533 & -57.4166 & 1.258 & 3.37$_{- 0.34}^{+ 0.70}$ & 0.67 & 0.28$_{- 0.04}^{+ 0.05}$ & 2.09$_{- 0.29}^{+ 0.34}$ & 0.18$_{- 0.03}^{+ 0.05}$ & 2.70$_{- 0.49}^{+ 0.60}$\
\[table:data\]
Samples
-------
In this work, we attempt to trace the evolution of clusters from $z\sim0$ to $z\sim1.9$. This is done by combining the low-$z$ X-ray-selected sample from [@vikhlinin09a] with SPT-selected samples at intermediate- [@mcdonald13b] and high-$z$. Where appropriate, we apply a mass cut to the X-ray samples to ensure a clean comparison across all redshifts, as shown in Figure \[fig:Mz\]. Below we discuss the specific details of each data set, including the origin, availability, and quality of X-ray data.
### SPT-Hiz: $1.2 < z < 1.9$
The high-$z$ sample, referred to hereafter as “SPT-Hi$z$”, consists of the 8 most massive galaxy clusters at $z>1.2$ in the 2500 deg$^2$ SPT-SZ survey [@bleem15]. These clusters have $2\times10^{14}$ M$_{\odot} <$ M$_{500} < 4\times10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ and $1.2 < z < 1.9$, as shown in Figure \[fig:Mz\]. *Chandra* observations were obtained for each of these clusters as part of a Cycle 16 Large Program (PI: McDonald). For each cluster, we aimed for a total of 1500 counts, where the expected luminosity was derived from the SZ signal assuming the $\xi$–M [@bleem15] and the M–L$_X$ [@vikhlinin09a] relations. This number of counts has been demonstrated to yield reliable single-temperature and metallicity estimates [@mcdonald16a], allow the measurement of the gas density out to $\sim$R$_{500}$ [@mcdonald13b], and determine accurate X-ray morphologies [@nurgaliev13; @nurgaliev16].
Spectroscopic redshifts for most of these clusters are derived based on Low Dispersion Survey Spectrograph [LDSS3; @ldss3] spectroscopy of $\sim$5–10 member galaxies per cluster (Bleem [et al. ]{}in prep), with three exceptions. SPT-CLJ0205-5829 and SPT-CLJ2040-4451, among the earliest clusters confirmed, have optical spectroscopy presented in [@stalder13] and [@bayliss14], respectively. SPT-CLJ0459-4947 was not detected in our deep spectroscopic follow-up campaign. However we have deep *Hubble Space Telescope* (HST) imaging of this cluster with WFC3-UVIS and WFC3-IR, which reveals a rich red sequence, allowing us to measure a photometric redshift (Strazzullo [et al. ]{}in prep). We also have independent redshift constraints for this system from *Spitzer* photometry and from a spectroscopic analysis of the *Chandra* data presented here. Independently, we measure $z=1.85$, $z=1.84$, and $z>1.5$ from the HST, *Chandra*, and *Spitzer* data for SPT-CLJ0459-4947. We adopt a redshift of 1.85 for this system, but stress that the accuracy is at the $\Delta z \sim 0.1$ level. Given that the majority of the analysis presented here requires us to bin all 8 systems at $z>1.2$ into a single average system, the precise redshift of this single system is relatively unimportant.
![Mass versus redshift for the three cluster samples described in §2.1. The black stars represent the new clusters presented in this work, while the red circles and blue squares show data from [@mcdonald13b] and [@vikhlinin09a], respectively. The shaded tan region shows the expected growth track for clusters with M$_{500}$ $\sim$ 2–3 $\times$ 10$^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$ at $z\sim1.5$, from [@mcbride09]. This demonstrates that the clusters we are observing at $z>1.2$ are the progenitors of the intermediate- and low-$z$ samples to which we compare.[]{data-label="fig:Mz"}](Mz.eps){width="49.00000%"}
### SPT-XVP: $0.25 < z < 1.2$
We include in this analysis a sample of 90 galaxy clusters spanning $0.25 < z < 1.2$ which has been referred to as the “SPT-XVP” sample in previous works [@mcdonald13b; @mcdonald14c]. The bulk of these clusters were observed by *Chandra* via an *X-ray Visionary Program* (hence the name) to obtain shallow X-ray imaging of the 80 most massive SPT-selected clusters at $z>0.3$ (PI: Benson). Additional *Chandra* observations were obtained through various smaller GO (PIs: McDonald, Mohr) and GTO (PIs: Garmire, Murray) programs, or were already available in the archive. For the most part, these observations are of similar depth, with $\sim$2000 X-ray counts per cluster [see Figure 2 in @mcdonald14c]. Details of these clusters (selection, masses, redshifts, positions) are provided in [@bleem15], while additional information about the X-ray follow-up can be found in [@mcdonald13b; @mcdonald14c]. With few exceptions, clusters are selected for X-ray follow-up by mass, with the $\sim$20% most massive clusters in the full SPT-SZ survey having *Chandra* X-ray observations. The masses and redshifts of these clusters are shown in Figure \[fig:Mz\].
### Low Redshift Clusters: $0.0 < z < 0.1$
For a low-redshift comparison we use the sample of 49 X-ray selected clusters from [@vikhlinin09a]. This sample was chosen due to the similarity between our X-ray analysis pipeline and that used in [@vikhlinin09a] (the former was modeled after the latter). We direct the reader to [@voevodkin04] and [@vikhlinin09a] for a detailed discussion of how these clusters were selected. In short, the sample is X-ray flux-limited, and constrained in redshift between $0.025 < z < 0.1$. The fraction of merging clusters (defined by eye) in this sample [$31\pm8$%; @vikhlinin09a] is similar to that in the REXCESS sample [$39\pm12$%; @pratt09] and in the SPT-XVP sample (20$^{+7}_{-4}$%; Nurgaliev [et al. ]{}2016). Each cluster in this low-$z$ sample has deep *Chandra* data, from which we have gas density and temperature profiles from [@vikhlinin09a]. From this sample, we only consider clusters with $M_{500} > 4\times10^{14} M_{\odot}$, to allow a fair comparison to the high-$z$ SZ-selected clusters (see Figure \[fig:Mz\]). This yields a sample of 27 X-ray selected clusters with masses spanning $4\times10^{14} < M_{500} < 1.2\times10^{15}M_{\odot}$. Assuming realistic evolution scenarios for massive halos [@mcbride09], the clusters in the SPT-Hi$z$ sample, which have typical masses of 2–3 $\times$ 10$^{14} M_{\odot}$, will ultimately end up having $M_{500} > 4\times10^{14} M_{\odot}$ at $z\sim0$.
X-ray Data Reduction
--------------------
The analysis pipeline used in this analysis was adapted from [@vikhlinin06a] and [@andersson11], and is described in detail in [@mcdonald13b] and [@mcdonald14c]. We repeat relevant aspects here, but direct readers to any of the aforementioned references for additional details.
All *Chandra* data for the SPT-XVP and SPT-Hi$z$ samples were reduced using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ciao</span> v4.7 and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">caldb</span> v4.7.1. Exposures were initially filtered for flares, before applying the latest calibrations and determining the appropriate blank-sky background (epoch-based). Due to the small angular size of distant clusters, we were able to use off-source regions on the ACIS-I chip opposite the cluster to model the astrophysical background for each observation. In general, these regions were $>$3R$_{500}$ from the cluster center. Blank-sky background spectra were rescaled based on the observed 9.5–12.0 keV flux, and combined with off-source regions to constrain the instrumental, particle, and astrophysical backgrounds. Point sources were identified and masked via an automated wavelet decomposition technique, described in [@vikhlinin98]. Cluster centers were chosen in two different ways, which we will consider throughout the text. The “peak” center was found by heavily binning and smoothing the image on $\sim$12$^{\prime\prime}$ scales, and then measuring the centroid within 50kpc of the peak (to allow sub-pixel accuracy). The “centroid” center was found by measuring the centroid within a 250–500kpc aperture, following [@mcdonald13b]. This definition is less sensitive to core structure (e.g., sloshing) and is a better probe of the center of the large-scale dark matter potential. Unless otherwise noted, all measurements shown are with respect to the “centroid” center.
X-ray Measurements
------------------
In this work, we focus on measurements derived from the X-ray surface brightness, deferring any spectroscopic analysis [aside from the metallicity evolution study already published by @mcdonald16a] to a future paper. For each cluster, we measure gas density profiles following [@vikhlinin06a], [@andersson11], and [@mcdonald13b], and X-ray morphology following [@nurgaliev13] and [@nurgaliev16]. Below we briefly describe the relevant features of these analyses.
### Gas Density Profiles
The surface brightness profile for each cluster is extracted in the energy range 0.7–2.0 keV, in 20 annuli defined as follows: $$r_{out,i}=(a+bi+ci^2+di^3){R}_{500} ~~~i=1...20~,$$ where $(a,b,c,d) = (13.779,-8.8148,7.2829,-0.15633)\times10^{-3}$ and R$_{500}$ is initially estimated based on the M–T$_X$ relation [see @andersson11]. This binning scheme is chosen to ensure that the profile is well sampled from core to outskirts, and that the innermost bin is always resolved ($>$1 ACIS-I pixel in radius) for clusters at all redshifts. For the cluster with the smallest angular size in our sample (SPT-CLJ0459-4947; $z=1.85$, $R_{500}=494$kpc), the innermost bin has $r_{out} = 0.7^{\prime\prime}$, corresponding to $\sim$1.5 *Chandra* ACIS-I pixels in radius, or $\sim$3 pixels in diameter. For all pointings, the cluster center is within 1$^{\prime}$ of the on-axis position, meaning that the innermost bin is roughly the size of (or larger than) the PSF. Following [@vikhlinin06a], we correct surface brightness profiles for spatial variations in temperature, metallicity, and telescope effective area, assuming a universal temperature profile from [@vikhlinin06a], normalized to the measured $kT_{500}$, and a constant metallicity profile. Calibrated (including k-corrected) surface brightness profiles are expressed as an emission measure integral, $\int n_en_p dl$, where $n_e$ and $n_p$ are the electron and proton densities, respectively. To deproject this into a three-dimensional electron density, we model the calibrated surface brightness profile with a modified beta model: $$n_en_p = n_0^2\frac{(r/r_c)^{-\alpha}}{(1+r^2/r_c^2)^{3\beta-\alpha/2}}\frac{1}{(1+r^3/r_s^3)^{\epsilon/3}} ,
\label{eq:ne}$$ which is projected along the line of sight through the full cluster volume, to match the aforementioned emission measure integral. Here, $n_0$ is the density normalization, and $r_c$ and $r_s$ are scaling radii of the core and extended components, respectively. We estimate the three-dimensional gas density assuming $n_e=Zn_p$ and $\rho_g=m_pn_eA/Z$, where $A=1.397$ and $Z=1.199$ are the average nuclear charge and mass, respectively, for a plasma with 0.3Z$_{\odot}$ metallicity. This assumption of constant, unevolving metallicity is well-motivated by recent work [@mcdonald16a].
Gas masses are derived by integrating $\rho_g(r)$ over the cluster volume. We refine our estimate of M$_{500}$ and $R_{500}$ for each cluster by iteratively satisfying the M$_{gas}$–M$_{500}$ relation from [@vikhlinin09a].
### Morphology
Following [@nurgaliev13] and [@nurgaliev16], we quantify the X-ray morphology using the “photon asymmetry” ($a_{phot}$) statistic. This statistic quantifies the amount of asymmetry by comparing the cumulative distribution of X-ray counts as a function of azimuth for a given radial annulus to a uniform distribution, computing a probability that these two distributions are different. Combining these probabilities for multiple radial bins provides an overall probability that the cluster has azimuthally uniform brightness. This statistic, which is sensitive to azimuthal asymmetry, is complementary to statistics which measure the surface brightness concentration [e.g., @vikhlinin07; @santos08]. Importantly, this statistic was shown to be unbiased to the quality of the data used, both in terms of angular resolution and signal-to-noise ratio [@nurgaliev13]. This makes it optimal for comparing the morphology of clusters at low and high redshift, where both angular resolution and data quality can vary dramatically.
For each cluster we measure $a_{phot}$, with reference to both the peak and centroid centers (see §2.2). We report these measurements in Table \[table:data\] for the SPT-Hi$z$ clusters – those for the SPT-XVP clusters are reported in [@nurgaliev16]. We do not directly compare morphological measurements of high-$z$ clusters to low-$z$, X-ray-selected clusters due to a lack of existing $a_{phot}$ measurements for the latter.
Results
=======
Gas Density Profiles
--------------------
{width="100.00000%"}
In [@mcdonald13b], we demonstrated, qualitatively, that the gas density ($\rho_g$) profiles of massive clusters evolve self similarly outside of $\sim$0.15R$_{500}$, over the redshift range $0 < z < 1.2$. In the cores of clusters, this earlier work showed that the “peakiness” decreased significantly with increasing redshift, leading to less cuspy density profiles at early times. In Figure \[fig:rhog\] we extend this earlier analysis to include the 8 SPT-Hi$z$ clusters presented in this work. In the upper left panel of Figure \[fig:rhog\], we show the gas density profiles for each of the SPT-Hi$z$ clusters, normalized to the critical density of the Universe ($\rho_{crit} \equiv 3H^2/8\pi G$) and in terms of the scaled radius, $r/R_{500}$. These profiles show an order of magnitude scatter in the innermost bin ($r\sim0.01R_{500}$) and collapse onto a single profile by $r\sim0.3R_{500}$. At large radii, the increased scatter is due to increased noise in the measurements, rather than real, physical scatter as observed in the cores. Next to these individual clusters, we show the average profile in 5 different redshift bins, spanning $0 < z < 1.9$. As in [@mcdonald13b], we see a flattening of the profile with redshift, which appears to extend to $z>1.2$. Given that the average profile can be biased towards cool cores (which have very high central density), we also show the median profile in the right-most panel. The median profile is computed by taking the median density at each radius for all clusters within a given redshift range. This panel demonstrates that the *median* cluster at $1.2 < z < 1.9$ has no visible cusp in the inner density profile ($d\rho_g/dr \sim 0$ for $r<0.1R_{500}$). These data show that, while some clusters at $z\sim1.6$ do have central density cusps [see also @brodwin16], they are in general less peaky than their low-$z$ counterparts.
In the lower panels of Figure \[fig:rhog\], we show the electron density profiles in absolute terms, without scaling for the evolving critical density of the Universe ($\rho_{crit}$) or to the evolving (and mass dependent) scale radius ($R_{500}$). These plots highlight what is physically happening to the cluster, and help to clarify the origin of the evolving profiles shown in the upper panels of Figure \[fig:rhog\], or in [@mcdonald13b]. In the centers of clusters ($r\sim10$kpc), *at all redshifts*, the median electron density is $\sim$0.01 cm$^{-3}$, with a measured scatter across 5 redshift bins of only $\sim$10%. From this common point at the center, the high-$z$ cluster profiles have a shallower inner slope and a steeper outer slope than their low-$z$ counterparts. Likewise, the average profiles have a very small scatter ($<$20%) in central densities over $0 < z < 1.9$. Given that, over the same redshift range, the critical density of the Universe changes by a factor of $>$5, it is unsurprising that the central values of $\rho_g/\rho_{crit}$ show such a strong evolution (upper panels).
### Deviations from Self Similarity
In the previous section we claim, qualitatively, that the ICM density profile is self similar at large radii, consistent with many previous works [e.g., @vikhlinin06a; @croston08; @mantz15; @mantz16]. Here, we attempt to quantify this degree of self similarity for the full sample of clusters shown in Figure \[fig:Mz\]. We define 20 radial bins (in terms of $r/R_{500}$; see §2.3.1), measuring the gas density in each radial bin for each cluster in our sample. We then fit a function of the form $n_e(r/R_{500}) \propto E(z)^C$ within each radial bin, determining the redshift dependence of the density profile at that radius. If the gas density profile evolves self similarly, then it should evolve like $\rho_{crit}$, which scales like $E(z)^2$. In Figure \[fig:selfsim\] we show how $C$ scales with radius. We find that, at $r\gtrsim0.2R_{500}$, the density profiles are fully consistent (at the 1$\sigma$ level) with self similar evolution ($C=2$). This is consistent with simulations [see e.g., @kravtsov12], with data from other surveys [see e.g., @mantz16], and with the general intuition that gravity is the dominant physics at these radii. The large uncertainty in the measurement of $C$ at $r>R_{500}$ is a result of the background emission dominating by a substantial margin at these radii, leading to relatively large systematic uncertainties in the gas density measurement. At small radii ($r<0.2R_{500}$), the measured value of $C$ decreases, from $C=2$ at $r=0.2R_{500}$ to $C\sim0$ at $r\sim0.01R_{500}$. This implies a breaking of self similarity in dense cluster cores, where other baryonic physics phenomena (i.e., stellar feedback, AGN feedback, cooling, sloshing, etc) are important. At the centers of clusters, we find no evidence for redshift dependence on the ICM density ($C=0.1 \pm 0.5$), which is akin to the unevolving entropy in cluster cores that we reported in [@mcdonald13b]. If this result is interpreted as AGN feedback regulating the inner density profile and balancing the multiphase condensation in an inside-out way [e.g., @gaspari14; @voit15b], then it implies that the impact of AGN feedback is confined to $r\lesssim0.2R_{500}$.
While it has long been understood that the density cusps of cool core clusters represent a likely deviation from self similar evolution, we have now directly shown that this is the case using ICM density profiles for clusters spanning $0 < z < 1.9$. We find no evidence that the cores of clusters evolve self similarly, with self similar evolution being ruled out at $>$3$\sigma$ confidence.
![Degree to which the radial ICM density profile evolves as a function of redshift. We assume an evolution of $n_e (r/R_{500}) \propto E(z)^C$, with values of $C=0$ and $C=2$ representing no evolution and self similar evolution, respectively. Shaded dark and light regions correspond to 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals, respectively. This figure demonstrates that, at the centers of clusters, there is no dependence of the gas density on the cluster redshift, while at $r\gtrsim0.2R_{500}$ the evolution is fully consistent with the self similar expectation. This result supports a picture in which the evolution of the core is dictated by local processes (e.g., AGN feedback, stellar feedback, cooling), while the large-scale gas distribution is dictated by gravity. []{data-label="fig:selfsim"}](selfsim_radius.eps){width="50.00000%"}
### Cool Core Evolution
In Figure \[fig:nepeak\], we examine the evolution of the core ICM density more closely, showing the individually-measured central ($r<0.012R_{500}$) densities for all of the clusters considered in this work. For this figure, we define the cluster center in two ways, as described in §2.2: the peak of the X-ray emission, and the large-scale centroid. We find no measurable evolution in the mean, maximum, or minimum central densities over the full redshift range explored here, independent of the choice of centering method. We note that the centering choice for the clusters from [@vikhlinin09a] is slightly different than ours, such that it matches the “peak” selection for relaxed clusters, and the “centroid” selection for disturbed clusters. As such, it is best compared to the maximum *peak* density, and the minimum *centroid* density. With the exception of the Phoenix cluster at $z=0.597$ [@mcdonald12c], there is a fairly consistent maximum central density of $n_{e,0}\sim0.08$ cm$^{-3}$, and a fairly consistent minimum density of $\sim$0.003 cm$^{-3}$. Assuming average core temperatures of $\sim$5 keV, these maxima and minima correspond to central cooling times of 0.5Gyr and 11.2Gyr, respectively. The lack of evolution in the distribution of central densities (and, by extension, cooling times) suggests that the fraction of cool cores, and the properties of these cores, is relatively stable over the redshift range covered [see also @vikhlinin07; @santos08; @santos10; @mcdonald13b]. If there were a higher or lower fraction of cool/non-cool cores at high-$z$ than at low-$z$, we would expect this to manifest in the measured averages.
We note that, while we attempted to mask point sources, there may be contributions to the surface brightness (and gas density) profile from undetected point sources. Assuming a realistic source density, these will have a negligible effect at large radii, but could bias the density high in the innermost bins. This is an issue that we can not address with the available data, but we do note that all of the trends reported here are the same whether we consider the central density or the second radial bin, suggesting that X-ray bright central AGN are not driving our results.
![Central deprojected ICM density, as measured in the bin $0 < r < 0.012R_{500}$, centered on the peak (upper panel) and centroid (lower panel) of the X-ray emission. Point types and colors are as defined in Figure \[fig:Mz\], and correspond to the three different cluster samples used in this work. The large black crosses show the mean and error on the mean for four different redshift bins, demonstrating no measurable evolution in the typical central density of the ICM over $\sim$9.5 Gyr. []{data-label="fig:nepeak"}](nepeak+centroid.eps){width="45.00000%"}
![Mean over-density profile for cool cores as a function of redshift. For each cool core cluster ($n_{e,0} > 1.5\times10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$), we subtract the average non-cool core profile (based on 33 clusters), as shown in the inset in the upper right. The shaded blue region represents the residual overdensity as a function of radius for this one cluster. In each redshift bin, we average these overdensity profiles, yielding the curves shown in the larger panel. The grey region represents the mean and 1$\sigma$ scatter for the full sample of cool cores. This figure demonstrates that the normalization and size of cool cores has not evolved in a significant way since $z\sim1.2$, with a hint ($\sim$2$\sigma$, based on only 4 clusters) of evolution in the highest redshift bin. -0.1in[]{data-label="fig:cc_profiles"}](cc_profiles.eps){width="45.00000%"}
{width="99.50000%"}
We next consider the *shape* of cool cores as a function of redshift. To determine the radial cool core profile, we subtract the average non-cool core profile from each cool core cluster, and stack the residuals. This procedure is shown for a single cluster in the inset of Figure \[fig:cc\_profiles\]. Here, we define non-cool cores and cool cores as having $n_{e,0} < 0.5\times10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $n_{e,0} > 1.5\times10^{-2}$ cm$^{-3}$, respectively, avoiding the “moderate cool core” regime [see e.g., @hudson10]. Each of these divisions (cool core, moderate cool core, non-cool core) contain roughly a third of the cluster sample. The average cool core profile, derived from 49 cool core clusters spanning $0 < z < 1.9$, is shown as the shaded region in Figure \[fig:cc\_profiles\], and is well fit by a $\beta$-model with a core radius of $\sim$20–30 kpc. Integrating this profile yields a total cool core gas mass of $\sim3.5\times10^{12}$ M$_{\odot}$, compared to a median total gas mass for these clusters of $5.5\times10^{13}$ M$_{\odot}$.
When we divide the cool core sample into redshift slices, we find no evolution in the shape of the cool core. Within the uncertainties, the four residual profiles, spanning $z=0$ to $z=1.2$, lie on top of each other. The only exception to this is the highest-redshift bin, where the core appears to be considerably smaller in radius. We caution that this result is at the $\sim$2$\sigma$ level, and is based on only 4 cool core clusters identified at $z>1.2$. It is nonetheless intriguing, and may be an indication that we are approaching the epoch of cool core formation at $z\sim1.6$.
The combination of Figures \[fig:nepeak\] and \[fig:cc\_profiles\] demonstrate that the fraction of clusters harboring cool cores, the central density of cool cores, and the size/shape of cool cores have not evolved significantly in the past $\sim$9 Gyr ($z\lesssim1.2$). The fact that cool cores are confined to the inner $\sim$100kpc at all redshifts is consistent with the idea that, on large scales, cool core and non-cool cores are indistinguishable [e.g., @medezinski16]. The data hint at an epoch of core formation at $z>1.2$, but with only 8 clusters at such high redshifts, this result is not statistically significant.
X-ray Morphology
----------------
The X-ray morphology of a galaxy cluster is commonly used as a probe of the cluster’s dynamical state [e.g., @mohr95; @schuecker01; @weissmann13; @mantz15]. Nurgaliev [et al. ]{}(2016) demonstrated that the measured value of $a_{phot}$, which we use in this work to quantify morphology, is significantly elevated during a major merger for $\sim$1–2 Gyr, based on hydrodynamic simulations of 26 major (M$_1$/M$_2$ $>$ 0.5) cluster mergers. This implies that the redshift evolution of $a_{phot}$ ought to roughly probe the evolution of the merger rate over the redshift range considered here. Before providing quantitative results, however, we consider the X-ray images themselves in an attempt to draw qualitative conclusions on the morphological evolution of massive clusters.
In Figure \[fig:images\_zgt12\], we show Gaussian smoothed and adaptively smoothed (using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">csmooth</span>[^1]) 0.5–4.0 keV images of the 8 clusters in our high-$z$ sample. The adaptive smoothing parameters were chosen to highlight substructure, while avoiding the identification of noise peaks as significant. The latter condition was tested on dozens of images of the Bullet and El Gordo clusters, subsampled to 2000 counts each, to determine the appropriate <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">csmooth</span> parameter settings to maximize resolution while minimizing false detections of substructure. This figure demonstrates that the X-ray morphologies of these high-$z$ clusters are not dramatically different than their low-$z$ counterparts. We see evidence for highly-disturbed (elongated) systems (e.g., SPT-CLJ2040-4451, SPT-CLJ2341-5724), systems with cores offset from their centroid which are likely sloshing (e.g., SPT-CLJ0459-4947, SPT-CLJ0205-5829), and relatively relaxed systems (e.g., SPT-CLJ0607-4448, SPT-CLJ0640-5113). We find no obvious major mergers (i.e., two distinct, highly-separated peaks). With the limited signal to noise of these exposures, there is no obvious qualitative bias in the morphology of these clusters when compared to the lower-$z$ systems in the full SPT-XVP sample (Nurgaliev [et al. ]{}2016).
![Disturbed (light gray) and relaxed (dark gray) fractions as a function of redshift for the SPT-XVP and SPT-Hi$z$ samples, as derived from the X-ray morphology. These fractions are calculated in six independent redshift bins ($z=0.2-0.35,~0.35-0.55, ~0.55-0.7, ~0.7-0.9, ~0.9-1.2, ~1.2-1.9$). The relaxed fraction has been offset high by 0.3, to allow a more straightforward visual comparison. We have chosen to show only the extremes of the morphological distribution here, excluding all clusters near the relaxed/disturbed boundary. The choice of threshold $a_{phot}$ values for classification as disturbed or relaxed is arbitrary, and does not drive the result. We find that there is no strong evolution in the fraction of clusters with symmetric or highly-asymmetric X-ray morphologies.[]{data-label="fig:aphotfrac_vsz"}](aphotfrac_centroid.eps){width="49.00000%"}
We consider the dependence of the morphologically disturbed and relaxed fractions as a function of redshift in Figure \[fig:aphotfrac\_vsz\]. In this figure, we arbitrarily define “relaxed” as having $a_{phot} < 0.1$ and “disturbed” as having $a_{phot} > 0.5$. The latter is somewhat motivated by simulations [@nurgaliev16], and is approximately representative of major (nearly equal mass) mergers. We note that the choice of threshold does not drive our result. The results of Figure \[fig:aphotfrac\_vsz\] are somewhat surprising: we see no significant evolution in the disturbed or relaxed fraction over the full redshift range studied here. This is consistent with what was found by Nurgaliev [et al. ]{}(2016) for an SPT-selected sample spanning a smaller redshift range, and is seemingly at odds with the increasing merger rate with redshift predicted by simulations [e.g., @fakhouri10b]. The implication of this result is that, over the past $\sim$10 Gyr, there has been no measurable increase in the frequency of major mergers in the most massive clusters. This would either imply that these halos assemble rapidly at $z\gtrsim2$, followed by a slow growth fueled primarily by minor mergers, or that we are missing an important piece of the puzzle.
Overall, we find no obvious difference in X-ray morphology between our low-$z$ ($0.25 < z < 1.2$) and high-$z$ ($1.2 < z < 1.9$) cluster samples. We will discuss possible reasons for this lack of evolution in §4.1. We note that, given the relatively low signal-to-noise ratio of these data compared to well-studied low-redshift clusters, we can not make any claims on the evolution of more subtle substructure such as core sloshing, cold fronts, or shocks – such features require significantly deeper observations to identify.
Discussion
==========
ICM Density Profiles: Comparison to Simulations
-----------------------------------------------
![Median gas density profiles for observed clusters in four different redshift ranges (solid lines). Profiles have been scaled by arbitrary factors (1, 3, 9, 27) to improve clarity. We also show, with dotted lines, clusters from the MACSIS simulations [@barnes17] that have been matched in redshift and mass to the observed systems. At large radii, there is excellent agreement between data and simulations. At small radii ($\lesssim0.1R_{500}$), the simulated clusters are factors of $\sim$2–3 times more dense than their observed counterparts. This disagreement is most likely due to complex interactions between the radio jets in the central AGN and the cooling ICM which are not being fully captured by the simulations.[]{data-label="fig:macsis"}](medprof_macsis_sims.eps){width="50.00000%"}
{width="99.00000%"}
In [@mcdonald14c], we compared the average pressure profiles of clusters from $z\sim0$ to $z\sim1$ to the latest simulations at the time. Here, we compare the measured density profiles over a larger redshift range to the more recent MACSIS simulations [@barnes17]. These simulations track 390 clusters over a large range in cosmic time and mass, including approximations of various baryonic physics processes. Clusters are identified in a large (3.2 Gpc) volume dark matter only simulation with mass resolution of $5.43 \times 10^{10}$ M$_{\odot}/h$ and softening length of 40 kpc, and then re-simulated with hydrodynamics at improved resolution with mass resolution of $4.4 \times 10^9$ M$_{\odot}/h$ and softening length of 3 kpc. For details of these simulations, see [@barnes17]. From this sample of simulated clusters, we select subsamples at mean redshifts of $\left<z\right>=0.0,0.5,1.0,1.5$ and with median masses matching those of the observed clusters at each redshift. In Figure \[fig:macsis\] we show the median gas density profiles, normalized to the critical density, in these four redshift bins for both the observed and simulated clusters. In general, the simulated and observed clusters appear similar at $r>0.2R_{500}$, suggesting that the large scale physics is being properly captured in these simulations. We find offsets of $\sim$10% in normalization between the real and simulated clusters, which may be due to a number of small differences, including the mean mass per particle (in converting from electron density to mass density), the distribution of masses [low-mass clusters will scatter low in $\rho_g/\rho_{crit}$; @vikhlinin06a], the cluster gas fractions, or the cosmology assumed. These offsets are small, and signify that the physics of the ICM is well-described by simulations outside of cluster cores. In the cores ($r<0.1R_{500}$), simulated clusters have a factor of $\sim$2–3 higher density than observed clusters at the same redshift, suggesting that the included physics may be insufficient to describe the complex interplay between the central radio-loud AGN, its host giant elliptical galaxy, and the dense cluster core. This is similar to what was reported in [@mcdonald14c], when comparing to simulations from [@battaglia12] and [@bocquet16], and is a long-standing problem with creating realistic clusters in cosmological simulations [for a review, see @kravtsov12]. This issue appears to be present at all epochs, with clusters at $1.2 < z < 1.9$ having over-dense cores in simulations compared to observations at the same redshift. Within the uncertainty, we measure no significant improvement in the data–simulation comparison in cluster cores over the full redshift range probed here.
In summary, we find that the latest MACSIS simulations [@barnes17] yield a good match to the observed density profiles of clusters in this work, at $r>0.2R_{500}$. In cluster cores, the simulations over-predict the ICM density by a factor of $\sim$2–3 at all redshifts.
Understanding the Evolution of Cluster Cores
--------------------------------------------
In §3.1, we showed that the inner slope of the median gas density profile has evolved significantly over the past $\sim$10 Gyr. We first investigate whether this is due to mass evolution in our sample, by isolating first a narrow range in mass and considering the redshift dependence and then isolating a narrow range in redshift and considering the mass dependence. For this test, we include lower-mass systems from [@vikhlinin09a], for a direct (non-evolving) comparison to the low-mass systems at $z>1.2$. In Figure \[fig:rhog\_fixMz\] we show the results of this test, where we have used coarser redshift bins than in Figure \[fig:rhog\] since the number of clusters in the narrow mass range is small. We find that, even in a very narrow mass range ($14.3 < \log_{10}M_{500} < 14.6$), there is a strong redshift dependence, with the low-$z$ clusters having significantly cuspier density profiles than their high-$z$ counterparts. In contrast, if we consider an order of magnitude range in mass at roughly fixed redshift ($0.25 < z < 0.55$), we measure no significant variation in the median gas density profile. This suggests that the core evolution shown in Figure \[fig:rhog\], and reported in [@mcdonald13b], is not a byproduct of the mass evolution of clusters, but is indeed a steady change in the median density slope over the past $\sim$10 Gyr for clusters at a fixed mass.
Figures \[fig:rhog\], \[fig:selfsim\], \[fig:nepeak\], and \[fig:cc\_profiles\] reveal several important features about the ICM density profiles in massive clusters. Namely, we find remarkable similarity in the *absolute* properties of cool cores as a function of redshift, including the distribution of core densities, the average central density, and the shape of the cool core excess density profile. The lack of observable evolution in any of these properties suggests that the three-dimensional shape and quasi thermal equilibrium of cool cores were established early in the evolution of clusters. These properties have been maintained over timescales significantly longer than the cool core cooling time, suggesting that the source of feedback that is offsetting cooling is tightly self-regulated. Such a tight loop between the cool core properties and the feedback response can be achieved via chaotic cold accretion, i.e., cold clouds and filaments condense out of the hot ICM and are efficiently funneled toward the black hole via inelastic collisions [e.g., @gaspari16; @tremblay16], triggering the immediate AGN outflow response and thus preventing the catastrophic steepening of density profiles.
At the same time, we find no evidence for departures from self similar evolution at radii larger than 0.2R$_{500}$. Interestingly, this is precisely the radius at which the average temperature profile for cool core clusters deviates from that of non-cool core clusters [@vikhlinin06a; @baldi12]. We conclude that, to within the precision of our measurements, the ICM density profile has evolved self similarly at $r>0.2$R$_{500}$ over the past $\sim$10Gyr.
![*Upper panel:* Expected density profiles (solid lines) for a self similarly-evolving, non-cool core cluster (dashed black line) combined with a non-evolving cool core (dotted colored lines). Because of the choice of scaling, the non-evolving cool core term appears to be evolving. *Lower panel:* Same as above, but now showing the profiles in absolute physical units. Without any cosmological scaling, the cool core now appears nearly static while the bulk of the cluster shows the expected self similar evolution.[]{data-label="fig:cc_growth"}](cc_growth_forpres.eps){width="45.00000%"}
The above two paragraphs describe a scenario in which the properties of cool cores are locked in early, while the rest of the cluster evolves in a predictable fashion that is well-described by simple models of gravitational collapse [see e.g., @kravtsov12]. This two-stage evolution is demonstrated in Figure \[fig:cc\_growth\]. This figure shows that the evolution in cuspiness that we see in Figure \[fig:rhog\], and that was previously reported by [@vikhlinin07], [@santos08; @santos10], and [@mcdonald13b], can be reproduced with a non-evolving core embedded in a self similarly-‘evolving cluster. The evolving cuspiness, in this scenario, is due to the increasing contrast between the dense cool core and the rest of the cluster which, at high-$z$, is at higher density for a given r/R$_{500}$.
This result appears to, at first, contradict the evolving core mass presented in [@mcdonald13b]. In this previous work, the mass of the cool core was defined as the difference between the cool core and average non-cool core profile (as defined here), but only integrated to 0.1R$_{500}$. Because R$_{500}$ is a physically smaller radius for high-$z$ clusters, this meant that we were integrating over much less of the core volume for high-$z$ clusters than for their low-$z$ counterparts. Since the cool core does not appear to be evolving in size, it makes more sense to define the outer radius in physical units (i.e., 100kpc) rather than relative units (i.e., 0.1R$_{500}$).
In summary, we find that the evolution in the ICM density profiles for massive clusters from $z=0$ to $z\sim1.6$ is well-described by the sum of a self similarly-evolving non-cool core profile and a non-evolving cool core. This simple picture describes the results presented here (Figures \[fig:rhog\], \[fig:selfsim\], \[fig:nepeak\], and \[fig:cc\_profiles\]) and in previous works [e.g., @vikhlinin07; @santos08; @santos10; @mcdonald13b]. The size of the unevolving core, approximately 100-200kpc, provides a rough boundary within which the similarity-breaking feedback mechanism (i.e., AGN feedback) must do work. The fact that the core has remained stable in size and mass over such a long time period indicates that AGN feedback must be tightly regulated and gentle, instead of being injected via a strong quasar blast [@gaspari14].
The Evolution of the Halo Merger Rate
-------------------------------------
In Figure \[fig:aphotfrac\_vsz\], we showed that the fraction of clusters identified as “disturbed” based on asymmetry in the X-ray emission has not changed significantly from $z\sim0.2$ to $z\sim1.4$. This appears to contradict the prediction from simulations that the merger rate is a strong function of redshift [see e.g., @fakhouri10], but is consistent with other groups that have studied the evolution of cluster morphology [e.g., @nurgaliev16; @mantz15]. For the most massive halos ($M>10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$), [@fakhouri10] find that the rate of major ($M_1/M_2 > 0.3$) mergers, $dN_m/dt$, increases from $\sim$0.07 Gyr$^{-1}$ at $z\sim0$ to 0.2 Gyr$^{-1}$ at $z\sim1$, or roughly a factor of 3 increase over the past $\sim$8 Gyr. However, to go from a predicted halo merger rate to an observed disturbed fraction, we must assume a timescale over which the X-ray emission would appear disturbed after a major merger (the “relaxation time”). The simplest choice of relaxation time would be one that is constant with redshift, meaning that the observed disturbed fraction would trace the halo merger rate. Figure \[fig:aphotfrac\_pred\] shows how poorly this choice of timescale fares, when compared to the data from both this work and from [@mantz15][^2] . At the highest redshifts probed, the predicted evolution is inconsistent with the observations at the $>$97% confidence level, suggesting that the choice of a constant relaxation time is a poor one.
![This figure shows the fraction of observed clusters morphologically classified as “disturbed” as a function of redshift, from Figure \[fig:aphotfrac\_vsz\]. We also include data from [@mantz15], where the disturbed fraction is defined based on their “symmetry” parameter, which we find agrees well with $a_{phot}$ for identifying disturbed systems. We have excluded SPT-selected clusters from the [@mantz15] study for this comparison. We compare these data to the halo merger rate for massive halos from [@fakhouri10], assuming that a cluster appears disturbed after a major merger for a fixed amount of time (red line) or for a crossing time (blue line), and normalizing the profiles to agree with the data at $z\sim0.1$. The latter agrees well with the data, and implies that clusters at early times relaxed faster after a merger than those today, due to their lower mass and higher density. []{data-label="fig:aphotfrac_pred"}](aphotfrac_centroid_pred_mantz.eps){width="50.00000%"}
However, if we modify our assumption about how long a cluster will appear disturbed in the X-rays after a major merger, we predict a dramatically different evolution. Assuming self similar growth of clusters, the crossing time [$\tau_{cr} \propto R/\sigma \propto H(z)^{-1}$; @carlberg97] ought to be shorter at early times. Under the assumption that a cluster appears disturbed for approximately a crossing time (or, relaxation time is proportional to crossing time), the expected disturbed fraction from simulations is highly suppressed. This is due to the fact that the merger rate is $\sim$3 times higher at $z\sim1$ compared to $z\sim0$ [@fakhouri10], while the relaxation time is $\sim$2 times shorter ($H(z)$ is twice as large) over the same redshift interval. Combined, this results in a relatively mild evolution, fully consistent with what is observed (Figure \[fig:aphotfrac\_pred\]).
Demographics of Massive, High-$z$ Clusters
------------------------------------------
Using the combination of the peak density and the morphological asymmetry, we can consider cluster morphologies in two dimensions: radial and azimuthal. In Figure \[fig:aphot\_ne0\], we show the distribution of clusters in the SPT-XVP and SPT-Hi$z$ samples in this two dimensional space, which roughly separates clusters into four categories: relaxed cool cores, disturbed cool cores, relaxed non-cool cores, and disturbed non-cool cores. We find that the high-$z$ clusters occupy the full range of parameter space, with each of the four types represented clearly in this sample of 8 clusters. Interestingly, one of the 10 strongest cool cores in the full sample is at $z\sim1.5$, suggesting that cool cores were able to form very early on. Overall, we see no evidence that a specific morphological class is over- or under-represented in this $z>1.2$ sample.
![Photon asymmetry (A$_{phot}$) versus peak density ($n_{e,0}$) for the clusters in the SPT-XVP (red circles) and SPT-Hi$z$ (black stars) samples. We show small X-ray surface brightness maps for four low-$z$ clusters in the extreme corners of this plot, demonstrating disturbed and relaxed clusters with and without density peaks. The 8 high-$z$ clusters span the full range of morphologies, occupying all parts of this parameter space.[]{data-label="fig:aphot_ne0"}](aphot_ne0_peak.eps){width="49.00000%"}
Summary
=======
We have presented results from an X-ray study of 8 SZ-selected galaxy clusters at $z>1.2$ and M$_{500} > 2\times10^{14}$ M$_{\odot}$, which were observed recently with the *Chandra X-ray Observatory*. We combine this sample of high-$z$ clusters with samples of 49 massive X-ray selected clusters at $0 < z < 0.1$, and 90 SZ-selected clusters spanning $0.25 < z < 1.2$, all with existing *Chandra* data, allowing us to track the evolution of the ICM over $\sim$10 Gyr. In this work, we focus specifically on quantities derived based on the X-ray surface brightness, and defer a spectroscopic analysis to a future paper. Below, we summarize the main results of this study.
- We find that, at $r>0.2R_{500}$, the ICM density profiles of massive galaxy clusters are fully consistent with expectations from self similar evolution (i.e., $n_e \propto E(z)^2$), over the full redshift range probed here. At $r<0.2R_{500}$, we find departures from self similarity, with the centers of clusters showing no significant evolution in gas density ($n_{e,0.01R_{500}} \propto E(z)^{0.1 \pm 0.5}$).
- Consistent with earlier works, we find that the central “cuspiness” of ICM density profiles continues to decrease with increasing redshift, while the absolute central density remains constant, on average.
- We find that the mean over-density profile of cool cores does not evolve, with the central density, radial extent, and total integrated mass remaining constant from $z=0$ to $z=1.2$. There is a ($\sim$2$\sigma$) hint of evolution at $z>1.2$, based on only 4 cool core clusters at these high redshifts.
- We propose an evolutionary scenario in which cool cores formed early ($z\gtrsim1.5$) and their properties (size, mass, density) have remained fixed, while the bulk of the cluster has grown in size and mass around them. The combination of a fixed core and a self similarly-evolving cluster provides a successful description of our observations, and suggests that AGN feedback, mainly affecting the inner $\sim$100 kpc scale, is preserving the core properties for over $\sim$10 Gyr in a gentle and tightly self-regulated way.
- We find that clusters at $z>1.2$ span the same range in morphology as those at $z<0.5$, with no measurable bias towards an overabundance of relaxed or merging systems. This sample of 8 systems includes one that we would classify as a relaxed, strong cool core, and two that we would classify as being highly disturbed.
- We confirm and extend previous works by [@nurgaliev16] and [@mantz15], who show that there is no measurable evolution in the fraction of clusters morphologically classified as “disturbed” (i.e., major mergers). We show that this is consistent with the rapidly rising merger rate predicted by cosmological simulations, if we assume that the relaxation time scales like the crossing time (which, on average, decreases with increasing redshift).
In summary, we find that the properties of the most distant clusters observed with *Chandra* are remarkably similar to the well-studied systems at $z\sim0$. The cores of clusters appear to be “frozen” in time, the bulk of the cluster is evolving self similarly, and the fraction of relaxed/disturbed clusters has not changed significantly. Given the fact that high redshift clusters are both faint and redshifted to low energy, where current X-ray telescopes are less sensitive, it will be challenging to significantly improve upon the constraints provided here. The combination of future cluster surveys, including those in the SZ such as SPT-3G [@benson14] and Advanced ACT-Pol [@niemack10], and infrared (e.g., WFIRST, Euclid), coupled with a next-generation X-ray telescopes (e.g., Star-X, Athena, Lynx), will provide orders of magnitude improvement on analyses such as this one, and allow us to trace the properties of the ICM back to its appearance at $z\sim2-3$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Much of this work was enabled by generous GTO contributions from Stephen S. Murray, the Chandra High Resolution Camera PI. The work was in progress at the time of his untimely death in 2015. He was a valued member of the Center for Astrophysics and a strong supporter of SPT science - he will be greatly missed by all of us. Support for this work was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Chandra Award Number GO5-16141X issued by the Chandra X-ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on behalf of the National Aeronautics Space Administration under contract NAS8-03060. The South Pole Telescope is supported by the National Science Foundation through grant PLR-1248097. Partial support is also provided by the NSF Physics Frontier Center grant PHY-1125897 to the Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago, the Kavli Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation grant GBMF 947. BB is supported by the Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under Contract No. De-AC02-07CH11359 with the United States Department of Energy. Work at Argonne National Laboratory was supported under U.S. Department of Energy contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. MG is supported by NASA through Einstein Postdoctoral Fellowship Award Number PF-160137 issued by the Chandra X-ray Observatory Center, which is operated by the SAO for and on behalf of NASA under contract NAS8-03060.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, J., [Breare]{}, M., [Ellis]{}, R., [et al.]{} 1994, , 106, 983
, K., [Benson]{}, B. A., [Ade]{}, P. A. R., [et al.]{} 2011, , 738, 48
, A., [Ettori]{}, S., [Molendi]{}, S., & [Gastaldello]{}, F. 2012, , 545, A41
, D. J., [Kay]{}, S. T., [Henson]{}, M. A., [et al.]{} 2017, , 465, 213
, N., [Bond]{}, J. R., [Pfrommer]{}, C., & [Sievers]{}, J. L. 2012, , 758, 74
, M. B., [Ashby]{}, M. L. N., [Ruel]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2014, , 794, 12
, B. A., [Ade]{}, P. A. R., [Ahmed]{}, Z., [et al.]{} 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9153, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 1
, L. E., [Stalder]{}, B., [de Haan]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2015, , 216, 27
, S., [Saro]{}, A., [Dolag]{}, K., & [Mohr]{}, J. J. 2016, , 456, 2361
, S., [Saro]{}, A., [Mohr]{}, J. J., [et al.]{} 2015, , 799, 214
, M., [McDonald]{}, M., [Gonzalez]{}, A. H., [et al.]{} 2016, , 817, 122
, M., [Stanford]{}, S. A., [Gonzalez]{}, A. H., [et al.]{} 2013, , 779, 138
, R. G., [Yee]{}, H. K. C., [Ellingson]{}, E., [et al.]{} 1997, , 485, L13
, I., [Mohr]{}, J., [McDonald]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2016, , 455, 258
, J. H., [Pratt]{}, G. W., [B[ö]{}hringer]{}, H., [et al.]{} 2008, , 487, 431
, T., [Benson]{}, B. A., [Bleem]{}, L. E., [et al.]{} 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.06522
, P. R. M., [Brodwin]{}, M., [Gonzalez]{}, A. H., [et al.]{} 2008, , 684, 905
, A. C. 1994, , 32, 277
—. 2012, , 50, 455
, A. C., [Sanders]{}, J. S., [Allen]{}, S. W., [et al.]{} 2003, , 344, L43
, O., & [Ma]{}, C. 2010, , 401, 2245
, O., [Ma]{}, C.-P., & [Boylan-Kolchin]{}, M. 2010, , 406, 2267
, R., [B[ö]{}hringer]{}, H., [Nastasi]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2011, New Journal of Physics, 13, 125014
, M., [Brighenti]{}, F., [Temi]{}, P., & [Ettori]{}, S. 2014, , 783, L10
, M., [Melioli]{}, C., [Brighenti]{}, F., & [D’Ercole]{}, A. 2011, , 411, 349
, M., [Temi]{}, P., & [Brighenti]{}, F. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1608.08216
, M., [Hilton]{}, M., [Marriage]{}, T. A., [et al.]{} 2013, JCAP, 7, 008
, M., [Lloyd-Davies]{}, E., [Stanford]{}, S. A., [et al.]{} 2010, , 718, 133
, J., [McDonald]{}, M., [Benson]{}, B. A., [et al.]{} 2015, , 805, 35
, D. S., [Mittal]{}, R., [Reiprich]{}, T. H., [et al.]{} 2010, , 513, A37
, A. V., & [Borgani]{}, S. 2012, , 50, 353
, P., & [Dickinson]{}, M. 2014, , 52, 415
, A., [Allen]{}, S. W., [Rapetti]{}, D., & [Ebeling]{}, H. 2010, , 406, 1759
, A. B., [Allen]{}, S. W., [Morris]{}, R. G., & [Schmidt]{}, R. W. 2016, , 456, 4020
, A. B., [Allen]{}, S. W., [Morris]{}, R. G., [et al.]{} 2015, , 449, 199
, M., [Gonzalez]{}, A. H., [David]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2002, , 567, L27
, T. A., [Acquaviva]{}, V., [Ade]{}, P. A. R., [et al.]{} 2011, , 737, 61
, J., [Fakhouri]{}, O., & [Ma]{}, C.-P. 2009, , 398, 1858
, M., [Bayliss]{}, M., [Benson]{}, B. A., [et al.]{} 2012, , 488, 349
, M., [Benson]{}, B. A., [Vikhlinin]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2013, , 774, 23
—. 2014, , 794, 67
, M., [Bulbul]{}, E., [de Haan]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.03035
, B. R., & [Nulsen]{}, P. E. J. 2012, New Journal of Physics, 14, 055023
, E., [Battaglia]{}, N., [Coupon]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1610.01624
, J. J., [Evrard]{}, A. E., [Fabricant]{}, D. G., & [Geller]{}, M. J. 1995, , 447, 8
, A., [Wilson]{}, G., [Yee]{}, H. K. C., [et al.]{} 2009, , 698, 1934
, M. D., [Ade]{}, P. A. R., [Aguirre]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2010, in , Vol. 7741, Millimeter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and Instrumentation for Astronomy V, 77411S
, D., [McDonald]{}, M., [Benson]{}, B. A., [et al.]{} 2013, , 779, 112
—. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1609.00375
, [Ade]{}, P. A. R., [Aghanim]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2011, , 536, A8
—. 2014, , 571, A29
—. 2015, , 581, A14
, G. W., [Croston]{}, J. H., [Arnaud]{}, M., & [B[ö]{}hringer]{}, H. 2009, , 498, 361
, D. A., [McNamara]{}, B. R., & [Nulsen]{}, P. E. J. 2008, , 687, 899
, C. L., [Stalder]{}, B., [Bleem]{}, L. E., [et al.]{} 2013, , 763, 127
, A., [Martinez-Manso]{}, J., [Stern]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2014, , 797, 109
, J. S., [Rosati]{}, P., [Tozzi]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2008, , 483, 35
, J. S., [Tozzi]{}, P., [Rosati]{}, P., & [B[ö]{}hringer]{}, H. 2010, , 521, A64+
, C. L. 2002, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 272, Merging Processes in Galaxy Clusters, ed. L. [Feretti]{}, I. M. [Gioia]{}, & G. [Giovannini]{}, 1–38
, P., [B[ö]{}hringer]{}, H., [Reiprich]{}, T. H., & [Feretti]{}, L. 2001, , 378, 408
, D. R., [[Š]{}uhada]{}, R., [Aird]{}, K. A., [et al.]{} 2012, , 761, 183
, C., [Battaglia]{}, N., [Hasselfield]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2016, , 461, 248
, B., [Ruel]{}, J., [[Š]{}uhada]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2013, , 763, 93
, S. A., [Gonzalez]{}, A. H., [Brodwin]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2014, , 213, 25
, Z., [Ade]{}, P. A. R., [Aird]{}, K. A., [et al.]{} 2009, , 701, 32
, R. A., & [Zeldovich]{}, Y. B. 1972, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 4, 173
, P., [Santos]{}, J. S., [Jee]{}, M. J., [et al.]{} 2015, , 799, 93
, G. R., [Oonk]{}, J. B. R., [Combes]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2016, , 534, 218
, K., [Crawford]{}, T. M., [de Haan]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2010, , 722, 1180
, A., [Burenin]{}, R., [Forman]{}, W. R., [et al.]{} 2007, in Heating versus Cooling in Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies, ed. H. [B[ö]{}hringer]{}, G. W. [Pratt]{}, A. [Finoguenov]{}, & P. [Schuecker]{}, 48
, A., [Kravtsov]{}, A., [Forman]{}, W., [et al.]{} 2006, , 640, 691
, A., [McNamara]{}, B. R., [Forman]{}, W., [et al.]{} 1998, , 498, L21
, A., [Burenin]{}, R. A., [Ebeling]{}, H., [et al.]{} 2009, , 692, 1033
, A., & [Vikhlinin]{}, A. 2004, , 601, 610
, G. M., [Donahue]{}, M., [Bryan]{}, G. L., & [McDonald]{}, M. 2015, , 519, 203
, A., [B[ö]{}hringer]{}, H., [[Š]{}uhada]{}, R., & [Ameglio]{}, S. 2013, , 549, A19
, C., [Wisotzki]{}, L., [Borch]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2003, , 408, 499
Below, we list the mean (Table \[table:meanprofs\]) and median (Table \[table:medianprofs\]) density profiles, both in normalized and absolute units. These data are plotted in Figure \[fig:rhog\]. Uncertainties quoted are 1$\sigma$ uncertainties on the mean/median.
------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
$z$ $z$
$0.0-0.1$ $0.25-0.5$ $0.5-0.75$ $0.75-1.2$ $1.2-1.9$ $0.0-0.1$ $0.25-0.5$ $0.5-0.75$ $0.75-1.2$ $1.2-1.9$
$r/R_{500}$ $r$ \[kpc\]
0.01 3.47 $\pm$ 0.11 3.20 $\pm$ 0.07 3.09 $\pm$ 0.07 2.96 $\pm$ 0.08 2.84 $\pm$ 0.15 6 -1.82 $\pm$ 0.12 -1.99 $\pm$ 0.07 -1.99 $\pm$ 0.07 -1.97 $\pm$ 0.08 -1.87 $\pm$ 0.13
0.02 3.26 $\pm$ 0.09 3.09 $\pm$ 0.06 2.98 $\pm$ 0.06 2.86 $\pm$ 0.06 2.76 $\pm$ 0.12 18 -2.04 $\pm$ 0.10 -2.09 $\pm$ 0.06 -2.10 $\pm$ 0.06 -2.07 $\pm$ 0.06 -1.96 $\pm$ 0.10
0.04 3.11 $\pm$ 0.07 3.01 $\pm$ 0.05 2.90 $\pm$ 0.05 2.80 $\pm$ 0.05 2.70 $\pm$ 0.09 36 -2.19 $\pm$ 0.08 -2.17 $\pm$ 0.05 -2.18 $\pm$ 0.05 -2.13 $\pm$ 0.06 -2.02 $\pm$ 0.08
0.07 2.95 $\pm$ 0.06 2.92 $\pm$ 0.04 2.81 $\pm$ 0.04 2.73 $\pm$ 0.05 2.64 $\pm$ 0.07 67 -2.33 $\pm$ 0.07 -2.26 $\pm$ 0.04 -2.27 $\pm$ 0.04 -2.21 $\pm$ 0.05 -2.11 $\pm$ 0.05
0.11 2.80 $\pm$ 0.05 2.80 $\pm$ 0.03 2.71 $\pm$ 0.03 2.65 $\pm$ 0.04 2.57 $\pm$ 0.05 109 -2.47 $\pm$ 0.06 -2.37 $\pm$ 0.03 -2.38 $\pm$ 0.03 -2.30 $\pm$ 0.04 -2.23 $\pm$ 0.04
0.16 2.64 $\pm$ 0.04 2.67 $\pm$ 0.02 2.60 $\pm$ 0.02 2.56 $\pm$ 0.03 2.49 $\pm$ 0.04 161 -2.61 $\pm$ 0.05 -2.49 $\pm$ 0.03 -2.51 $\pm$ 0.02 -2.41 $\pm$ 0.04 -2.36 $\pm$ 0.03
0.22 2.48 $\pm$ 0.03 2.52 $\pm$ 0.02 2.47 $\pm$ 0.01 2.46 $\pm$ 0.03 2.40 $\pm$ 0.03 222 -2.75 $\pm$ 0.04 -2.63 $\pm$ 0.03 -2.64 $\pm$ 0.01 -2.54 $\pm$ 0.04 -2.52 $\pm$ 0.03
0.29 2.33 $\pm$ 0.02 2.37 $\pm$ 0.01 2.34 $\pm$ 0.01 2.34 $\pm$ 0.02 2.29 $\pm$ 0.02 292 -2.89 $\pm$ 0.03 -2.77 $\pm$ 0.03 -2.78 $\pm$ 0.01 -2.68 $\pm$ 0.04 -2.70 $\pm$ 0.03
0.37 2.19 $\pm$ 0.01 2.22 $\pm$ 0.01 2.20 $\pm$ 0.01 2.22 $\pm$ 0.02 2.18 $\pm$ 0.02 370 -3.02 $\pm$ 0.02 -2.91 $\pm$ 0.03 -2.93 $\pm$ 0.01 -2.83 $\pm$ 0.04 -2.89 $\pm$ 0.04
0.45 2.05 $\pm$ 0.01 2.08 $\pm$ 0.01 2.07 $\pm$ 0.00 2.09 $\pm$ 0.01 2.05 $\pm$ 0.02 454 -3.15 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.04 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.07 $\pm$ 0.01 -2.99 $\pm$ 0.04 -3.07 $\pm$ 0.04
0.54 1.92 $\pm$ 0.01 1.94 $\pm$ 0.01 1.94 $\pm$ 0.00 1.95 $\pm$ 0.01 1.92 $\pm$ 0.02 544 -3.27 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.18 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.21 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.15 $\pm$ 0.04 -3.26 $\pm$ 0.05
0.64 1.79 $\pm$ 0.01 1.81 $\pm$ 0.01 1.81 $\pm$ 0.01 1.82 $\pm$ 0.01 1.79 $\pm$ 0.01 638 -3.38 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.30 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.35 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.31 $\pm$ 0.05 -3.44 $\pm$ 0.07
0.74 1.67 $\pm$ 0.01 1.69 $\pm$ 0.01 1.68 $\pm$ 0.01 1.68 $\pm$ 0.01 1.66 $\pm$ 0.01 737 -3.50 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.42 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.48 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.47 $\pm$ 0.05 -3.60 $\pm$ 0.08
0.84 1.55 $\pm$ 0.01 1.57 $\pm$ 0.01 1.56 $\pm$ 0.01 1.55 $\pm$ 0.01 1.54 $\pm$ 0.02 838 -3.60 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.53 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.61 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.62 $\pm$ 0.05 -3.76 $\pm$ 0.09
0.94 1.44 $\pm$ 0.01 1.47 $\pm$ 0.01 1.45 $\pm$ 0.01 1.42 $\pm$ 0.01 1.41 $\pm$ 0.03 941 -3.70 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.64 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.72 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.76 $\pm$ 0.05 -3.90 $\pm$ 0.10
1.04 1.34 $\pm$ 0.01 1.36 $\pm$ 0.01 1.34 $\pm$ 0.02 1.29 $\pm$ 0.02 1.30 $\pm$ 0.04 1045 -3.80 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.73 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.83 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.89 $\pm$ 0.06 -4.03 $\pm$ 0.12
1.15 1.24 $\pm$ 0.02 1.27 $\pm$ 0.02 1.24 $\pm$ 0.02 1.18 $\pm$ 0.02 1.19 $\pm$ 0.05 1149 -3.89 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.83 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.94 $\pm$ 0.04 -4.02 $\pm$ 0.06 -4.16 $\pm$ 0.13
1.25 1.14 $\pm$ 0.02 1.18 $\pm$ 0.02 1.15 $\pm$ 0.02 1.07 $\pm$ 0.03 1.09 $\pm$ 0.06 1252 -3.98 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.91 $\pm$ 0.04 -4.03 $\pm$ 0.04 -4.13 $\pm$ 0.06 -4.27 $\pm$ 0.14
1.35 1.05 $\pm$ 0.02 1.10 $\pm$ 0.02 1.06 $\pm$ 0.02 0.97 $\pm$ 0.03 1.00 $\pm$ 0.07 1353 -4.06 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.99 $\pm$ 0.04 -4.12 $\pm$ 0.04 -4.24 $\pm$ 0.07 -4.37 $\pm$ 0.15
1.45 0.97 $\pm$ 0.02 1.02 $\pm$ 0.03 0.98 $\pm$ 0.03 0.88 $\pm$ 0.03 0.91 $\pm$ 0.08 1452 -4.14 $\pm$ 0.02 -4.06 $\pm$ 0.04 -4.20 $\pm$ 0.04 -4.33 $\pm$ 0.07 -4.46 $\pm$ 0.15
------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
: Median ICM Density Profiles
\[table:meanprofs\]
---------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
0.01 3.57 $\pm$ 0.14 3.21 $\pm$ 0.08 3.07 $\pm$ 0.09 2.99 $\pm$ 0.10 2.70 $\pm$ 0.19 6 -1.74 $\pm$ 0.15 -1.99 $\pm$ 0.08 -1.99 $\pm$ 0.09 -2.03 $\pm$ 0.09 -1.91 $\pm$ 0.16
0.02 3.25 $\pm$ 0.11 3.09 $\pm$ 0.07 2.99 $\pm$ 0.07 2.85 $\pm$ 0.08 2.70 $\pm$ 0.14 18 -2.07 $\pm$ 0.12 -2.08 $\pm$ 0.07 -2.08 $\pm$ 0.07 -2.10 $\pm$ 0.08 -1.93 $\pm$ 0.12
0.04 3.13 $\pm$ 0.09 3.03 $\pm$ 0.06 2.90 $\pm$ 0.06 2.75 $\pm$ 0.07 2.69 $\pm$ 0.11 36 -2.18 $\pm$ 0.10 -2.15 $\pm$ 0.06 -2.19 $\pm$ 0.06 -2.16 $\pm$ 0.07 -2.01 $\pm$ 0.09
0.07 2.96 $\pm$ 0.08 2.95 $\pm$ 0.05 2.79 $\pm$ 0.05 2.71 $\pm$ 0.06 2.67 $\pm$ 0.09 67 -2.33 $\pm$ 0.08 -2.22 $\pm$ 0.05 -2.30 $\pm$ 0.05 -2.26 $\pm$ 0.06 -2.11 $\pm$ 0.07
0.11 2.80 $\pm$ 0.06 2.83 $\pm$ 0.04 2.68 $\pm$ 0.04 2.65 $\pm$ 0.05 2.62 $\pm$ 0.07 109 -2.49 $\pm$ 0.07 -2.37 $\pm$ 0.04 -2.41 $\pm$ 0.04 -2.32 $\pm$ 0.06 -2.23 $\pm$ 0.04
0.16 2.66 $\pm$ 0.04 2.65 $\pm$ 0.03 2.58 $\pm$ 0.03 2.55 $\pm$ 0.04 2.53 $\pm$ 0.05 161 -2.63 $\pm$ 0.06 -2.50 $\pm$ 0.04 -2.51 $\pm$ 0.03 -2.42 $\pm$ 0.05 -2.37 $\pm$ 0.03
0.22 2.52 $\pm$ 0.03 2.51 $\pm$ 0.02 2.46 $\pm$ 0.02 2.46 $\pm$ 0.03 2.39 $\pm$ 0.04 222 -2.75 $\pm$ 0.05 -2.65 $\pm$ 0.03 -2.64 $\pm$ 0.02 -2.57 $\pm$ 0.05 -2.53 $\pm$ 0.04
0.29 2.37 $\pm$ 0.02 2.37 $\pm$ 0.02 2.33 $\pm$ 0.01 2.36 $\pm$ 0.03 2.28 $\pm$ 0.03 292 -2.88 $\pm$ 0.04 -2.78 $\pm$ 0.03 -2.79 $\pm$ 0.01 -2.68 $\pm$ 0.05 -2.70 $\pm$ 0.04
0.37 2.21 $\pm$ 0.01 2.22 $\pm$ 0.01 2.19 $\pm$ 0.01 2.21 $\pm$ 0.02 2.16 $\pm$ 0.03 370 -3.01 $\pm$ 0.03 -2.92 $\pm$ 0.03 -2.93 $\pm$ 0.01 -2.85 $\pm$ 0.05 -2.88 $\pm$ 0.05
0.45 2.06 $\pm$ 0.01 2.08 $\pm$ 0.01 2.06 $\pm$ 0.01 2.09 $\pm$ 0.02 2.05 $\pm$ 0.03 454 -3.15 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.07 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.06 $\pm$ 0.02 -2.99 $\pm$ 0.05 -3.06 $\pm$ 0.05
0.54 1.92 $\pm$ 0.01 1.94 $\pm$ 0.01 1.93 $\pm$ 0.01 1.96 $\pm$ 0.01 1.93 $\pm$ 0.02 544 -3.28 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.20 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.19 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.15 $\pm$ 0.05 -3.23 $\pm$ 0.07
0.64 1.79 $\pm$ 0.01 1.81 $\pm$ 0.01 1.81 $\pm$ 0.01 1.82 $\pm$ 0.01 1.78 $\pm$ 0.01 638 -3.41 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.32 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.32 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.31 $\pm$ 0.06 -3.41 $\pm$ 0.08
0.74 1.67 $\pm$ 0.01 1.68 $\pm$ 0.01 1.68 $\pm$ 0.01 1.68 $\pm$ 0.01 1.66 $\pm$ 0.01 737 -3.52 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.46 $\pm$ 0.04 -3.46 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.48 $\pm$ 0.06 -3.59 $\pm$ 0.10
0.84 1.55 $\pm$ 0.01 1.57 $\pm$ 0.01 1.57 $\pm$ 0.01 1.55 $\pm$ 0.01 1.54 $\pm$ 0.02 838 -3.62 $\pm$ 0.02 -3.57 $\pm$ 0.04 -3.58 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.59 $\pm$ 0.07 -3.75 $\pm$ 0.11
0.94 1.43 $\pm$ 0.02 1.46 $\pm$ 0.02 1.47 $\pm$ 0.02 1.41 $\pm$ 0.02 1.41 $\pm$ 0.04 941 -3.72 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.67 $\pm$ 0.04 -3.69 $\pm$ 0.04 -3.76 $\pm$ 0.07 -3.90 $\pm$ 0.13
1.04 1.32 $\pm$ 0.02 1.36 $\pm$ 0.02 1.36 $\pm$ 0.02 1.28 $\pm$ 0.02 1.29 $\pm$ 0.05 1045 -3.82 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.77 $\pm$ 0.04 -3.79 $\pm$ 0.04 -3.92 $\pm$ 0.07 -4.04 $\pm$ 0.15
1.15 1.22 $\pm$ 0.02 1.26 $\pm$ 0.02 1.26 $\pm$ 0.02 1.15 $\pm$ 0.03 1.18 $\pm$ 0.06 1149 -3.92 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.85 $\pm$ 0.04 -3.89 $\pm$ 0.05 -4.07 $\pm$ 0.08 -4.17 $\pm$ 0.16
1.25 1.12 $\pm$ 0.02 1.17 $\pm$ 0.03 1.18 $\pm$ 0.03 1.02 $\pm$ 0.03 1.07 $\pm$ 0.08 1252 -4.01 $\pm$ 0.03 -3.94 $\pm$ 0.04 -3.98 $\pm$ 0.05 -4.20 $\pm$ 0.08 -4.29 $\pm$ 0.17
1.35 1.04 $\pm$ 0.02 1.10 $\pm$ 0.03 1.10 $\pm$ 0.03 0.90 $\pm$ 0.04 0.97 $\pm$ 0.09 1353 -4.09 $\pm$ 0.03 -4.02 $\pm$ 0.05 -4.06 $\pm$ 0.05 -4.33 $\pm$ 0.08 -4.39 $\pm$ 0.18
1.45 0.97 $\pm$ 0.02 1.03 $\pm$ 0.03 1.03 $\pm$ 0.03 0.79 $\pm$ 0.04 0.88 $\pm$ 0.10 1452 -4.17 $\pm$ 0.03 -4.09 $\pm$ 0.05 -4.14 $\pm$ 0.06 -4.44 $\pm$ 0.08 -4.49 $\pm$ 0.19
---------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------
: Median ICM Density Profiles
\[table:medianprofs\]
[^1]: <http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/ahelp/csmooth.html>
[^2]: We use the “symmetry” ($S$) parameter from [@mantz15] to identify disturbed clusters. Using overlapping clusters from the analyses of [@mantz15] and [@nurgaliev16], we find that $S<0.6$ is roughly equivalent to $a_{phot} >0.5$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show the integrality of the simple Hurwitz numbers. The main tool is the cut-and-join operator, and our proof is a purely combinatorial one.'
address: 'Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan'
author:
- Shintarou Yanagida
date: 'December 17, 2014'
title: Integrality of the simple Hurwitz numbers
---
Introduction
============
The purpose of this note is to prove the integrality of the simple Hurwitz numbers. The statement is as follows.
The Hurwitz number $h_{g,\mu}$ is a positive integer except for the cases $h_{g,(1)} = 0$ $(g\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge1})$ and $h_{g,(2)}=h_{g,(1,1)}=1/2$ $(g \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge0})$.
By the term “Hurwitz number", we mean the weighted counting of the connected coverings of the projective line ${\mathbb{P}}^1$ which have a ramification at one point with the profile data given by $\mu$, and which also have simple ramifications at $r$ points. Here $\mu$ is a partition and $g$ is a non-negative integer (the genus of the covering). The number $r$ of simple ramifications is given by $r := 2g-2+\ell(\mu)+|\mu|$, where $\ell(\mu)$ is the length and $|\mu|$ is the total sum of $\mu$. Sometimes this number $h_{g,\mu}$ is called the simple Hurwitz number, which appears in the title of this note. See §\[sect:hurwitz\] for the detailed definition.
The main tool of our proof is the cut-and-join equation, which will be explained in §\[sect:cj\]. The content of §\[sect:hurwitz\] and §\[sect:cj\] is more or less known. The proof will be given in §\[sect:main\].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The author is supported by the Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research (No. 25800014), JSPS. This work is also partially supported by the JSPS for Advancing Strategic International Networks to Accelerate the Circulation of Talented Researchers “Mathematical Science of Symmetry, Topology and Moduli, Evolution of International Research Network based on OCAMI"”.
This note is written during the author’s stay at UC Davis. The author would like to thank the institute for support and hospitality. He would also like to thank Professor Motohico Mulase for showing his interest and providing fundamental knowledge on the Hurwitz number.
Notation {#notation .unnumbered}
--------
We denote by ${\mathbb{Z}}_{+} := \{1,2,3,\ldots\}$ the set of positive integers.
We follow [@M:1995] for the notations of partitions and related notions. The Greek letters $\lambda,\mu,\ldots$ will be used for denoting partitions unless otherwise stated. The symbol like ${\underline{m}}$ denotes a multi-index unless otherwise stated.
Here we recall a few notations of partitions in [@M:1995] which will be repeatedly used in the main text. A partition is a finite sequence of positive integers ordered by size. We include the empty sequence $\emptyset$ as a partition. For a partition $\lambda = (\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_k)$, its length and total sum are denoted by $$\ell(\lambda):=k,\quad|\lambda| := \sum_{i=1}^k \lambda_i.$$ The set of all partitions will be denoted by ${\mathcal{P}}$. We also denote by $\lambda \vdash n$ a partition $\lambda$ with $|\lambda| = n$.
A partition is identified with the Young diagram. For $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_k)$, the boxes are places at $\{(i,j) \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2 \mid 1\le i \le k, \ 1 \le j \le \lambda_i\}$. Denote by $\lambda'$ the partition associated to the transposed Young diagram of $\lambda$. The arm and leg for a box $\square$ with respect to the Young diagram associated to a partition $\lambda$ is denoted by $a_\lambda(\square)$ and $l_\lambda(\square)$. If $\square$ is placed at $(i,j)$, then the arm and leg can be expressed as $$a_\lambda(\square) := \lambda_i - j,\quad
l_\lambda(\square) := \lambda'_j - i.$$ Here if $i>\ell(\lambda)$ we set $\lambda_i := 0$. The hook length is denoted by $h_\lambda(\square)$, so that $$h_\lambda(\square) = a_\lambda(\square) + l_\lambda(\square) + 1.$$ Finally, $$z_\lambda := \prod_{n = 1}^{\infty} n^{m_n(\lambda)} m_n(\lambda)!,\quad
m_n(\lambda) := \#\{ i \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{+} \mid \lambda_i = n\}.$$
We also follow [@M:1995] for the notations of symmetric functions. $\Lambda$ denotes the space of symmetric functions over ${\mathbb{Z}}$. $s_\lambda$ denotes the Schur symmetric function associated to a partition $\lambda$. Recall that the set $\{s_\lambda \mid \lambda \in {\mathcal{P}}\}$ is a basis of $\Lambda$. $p_n$ denotes the $n$-th power sum symmetric function, and we set $p_\lambda := \prod_{i=1}^{\ell(\lambda)} p_{\lambda_i}$ for a partition $\lambda$. Recall also that the set $\{p_\lambda \mid \lambda \in {\mathcal{P}}\}$ is a basis of $\Lambda_{{\mathbb{Q}}} := \Lambda\otimes_{{\mathbb{Z}}} {\mathbb{Q}}$. If we want to express the set $x=(x_1,x_2,\ldots)$ of variables in symmetric functions, we will use the notation $$p_n[x] := x_1^n + x_2^n + \cdots.$$
Hurwitz number {#sect:hurwitz}
==============
Denote by ${\mathop{\operatorname{Cov}} \nolimits}_d\bigl(\mu^{(1)},\ldots,\mu^{(r)}\bigr)$ the weighted number of $d$-fold coverings of ${\mathbb{P}}^1$ ramified over $r$ fixed points of ${\mathbb{P}}^1$ with monodromies in the conjugacy classes corresponding to the partitions $\mu^{(i)}$. The weight of a covering is the reciprocal of the order of its group of automorphisms. Burnside formula says $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Burnside:1}
{\mathop{\operatorname{Cov}} \nolimits}_d\bigl(\mu^{(1)},\ldots,\mu^{(r)}\bigr)
= \sum_{\lambda \vdash d}
\left(\dfrac{\dim \lambda}{d!}\right)^2
\prod_{i=1}^r f_\lambda(\mu^{(i)}),\quad
f_\lambda(\mu) := \dfrac{ \# C_\mu \chi^{\lambda}_\mu}{\dim \lambda}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $C_\mu$ denotes the set of the conjugacy class corresponding to the partition $\mu$, $\dim \lambda$ and $\chi^\lambda$ are the dimension and the character of the irreducible representation of the $d$-th symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_{d}$ associated to the partition $\lambda$, and $\chi^\lambda_\mu$ the value of $\chi^\lambda$ at the conjugacy class $C_\mu$.
Using the dimension formula (the so-called hook formula) $$\dim \lambda = \dfrac{|\lambda|!}{h_\lambda},\quad
h^\lambda := \prod_{\square \in \lambda} h_\lambda(\square)$$ and the counting formula of $C_\mu$ $$\# C_\mu = \dfrac{|\mu|!}{z_\mu},$$ we can rewrite the formula into the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Burnside:2}
{\mathop{\operatorname{Cov}} \nolimits}_d\bigl(\mu^{(1)},\ldots,\mu^{(r)}\bigr)
= \sum_{\lambda \vdash d}
\left(\dfrac{\dim \lambda}{d!}\right)^2
\prod_{i=1}^r \dfrac{ h^\lambda \chi^{\lambda}_{\mu^{(i)}}}{z_{\mu^{(i)}}}.\end{aligned}$$
Let us consider $${\mathop{\operatorname{Cov}} \nolimits}_{d,r}(\mu) :=
{\mathop{\operatorname{Cov}} \nolimits}_{d}\bigl(\underbrace{(2,1^{d-2}),\ldots,(2,1^{d-2})}_{r},\mu\bigr)$$ the weighted counting of coverings with simple ramifications at $r$ points and an arbitrary ramification at one point. In [@O:2000] Okounkov discovered that the generating function of ${\mathop{\operatorname{Cov}} \nolimits}_{d}\bigl((2,1^{d-2}),\ldots,(2,1^{d-2}),\mu,\nu\bigr)$ coincides with the $\tau$-function of the Toda lattice hierarchy. Here we quote his result in the simplified version $\nu = \emptyset$.
Let $Q$ and $\beta$ be (commuting) indeterminates and set $$\tau[x] := \sum_{r=0}^{\infty}\dfrac{\beta^r}{r!}\sum_{d=0}^\infty Q^r
\sum_{\mu \vdash d} {\mathop{\operatorname{Cov}} \nolimits}_{d,r}(\mu) p_\mu[x].$$ Define $D^{(2)}$ to be the linear operator acting on the space $\Lambda$ of symmetric function as $$D^{(2)} s_\lambda = s_\lambda \kappa_\lambda/2, \quad
\kappa_\lambda := 2 f_\lambda\bigl((2,1^{d-2})\bigr)$$ for arbitrary $\lambda \in {\mathcal{P}}$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tau}
\tau[x] = e^{\beta D^{(2)}}e^{Q p_1}.\end{aligned}$$
Using the expansion formula [@M:1995 Chap. I, (7.7)] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:s-p}
s_\lambda = \sum_{\mu \vdash |\lambda|} \dfrac{\chi^{\lambda}_\mu}{z_\mu} p_\mu\end{aligned}$$ and the Burnside formula or , one can easily find $$\tau[x] =
\sum_{\lambda \in {\mathcal{P}}} Q^{|\lambda|} e^{\beta \kappa_\lambda/2}
\dfrac{\dim \lambda}{|\lambda|!} s_\lambda[x].$$ Recalling $$\dfrac{\dim \lambda}{|\lambda|!} = \left. s_\lambda \right|_{p_1=1,p_2=p_3=\cdots=0}$$ we have $$\tau[x] =
\sum_{\lambda \in {\mathcal{P}}} Q^{|\lambda|} e^{\beta \kappa_\lambda/2}
s_\lambda[x] \left. s_\lambda \right|_{p_1=1,p_2=p_3=\cdots=0}.$$ Using the operator $D^{(2)}$ it is rewritten as $$\tau[x] =
e^{\beta D^{(2)}}
\sum_{\lambda \in {\mathcal{P}}} Q^{|\lambda|}
s_\lambda[x] \left. s_\lambda \right|_{p_1=1,p_2=p_3=\cdots=0}.$$ Finally by the Cauchy formula $$\exp\left(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{n} p_n[x] p_n[y] \right)
= \sum_{\lambda \in {\mathcal{P}}} s_\lambda[x] s_\lambda[y],$$ we have the result .
As a corollary, we can compute ${\mathop{\operatorname{Cov}} \nolimits}_{d,r}(\mu)$ by the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:covdr:formula}
{\mathop{\operatorname{Cov}} \nolimits}_{d,r}(\mu) = \text{coefficient of $p_\mu$ in } \
\dfrac{1}{|\mu|!} \left(D^{(2)}\right)^r p_1^{|\mu|}. \end{aligned}$$
Now we also note that the operator $D^{(2)}$ is nothing but the cut-and-join operator.
$D^{(2)}$ is realized by the following differential operator: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:D2}
D^{(2)} = \dfrac{1}{2} \sum_{k,l = 1}^{\infty}
\left((k+l)p_k p_l \dfrac{\partial}{\partial p_{k+l}}
+ k l p_{k+l}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial p_k} \dfrac{\partial}{\partial p_l} \right).\end{aligned}$$ In other words, the Schur symmetric functions $s_\lambda$ are eigenfunctions of the differential operator $D^{(2)}$ with eigenvalues $\kappa_\lambda/2$.
This eigenvalue can be calculated from the definition $\kappa_\lambda/2 = f_\lambda\bigl((2,1^{|\lambda|-2}))$ and the formula [@M:1995 Chap. I, §7, Example 5] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:chi}
\chi^{\lambda}_{\mu} = \sum_S (-1)^{{\mathop{\operatorname{ht}}}(S)}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the index $S$ runs over the set of all sequences of partitions $S=(\lambda^{(0)},\lambda^{(1)},\ldots,\lambda^{(m)})$ such that $m=\ell(\mu)$, $0=\lambda^{(0)} \subset \lambda^{(1)} \subset \cdots \subset \lambda^{(m)}$ and that $\lambda^{(i)} - \lambda^{(i-1)}$ is a border strip, and ${\mathop{\operatorname{ht}}}(\lambda)$ is the number of rows occupied by $\lambda$ *minus one*. The result is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:kappa}
\kappa_\lambda/2 = \sum_{i\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+}\lambda_i(\lambda_i-2i+1)/2,\end{aligned}$$ which is an integer.
It seems that there are several ways to prove this statement. A direct check can be seen, for example, at [@Zhou:2003 Proposition 2.2]. Here we also cite [@Stanley:1989 Theorem 3.1], which showed that the cut-and-join operator with one parameter $$D^{(2)}(\alpha) :=
\dfrac{1}{2}\Biggl\{
\sum_{k,l = 1}^{\infty}
\Bigl((k+l)p_k p_l \dfrac{\partial}{\partial p_{k+l}}
+ \alpha k l p_{k+l}\dfrac{\partial}{\partial p_k} \dfrac{\partial}{\partial p_l} \Bigr)
+ (\alpha-1) \sum_{k-1}^{\infty} k^2 p_k \dfrac{\partial}{\partial p_k}
\Biggr\}$$ has the Jack symmetric functions as eigenfunctions. Let us denote by $P_\lambda(x;\alpha)$ the (monomial) Jack symmetric function normalized as $P_\lambda(x;\alpha) = m_\lambda + (\text{lower terms})$, where $m_\mu$ is the monomial symmetric functions and the ordering is taken to be the dominance ordering (see [@M:1995 Chap. VI, §10]). Then we have $$D^{(2)} P_\lambda(x;\alpha) = P_\lambda(x;\alpha) {\varepsilon}_\lambda(\alpha), \quad
{\varepsilon}_\lambda(\alpha) := \alpha n(\lambda') - n(\lambda) +(\alpha-1)|\lambda|/2,$$ where $n(\lambda) := \sum_i (i-1) \lambda_i = \sum_i \binom{\lambda'_i}{2}$. Since $P_\lambda(x;1)=s_\lambda$, we recover the statement
Finally we introduce the Hurwitz numbers $h_{g,\mu}$ as follows.
Define $h_{g,\mu} \in {\mathbb{Q}}$ for $g \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge0}$ and $\mu \in {\mathcal{P}}$ by $$\log \tau[x] = \sum_{d,r=0}^{\infty} Q^d \dfrac{\beta^r}{r!}
\sum_{\mu \vdash d} h_{g,\mu} p_\mu[x]$$ with the relation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gr}
2g - 2 + \ell(\mu) + |\mu| = r.\end{aligned}$$
By the property of $\log$, one finds that $h_{g,\mu}$ counts the *connected* coverings with simple ramifications at $r$ points and the ramification given by $\mu$ at one point.
By this definition and the formula , one can compute the Hurwitz numbers. We list here the numbers for $g \le 6$ and $|\mu| \le 6$ in Tables \[table:mu<=5\] and \[table:mu=6\]. They (of course) coincide with the results in [@LZZ:2000] and [@EMS:2011].
$$\begin{aligned}
{\small
\begin{array}{r||rrrrrrr}
&g=0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6
\\
\hline
\hline
\mu=(1)&1&0&0&0&0&0&0
\\
\hline
(2)&1/2&1/2&1/2&1/2&1/2&1/2&1/2
\\
(1^2)&1/2&1/2&1/2&1/2&1/2&1/2&1/2
\\
\hline
(3)&1&9&81&729&6561&59049&531441
\\
(2,1)&4&40&364&3280&29524&265720&2391484
\\
(1^3)&4&40&264&3280&29524&265720&2391484
\\
\hline
(4)&4&160&5824&209920&7558144&272097280&9795518464
\\
(3,1)&27&1215&45927&1673055&60407127&2176250895&78359381127
\\
(2,2)&12&480&17472&629760&22674432&816291840&29386555392
\\
(2,1^2)&120&5460&206640&7528620&271831560&9793126980&352617206880
\\
(1^4)&120&5460&206640&7528620&271831560&9793126980&352617206880
\\
\hline
(5)&25&3125&328125&33203125&3330078125&333251953125&33331298828125
\\
(4,1)&256&35840&3956736&409108480&41394569216&4156871147520&416314027933696
\\
(3,2)&216&26460&2748816&277118820&27762350616&2777408868780&277768823459616
\\
(3,1^2)&1620&234360&26184060&2719617120&275661886500&27700994510280&2774997187556940
\\
(2^2,1)&1440&188160&20160000&2059960320&207505858560&20803767828480&2082272553861120
\\
(2,1^3)&8400&1189440&131670000&13626893280&1379375197200&138543794363520&13876390744734000
\\
(1^5)&8400&1189440&131670000&13626893280&1379375197200&138543794363520&13876390744734000
\end{array}}\end{aligned}$$
.
$$\begin{aligned}
{\tiny
\begin{array}{r||rrrrrrr}
&g=0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6
\\
\hline
\hline
\mu=(6)&216&68040&16901136&3931876080&895132294056&202252053177720&45575342328002976
\\
(5,1)&3125&1093750&287109375&68750000000&15885009765625&3615783691406250&817717742919921875
\\
(4,2)&2560&788480&192783360&44490434560&10093234511360&2277308480778240&512887872299714560
\\
(4,1^2)&26880&9838080&2638056960&638265788160&148222087453440&33821881625226240
&7657985270680120320
\\
(3^2)&1215&357210&86113125&19797948720&4487187539835&1012204758777030&227953607360883345
\\
(3,2,1)&45360&14696640&3710765520&872470478880&199914163328880&45334411650702720
&10235275836481639440
\\
(3,1^3)&181440&65998800&17634743280&4259736280800&988561437383520&225514718440830000
&51056208831963782160
\\
(2^3)&6720&2016000&486541440&111644332800&25269270586560&5696315163302400&1282471780397902080
\\
(2^2,1^2)&241920&80438400&20589085440&4874762692800&1120875021826560&254613060830419200
&57531761566570529280
\\
(2,1^4)&1088640&382536000&100557737280&24109381296000&5576183206513920&1270116357617016000
&287353806073982746560
\\
(1^6)&1088640&382536000&100557737280&24109381296000&5576183206513920&1270116357617016000
&287353806073982746560
\end{array}}\end{aligned}$$
One can observe various properties of the values of $h_{g,\mu}$ from these tables. Here we list a few formula which are more or less known.
\[lem:hgn:known\]
1. For any $n\in{\mathbb{Z}}_+$ we have $$h_{0,(n)} = n^{n-3}.$$
2. For any $g \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge1}$ we have $$h_{g,(1)} = 0.$$
3. For any $g \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge0}$ we have $$h_{g,(2)} = h_{g,(1,1)} = 1/2.$$
4. For any $g \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge0}$ and $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge2}$ we have $$h_{g,(2,1^{n-2})} = h_{g,(1^n)}.$$
We close this section by giving a proof of (1). The others will be shown with the help of the cut-and-join equation in the next section.
By the definition we have $${\mathop{\operatorname{Cov}} \nolimits}_{d,r}\bigl((d)\bigr) = h_{g,(d)},$$ where $r$ and $g$ are related by $r=2g-1+d$ as . Thus from it is enough to compute $$h_{0,(n)} = \text{coefficient of $p_n$ in } \
\dfrac{1}{n!} \left(D^{(2)}\right)^{n-1} p_1^n.$$
Recall the Pieri formula [@M:1995 Chap. I, (5,17)] $s_\lambda e_r = \sum_\mu s_\mu$ for a partition $\lambda$ and a positive integer $r$. Here the running index $\mu$ runs over the set of partitions of $|\lambda| +n$ such that $\mu \supset \lambda$ and the skew Young diagram $\mu -\lambda$ is a vertical strip. Using the Pieri formula repeatedly for $r=1$, one can see $$p_1^n = s_{(1)}^n = \sum_{\lambda\vdash n} \#{\mathop{\operatorname{ST}}}(\lambda) s_\lambda,$$ where ${\mathop{\operatorname{ST}}}(\lambda)$ denotes the set of standard tableaux with shape $\lambda$. Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
h_{0,(n)}&= \text{coefficient of $p_n$ in } \
\dfrac{1}{n!} \left(D^{(2)}\right)^{n-1} \sum_{\lambda\vdash n} \#{\mathop{\operatorname{ST}}}(\lambda) s_\lambda,
\\
&= \text{coefficient of $p_n$ in } \
\dfrac{1}{n!} \sum_{\lambda\vdash n}
\#{\mathop{\operatorname{ST}}}(\lambda) \left(\dfrac{\kappa_{\lambda}}{2}\right)^{n-1} s_\lambda.\end{aligned}$$
Next we recall the expansion $s_\lambda = \sum_{\mu \vdash |\lambda|} s_\mu \chi^\lambda_\mu/z_\mu$ and the formula of $\chi^{\lambda}_{\mu}$. In the case $\mu = (n)$ the latter gives $$\chi^\lambda_{(n)} =
\begin{cases}
(-1)^{n-r} & \lambda = (r,1^{n-r}) \ \text{ for some } 1\le r \le n \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.$$ Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
h_{0,(n)}
&=\dfrac{1}{n!} \sum_{r=1}^{n}
\#{\mathop{\operatorname{ST}}}\bigl((r,1^{n-r})\bigr) \left(\dfrac{\kappa_{(r,1^{n-r})}}{2}\right)^{n-1}
\dfrac{(-1)^{n-r}}{n}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\#{\mathop{\operatorname{ST}}}\bigl((r,1^{n-r})\bigr) = \binom{n-1}{r-1}$ by an easy observation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lem:h0n:int}
h_{0,(n)}
&=\dfrac{1}{n!\cdot n} \sum_{r=1}^{n}
(-1)^{n-r} \binom{n-1}{r-1} \left(\dfrac{n(2r-n-1)}{2}\right)^{n-1}
=\dfrac{1}{n!\cdot n} \sum_{s=0}^{n-1}
(-1)^{s} \binom{n-1}{s} \left(\binom{n}{2}- n s\right)^{n-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we used the formula for $\kappa_\lambda$.
Finally, using the elementary formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fmp}
f_{m,p} := \sum_{s=0}^m \binom{m}{s} (-1)^s s^p =
\begin{cases}
0 & 1 \le p \le m-1 \\
(-1)^m m! & p = m
\end{cases},\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
h_{0,(n)}
=\dfrac{ (- n)^{n-1}}{n!\cdot n} f_{n-1,n-1} = n^{n-3}.\end{aligned}$$
By a slight generalization of the above argument, we have
\[prop:int:hg(n)\] For any $g\in{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge0}$ and $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge3}$, $h_{g,(n)}$ is a positive integer.
Denote by ${\genfrac{\{}{\}}{0pt}{}{k}{j}} := \sum_{i=0}^j (-1)^{j-i}\binom{j}{i}i^n/j!$ the Stirling number of the second kind. It satisfies $x^k = \sum_{j=0}^k {\genfrac{\{}{\}}{0pt}{}{k}{j}} x(x-1)\ldots (x-j)$. Then the formula can be generalized to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fmp:2}
f_{m,p} = {\genfrac{\{}{\}}{0pt}{}{p}{m}} (-1)^m m!\end{aligned}$$ for arbitrary $m,p \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge0}$. Using this generalization, one can prove $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hgn:l=1:int}
h_{g,(n)} \in {\mathbb{Z}}\ \text{ for any }\ g\ge0, \ n\ge3.\end{aligned}$$ In fact, by the same way to obtain , one has $$\begin{aligned}
h_{g,(n)}
=\dfrac{1}{n!\cdot n} \sum_{s=0}^{n-1}
(-1)^{s} \binom{n-1}{s} \left(\binom{n}{2}- n s\right)^{n-1+g}.\end{aligned}$$ Then yields $$\begin{aligned}
h_{g,(n)}
&=\dfrac{1}{n!\cdot n} \sum_{p=n-1}^{n-1+g}
\binom{n-1+g}{p}\binom{n}{2}^{n-1+g-p}(-n)^p f_{n-1,p}\\
&=n^{n-3}\sum_{r=0}^{g}
\binom{n-1+g}{n-1+r}\binom{n}{2}^{g-r}(-n)^{r} {\genfrac{\{}{\}}{0pt}{}{n-1+r}{n-1}}.\end{aligned}$$ The last summation consists of integers, so we have the result .
Using the cut-and-join relations which will be introduced in the next section, one finds that $h_{g,(n)}$ is positive, so that in we actually have $ h_{g,(n)} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{+}$.
Cut-and-join equation {#sect:cj}
=====================
We now introduce the cut-and-join equation following [@EMS:2011 §3]. There are a large amount of literature for this topic, and here we only cite [@GJ:1997].
We extend the definition of the Hurwitz number $h_{g,\mu}$ to the case when $\mu$ is a multi-index: For ${\underline{k}} = (k_1,k_2,\ldots,k_n) \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{+}^n$, we define $$h_{g,{\underline{k}}} := h_{g,\mu},$$ where $\mu$ is the partition obtained from ${\underline{k}}$ by ordering numbers $k_i$’s in size. Thus $h_{g,{\underline{k}}}$ is invariant under permutation of the parts of ${\underline{k}}$.
Hereafter we use the same symbols $\ell({\underline{k}})$ and $|{\underline{k}}|$ for the length and the total sum of ${\underline{k}}$ as in the case of partitions. Set $$H_{g}({\underline{k}}) := \dfrac{\# {\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}({\underline{k}})}{r(g,{\underline{k}})!} h_{g,{\underline{k}}}.$$ Here ${\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}({\underline{k}})$ is the set of automorphism of ${\underline{k}}$, so we have $$\# {\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}{\underline{k}} = \prod_{i \in {\mathbb{Z}}_+} m_i({\underline{k}})!,\quad
m_i({\underline{k}}) := \#\{j \in {\mathbb{Z}}_+ \mid k_j = i\}.$$ The function $r(g,{\underline{k}})$ is defined by $$r(g,{\underline{k}}) := 2g-2+\ell({\underline{k}})+|{\underline{k}}|.$$
\[fct:cj\] $H_{g}({\underline{k}})$ satisfies a recusion equation $$\begin{aligned}
r(g,{\underline{k}}) H_{g}({\underline{k}})
=&\sum_{i < j} (k_i+k_j) H_{g}\bigl({\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i},{\widehat}{j};k_i+k_j)\bigr)
\\
&+\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}
\sum_{\alpha+\beta=k_i} \alpha \beta
\left(H_{g-1}\bigl({\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i};\alpha,\beta)\bigr)
+\sum_{ g_1+g_2=g}
\sum_{{\underline{m}} \sqcup {\underline{n}} = {\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i})}
H_{g_1}\bigl({\underline{m}}(\alpha)\bigr) H_{g_2}\bigl({\underline{n}}(\beta)\bigr)
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here we set $\ell := \ell({\underline{k}})$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i},{\widehat}{j};k_i+k_j) &:=
(k_1,\ldots,\widehat{k_i},\ldots,\widehat{k_j},\ldots,k_\ell,k_i+k_j),\\
{\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i};\alpha,\beta) &:=
(k_1,\ldots,\widehat{k_i},\ldots,k_\ell,\alpha,\beta),\\
{\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i}) &:=
(k_1,\ldots,\widehat{k_i},\ldots,k_\ell),\\
{\underline{m}}(\alpha) &:=
(m_1,\ldots,m_{\ell({\underline{m}})},\alpha).\end{aligned}$$ In the summations, $\alpha,\beta$ are positive integers, $g_1,g_2$ are non-negative integers and ${\underline{m}},{\underline{n}}$ are (possibly empty) ordered subsets of ${\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i})$, where ${\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i})$ is considered as an ordered set of integers.
\[rmk:cj:rec\]
1. This equation follows from $\partial_\beta \tau[x] = D^{(2)} \tau[x]$, which is obvious from $\tau[x]=e^{\beta D^{(2)}} e^{Q p_1[x]}$.
2. Let us see the change of $r(g,{\underline{k}})$ by this equation. Set $\ell:=\ell({\underline{k}})$ and $n:=n({\underline{k}})$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&r(g,{\underline{k}}) = 2g-2+\ell+n, \\
&r\bigl(g,{\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i},{\widehat}{j};k_i+k_j)\bigr) =2g-2+(\ell-1)+n = r(g,{\underline{k}})-1, \\
&r\bigl(g-1,{\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i};\alpha,\beta)\bigr) =2(g-1)-2+(\ell+1)+n = r(g,{\underline{k}})-1, \\
&r\bigl(g_1,{\underline{m}}(\alpha)\bigr) \le 2g-2+\ell+(n-1) = r(g,{\underline{k}})-1.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the cut-and-join always decreases $r(g,{\underline{k}})$, so that it gives a recursive computation for $h_{g,{\underline{k}}}$ with the initial value $h_{0,(1)}=1$.
An easy application of the cut-and-join equation is the proofs of Lemma \[lem:hgn:known\] (2), (3) and (4). Let us recall
2. For any $g \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge1}$ we have $$h_{g,(1)} = 0.$$
3. For any $g \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge0}$ we have $$h_{g,(2)} = h_{g,(1,1)} = 1/2.$$
4. For any $g \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge0}$ and $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge2}$ we have $$h_{g,(2,1^{n-2})} = h_{g,(1^n)}.$$
The cut-and-join equation for $\ell({\underline{k}})=1$ is simply $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cj:l=1}
(2g-1+n)H_g\bigl((n)\bigr)
=\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha+\beta=n}\alpha\beta
\left(H_{g-1}\bigl((\alpha,\beta)\bigr)
+\sum_{g_1+g_2=g}H_{g_1}\bigl((\alpha)\bigr)H_{g_2}\bigl((\beta)\bigr)
\right).\end{aligned}$$ Then for $n=1$ and $g\ge1$ we immediately have $h_{g,(1)}=0$.
For $n=2$ the equation yields $$(2g+1)H_g\bigl((2)\bigr)
=\dfrac{1}{2}
\left(H_{g-1}\bigl((1,1)\bigr)
+\sum_{g_1+g_2=g}H_{g_1}\bigl((1)\bigr)H_{g_2}\bigl((1)\bigr)
\right),$$ which gives in terms of $h_{g,{\underline{k}}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lem:1/2:1}
h_{g,(2)} = h_{g-1,(1,1)}+\delta_{g,0}/2.\end{aligned}$$ For ${\underline{k}}=(1,1)$ the cut-and join equation gives $$(2g+2)H_g\bigl((1,1)\bigr) = 2H_g\bigl((2)\bigr),$$ in other words, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lem:1/2:2}
h_{g,(1,1)} = h_{g,(2)}.\end{aligned}$$ The relations and gives the desired consequence.
The cut-and join equation for ${\underline{k}}=(1^n)$ gives $$(2g-2+2n) H_{g}\bigl((1^n)\bigr)
=\binom{n}{2} 2 H_{g}\bigl((2,1^{n-2})\bigr).$$ In terms of $h_{g,\mu}$ it yields the desired result.
We close this subsection with mentioning the following statement, although it is not necessary for the proof of the main theorem.
For a length two partition $\mu=(\mu_1,\mu_2)$, we have $$h_{0,(\mu_1,\mu_2)}=
\dfrac{1}{\sigma_{\mu_1,\mu_2}} \dfrac{(\mu_1+\mu_2)!}{\mu_1+\mu_2}
\dfrac{\mu_1^{\mu_1}}{\mu_1!} \dfrac{\mu_2^{\mu_2}}{\mu_2!}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\mu_1,\mu_2} :=
\begin{cases} 1 & \text{ if } \mu_1 \neq \mu_2 \\
2 & \text{ if } \mu_1 = \mu_2
\end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$
The factor $1/\sigma_{\mu_1,\mu_2}$ is missed in [@EMS:2011 the line before (2.1)].
The cut-and-join formula in this case becomes $$\begin{aligned}
h_{0,(\mu_1,\mu_2)}
=&\dfrac{1}{\sigma_{\mu_1,\mu_2}}n h_{0,(n)}
\\
&+\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha+\beta=\mu_1} \alpha \beta
\biggl(
\dfrac{\sigma_{\mu_2,\beta}}{\sigma_{\mu_1,\mu_2}}
\binom{n-1}{\alpha-1} h_{0,(\alpha)} h_{0,(\mu_2,\beta)}
+\dfrac{\sigma_{\mu_2,\alpha}}{\sigma_{\mu_1,\mu_2}}
\binom{n-1}{\beta-1} h_{0,(\mu_2,\alpha)} h_{0,(\beta)}
\biggr)
\\
&+\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha+\beta=\mu_2} \alpha \beta
\biggl(
\dfrac{\sigma_{\mu_1,\beta}}{\sigma_{\mu_1,\mu_2}}
\binom{n-1}{\alpha-1} h_{0,(\alpha)} h_{0,(\mu_1,\beta)}
+\dfrac{\sigma_{\mu_1,\alpha}}{\sigma_{\mu_1,\mu_2}}
\binom{n-1}{\beta-1} h_{0,(\mu_1,\alpha)} h_{0,(\beta)}
\biggr)
$$ with $n:=|\mu|$. In the right hand, we know that $h_{0,(n)}=n^{n-3}$ and we may assume the result side by induction. Then the equation has the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
h_{0,(\mu_1,\mu_2)}
=\dfrac{1}{\sigma_{\mu_1,\mu_2}}
\biggl(
n^{n-2}
+ (n-1) \sum_{i=1}^{2}
\mu_j^{\mu_j} \binom{n-2}{\mu_j-2}
\sum_{\alpha=1}^{\mu_i-1} \dfrac{1}{n-\alpha}
\binom{\mu_i-2}{\alpha-1} (\mu_i-\alpha)^{\mu_i-\alpha}\alpha^{\alpha-2}
\biggr)\end{aligned}$$ with $j := 3-i$. The summation can be calculated using a similar formula as and . We omit the detail.
Integrality {#sect:main}
===========
In this section we prove
\[thm:main\] The Hurwitz numbers $h_{g,\mu}$ are positive integers except for the case $h_{g,(1)} = 0$ for $g\ge1$ and $h_{g,(2)}=h_{g,(1,1)}=1/2$ for $g \ge 0$.
First we deduce the following claim from the cut-and-join equation .
\[prop:polynomial\] For any $g \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge0}$ and $\mu\in{\mathcal{P}}$ we have $$h_{g,\mu} \in
{\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge0}[h_{0,(n)} \mid n \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{+}].$$
In terms of $h_{g,{\underline{k}}}$ the cut-and-join equation reads $$\label{eq:cj:h}
\begin{split}
h_{g,{\underline{k}}}
=&\sum_{i < j}
\dfrac{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i},{\widehat}{j};k_i+k_j)\bigr)}{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}\bigr)}
(k_i+k_j) h_{g,{\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i},{\widehat}{j};k_i+k_j)}
\\
&+\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}
\sum_{\alpha+\beta=k_i} \alpha \beta
\biggl(
\dfrac{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i};\alpha,\beta)\bigr)}{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}\bigr)}
h_{g-1,{\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i};\alpha,\beta)}
\\
& \hskip 8em
+\sum_{g_1+g_2=g}
\sum_{{\underline{l}} \sqcup {\underline{n}} = {\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i})}
\dfrac{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{l}}(\alpha)\bigr) \#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{n}}(\beta)\bigr)}
{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}\bigr)}
\dfrac{(r-1)!}{r_1!r_2!}
h_{g_1,{\underline{l}}(\alpha)} h_{g_2,{\underline{n}}(\beta)}
\biggr).
\end{split}$$ Here we used the symbols $r:=r(g,{\underline{k}})$, $r_1:=r(g,{\underline{l}}(\alpha))$ and $r_2:=r(g,{\underline{n}}(\beta))$. Note that $r-1 = r_1+r_2$.
As we saw at Remark \[rmk:cj:rec\], this equation reads $h_{g,\mu} \in {\mathbb{Q}}_{\ge0}[h_{0,(n)} \mid n \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{+}]$ since it decreases $r(g,{\underline{k}})$. We will now check that the rational coefficients appearing in the right hand side actually sum up to integers. In the following we use $m_i := m_i({\underline{k}})$.
At the first term, if $k_i \neq k_j$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\text{coefficient of } \
h_{g,{\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i},{\widehat}{j};k_i+k_j)}
&=m_{k_i} m_{k_j}
\dfrac{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i},{\widehat}{j};k_i+k_j)\bigr)}{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}\bigr)}
(k_i+k_j) =m_{k_i} m_{k_j} \dfrac{m_{k_i+k_j}+1}{m_{k_i}m_{k_j}} (k_i+k_j)
\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{+}. \end{aligned}$$ If $k_i = k_j$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\text{coefficient of } \
h_{g,{\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i},{\widehat}{j};2k_i)}
&=\binom{m_{k_i}}{2}
\dfrac{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i},{\widehat}{j};2k_i)\bigr)}{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}\bigr)}
2 k_i =\binom{m_{k_i}}{2} \dfrac{m_{2k_i}+1}{m_{k_i}(m_{k_i}-1)} 2 k_i
\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{+}. \end{aligned}$$
At the second term, if $\alpha \neq \beta$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\text{coefficient of } \
h_{g,{\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i};\alpha,\beta)}
&=2m_{k_i} \dfrac{ \alpha \beta}{2}
\dfrac{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i};\alpha,\beta)\bigr)}{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}\bigr)}
=m_{k_i} \alpha \beta \dfrac{(m_\alpha+1)(m_\beta+1)}{m_{k_i}}
\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{+}. \end{aligned}$$ Here the first factor $2m_k$ comes from the symmetry $(\alpha,\beta) \mapsto (\beta,\alpha)$ and the choice of $k_i$. Similarly, if $\alpha=\beta$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\text{coefficient of } \
h_{g,{\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i};\alpha,\alpha)}
&=m_{k_i} \dfrac{\alpha^2}{2}
\dfrac{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i};\alpha,\alpha)\bigr)}{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}\bigr)}
=m_{k_i} \dfrac{\alpha^2}{2} \dfrac{(m_\alpha+1)(m_\alpha+2)}{m_{k_i}}
\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{+}.\end{aligned}$$
Finally at the third term, $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{coefficient of } \
h_{g_1,{\underline{l}}(\alpha)}h_{g_2,{\underline{n}}(\beta)} \\
&= {\varepsilon}m_{k_i}
\binom{m_{k_i}-1}{m_{k_i}\bigl({\underline{l}}\bigr)}
\prod_{j \neq k_i }
\binom{m_j}{m_j\bigl({\underline{l}}\bigr)}
\cdot
\dfrac{ \alpha \beta}{2} \binom{r-1}{r_1}
\dfrac{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{l}}(\alpha)\bigr) \#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{n}}(\beta)\bigr)}
{\#{\mathop{\operatorname{Aut}} \nolimits}\bigl({\underline{k}}\bigr)} \\
&= {\varepsilon}m_{k_i}
\binom{m_{k_i}-1}{m_{k_i}\bigl({\underline{l}}\bigr)}
\prod_{j \neq k_i}
\binom{m_j}{m_j\bigl({\underline{l}}\bigr)}
\cdot
\dfrac{\alpha \beta}{2} \binom{r-1}{r_1}
\prod_j
\dfrac{m_j\bigl({\underline{l}}(\alpha)\bigr)! m_j\bigl({\underline{n}}(\beta)\bigr)!}
{m_j\bigl({\underline{k}}\bigr)! }
\\
&= {\varepsilon}(m_\alpha({\underline{l}})+1)(m_\beta({\underline{n}})+1)
\dfrac{ \alpha \beta}{2} \binom{r-1}{r_1} \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ve}
{\varepsilon}:=
\begin{cases}
2 & \text{if } \
\bigl(g_1, {\underline{l}}(\alpha)\bigr) \neq \bigl(g_2, {\underline{n}}(\beta)\bigr) \\
1 & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}.\end{aligned}$$ The last expression is a positive integer since if $\bigl(g_1, {\underline{l}}(\alpha)\bigr) = \bigl(g_2, {\underline{n}}(\beta)\bigr)$ then $r_1 = r_2$ so that $\binom{r-1}{r_1}=\binom{2r_1}{r_1} \in 2{\mathbb{Z}}_{+}$.
Therefore every coefficient in the right hand side of is a non-negative integer, and we have the conclusion.
Now we turn to
We show the integrality by the induction on the number $r(g,\mu)$. $r(g,\mu)=0$ requires $(g,(\mu))=\bigl(0,(1)\bigr)$, and $h_{0,(1)}=1$ by Lemma \[lem:hgn:known\] (1). $r(g,\mu)=1$ requires $(g,(\mu))=\bigl(0,(2)\bigr)$, and (this case is excluded, but) $h_{0,(2)}=1/2$ by Lemma \[lem:hgn:known\] (3).
Assume that the statement holds for $r(g,\mu)<=r-1$, and consider the case $r(g,\mu)=r$ with $r\le3$. By (the proof of) the last Proposition \[prop:polynomial\], an obstruction of the integrality of $h_{g,\mu}$ occurrs when $h_{g',(2)}$ or $h_{g',(1,1)}$ with some $g'$ appears in the right hand side of the cut-and-join equation . We now switch the notation from $\mu$ to ${\underline{k}}$.
At the first term of the right hand side of , ${\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i},{\widehat}{j};k_i+k_j)=(2)$ holds if and only if ${\underline{k}}=(1,1)$, and we can ignore this case. ${\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i},{\widehat}{j};k_i+k_j)=(1,1)$ cannot hold, so it is done.
At the second term, ${\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i};\alpha,\beta)=(2)$ cannot hold. ${\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i};\alpha,\beta)=(1,1)$ hols if and only if ${\underline{k}}=(2)$, and we can ignore this case.
The non-trivial consideration is necessary only at the third term. Assume ${\underline{l}}(\alpha)=(2)$. Then ${\underline{l}}=\emptyset$ and $\alpha=2$, so that $\beta=k_i-2$ and ${\underline{n}}(\beta)={\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i},k_i-2)$. Then, by the same calculation as in the proof of the previous Proposition \[prop:polynomial\], the term including $h_{g_1,{\underline{l}}(\alpha)} h_{g_2,{\underline{n}}(\beta)}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thm:3-(2)}
&{\varepsilon}(m_\alpha({\underline{l}})+1)(m_\beta({\underline{n}})+1)
\dfrac{\alpha\beta}{2}\binom{r-1}{r_1}
h_{g_1,{\underline{l}}(\alpha)} h_{g_2,{\underline{n}}(\beta)}
=\dfrac{{\varepsilon}}{2} (m_\alpha({\underline{l}})+1)(m_\beta({\underline{n}})+1)
\beta \binom{r-1}{r_1} h_{g_2,{\underline{n}}(\beta)}\end{aligned}$$ with $m_i := m_i({\underline{k}})$ and $r_1:=r\bigl(g_1,{\underline{l}}(\alpha)\bigr)=2g_1+1$. By the definition of ${\varepsilon}$ and by induction, this expression is a non-negative integer if $\bigl(g_1, {\underline{l}}(\alpha)\bigr) \neq \bigl(g_2, {\underline{n}}(\beta)\bigr)$ and $h_{g_2, {\underline{n}}(\beta)} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge0}$. Thus we have only to consider the following cases: (i) $\bigl(g_1, {\underline{l}}(\alpha)\bigr) = \bigl(g_2, {\underline{n}}(\beta)\bigr)$ or (ii)$h_{g_2, {\underline{n}}(\beta)}=1/2$. If (i) holds, then ${\underline{n}}(\beta)=(2)$, so that ${\underline{k}}=(4)$. This case is already done in Proposition \[prop:int:hg(n)\]. If (ii) holds, then ${\underline{n}}(\beta)=(2)$ or ${\underline{n}}(\beta)=(1,1)$ by induction. The first case is already excluded, so we may assume ${\underline{n}}(\beta)=(1,1)$. Then ${\underline{k}}=(3,1)$, $\alpha=2$, $\beta=1$, and the expression becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\eqref{eq:thm:3-(2)} =
\dfrac{2}{2} \cdot 1 \cdot 2 \cdot \binom{r-1}{r_1} \cdot \dfrac{1}{2},\end{aligned}$$ which is a positive integer.
The case ${\underline{l}}(\alpha)=(1,1)$ is similar. Here we have ${\underline{l}}=(1)$, $\alpha=1$, $\beta=k_i-1$ and ${\underline{n}}(\beta)={\underline{k}}({\widehat}{i};k_i-1)$. The term including $h_{g_1,{\underline{l}}(\alpha)} h_{g_2,{\underline{n}}(\beta)}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:thm:3-(11)}
&{\varepsilon}(m_\alpha({\underline{l}})+1)(m_\beta({\underline{n}})+1)
\dfrac{\alpha\beta}{2}\binom{r-1}{r_1}
h_{g_1,{\underline{l}}(\alpha)} h_{g_2,{\underline{n}}(\beta)}
=\dfrac{{\varepsilon}}{4} (m_\alpha({\underline{l}})+1)(m_\beta({\underline{n}})+1)
\beta \binom{r-1}{r_1} h_{g_2,{\underline{n}}(\beta)}\end{aligned}$$ The cases we have to consider are (iii) $\bigl(g_1, {\underline{l}}(\alpha)\bigr) = \bigl(g_2, {\underline{n}}(\beta)\bigr)$ or (iv)$h_{g_2, {\underline{n}}(\beta)}=1/2$. If (iii) holds, then ${\underline{n}}=(1)$, $\beta=1$ and ${\underline{k}}=(2,1,1)$. Thus the expression becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\eqref{eq:thm:3-(11)} = \dfrac{2}{4} \cdot 2 \cdot 2 \cdot
\binom{r-1}{r_1} \cdot \dfrac{1}{2},\end{aligned}$$ which is a positive integer. The case (iv) is reduced to the case (ii) or (iii), and the proof is completed.
During the study of the Hurwitz numbers, we found the following condition on the parity.
\[conj:parity\] For $|\mu|\ge3$ and $g\ge0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\text{$h_{g,\mu}$ is odd} \Longrightarrow
\text{$r(g,\mu)$ is even, every part of $\mu$ is odd and $\ell(\mu) \le 2$}.\end{aligned}$$
We checked the condition for $r(g,\mu)\le 18$. Unfortunately the converse does not hold. The cases for which the converse does not hold and $r(g,\mu)\le 14$ are the following: $$\begin{aligned}
r(g,\mu)=8:\quad
(g,\mu)=&\bigl(1,(7)\bigr), \bigl(1,(5,1)\bigr),\bigl(1,(3,3)\bigr),
\\
r(g,\mu)=10:\quad
(g,\mu)=&\bigl(0,(7,3)\bigr),\bigl(1,(7,1)\bigr),
\bigl(1,(5,3)\bigr), \bigl(1,(9)\bigr),
\\
r(g,\mu)=12:\quad
(g,\mu)=&\bigl(0,(7,5)\bigr),\bigl(1,(7,3)\bigr),
\bigl(3,(5,1)\bigr), \bigl(3,(3,3)\bigr),\bigl(3,(7)\bigr),
\\
r(g,\mu)=14:\quad
(g,\mu)=&\bigl(0,(11,3)\bigr),\bigl(0,(7,7)\bigr),
\bigl(1,(7,5)\bigr)
\bigl(2,(9,1)\bigr), \bigl(2,(7,3)\bigr),\bigl(2,(5,5)\bigr),
\bigl(2,(11)\bigr),
\\
&\bigl(3,(7,1)\bigr), \bigl(3,(5,3)\bigr),\bigl(3,(9)\bigr).\end{aligned}$$ For these pairs, the Hurwitz number $h_{g,\mu}$ is even.
[MMNN]{}
B. Eynard, M. Mulase, B. Safnuk *The Laplace transform of the cut-and-join equation and the Bouchard-Marino conjecture on Hurwitz numbers*, Publ. RIMS [**47**]{} (2011), 629–670.
I. P. Goulden, D. M. Jackson, *Transitive factorisations into transpositions and holomorphic mappings on the sphere*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**125**]{} (1997), no. 1, 51–60.
A. M. Li, G. Zhao, Q. Zheng, *The number of ramified coverings of a Riemann surface by Riemann surface*, Commun. Math. Phys. [**213**]{} (2000), 685–696.
I. G. Macdonald, Symmetric functions and Hall polynomials. 2nd ed. Oxford Mathematical Monographs, Oxford University Press (1995).
M. Mulase, N. Zhang, *Polynomial recursion formula for linear Hodge integrals*, Communications in Number Theory and Physics [**4**]{} No.2 (2010) 267–294.
A. Okounkov, *Toda equations for Hurwitz numbers*, Math. Res. Lett. [**7**]{} (2000), 447–453.
R. P. Stanley, *Some Combinatorial Properties of Jack symmetric Functions*, Adv. Math. [**77**]{} (1989), 76–115.
J. Zhou, *Hodge integrals, Hurwitz numbers, and symmetric groups*, arXiv:math/0309024.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $\XX$ be a compact, smooth, connected, Riemannian manifold without boundary, $G:\XX\times\XX\to \RR$ be a kernel. Analogous to a radial basis function network, an eignet is an expression of the form $\sum_{j=1}^M a_jG(\circ,y_j)$, where $a_j\in\RR$, $y_j\in\XX$, $1\le j\le M$. We describe a deterministic, universal algorithm for constructing an eignet for approximating functions in $L^p(\mu;\XX)$ for a general class of measures $\mu$ and kernels $G$. Our algorithm yields linear operators. Using the minimal separation amongst the centers $y_j$ as the cost of approximation, we give modulus of smoothness estimates for the degree of approximation by our eignets, and show by means of a converse theorem that these are the best possible for every *individual function*. We also give estimates on the coefficients $a_j$ in terms of the norm of the eignet. Finally, we demonstrate that if any sequence of eignets satisfies the optimal estimates for the degree of approximation of a smooth function, measured in terms of the minimal separation, then the derivatives of the eignets also approximate the corresponding derivatives of the target function in an optimal manner.'
author:
- 'H. N. Mhaskar[^1]'
title: Eignets for function approximation on manifolds
---
**Keywords:** Data dependent manifolds, kernel based approximation, RBF networks, direct and converse theorems of approximation, simultaneous approximation, stability estimates.
In recent years, diffusion geometry techinques have developed into a powerful tool for analysis of a nominally high dimensional data, which has a low dimensional structure, for example, it lies on a low dimensional manifold in the high dimensional ambient space. Applications of these techniques include document analysis [@mauro1], face recognition [@niyogi], semi–supervised learning [@niyogi1; @niyogi2], image processing [@donoho1], and cataloguing of galaxies [@donoho2]. The special issue [@achaspissue] of Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis contains several papers that serve as a good introduction to this subject.
An essential ingredient in these techniques is the notion of a heat kernel $K_t$ on the manifold $\XX$ in question, which can be defined formally by $$K_t(x,y)=\sum_{j\ge 0}\exp(-\ell_j^2 t)\phi_j(x)\phi_j(y), \qquad t>0,\ x,y\in\XX,$$ where $\{\phi_j\}$ is an orthonormal basis for $L^2(\mu;\XX)$ for an appropriate measure $\mu$, and $\ell_j$’s are nonnegative numbers increasing to $\infty$ as $j\to\infty$. A multiresolution analysis is then defined by Coifmann and Maggioni [@mauro1] for a fixed $\epsilon>0$ by defining the increasing sequence of scaling spaces $$\mbox{span }\{\phi_k : \exp(-2^{-j}\ell_k^2) \ge \epsilon\}=\mbox{span }\{\phi_k : \ell_k^2\le (2^j\log(1/\epsilon))\}.$$ The range of the operators generated by $K_{2^{-j}}$ being “close” to the space at level $j$, one may obtain an approximate projection of a function by applying these operators to the function. In turn, these operators can be computed using fast multipole techniques. The diffusion wavelets and wavelet packets can be obtained by applying Gram Schmidt procedure to the kernels $K_{2^{-j}}$. On a more theoretical side, Jones, Maggioni, and Schul [@jms] have recently proved that the heat kernel can be used to construct a local coordinate atlas on manifolds, preserving the order of magnitude of the distances between points within each chart.
Since an explicit formula for the heat kernel is typically not known on all but the simplest of manifolds, in numerical implementations, one considers in place of the heat kernel an approximation by means of a suitable radial basis function, typically a Gaussian. The error in this approximation is investigated in detail by several authors, for example, [@lafon; @amit; @belkinfound; @belkinspectconv]. In a different idea, Saito [@saito] has advocated the use of other kernels which commute with the heat kernel, and hence, share the invariant subspaces with it, but for which explict formulas are known.
Several applications, especially in the context of semi–supervised learning, signal processing, and pattern recognition can be viewed as problems of function approximation. For example, given a few digitized images of handwritten digits, one wishes to develop a model that will predict for any other image whether the corresponding digit is 0. Each image may be viewed as a point in a high dimensional space, and the target function is the characteristic function of the set of points corresponding to the digit 0. We observe in this context that even though ${\mathcal K}_tf\to f$ (uniformly if $f$ is continuous) as $t\to 0$, where ${\mathcal K}_t$ is the heat operator defined by the kernel $K_t$, the rate of convergence provided by this simple minded approximation cannot be the optimal one for smooth functions, since the ${\mathcal K}_t\phi_j\not=\phi_j$ except when $\ell_j=0$. In this paper, for $L>0$, an element of $\Pi_L:=\span\{\phi_j : \ell_j\le L\}$ will be called a *diffusion polynomial* of degree at most $L$, as in [@mauropap]. In [@fasttour; @mauropap], we have developed a different multiscale analysis based on $\Pi_{2^j}$ as the scaling spaces. We have obtained a Littlewood–Paley expansion, valid for functions in all $L^p$ spaces *including $p=1,\infty$*. This expansion is in terms of a tight frame transform, which can be used to characterize different Besov spaces related to approximation by diffusion polynomials. Our tight frames can also be chosen to be highly localized.
The main objective of this paper is to consider the approximation properties of a generalized translation network of the form $\sum_{j=1}^M a_jG(\circ,y_j)$, where $G$ is a fixed kernel, $G:\XX\times\XX\to \RR$, $M\ge 1$ is an integer (the number of *neurons*), the coefficients $a_j$’s are real numbers and the *centers* $y_j$’s are distinct points in $\XX$. We will deal with kernels of the form $G(x,y)=\sum_{j=0}^\infty b(\ell_j)\phi_j(x)\phi_j(y)$. For this reason, we will call the network an *eignet*. This paper is the first part of a two part investigation. In this paper, we consider the case when $\{b(\ell_j)\ell_j^\beta\}$ remains bounded as $j\to\infty$; in a sequel, we plan to develop analogous theory for the case when $\{b(\ell_j)\}$ tends to $0$ exponentially fast as $j\to\infty$, in particular, including the case of the heat kernel itself as $G$.
To explain our objectives in further detail, we describe first the general paradigm in approximation theory. Typically, one considers a metric space ${\mathcal X}$ and a nested, increasing sequence of subsets of ${\mathcal X}$: $V_0\subset V_1\subset \cdots V_m\subset V_{m+1}\subset \cdots$. Elements of $V_m$ provide a model (*approximant*) for a *target function* $f\in {\mathcal X}$; the index $m$ is typically related to the model complexity. The *density theorem* is a statement that $\cup_{m=0}^\infty V_m$ is dense in ${\mathcal X}$. Let $d({\mathcal X};f,g)$ denote the distance between $f, g\in {\mathcal X}$. A deeper, and central problem of approximation theory is to investigate the rate at which the *degree of approximation*, $\dist({\mathcal X};f, V_m):=\inf_{P\in V_m}\dist ({\mathcal X};f,P)$, converges to $0$ as $m\to\infty$, depending upon certain conditions on $f$. These conditions are encoded by a statement that $f\in W$ for a subset $W\subset {\mathcal X}$, usually called a *smoothness class*. In the most classical example, the *trigonometric case*, ${\mathcal X}$ is the space of all continuous, $2\pi$–periodic functions on $\RR$, equipped with the supremum norm on $[-\pi,\pi]$, and $V_m$ denotes the class of all trigonometric polynomials of order at most $m$; i.e., expressions of the form $\sum_{|j|\le m} a_je^{ij\circ}$. The well known *equivalence theorem* in this case states [@devlorbk] that if $0<\alpha<1$, and $r\ge 0$ is an integer, then $\dist ({\mathcal X};f,V_m)=\O(m^{-r-\a})$ if and only if $f$ has $r$ continuous derivatives and $|\derf{f}{r}(x)-\derf{f}{r}(y)|=\O(|x-y|^\a)$, $x,y\in\RR$. To cover the case when $\a=1$ is allowed, one needs to introduce higher order moduli of smoothness; a more modern approach is to consider $K$ functionals. We observe that this theory is applicable to individual functions, rather than being an assertion about the existence of a function to demonstrate that the rate at which the degree of approximation converges to zero cannot be improved. In the general case, of course, the interesting questions are to determine what one should mean by the model complexity, and what smoothness classes are *characterized* by a given rate of convergence of $\dist ({\mathcal X};f,V_m)$ to $0$ as $m\to\infty$. In the context of approximation by Gaussian networks, we have demonstrated in [@convtheo; @mhasbook] that a satisfactory theory can be developed by using the minimal separation amongst the centers as the measurement of model complexity, with the smoothness classes defined in terms of certain weighted Besov spaces.
The main goal of this paper is to demonstrate equivalence theorems of approximation theory in the case of eignets, where the complexity of the model is measured by the minimal separation amongst the centers and the smoothness of the target function is measured by a suitable $K$ functional as in [@mauropap]. In this paper, we will show that the smoothness classes characterized by the degrees of approximation by eignets with minimal separation $q$ amongst the centers are the same as those characterized by the degrees of approximation by $\Pi_{1/q}$, $q\to 0$.
There are several consequences of our approach, which we find interesting. First, we will give an explicit, stable, construction of an eignet, which is universal in the sense that it is defined for every function in $L^p$ (or every continuous function, depending upon the data available for the function). At the same time, the approximation error for any individual function in a smoothness class is commensurate with the degree of approximation by the class of all eignets with the same minimal separation amongst the centers. Our operator will automatically minimize (up to a constant multiple) a regularization criterion, but does not require the solution of an optimization problem to achieve this.
Second, for an arbitrary eignet, we will estimate the size of the coefficients in terms of the norm of the eignet itself. This estimate will be in terms of the minimal separation amongst the centers. In particular, if one wishes to interpolate using eignets, our result gives an estimate on the stability of the interpolation matrix. Finally, we will consider the question of simultaneous approximation: if $\Psi$ is an arbitrary eignet, and one knows an upper bound for $\|f-\Psi\|_p$, we estimate the error $\|(\Delta^*)^r f-(\Delta^*)^r\Psi\|_p$, where $\Delta^*$ is a pseudo–differential operator.
One of the referees has pointed out kindly that our work here has several potential applications: signal processing, Paley Wiener theorems in inverse problems, computer vision, imaging, geo-remote sensing, among others, and that further hints can be found in [@damelin1; @damelin2; @damelin3; @damelin4; @damelin5].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[setupsect\], we will describe the general set up, including the conditions on the manifold, the system $\{\phi_j\}$, the kernel $G$, etc., including some basic facts. The main results are described in Section \[mainsect\]. The proofs of these results involve a great deal of estimations involving many sums and integrals. These estimations being very similar, we prefer to present them concisely in a somewhat abstract setting. This setting and the appearance which the various objects in Section \[mainsect\] take is explained in Section \[abstractsect\]. Several preparatory lemmas and propositions of a technical nature are proved in Section \[techsect\]. In Section \[proofsect\], we use these to prove the new results in Section \[mainsect\]. In a first reading, one may wish to skip Section \[techsect\], and refer back to it as needed from Section \[proofsect\].
We thank the referees and the editor for their many valuable suggestions for the improvement of the first draft of this paper. We thank Jürgen Prestin and Frank Filbir for their encouragement and discussions during the preparation of this paper.
\[setupsect\] Our results in this paper involve a number of objects: the Riemannian manifold $\XX$, the geodesic distance $\rho$ on $\XX$, a measure $\mu$ on $\XX$, the system $\{\phi_j\}$, the sequence $\{\ell_j\}$, the kernel $G$ for the eignet, etc. In this section, we introduce the notations and various assumptions on these objects.
The manifold {#manifoldsect}
------------
Throughout this paper, $\XX$ is assumed to be a ($C^\infty$) smooth, compact, connected, Riemannian manifold, $\rho$ denotes the geodesic distance on $\XX$, $\mu$ is a fixed probability measure on $\XX$, not necessarily the manifold measure on $\XX$. For $x\in\XX$, $r>0$, let $$B(x.r):=\{y\in\XX\ :\ \rho(x,y)\le r\}, \ \Delta(x,r)=\XX\setminus B(x,r).$$ We assume that there exists $\a>0$ such that \[ballmeasurecond\] (B(x,r))cr\^, x, r>0. Here, and in the sequel, the symbols $c, c_1,\cdots$ will denote generic positive constants depending only on the fixed parameters in the discussion, such as $\rho$, $\mu$, the system $\{\phi_k\}$, and the norms, etc. Their value may be different at different occurrences, even within a single formula. The notation $A\sim B$ means that $c_1A\le B\le c_2A$.
If $X\subseteq \XX$ is $\mu$-measurable, and $f : X\to \CC$ is a $\mu$-measurable function, we will write $$\|f\|_{X,p}:=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\disp \left\{\int_{X}|f(x)|^pd\mu(x)\right\}^{1/p}, & \mbox{ if $1\le p<\infty$,}\\
\mu-\esssup_{x\in X}|f(x)|, &\mbox{ if $p=\infty$.}
\end{array}\right.$$ The class of all $f$ with $\|f\|_{X,p}<\infty$ will be denoted by $L^p(X)$, with the usual convention of considering two functions to be equal if they are equal $\mu$–almost everywhere. If $X=\XX$, we will omit its mention from the notations. For $1\le p\le\infty$, we define $p'=p/(p-1)$ with the usual understanding that $1'=\infty$, $\infty'=1$. If $f_1\in L^p$, $f_2\in L^{p'}$ then $$\ip{f_1}{f_2}:=\int_\XX f_1(x)f_2(x)d\mu(x).$$ If $f\in L^p$, $W\subseteq L^p$, we define $$\dist(p;f,W):=\inf_{P\in W}\|f-P\|_p,$$ an abbreviation for $\dist(L^p;f,W)$.
Let $\{\phi_j\}$ be an orthonormal system of functions in $L^2$, such that each $\phi_j$ is continuous on $\XX$ (and hence, both integrable and bounded). We assume that $\phi_0(x)\equiv 1$ for $x\in\XX$. Let $\{\ell_j\}$ be a nondecreasing sequence of real numbers such that $\ell_0=0$, $\ell_j\uparrow \infty$ as $j\to\infty$. For $L\ge 0$, we write $\Pi_L:=\span\{\phi_j : \ell_j\le L\}$. An element of $\Pi_\infty:=\cup_{L\ge 0}\Pi_L$ will be called a diffusion polynomial. For $P\in\Pi_\infty$, the degree of $P$ is the minimum integer $L$ such that $P\in\Pi_L$. The $L^p$ closure of $\Pi_\infty$ will be denoted by $X^p$.
For $t>0$, $x,y\in\XX$, we define the *heat kernel* on $\XX$ formally by \[heatkerndef\] K\_t(x,y)=\_[j=0]{}\^(-\_j\^2t)\_j(x)\_j(y). Although $K_t$ satisfies the semigroup property, and \[heatkernint\] \_K\_t(x,y)d(y) =1, x, $K_t$ may not be the heat kernel in the classical sense. In particular, we do not assume that $K_t$ is nonnegative. The only assumptions we make on $K_t$ are the following: With $\a>0$ as in , \[singlegaussbd\] |K\_t(x,y)| c\_1t\^[-/2]{}(-c(x,y)\^2/t), t(0,1\], x,y, and for any of the first order directional derivatives $\partial$ with respect to a normal coordinate system, \[heatgradest\] |\_y K\_t(x,y)| c\_1t\^[-/2-1]{}(-c(x,y)\^2/t), t(0,1\], x,y. We note that our assumptions imply that $K_t(x,y)$ is well defined for all $x, y\in\XX$ and $t\in (0,1]$. It is proved in [@filbirbern] that implies that \[christupbd\] \_[\_jL]{}\_j\^2(x)cL\^, L>0. In the case when $\phi_k$’s (respectively, $\ell_k$’s) are the eigenfunctions (respectively, eigenvalues) of the square root of the negative Laplacian on $\XX$, the assumptions and can be deduced from the bounds on the spectral functions $\sum_{\ell_j\le L}\phi_j^2(x)$, $\sum_{\ell_j\le L}(\partial\phi_j)^2(x)$ proved by Bin Xu [@binxu] (cf. [@filbirbern]), and the finite speed of wave propagation. Kordyukov [@kordyukov91] has proved similar estimates in the case when $\XX$ has bounded geometry, and $\phi_k$’s are eigenfunctions of a general, second order, strictly elliptic partial differential operator. Other examples, where $\mu$ is not the Riemannian measure on $\XX$ are given by Grigorýan in [@grigoryanheatmetric].
The bounds on the heat kernel are closely connected with the measures of the balls $B(x,r)$. For example, it is proved in [@grigoryanheatmetric] that the conditions , , and imply that \[ballmeasurelowbd\] (B(x,r))cr\^, 0<r1, x. In view of , this shows that $\mu$ satisfies the homogeneity condition \[doublingcond\] (B(x,R))c(R/r)\^(B(x,r)), x, r(0,1\], R>0. In many of the examples cited above, the kernel $K_t$ also satisfies a lower bound to match the upper bound in . In this case, Grigoryán [@grigoryanheatmetric] has also shown that is satisfied.
In the case when $\XX$ is the Euclidean sphere, or the rotation group $SO(3)$, the eigenfunctions of the Laplace–Beltrami operator are polynomials, and hence, if $\Pi_L$ is span of the appropriate eigenfunctions, $P_1,P_2\in\Pi_L$ imply that $P_1P_2\in\Pi_{2L}$. We are not aware of any concrete examples where this is not true. In general, when $\P_L$ is a span of eigenfunctions of certain elliptic operators, we do not expect such a precise inclusion. Nevertheless, each of the products $\phi_j\phi_k$ is infinitely often differentiable in this case, and hence, it is reasonable to expect that $\dist(\infty;\phi_j\phi_k,\Pi_m)\to 0$ faster than any polynomial in $1/m$ as $m\to\infty$. Since we are considering an even more general situation, where $\phi_j$, $\phi_k$ are not assumed to be eigenfunctions of any elliptic operator, we need to make the following assumption as our substitute for the lack of an algebra structure on $\Pi_\infty$.\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Product assumption:</span>\
Let $A\ge 2$ be a fixed number, and for $L>0$, \[gammanormdef\] \_L:=\_[\_j,\_kL]{}(;\_j\_k,\_[AL]{}). We assume that $L^c\e_L\to 0$ as $L\to\infty$ for every $c>0$. We conjecture that if $\XX$ is an analytic manifold and $\phi_j$’s are eigenfunctions of elliptic partial differentiable operators with analytic coefficients, then $\limsup_{L\to\infty}\e_L^{1/L} <1$.
To summarize, our assumptions on the manifold, the measure, and the systems $\{\phi_k\}$, $\{\ell_k\}$ are: , , , , and the product assumption.
Data sets and weights {#datasect}
---------------------
Let $K\subseteq \XX$ be a compact set, $\C\subset K$ be a finite set, . The *mesh norm* $\delta(\C,K)$ of $\C$ relative to $K$ and the minimal separation $q(\C)$ are defined by \[meshnormdef\] (,K) =\_[xK]{}(x,), q()=\_[x,y, x=y]{}(x,y). To keep the notation simple, we will write $\delta(\C):=\delta(\C,\XX)$. Of particular interest in this paper are sets $\C$ satisfying \[cuniformity\] ()2q(). The proof of the following proposition shows one way to construct such sets from arbitary finite subsets of $\XX$. Consistent with our policy of presenting all proofs in Section \[proofsect\], this proof will be postponed to the end of this paper.
\[datasetprop\] [(a)]{} If $\C\subset \XX$ is a finite set and $\e>0$, there exists $\tilde C\subseteq \C$ such that $\delta(\tilde\C,\C)\le \e \le q(\tilde\C)$. In particular, for the set $\tilde\C$ obtained with $\e=\delta(\C)$, $\delta(\C)\le \delta(\tilde\C)\le 2\delta(\C)\le 2q(\tilde\C)$.\
[(b)]{} If $\C_0\subseteq \C_1\subset\XX$ are finite subsets with $\delta(\C_1)\le (1/2)\delta(\C_0)\le q(\C_0)$, then there exists $\C_1^*$, with $\C_0\subseteq\C_1^*\subseteq \C_1$, such that $\delta(\C_1)\le \delta(\C_1^*)\le 2\delta(\C_1)\le 2q(\C_1^*)$.\
[(c)]{} Let $\{\C_m\}$ be a sequence of finite subsets of $\XX$, with $\delta(\C_m)\sim 1/m$, and $C_m\subseteq \C_{m+1}$, $m=1,2,\cdots$. Then there exists a sequence of subsets $\{\tilde\C_m \subseteq \C_m\}$, where, for $m=1,2,\cdots,$ $\delta(\tilde\C_m)\sim 1/m$, $\tilde \C_m\subseteq \tilde \C_{m+1}$, $\delta(\tilde\C_m)\le 2q(\tilde \C_m)$.
In the sequel, for any finite subset $\C$ (respectively, $\C_m$), we will only work with the subset $\tilde\C$ (respectively, $\tilde\C_m$) as constructed above. Since the rest of the points in $\C$ (respectively, $\C_m$) are ignored in our analysis, we may rename this subset again as $\C$ (respectively, $\C_m$) and assume that $\C$ (respectively, $\C_m$) satisfies .
The following theorem is proved in [@filbirbern], where do not need the product assumption.
\[mztheo\] Let $\C$ be a finite subset of $\XX$ (satisfying ), $\delta(\C)\le 1/6$. We assume further that , , , and hold. Then there exists $c>0$ such that for $L \le c\delta(\C)^{-1}$, we have \[mzineq\] P\_12\_[x]{}(B(x,()))|P(x)|c\_1P\_1, P\_L. Consequently, for $L \le c\delta(\C)^{-1}$, there exist numbers $w_x$, $x\in\C$, such that for each $x\in\C$, \[wtbds\] |w\_x|c\_2(B(x,()))c\_3()\^c\_4q()\^, and \[quadrature\] \_P(y)d(y)=\_[x]{}w\_xP(x), P\_L.
A simple way to find the weights $w_x$ is to solve the least square problem of minimizing $\sum w_x^2$ with the constraints $\sum_{x\in\C}w_x\phi_k(x)=\int_\XX \phi_kd\mu$, $k=0,\cdots,L$ [@quadconst]. Alternately, one may obtain $w_x$’s so as to minimize $$\sum_{\ell_k\le L} \left(\sum_{x\in\C}w_x\phi_k(x)-\int_\XX \phi_kd\mu\right)^2.$$ Efficient numerical algorithms for computing the weights in the context of the unit sphere can be found, for example, in [@quadconst; @potts; @fithe2]. Some of these ideas can be adopted in this context, but our main focus in this paper is of a theoretical nature, and we will not comment further on this issue in this paper.
In view of , , the inequalities can be formulated as \[mzineqdetail\] P\_1c\_1q()\^\_[x]{}|P(x)| c\_2()\^\_[x]{}|P(x)|c\_3\_[x]{}(B(x,()))|P(x)|c\_4P\_1, P\_L. Inequalities of this nature were proved in the trigonometric case by Marcinkiewicz and Zygmund [@zygmund Chapter X, Theorem 7.28]. For this reason, we will refer to as MZ inequalities.
\[regularmeasuredef\] Let $\C\subset\XX$ be a finite set, $a_y$, $y\in\C$ be real numbers, and $d>0$. We will say that $\{a_y\}$ is $d$–regular if for some constant $c$ depending only on $\XX$ and the related quantities described in Section \[manifoldsect\], but not on $\C$, $r$, or $d$, such that \[mzcond1\] \_[yB(x,r)]{}|a\_y| c{(B(x,r))+d\^}, x, r>0. If $L>0$, we will say that $\{a_y\}$ is a set of quadrature weights (or equivalently, $a_y$’s are quadrature weights) of order $L$ corresponding to $\C$ if $$\int_\XX P(y)d\mu(y)=\sum_{y\in\C}a_yP(y), \qquad P\in \Pi_L.$$
Thus, for example, the set $\{w_x\}_{x\in\C}$ constructed in Theorem \[mztheo\] is a $1/L$–regular set of quadrature weights of order $L$ corresponding to $\C$. We will show in Lemma \[gtildeloclemma\] below that the sets $\{a_y\}_{y\in\C}$, where each $a_y=\mu(B(y, \delta(\C)))$ (respectively, $\delta(\C)^\a$, $q(\C)^\a$) are all $\delta(\C)$– or $q(\C)$–regular, but of course, not quadrature weights.
Eignets {#eignetsect}
-------
The notion of eignets, analogous to the notion of radial basis function (RBF)/neural networks, is defined as follows.
\[eignetdef\] Let $\C\subset \XX$ be a finite set, and $G:\XX\times\XX\to\RR$. An eignet with centers $\C$ and kernel $G$ is a function of the form $\sum_{y\in\C} a_y G(\circ,y)$, where the coefficients $a_y\in\RR$, $y\in\C$. The set of all eignets with centers $\C$ will be denoted by $\G(\C)=\G(G;\C)$.
We note that $\G(\C)$ is a linear space. In the parlace of the theory of RBF/neural networks, the kernel $G$ may be thought of as the activation function.
As mentioned in the introduction, we are interested in this paper in the case when the kernel $G$ admits a formal expansion of the form $G(x,y)=\sum_{j=0}^\infty b(\ell_j)\phi_j(x)\phi_j(y)$, where the coefficients $b(\ell_j)$ behave like $\ell_j^{-\beta}$ for some $\beta>0$. (This is the reason for our terminology “eignet”, to emphasize the formal expansion in terms of what would usually be eigenfunctions of the Laplace–Beltrami operator on a manifold.) The following definition makes this sentiment more precise. In the sequel, $S>\a$ will be a fixed integer.
\[eigkerndef\] Let $\beta\in\RR$. A function $b:\RR\to\RR$ will be called a mask of type $\beta$ if $b$ is an even, $S$ times continuously differentiable function such that for $t>0$, $b(t)=(1+t)^{-\beta}F_b(\log t)$ for some $F_b:\RR\to\RR$ such that $|\derf{F_b}{k}(t)|\le c(b)$, $t\in\RR$, $k=0,1,\cdots,S$, and $F_b(t)\ge c_1(b)$, $t\in\RR$. A function $G:\XX\times\XX\to \RR$ will be called a kernel of type $\beta$ if it admits a formal expansion $G(x,y)=\sum_{j=0}^\infty b(\ell_j)\phi_j(x)\phi_j(y)$ for some mask $b$ of type $\beta>0$. If we wish to specify the connection between $G$ and $b$, we will write $G(b;x,y)$ in place of $G$.
We observe that $\lim_{t\to-\infty}F_b(t) =b(0)$ is finite. Further, the definition of a mask of type $\beta$ can be relaxed somewhat, for example, the various bounds on $F_b$ and its derivatives may only be assumed for sufficiently large values of $|t|$ rather than for all $t\in\RR$. If this is the case, one can construct a new kernel by adding a suitable diffusion polynomial (of a fixed degree) to $G$, as is customary in the theory of radial basis functions, and obtain a kernel whose mask satisfies the definition given above. This does not add any new feature to our theory. Therefore, we assume the more restrictive definition as given above.
For a $S$ times continuously differentiable function $F$, we define $$\||F\||_S:=\sup_{0\le k\le S, x\in\RR}|\derf{F}{k}(x)|.$$ Let $b$ be a mask of type $\beta\in\RR$. In the sequel, if $L>0$, we will write $b_L(t)=b(Lt)$. It is easy to verify by induction that $$\left|t^k\frac{d^k}{dt^k} ((1+t)^\beta b(t))\right|=\left|t^k\frac{d^k}{dt^k}F_b(\log t)\right|\le c(b)c_2, \qquad t> 0, \ k=0,\cdots,S,$$ and hence, \[bderupbd\] |t\^k ((1/L+t)\^b\_L(t))|c(b)c\_2L\^[-]{}, t> 0, k=0,,S, L>0. Since $b(t)^{-1}$ is a mask of type $-\beta$, we record that \[bderlowbd\] |t\^k((1/L+t)\^b\_L(t))\^[-1]{}|c(b)c\_2L\^, t> 0, k=0,,S, L>0. Finally, if $g:\RR\to\RR$ is any compactly supported, $S$ times continuously differentiable function, such that $g(t)=0$ on some neighborhood of $0$ then , imply \[gtimesbineq\] |gb\_L|\_Sc(b,g)L\^[-]{}, |g/b\_L|\_Sc(b,g)L\^, L1.
\[mainsect\] In the remainder of this paper, we fix a number $\beta>0$, a mask $b$ of type $\beta$, and the corresponding kernel $G$. Our main goal in this paper is to construct eignets for approximation of functions in $X^p$ and develop an equivalence theroem for approximation by these. In comparison with the approximation theory paradigm described in the introduction, we choose $X^p$ as the metric space in which the approximation takes place. We consider a nested sequence $\{\C_m\}$ of finite subsets of $\XX$, each satisfying , and such that $q(\C_m)\sim \delta(\C_m)\sim 1/m$, $m=1,2,\cdots$. We let $\V_m$ be the space $\G(\C_m)$. Clearly, $\V_m\subset \V_{m+1}$ for $m=1,2,\cdots$. If $\beta>\a/p'$, we will show in Proposition \[networkkernprop\] below that each $\V_m\subset X^p$. Our initial choice of smoothness classes is the following. If $f\in L^1+L^\infty$ and $r\ge 0$, we define formally $(\Delta^*)^rf$ by $\ip{(\Delta^*)^rf}{\phi_k}=(1+\ell_k)^r\ip{f}{\phi_k}$, $k=0,1,\cdots$. Let $W^p_r$ be the class of all $f\in X^p$ such that $(\Delta^*)^rf\in X^p$. It is proved in [@mauropap] (cf. Proposition \[approxlemma\] below) that for $f\in W^p_r$ and $L>0$, $$\dist(p; f,\Pi_L)\le cL^{-r}\|(\Delta^*)^rf\|_p.$$ Thus, our goal is to approximate a diffusion polynomial in $\Pi_L$ by eignets, *keeping track of the errors*. For this purpose, we need another pseudo-differential operator.
\[gderdef\] The operator ${\cal D}={\cal D}_G$ is defined formally by $\ip{{\cal D}f}{\phi_k}=\ip{f}{\phi_k}/b(\ell_k)$, $k=0,1,\cdots$.
Clearly, ${\cal D}_G$ is defined on $\Pi_\infty$, and it is easy to verify the fundamental fact that \[polyaseignet\] P(x)=\_([D]{}\_GP)(y)G(x,y)d(y), P\_, x. Our eignets will be discretizations of the integral above. Thus, if $\C\subset \XX$ is a finite set, and ${\bf W}=\{w_y\}_{y\in\C}$ are some real numbers, we define \[eignetopdef\] (;[**W**]{}; P, x):=(G;;[**W**]{}; P, x):=\_[y]{} w\_y ([D]{}\_GP)(y) G(x,y), P\_, x. We note that $\GG$ defines a linear operator on $\Pi_\infty$.
Our strategy is to approximate a target function $f\in W^p_r$ first by a diffusion polynomial $P\in\Pi_L$ so that $\|f-P\|_p=\O(L^{-r})$. With a careful choice of $\C$ and ${\bf W}$, we will then show that $\|P-\GG(\C;{\bf W};P)\|_p=\O(L^{-r})$. The results are formulated below as our first theorem. We recall the constant $A\ge 2$ described in the “product assumption” in Section \[manifoldsect\].
\[directtheofirst\] Let $\C^*\subset\XX$ be a finite set satisfying , $L\sim q(\C^*)^{-1}$, ${\bf W}^*$ be a $1/L$–regular set of quadrature weights of order $2AL$ corresponding to $\C^*$. Let $1\le p\le\infty$, $\beta>\a/p'$, $0\le r< \beta$. Let $f\in W^p_r$, and $P\in\Pi_L$ satisfy $\|f-P\|_p\le cL^{-r}\|(\Delta^*)^rf\|_p$. Then \[firstdirectest\] f-(\^\*;[**W**]{}\^\*; P)\_pc\_1L\^[-r]{}(\^\*)\^rf\_p.
We comment on the construction of the diffusion polynomial $P$ in the above theorem. In the sequel, we let $h : \RR\to\RR$ be a fixed, infinitely differentiable, and even function, nonincreasing on $[0,\infty)$, such that $h(t)=1$ if $|t|\le 1/2$ and $h(t)=0$ if $|t|\ge 1$. We will omit the mention of $h$ from the notation, and all constants $c, c_1,\cdots$ may depend upon $h$. We define \[canonsigmaopdef\] \_L(f,x):=\_L(h;f,x):=\_[k=0]{}\^h(\_k/L)\_k(x), L>0, x, fL\^1+L\^. It is proved in [@mauropap] (cf. Proposition \[approxlemma\] below) that $\|f-\sigma_L(f)\|_p \le cL^{-r}\|(\Delta^*)^rf\|_p$, $L>0$. Thus, if $\ip{f}{\phi_k}$ are known (or can be computed) for $\ell_k\le L$, we may take $\sigma_L(f)$ in place of $P$ in Theorem \[directtheofirst\]. However, if $f\in X^\infty$ and only the values of $f$ at finitely many sites $\C$ are known, then we may adopt the following procedure instead. First, we consider $L$ (depending upon $\delta(\C)$) such that Theorem \[mztheo\] is applicable, and yields a $1/L$–regular set of quadrature weights ${\bf W}=\{w_y\}_{y\in\C}$ of order $2AL$. We then define \[discsigmaopfirst\] \_L(; [**W**]{};f,x):=\_[y]{}w\_yf(y){\_[k=0]{}\^h(\_k/L)\_k(y)\_k(x)}=\_[k=0]{}\^h(\_k/L){\_[y]{}w\_yf(y)\_k(y)}\_k(x), which is similar to $\sigma_L(f)$, except that the inner products $\ip{f}{\phi_k}$ are discretized using the quadrature weights. We will prove in Proposition \[approxlemma\] below that \[discapproxfirst\] f-\_L(; [**W**]{};f)\_cL\^[-r]{}{f\_+(\^\*)\^rf\_}, fW\^\_r, L1. Thus, $\sigma_L(\C; {\bf W};f)$ can also be used in place of $P$ in Theorem \[directtheofirst\] in the case when $p=\infty$ to obtain the bound \[discfirstdirectest\] f-(\^\*;[**W**]{}\^\*; \_L(; [**W**]{};f))\_cL\^[-r]{}{f\_+(\^\*)\^rf\_}, fW\^\_r, L1. We may choose $\C^*=\C$ and ${\bf W}^*={\bf W}$ in this case, but do not have to do so. On the other hand, if one does not discretize the inner products $\ip{f}{\phi_k}$ so carefully, then the approximation error might be substantially worse than that in , as shown in the case of the sphere in [@quadconst]. The eignets $\GG(\C^*;{\bf W}^*;P)$ with these choices of $P$ have the advantage of stability as described in Theorem \[jacksontheofirst\] below.
Next, we wish to consider the question whether the estimate is the best possible *for individual functions*, and whether the method of approximation described is the best possible. We wish we could say that if there is any sequence $s_m\in \V_m$ of eignets with $\|f-s_m\|_p=\O(m^{-r})$ then necessarily $f\in W^p_r$. However, such a statement is not true even in the classical trigonometric case. For example, for any $r>0$, the function $\disp f(x)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{\sin kx}{k^{1+r}}$ satisfies the condition that the uniform degree of approximation to $f$ from trigonometric polynomials of degree at most $m$ is $\O(m^{-r})$. However, there is a continuous function $f_1$ such that $\disp (\Delta^*)^r f(x) =f_1(x) +\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{\sin kx}{k}$ is not continuous. In the classical trigonometric case, one needs to enlarge the smoothness class to achieve such an equivalence. This is done via $K$-functionals. We now introduce this notion in the present context. Not to confuse the notation with the heat kernel or the corresponding operator, we will use the notation $\omega$ for the $K$-functional, motivated by the equivalence of the $K$–functional and a modulus of smoothness in the trigonometric case.
If $f\in X^p$, $r>0$ is an integer, we define for $\delta>0$ \[kfuncdef\] \_r(p;f,):={f-f\_1\_p +\^r(\^\*)\^rf\_1\_[p]{} : f\_1W\^p\_r}. If $\gamma>0$, we choose an integer $r>\gamma$, and define the smoothness class $H^p_\gamma$ to be the class of all $f\in X^p$ such that \[hpgammadef\] f\_[H\^p\_]{}:=\_[(0,1\]]{} <. It can be shown that different values of $r>\gamma$ give rise to the same smoothness class with equivalent norms (cf. [@devlorbk]). We note that $W^p_r\subset H^p_r$ for every integer $r\ge 1$. The class $H^p_r$ turns out to be the right enlargement for characterization by approximation by eignets.
First, however, we wish to state the following version of Theorem \[directtheofirst\] in the case when the special polynomials are chosen in place of $P$ in that theorem. A popular technique in learning theory is to obtain an approximation by minimizing a regularization functional. For example, the quantity $\omega_r(p;f,\delta)$ is such a functional. The following theorem shows that the operators $\GG$ defined with these special polynomials satisfy, up to a constant multiple, a minimal regularization property.
\[jacksontheofirst\] Let $1\le p\le \infty$, $f\in X^p$, $\beta>\a/p'$, $0<r<\beta-\a/p'$, $L>0$, $\C^*$, ${\bf W}^*$ be as in Theorem \[directtheofirst\].\
[(a)]{} With $\GG_L(f,x)=\sigma(\C^*; {\bf W}^*; \sigma_L(f),x)$, $x\in\XX$, we have \[jacksonestfirst\] f-\_L(f)\_p +L\^[-r]{}(\^\*)\^r\_L(f)\_p c\_r(p;f,1/L). In particular, $\|\GG_L(f)\|_p\le c\|f\|_p$.\
[(b)]{}Let $\C\subset\XX$ be a finite set satisfying , ${\bf W}=\{w_y\}_{y\in\C}$ be a $1/L$-regular set of quadrature weights on $\C$ of order $2AL$. For $\tilde\GG_L(\C;{\bf W};f,x)=\sigma(\C^*; {\bf W}^*; \sigma_L(\C; {\bf W};f),x)$, $x\in\XX$, we have \[discstability\] \_L(;[**W**]{};f)\_pc{\_[y]{}|w\_y||f(y)|\^p}\^[1/p]{}, and \[discjacksonestfirst\] f-\_L(;[**W**]{};f)\_+L\^[-r]{}(\^\*)\^r\_L(;[**W**]{};f)\_c{\_r(;f,1/L) +L\^[-r]{}f\_}.
We are now ready to state the equivalence theorem for the spaces $\V_m$ described at the beginning of this section. We assume that for each $m\ge 1$, $q(\C_m)\sim 1/m$, and there exists a set of $1/m$–regular set ${\bf W}_m$ of quadrature weights of order $2Am$ based on the set $\C_m$. For $1\le p\le\infty$ and $f\in X^p$, let \[eignetseqdef\] \_m(f,x):=(\_m; [**W**]{}\_m; \_m(f),x), x, m=1,2,. We note that there is no conflict with the notation in Theorem \[jacksontheofirst\], since we may choose $\C^*=\C_L$, ${\bf W}^*={\bf W}_L$.
\[equivtheo\] Suppose that \[heatlowbd\] K\_t(x,x)ct\^[-/2]{}, x, t(0,1\]. Then the following are equivalent for each $\gamma$ with $0<\gamma<\beta-\a/p'$:\
[(a)]{} $f\in H^p_\gamma$.\
[(b)]{} $\sup_{m\ge 1}m^{\gamma}\|f-\GG_m(f)\|_p \le c(f)$.\
[(c)]{} $\sup_{m\ge 1}m^{\gamma}\dist(L^p;f,\G(\C_m)) \le c(f)$.\
In the case when $p=\infty$, each of these assertions is also equivalent to\
[(d)]{} $\sup_{m\ge 1}m^{\gamma}\|f-\GG(\C_m; {\bf W}_m; \sigma_m(\C_m;{\bf W}_m;f))\|_\infty \le c(f)$.
Thus, if one considers the class $H^p_\gamma$ in place of $W^p_r$, then the estimates of the form given in Theorem \[equivtheo\] (b) (or (d)) are best possible for individual functions. One may also formulate a similar equivalence theorem for Besov spaces, defined by replacing the supremum expression in by a suitable integral expression. However, this would only complicate our notations rather than adding any new insight into the subject. Therefore, we prefer not to do so. We note that in the case when $\phi_j$’s (respectively $\ell_j$’s) are the eigenfunctions (respectively, eigenvalues) of the negative square root of the Laplace–Beltrami operator, then Minakshisundaram and Pleijel have proved an asymptotic expression for the heat kernel in [@mincanad], which implies both and . In [@hormander], Hörmander has obtained uniform asymptotics for the sums $\sum_{\ell_j\le L}\phi_j^2(x)$ for a very general class of elliptic differential operators on a manifold. It will be shown in Lemma \[tauberlemma\] that these lead to and (with $x=y$). Further examples are given by Grigorýan [@grigoryan99] and references therein.
We end this section by recording two interesting facts, valid for arbitrary eignets of type $\beta$. The first of these facts relates the coefficients of the eignet with its norm. For a sequence (or vector) of complex numbers ${\bf a}=\{a_j\}$ and $1\le p\le\infty$, we denote by $\|{\bf a}\|_{\ell^p}$, the usual sequential (or Euclidean) $\ell^p$ norm.
\[coefftheo\] We assume that holds. Let $1\le p\le\infty$, $\beta>\a/p'$, $\C\subset\XX$ be a finite set, $a_y\in\RR$, $y\in\C$, and ${\bf a}=(a_y)_{y\in\C}$. Then \[coeffineq\] \_[\^p]{}cq()\^[/p’-]{}\_[y]{} a\_yG(,y)\_p.
The second fact describes the simultaneous approximation property of eignets.
\[simapproxtheo\] We assume that holds. Let $1\le p\le\infty$, $0<\gamma< \beta-\a/p'$, $0< \gamma\le r< \beta$, and $f\in W^p_r$. If $\Psi_m\in\V_m$ satisfy $\|f-\Psi_m\|_p\le cm^{-r}\|(\Delta^*)^r f\|_{p}$ then also $\|(\Delta^*)^\gamma f-(\Delta^*)^\gamma \Psi_m\|_p \le cm^{\gamma-r}\|(\Delta^*)^r f\|_{p}$.
\[abstractsect\]
In our proofs, we need to estimate many sums and integrals. Since these estimates involve similar ideas, we prefer to deal with them in a unifed manner by treating sums as integrals with respect to finitely supported measures. We observe that if $\C\subset\XX$, and $W_x$, $x\in\C$, are any real numbers, a sum of the form $\sum_{x\in \C} W_x f(x)$ can be expressed as a Lebesgue–Stieltjes integral $\int fd\nu$, where $\nu$ is the measure that associates the mass $W_x$ with each point $x\in\C$. The total variation measure in this case is given by $|\nu|(B)=\sum_{x\in B\cap \C}|W_x|$, $B\subset \XX$. Thus, for example, in , if $\nu$ is the measure that associates with each $y\in \C$ the mass $w_y\in {\bf W}$, then we may write \[discsigmaopdef\] \_L(;f,x):=\_f(y)\_[k=0]{}\^h(\_k/L)\_k(y)\_k(x)d(y) in place of the more cumbersome notation $\sigma_L(\C;{\bf W}; f,x)$, helping us thereby to focus our attention on the essential aspects of this measure rather than the choice of $\C$ and $\W$. Moreover, if one takes $\mu$ in place of $\nu$, then $\sigma_L(\mu;f)=\sigma_L(f)$. In addition to being concise, this notation has another major advantage. If the information available about the target function $f$ is neither the spectral data $\{\ip{f}{\phi_k}\}$ nor point evaluations, but, for example, averages of $f$ over small balls, the notation allows one to treat this case as well without introducing yet another notation, just by defining $\nu$ appropriately. In the sequel, with the exception of a few occasions, we will typically use $\nu$ to be one of the following measures: (1) $\mu$, (2) the measure that associates the mass $w_y$ with each $y\in\C$ for some $\C$, (3) the measure that associates the mass $q(\C)^\alpha$ with each $y\in\C$, and (4) various linear combinations of the above measures.
To demonstrate a technical advantage, Definition \[regularmeasuredef\] takes the following form, where the ambiguity and tacit understanding about what the constants depend upon can be avoided, and we get the full advantage of the vector space properties of measures.
\[absregularmeasuredef\] Let $d>0$. A signed measure $\nu$ defined on $\XX$ will be called $d$–regular if there exists a constant $c=c(\nu)>0$ such that \[mzmeasdef\] ||(B(x,r))c{(B(x,r))+d\^}, x, r>0, where $\a$ is the constant introduced in . Let ${\cal M}_d$ denote the class of all signed measures satisfying . Then ${\cal M}_d$ is a vector space. For $\nu\in {\cal M}_d$, if we denote by $\|\nu\|_{{\cal M}_d}$ the infimum of $c$ which serves in , then $\|\circ\|_{{\cal M}_d}$ is a norm on ${\cal M}_d$.
For example, $\mu$ itself is in ${\cal M}_d$ with $\|\mu\|_{{\cal M}_d}=1$ for *every* $d>0$. If $\C\subset\XX$ is as in Theorem \[mztheo\], then we will show in Lemma \[gtildeloclemma\] below that the measures that associate the mass $\mu(B(x,\delta(\C)))$ (respectively, $\delta(\C)^\a$, $q(\C)^\a$, $w_x$, $|w_x|$) with $x\in \C$ are all in ${\cal M}_{\delta(\C)}$ as well as ${\cal M}_{q(\C)}$ with $\|\nu\|_{{\cal M}_{q(\C)}}\le c$, where the constant is independent of $\C$. It is also easy to see that for any $c>0$, ${\cal M}_d\subseteq {\cal M}_{cd}$, with $\|\nu\|_{{\cal M}_{cd}}\le \max(1,c^\a)\|\nu\|_{{\cal M}_d}$. In view of and , the condition is equivalent to \[mzmeasequdef\] ||(B(x,r))c\_[[M]{}\_d]{} (r+d)\^c\_1\_[[M]{}\_d]{}(B(x,r+d)). Finally, we note that since $\mu$ is a probability measure, the condition implies that $|\nu|(B)\le c(1+d^\a)$ for every ball $B\subset \XX$, and hence, that $|\nu|(\XX)\le c(1+d^\a)$ as well.
The quadrature formula can be restated in the form \[quadmeasure\] \_P(y)d(y)=\_P(y)d(y), P\_L, where $\nu$ is the measure that associates the mass $w_y$ with each $y\in\C$. Any (signed or positive) measure $\nu$ satisfying will be called a quadrature measure of order $L$; in particular, $\mu$ itself is a quadrature measure of order $L$ for every $L>0$.
If $\nu$ is a signed or positive Borel measure on $\XX$, $X\subseteq \XX$ is $\nu$-measurable, and $f : X\to \CC$ is a $\nu$-measurable function, we will write $$\|f\|_{\nu;X,p}:=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\disp \left\{\int_{X}|f(x)|^pd|\nu|(x)\right\}^{1/p}, & \mbox{ if $1\le p<\infty$,}\\
|\nu|-\esssup_{x\in X}|f(x)|, &\mbox{ if $p=\infty$.}
\end{array}\right.$$ We will write $L^p(\nu;X)$ to denote the class of all $\nu$–measurable functions $f$ for which $\|f\|_{\nu;X,p}<\infty$, where two functions are considered equal if they are equal $|\nu|$–almost everywhere. To make the notation consistent with the one introduced before, we will omit the mention of $\nu$ if $\nu=\mu$ and that of $X$ if $X=\XX$.
In the sequel, for any $H:\RR\to\RR$, we define formally \[phikerndef\] \_L(H;x,y):=\_[j=0]{}\^H(\_j/L)\_j(x)\_j(y), x,y, L>0. For example, $G(x,y)=\Phi_L(b_L;x,y)$. If $\nu$ is any measure on $\XX$ and $f\in L^p$, we may define formally \[sigmaopdef\] \_L(H;; f,x):=\_f(y)\_L(H;x,y)d(y). As before, we will omit the mention of $\nu$ if $\nu=\mu$ and that of $H$ if $H=h$. Thus, $\Phi_L(x,y)=\Phi_L(h;x,y)$, and similarly $\sigma_L(f,x)=\sigma_L(h;\mu;f)$, $\sigma_L(\nu;f,x)=\sigma_L(h;\nu;f,x)$. The slight inconsistency is resolved by the fact that we use $\mu$, $\nu$, $\tilde\nu$ etc. to denote measures, $h$, $g$, $b$, $H$, etc. to denote functions, and $X$, $\XX$ to denote sets. We do not consider this to be a sufficiently important issue to complicate our notations. We note that $\sigma_L(G(\circ,y),x)=\Phi_L(hb_L;x,y)$.
In the sequel, we define $g$ by $g(t)=h(t)-h(2t)$. We note that $g$ is supported on $(1/4,1)\cup (-1,-1/4)$, and \[gsum\] h()= h(t)+\_[k=1]{}\^n g(), t, n=1,2,.
\[techsect\] In Section \[kernsect\], we prove a few facts regarding the kernels $\Phi_L$, which will be used very often in the proofs in Section \[proofsect\] as well as the rest of the proofs in this section. In Section \[diffpolysect\], we describe several properties of diffusion polynomials and approximation by these. Since we do not need all the assumptions listed in Section \[manifoldsect\], we will list in each theorem only those assumptions which are needed there.
Kernels {#kernsect}
-------
We will often use the following simple application of the Riesz–Thorin interpolation theorem [@bergh Theorem 1.1.1] to estimate the operators defined in terms of kernels.
\[rieszthorinlemma\] Let $\nu_1$, $\nu_2$ be signed measures (having bounded variation) on a measure space $\Omega$, supported on $\Omega_1$ and $\Omega_2$ respectively, $\Phi : \Omega\times\Omega\to\RR$ be a bounded, $|\nu_1|\times|\nu_2|$ measurable function, $1\le p\le\infty$, $f\in L^p(|\nu_1|)$, and let $$T_f(x):=\int f(t)\Phi(x,t)d\nu_1(t).$$ Then with $$A_1 = \sup_{t\in \Omega_1}\|\Phi(\cdot,t)\|_{|\nu_2|;\Omega,1},\ A_\infty=\sup_{x\in \Omega_2}\|\Phi(x,\cdot)\|_{|\nu_1|;\Omega,1},$$ we have \[rieszthorinest\] T\_f\_[|\_2|;, p]{}A\_1\^[1/p]{}A\_\^[1/p’]{}f\_[|\_1|;, p]{}.
It is clear that $\|T_f\|_{|\nu_2|;\Omega,\infty}\le A_\infty\|f\|_{|\nu_1|;\Omega, \infty}$. Fubini’s theorem can be used to see that $\|T_f\|_{|\nu_2|;\Omega,1}\le A_1\|f\|_{|\nu_1|;\Omega, 1}$. The estimate follows by Riesz–Thorin interpolation theorem.
The starting point of our proofs is to recall the following theorem proved in [@mauropap], and in [@filbirbern] in somewhat greater generality, stating the assumptions as they are stated in this paper.
\[kerntheo\] Let $S>\a$ be an integer, $H:\RR\to \RR$ be an even, $S$ times continuously differentiable function, supported on $[-1,1]$. We assume further that , hold. Then for every $x,y\in \XX$, $L>0$, \[kernlocest\] | \_L(H;x,y)|. Consequently, \[kernbdest\] \_[x]{}\_| \_L(H;x,y)|d(y) c|H|\_S, and for every $1\le p\le \infty$ and $f\in L^p$, \[sigmaopbd\] \_L(H;f)\_pc|H|\_Sf\_p.
The following Propositions \[criticalprop\] and \[networkkernprop\] will be used very often in this section, with different interpretations for $H$ and the measures involved.
\[criticalprop\] Let $d>0$, $S$, $H$ be as in Theorem \[kerntheo\], and , hold. Let $\nu\in {\cal M}_d$, $L>0$, and $c$ be the constant that appears in . Let $1\le p\le \infty$, $1/p'+1/p=1$.\
[(a)]{} If $g_1:[0,\infty)\to [0,\infty)$ is a nonincreasing function, then for any $L>0$, $r>0$, $x\in\XX$, \[g1ineq\] L\^\_[(x,r)]{}g\_1(L(x,y))d||(y)\_[[M]{}\_d]{}\_[rL/2]{}\^g\_1(u)u\^[-1]{}du. If $r\ge 1/L$, then \[phiintaway\] \_[(x,r)]{}|\_L(H;x,y)|d||(y) c\_1(1+(dL)\^)(rL)\^[-S+]{}\_[[M]{}\_d]{}|H|\_S. We have \[phiinttotal\] \_|\_L(H;x,y)|d||(y)c\_2{(1+(dL)\^)}\_[[M]{}\_d]{}|H|\_S, \[philpnorm\] \_L(H;x,)\_[;,p]{} c\_3L\^[/p’]{}{(1+(dL)\^)}\^[1/p]{}\_[[M]{}\_d]{}|H|\_S.
By replacing $\nu$ by $|\nu|/\|\nu\|_{{\cal M}_d}$, we may assume that $\nu$ is positive, and $\|\nu\|_{{\cal M}_d}=1$. With a similar normalization with $H$, we may also assume that $\||H\||_S=1$. Moreover, for $r>0$, $\nu(B(x,r))\le \mu(B(x,r))+d^\a \le (c+(d/r)^\a)r^\a$, where $c$ is the constant appearing in . In this proof only, we will write ${\cal A}(x,t)=\{y\in\XX\ :\ t< \rho(x,y)\le 2t\}$. We note that $\nu({\cal A}(x,t))\le 2^\a(c+(d/r)^\a)t^\a$, $t\ge r$, and $$\int_{2^{R-1}}^{2^R}u^{\a-1}du = \frac{1-2^{-\a}}{\a} 2^{R\a}.$$ Since $g_1$ is nonincreasing, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\int_{\Delta(x,r)}g_1(L\rho(x,y))d\nu(y)=\sum_{R=0}^\infty \int_{{\cal A}(x,2^{R}r)}g_1(L\rho(x,y))d\nu(y)}\\
&\le& \sum_{R=0}^\infty g_1(2^RrL)\nu({\cal A}(x,2^{R}r)) \le 2^\a(c+(d/r)^\a)\sum_{R=0}^\infty g_1(2^RrL)(2^{R}r)^\a\\
&\le&\frac{2^{\a}(c+(d/r)^\a)\a}{1-2^{-\a}}r^\a\sum_{R=0}^\infty \int_{2^{R-1}}^{2^R} g_1(urL)u^{\a-1}du =\frac{2^{\a}(c+(d/r)^\a)\a}{1-2^{-\a}}r^\a\int_{1/2}^\infty g_1(urL)u^{\a-1}du\\
&=&\frac{2^{\a}(c+(d/r)^\a)\a}{1-2^{-\a}}L^{-\a}\int_{rL/2}^\infty g_1(v)v^{\a-1}dv.\end{aligned}$$ This proves .
Let $x\in\XX$, $L>0$. For $r\ge 1/L$, $d/r\le dL$. In view of and , we have for $x\in \XX$: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Delta(x,r)}|\Phi_L(H;x,y)|d\nu(y)&\le& c_1L^\a \int_{\Delta(x,r)}(L\rho(x,y))^{-S}d\nu(y)\le
c_1(c+(dL)^\a)\int_{rL/2}^\infty v^{-S+\a-1}dv\\
&\le&c_2(1+(dL)^\a)(rL)^{-S+\a}.\end{aligned}$$ This proves .
Using with $r=1/L$, we obtain that \[pf1eqn1\] \_[(x,1/L)]{}|\_L(H;x,y)|d(y)c\_2(1+(dL)\^). We observe that in view of , and the fact that $\nu(B(x,1/L))\le c_1(1/L+d)^\a \le c_1L^{-\a}(1+(dL)^\a)$, $$\int_{B(x,1/L)}|\Phi_L(H;x,y)|d\nu(y)\le c_1L^\a\nu(B(x,1/L))\le c_1(1+(dL)^\a).$$ Together with , this leads to .
The estimate follows from in the case $p=\infty$, and from in the case $p=1$. For $1<p<\infty$, it follows from the convexity inequality \[convexityineq\] F\_[;,p]{}F\_[;,]{}\^[1/p’]{}F\_[;,1]{}\^[1/p]{}.
\[btimeshcor\] Let $\beta\in\RR$, $\tilde b$ be a mask of type $\beta$, $n\ge 1$ be an integer, $\nu\in{\cal M}_{2^{-n}}$, and , hold. Then for integer $n\ge 1$, \[btimeshint\] \_[x]{}\_|\_[2\^n]{}(hb\_[2\^n]{};x,y)|d||(y)c\_[[M]{}\_[2\^[-n]{}]{}]{}{
[ll]{} 2\^[-n]{}, &\
n, &\
1, &
. and for $1\le p\le\infty$, \[btimeshnorm\] \_[2\^n]{}(hb\_[2\^n]{};x,)\_p c\_[[M]{}\_[2\^[-n]{}]{}]{}{
[ll]{} 2\^[-n(-/p’)]{}, &\
n, &\
1, &
.
We normalize $\nu$ so that $\|\nu\|_{{\cal M}_{2^{-n}}}=1$. In view of , \[pf12eqn1\]\
&=& \_[\_j1]{} h(\_j)b(\_j)\_j(x)\_j(y)+\_[k=1]{}\^n \_[j=0]{}\^g()b(\_j)\_j(x)\_j(y)\
&=& \_[\_j1]{} h(\_j)b(\_j)\_j(x)\_j(y)+\_[k=1]{}\^n \_[2\^k]{}(gb\_[2\^k]{};x,y). Since $h$ and $\tilde b$ are both bounded functions, shows that \[pf12eqn2\] |\_[\_j1]{} h(\_j)b(\_j)\_j(x)\_j(y)|c, x,y. In view of used with $\tilde b$ in place of $b$, and used with $d=2^{-n}$, $L=2^k$, $H=g\tilde b_{2^k}$, we obtain $$\sup_{x\in\XX}\int_\XX |\Phi_{2^k}(g\tilde b_{2^k};x,y)|d|\nu|(y)\le c2^{-k\beta}, \qquad k=1,2,\cdots,n.$$ Together with and , this leads to . The proof of is similar; we use in place of .
We observe that if $\C$ is a finite subset of $\XX$, $\nu$ is the measure that associates the mass $q(\C)^\a$ with each $y\in\C$, then an eignet $\Psi(x) =\sum_{y\in \C} a_yG(x,y)$ can be expressed as $q(\C)^{-\a}\int_\XX a(y)G(x,y)d\nu(y)$, and $\sigma_L(\Psi,x)=q(\C)^{-\a}\int_\XX a(y)\Phi_L(hb_L;x,y)d\nu(y)$. One of the applications of the following proposition is then to estimate $\|\Psi-\sigma_L(\Psi)\|_p$. A different application is given in Lemma \[polytoeignetlemma\].
\[networkkernprop\] Let $1\le p\le\infty$, $\beta>\a/p'$, $b$ be a mask of type $\beta$, and , hold.\
[(a)]{} For every $y\in\XX$, there exists $\psi_y:=G(\circ,y)\in X^p$ such that $\ip{\psi_y}{\phi_k} =b(\ell_k)\phi_k(y)$, $k=0,1,\cdots$. We have \[glpuniform\] \_[y]{}G(,y)\_p c. Let $n\ge 1$ be an integer, $\nu\in{\cal M}_{2^{-n}}$, and for $F\in L^1(\nu)\cap L^\infty(\nu)$, $m\ge n$, $$U_m(F,x):=\int_{y\in\XX} \{G(x,y)-\Phi_{2^{m}}(hb_{2^{m}};x,y)\}F(y)d\nu(y).$$ Then \[terrest\] U\_m(F)\_p c2\^[-m]{}2\^[(m-n)/p’]{}\_[[M]{}\_[2\^[-n]{}]{}]{}F\_[;,p]{}.
Since $\mu\in {\cal M}_d$ and $\|\mu\|_{{\cal M}_d}=1$ for every $d>0$, we conclude from and (used with $\mu$ in place of $\nu$, $1/L$ in place of $d$, $H=gb_{L}$), that $$\sup_{y\in\XX}\|\Phi_{L}(gb_{L};y,\circ)\|_p \le cL^{\a/p'-\beta}, \qquad L\ge 1.$$ Since $\beta>\a/p'$, we conclude for integers $1\le n\le N$, \[pf7eqn1\] \_[y]{}\_[j=n+1]{}\^N \_[2\^[j]{}]{}(gb\_[2\^[j]{}]{};y,)\_p \_[j=n+1]{}\^N \_[y]{}\_[2\^[j]{}]{}(gb\_[2\^[j]{}]{};y,)\_p c2\^[n(/p’-)]{}. Thus, the sequence \[pf7eqn2\] \_1(hb\_1;y,) +\_[j=1]{}\^n \_[2\^[j]{}]{}(gb\_[2\^[j]{}]{};y,) =\_[2\^n]{}(hb\_[2\^n]{}; y,) converges in $L^p$ to some function in $X^p$, uniformly in $y$. Denoting this function by $\psi_y$, it is easy to calculate that $\ip{\psi_y}{\phi_k} =b(\ell_k)\phi_k(y)$. Thus, the formal expansion of $\psi_y$ is the same as that of $G(\circ,y)$. Moreover, $$\sigma_{2^n}(\psi_y,x)=\sigma_{2^n}(G(x,\circ),y) = \Phi_{2^n}(hb_{2^n}; y,x)$$ converges to $G(x,y)$ in the sense of $L^p$ in $x$, and uniformly in $y$. The estimate is clear from and .
To prove part (b), we use a similar argument again. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\nu$ is a positive measure and $\|\nu\|_{{\cal M}_{2^{-n}}}=1$. Let $j\ge n$ be an integer. Using , with $2^{-n}$ for $d$, $2^j$ in place of $L$, and oberving that $dL\ge 1$ with these choices, we obtain \[pf3eqn1\] \_[x]{}\_|\_[2\^[j]{}]{}(gb\_[2\^[j]{}]{};x,y)|d(y) c2\^[-n]{}2\^[-j(-)]{}. Using , with $\mu$ in place of $\nu$, $2^j$ in place of $L$, and $2^{-j}$ for $d$, we obtain $$\sup_{x\in\XX}\int_\XX|\Phi_{2^{j}}(gb_{2^{j}};x,y)|d\mu(y) \le c2^{-j\beta}.$$ Hence, Lemma \[rieszthorinlemma\] with $\nu$ in place of $\nu_1$, $\mu$ in place of $\nu_2$, implies that \[pf3eqn3\] \_\_[2\^[j]{}]{}(gb\_[2\^[j]{}]{};,y)F(y)d(y)\_pc2\^[-n/p’]{}2\^[-j(-/p’)]{}F\_[;,p]{}. Since $\beta>\a/p'$, the sequence $$\int_\XX \Phi_{2^n}(hb_{2^n};\circ,y)F(y)d\nu(y) =\int_\XX \Phi_1(hb;\circ,y)F(y)d\nu(y)+\sum_{j=1}^n \int_\XX \Phi_{2^{j}}(gb_{2^{j}};\circ,y)F(y)d\nu(y)$$ converges in the sense of $L^p$ to some function in $X^p$. Since $\Phi_{2^n}(hb_{2^n};\circ,y)\to G(\circ,y)$ in the sense of $L^p$ uniformly in $y$, this function must be $\int_\XX G(\circ,y)F(y)d\nu(y)$. Consequently, $$U_m(F,\circ) = \sum_{j=m+1}^\infty \int_\XX \Phi_{2^{j}}(gb_{2^{j}};\circ,y)F(y)d\nu(y)$$ in the sense of $L^p$, and implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\|U_m(F)\|_p \le \sum_{j=m+1}^\infty \left\|\int_\XX \Phi_{2^{j}}(gb_{2^{j}};\circ,y)F(y)d\nu(y)\right\|_p}\\
&\le& c2^{-n\a/p'}\sum_{j=m+1}^\infty2^{-j(\beta-\a/p')}\|F\|_{\nu;\XX,p} \le c2^{-m\beta}2^{\a(m-n)/p'}\|F\|_{\nu;\XX,p}.\end{aligned}$$
We pause in our discussion to show that implies a lower bound on the sum $\sum_{\ell_j\le L}\phi_j^2(x)$.
\[tauberlemma\] Let $C>0$, $\{a_j\}$ be a sequence of nonnegative numbers such that $\sum_{j=0}^\infty \exp(-\ell_j^2t)a_j$ converges for $t\in (0,1]$. Then \[genchristlowbd\] c\_1L\^C\_[\_jL]{}a\_j c\_2L\^C, L>0, if and only if \[genheatlowbd\] c\_3t\^[-C/2]{}\_[j=0]{}\^(-\_j\^2t)a\_jc\_4t\^[-C/2]{}, t(0,1\]. In particular, and imply that \[christfnbd\] c\_1L\^\_[\_jL]{}\_j\^2(x)c\_2L\^, x, L1.
The fact that the upper bound in is equivalent to the upper bound in is proved in [@filbirbern Proposition 4.1]. In this proof only, let $s(u)=\sum_{\ell_j\le u} a_j$. Then $$\sum_{j=0}^\infty \exp(-\ell_j^2t)a_j=\int_0^\infty e^{-u^2t}ds(u).$$ Since the sum converges, it is not difficult to verify by integration by parts that \[pf13eqn1\] \_[j=0]{}\^(-\_j\^2t)a\_j=2t\_0\^ue\^[-u\^2t]{}s(u)du. If holds, then $s(u)\ge cu^C$ for $u>0$, and $$2t\int_0^\infty ue^{-u^2t}s(u)du\ge 2ct\int_0^\infty u^{C+1}e^{-u^2t}du=ct^{-C/2}\int_0^\infty v^{C/2}e^{-v}dv =c_1t^{-C/2}.$$ Thus, the lower bound in implies the lower bound in .
In the remainder of this proof, it is convenient to let the constants retain their value, which might be different from what they were in the above part of the proof. Let both the upper and lower inequalities in hold. Then the upper bound in holds also. We observe by integration by parts that for any $L>0$, $L^2t\ge C$, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_L^\infty u^{C+1}e^{-u^2t}du&=&\frac{(L^2t)^{C/2}}{2t^{C/2+1}}\exp(-L^2t) +\frac{C}{2t}\int_L^\infty u^{C-1}e^{-u^2t}du\\
& \le& \frac{(L^2t)^{C/2}}{2t^{C/2+1}}\exp(-L^2t) +\frac{C}{2L^2t}\int_L^\infty u^{C+1}e^{-u^2t}du;\end{aligned}$$ i.e., $$2t\int_L^\infty u^{C+1}e^{-u^2t}du\le \left(1-\frac{C}{2L^2t}\right)^{-1}(L^2t)^{C/2}\exp(-L^2t)t^{-C/2}.$$ Thus, there exists $c_5$ such that $$2t\int_L^\infty u^{C+1}e^{-u^2t}du\le \frac{c_3}{2c_2}t^{-C/2}, \qquad L^2t\ge c_5.$$ We conclude from the lower bound in , , and the upper bound in , that for $t, L>0$, $L^2t\ge c_5$, $$\begin{aligned}
c_3t^{-C/2}&\le& 2t\int_0^\infty ue^{-u^2t}s(u)du = 2t\int_0^L ue^{-u^2t}s(u)du+2t\int_L^\infty ue^{-u^2t}s(u)du\\
&\le& 2ts(L)\int_0^L ue^{-u^2t}du+2c_2t\int_L^\infty u^{C+1}e^{-u^2t}du\\
&\le& s(L)(1-\exp(-L^2t)) +c_3t^{-C/2}/2.\end{aligned}$$ Taking $t=c_5L^{-2}$, we obtain from here that $s(L)\ge c_6L^C$.
In the remainder of this paper, we adopt the following notation. Let $k^*\ge \max(2,(1/\a)\log_2(2c_2/c_1))$ be a fixed integer, where $c_1, c_2$ are the constants in . Then for $x\in\XX$, $$\sum_{\ell_j\le 2^{-k^*}L}\phi_j^2(x) \le c_22^{-\a k^*}L^\a \le (c_1/2)L^\a,$$ and hence, implies that \[levelchristbd\] \_[2\^[-k\^\*]{}L\_jL]{}\_j\^2(x)(c\_1/2)L\^. We further introduce $\tilde g(t):=h(t)-h(2^{k^*+1}t)$. Then $\tilde g(t)\ge 0$ for all $t\in\RR$, $\tilde g(t)=0$ if $0\le t\le 2^{-k^*-2}$ or $t\ge 1$, and $\tilde g(t)=1$ if $2^{-k^*-1}\le t\le 1/2$. We note that \[tildegtimesbineq\] |g b\_L|\_ScL\^[-]{}, L1.
The following lemma will be needed in the proof of Theorem \[coefftheo\].
\[gtildeloclemma\] Suppose that holds. Let $\C\subset\XX$ be a finite set, $q=q(\C)\le 1$, and $\nu$ be a measure that associates the mass $q^\a$ with each $x\in\C$. Let , , and hold. Then $\nu\in {\cal M}_{q}$, and $\|\nu\|_{{\cal M}_q}\le c$, the constant being independent of $q$. Next, we assume in addition that holds. Then for every integer $m$ with $2^m\ge q^{-1}$, \[awayest\] \_[y, x=y]{}|\_[2\^m]{}(g b\_[2\^m]{};x,y)| c(q2\^[m]{})\^[-S+]{}2\^[m(-)]{}, x, and \[pf9eqn1\] \_[2\^m]{}(g b\_[2\^m]{};x,x)c2\^[m(-)]{}, x. In particular, there exists $c_1>0$ such that for $2^mq\ge c_1$, \[diagdomfortildeg\] \_[y, x=y]{}|\_[2\^m]{}(g b\_[2\^m]{};x,y)|(1/2)|\_[2\^m]{}(g b\_[2\^m]{};x,x)|, x.
If $x_0\in\XX$, $r>0$ and $B(x_0,r)\cap \C=\{y_1,\cdots,y_J\}$, then the balls $B(y_j, q/2)$ are disjoint, and $\cup_{j=1}^J B(y_j, q/2) \subset B(x_0,r+q/2)$. Using the fact that $\nu(B(x_0,r))=q^\a J$, and recalling , we obtain $$\mu(B(x_0,r+q/2))\ge \mu(\cup_{j=1}^J B(y_j, q/2))=\sum_{j=1}^J\mu(B(y_j, q/2)) \ge cJq^\a =c\nu(B(x_0,r)).$$ In turn, now implies that $\nu\in {\cal M}_{q}$, and $\|\nu\|_{{\cal M}_q}\le c$. Since every point $y\in\C$ with $y\not=x$ is in $\Delta(x,q)$, and , used with $q$ in place of $r$ and $d$, $2^m$ in place of $L$, imply that $$q^\a\sum_{y\in\C,\ x\not=y}|\Phi_{2^m}(\tilde g b_{2^m};x,y)| \le c(q2^m)^{-S+2\a}2^{-m\beta}= cq^\a (q2^m)^{-S+\a}2^{m(\a-\beta)}.$$ This proves .
We recall that $\tilde g(t)=1$ if $2^{-k^*-1}\le t\le 1/2$ and $b(\ell_j)\ge c\ell_j^{-\beta}$ for $\ell_j\ge c$. Consequently, implies that for any $m\ge c$, and $x\in\XX$, $$\Phi_{2^m}(\tilde g b_{2^m};x,x) =\sum_{2^{m-k^*-2}\le \ell_j\le 2^m}\tilde g(\ell_j/2^m)b(\ell_j)\phi_j^2(x) \ge c2^{-m\beta}\sum_{2^{m-1-k^*}\le \ell_j\le 2^{m-1}} \phi_j^2(x)\ge c2^{m(\a-\beta)}.$$ This proves . Recalling that $S>\a$, we may choose $m$ to make $2^mq$ large enough, yet $\sim 1$, so that and lead to .
Diffusion polynomials {#diffpolysect}
---------------------
In this section, we summarize various properties of the diffusion polynomials, and approximation by these. The first statement is only a simple corollary of Theorem \[kerntheo\].
\[mzcor\] Let $1\le p\le \infty$, $d>0$, $H$, and the other conditions be as in Theorem \[kerntheo\], and $\nu\in {\cal M}_{d}$. Then for any $L>0$ and $P\in \Pi_{L}$, \[mutonusigmaopbd\] \_L(H;;f)\_[;,p]{} c(1+(dL)\^)\^[1/p]{}\_[[M]{}\_[d]{}]{}\^[1/p]{}|H|\_Sf\_p, \[nutomusigmaopbd\] \_L(H;;f)\_p c(1+(dL)\^)\^[1/p’]{}\_[[M]{}\_[d]{}]{}\^[1/p’]{}|H|\_Sf\_[;,p]{}. In particular, if $P\in \Pi_L$ then \[polymzineq\] P\_[;,p]{}c(1+(dL)\^)\^[1/p]{}\_[[M]{}\_[d]{}]{}\^[1/p]{}P\_p.
The estimates and follow from Lemma \[rieszthorinlemma\], , and . Let $P\in \Pi_L$. Then $\sigma_{2L}(h;\mu;P)=P$. We use with $2L$ in place of $L$, $h$ in place of $H$, and $P$ in place of $f$ to deduce .
The next lemma states some estimates for different pseudo–derivatives of diffusion polynomials.
\[gderlemma\] Let $\beta>\gamma\ge 0$, $L>0$, $P\in \Pi_L$, and , hold.\
[(a)]{} For any $r\ge 0$, \[pseudobern\] (\^\*)\^rP\_p cL\^rP\_p. If $G$ is a kernel of type $\beta$, and ${\cal D}_G$ is the operator defined in Definition \[gderdef\], then \[gderbd\] \_GP\_p cL\^[-]{}(\^\*)\^P\_p.
Part (a) is proved in [@mauropap]. We will prove part (b). In this proof only, let $n\ge 1$ be an integer such that $L\le 2^{n-1}$. In this proof only, let $ b_\gamma(t)=(1+|t|)^\gamma b(t)$, $t\in\RR$. Then $b_\gamma^{-1}$ is a mask of type $\gamma-\beta<0$. For $x\in\XX$, we have \[pf11eqn2\] [D]{}\_GP(x)&=&\_[j=0]{}\^ h()\_j(x)\
&=& \_[j=0]{}\^h()\_j(x)\
&=&\_\_[2\^n]{}(h/b\_[,2\^n]{}; x,y)(\^\*)\^P(y)d(y). We deduce using with $b_\gamma^{-1}$, $\gamma-\beta<0$ in place of $\beta$, and Lemma \[rieszthorinlemma\] with $\nu_1=\nu_2=\mu$.
Even though a product of two diffusion polynomials is not necessarily a diffusion polynomial, the “product assumption” allows us to estimate the error in discretizing an integral of the product of such polynomials using a quadrature measure. This is summarized in the next lemma.
\[quaderrlemma\] Let $L>0$, and , hold. For any $p, r$, $1\le p\le r\le\infty$ and $P\in\Pi_L$, \[nikolskii\] P\_rcL\^[(1/p-1/r)]{}P\_p. We assume further that the product assumption holds. If $\nu$ is a quadrature measure of order $AL$, $|\nu|(\XX)\le c$, and $P_1,P_2\in\Pi_L$ then for any $p, r$, $1\le p, r\le\infty$ and any positive number $R>0$, \[polyquaderr\] |\_P\_1P\_2d-\_P\_1P\_2d| c\_1L\^[2]{}\_LP\_1\_pP\_2\_r c(R)L\^[-R]{}P\_1\_pP\_2\_r.
Since $$P(x)=\int_\XX P(y)\Phi_{2L}(x,y)d\mu(y),$$ implies that $\|P\|_\infty\le cL^\a \|P\|_1$. Therefore, the convexity inequality (cf. ) implies that $\|P\|_\infty \le cL^{\a/p}\|P\|_p$. If $r<\infty$, then $$\|P\|_r^r=\int_\XX |P(x)|^rd\mu(x)\le \|P\|_\infty^{r-p}\|P\|_p^p\le cL^{\a(r/p-1)}\|P\|_p^r.$$ This proves .
Next, we assume that the product assumption holds. Let $P_1=\sum_{\ell_m\le L}a_j\phi_j$, $P_2=\sum_{\ell_k\le L}d_k\phi_k$, and $Q_{j,k}\in \Pi_{AL}$ be found so that $\|\phi_j\phi_k-Q_{j,k}\|_\infty\le 2\dist(\infty;\phi_j\phi_k,\Pi_{AL})\le 2\e_L$. Then, with $Q:=\sum_{j,k}a_jd_kQ_{j,k}$, we have for every $x\in\XX$, \[pf5eqn1\] |P\_1(x)P\_2(x)-Q(x)| =|\_[j,k]{}a\_jd\_k(\_j(x)\_k(x)-Q\_[j,k]{}(x))|2\_L\_[j,k]{}|a\_j||d\_k|. In view of , $$|\{\ell_m\ :\ \ell_m\le L\}| =\sum_{\ell_m\le L}\int_\XX\phi_m^2(x)d\mu(x) \le cL^\a.$$ Therefore, we conclude using and that $$\|P_1P_2-Q\|_\infty\le 2\e_L\sum_{j,k}|a_j||d_k|\le cL^\a\e_L\|{\bf a}\|_{\ell^2}\|{\bf d}\|_{\ell^2}=cL^\a\e_L\|P_1\|_2\|P_2\|_2\le cL^{2\a}\e_L\|P_1\|_p\|P_2\|_r.$$ Recalling that $|\nu|(\XX)\le c$, and $\int_\XX Qd\mu=\int_\XX Qd\nu$, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left|\int_\XX P_1(x)P_2(x)d\mu(x)-\int_\XX P_1(x)P_2(x)d\nu(x)\right|}\\
&=&\left|\int_\XX (P_1(x)P_2(x)-Q(x))d\mu(x)-\int_\XX (P_1(x)P_2(x)-Q(x))d\nu(x)\right|\\
&\le&c\|P_1P_2-Q\|_\infty \le cL^{2\a}\e_L\|P_1\|_p\|P_2\|_r.\end{aligned}$$ The product assumption implies that $L^{2\a+R}\e_L\le c$, leading thereby to .
Next, we prove a result regarding approximation by diffusion polynomials. Part (a) of this result is essentially proved in [@mauropap]; we prove it again for the sake of completeness.
\[approxlemma\] For $1\le p\le\infty$, $f\in X^p$, $L>0$, $r>0$, and , hold.\
[(a)]{} We have \[jacksonest\] f-\_L(f)\_p +L\^[-r]{}(\^\*)\^r\_L(f)\_p c\_r(p;f,1/L). In particular, if $f\in W^p_r$, then \[polyfavard\] (p;f,\_L)f-\_L(f)\_p cL\^[-r]{}(\^\*)\^rf\_p. If $f\in W^p_r$, $P\in \Pi_L$ satisfies $\|f-P\|_p\le \e$, then \[freudest\] (\^\*)\^r f- (\^\*)\^rP\_pc{L\^r+(p;(\^\*)\^rf, \_[L/2]{})}. In particular, $\|(\Delta^*)^rP\|_p\le c(L^r\e+\|(\Delta^*)^rf\|_{p})$.\
[(c)]{} We assume in addition that the product assumption holds. Let $\nu$ be a $1/L$–regular quadrature measure of order $AL$. For any $f\in W^\infty_r$, \[discapproxbd\] f-\_L(;f)\_cL\^[-r]{}{f\_+(\^\*)\^rf\_}. If $f\in X^\infty$, then \[disckfuncreal\] f-\_L(;f)\_+L\^[-r]{}(\^\*)\^r\_L(;f)\_c{\_r(;f,L\^[-1]{})+L\^[-r]{}f\_}.
First, we prove . This proof is the same as that of [@mauropap (6.4)]. Thus, let $J$ be the greatest integer with $2^J\le L$. In this proof only, let $g_j(t)=g(t)/(2^{-j}+|t|)^r$, $t\in\RR$. Recalling that $g$ is supported on $[1/4,1]\cup [-1,-1/4]$, we see that $\||g_j\||_S\le c$. Hence, implies that $$\|\sigma_{2^{j}}(g; f)\|_p=2^{-jr}\|\sigma_{{2^j}}(g_j; (\Delta^*)^rf)\|_p \le c2^{-jr}\|(\Delta^*)^rf\|_p.$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\dist(p;f,\Pi_L)&\le& \dist(p;f,\Pi_{2^J}) \le \|f-\sigma_{2^J}(f)\|_p\le \sum_{j=J+1}^\infty \|\sigma_{2^{j}}(g; f)\|_p\\
&\le& c2^{-Jr}\|(\Delta^*)^rf\|_p\le cL^{-r}\|(\Delta^*)^rf\|_p.\end{aligned}$$ If $P\in\Pi_{L/2}$ is chosen so that $\|f-P\|_p\le 2\dist(p;f,\Pi_{L/2})$, then implies that $$\|f-\sigma_L(f)\|_p =\|f-P-\sigma_L(f-P)\|_p \le c\|f-P\|_p\le c\dist(p;f,\Pi_{L/2})\le cL^{-r}\|(\Delta^*)^rf\|_p.$$ This proves . In particular, we note that if $Q\in\Pi_{L/2}$ is chosen so that $\|(\Delta^*)^r(f-Q)\|_p\le 2\dist(p;(\Delta^*)^rf,\Pi_{L/2})$, then \[pf8eqn2\] f-\_L(f)\_p =f-Q-\_L(f-Q)\_pcL\^[-r]{}(\^\*)\^r(f-Q)\_pcL\^[-r]{}(p;(\^\*)\^rf,\_[L/2]{}). Next, let $f_1$ be chosen so that $\|f-f_1\|_p+L^{-r}\|(\Delta^*)^rf_1\|_p \le 2\omega_r(p;f,1/L)$. Then using and , we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\|f-\sigma_L(f)\|_p +L^{-r}\|(\Delta^*)^r\sigma_L(f)\|_p}\\
& \le& \|f-f_1-\sigma_L(f-f_1)\|_p +\|f_1-\sigma_L(f_1)\|_p +L^{-r}\left(\|(\Delta^*)^r\sigma_L(f-f_1)\|_p +\|(\Delta^*)^r\sigma_L(f_1)\|_p\right)\\
&\le& c\{\|f-f_1\|_p +L^{-r}\|(\Delta^*)^rf_1\|_p + \|\sigma_L(f-f_1)\|_p +L^{-r}\|\sigma_L((\Delta^*)^rf_1)\|_p\}\\
&\le& c\{\|f-f_1\|_p +L^{-r}\|(\Delta^*)^rf_1\|_p\}\le c\omega_r(p;f,1/L).\end{aligned}$$ This proves .
Next, we prove part (b). In view of , , and , $$\begin{aligned}
\|(\Delta^*)^rP-(\Delta^*)^r f\|_p &\le& \|(\Delta^*)^r(P-\sigma_{L}(f))\|_p +\|(\Delta^*)^r(f-\sigma_{L}(f))\|_p\\
&=&\|(\Delta^*)^r(P-\sigma_{L}(f))\|_p +\|(\Delta^*)^r(f)-\sigma_{L}((\Delta^*)^r(f))\|_p\\
&\le& cL^r\|P-\sigma_{L}(f)\|_p +c_1\dist(p;(\Delta^*)^rf,\Pi_{L/2})\\
&\le& cL^r\|P-f\|_p+cL^r\|f-\sigma_{L}(f)\|_p+c_1\dist(p;(\Delta^*)^rf,\Pi_{L/2})\\
&\le& cL^r\e + c_1\dist(p;(\Delta^*)^rf,\Pi_{L/2}).\end{aligned}$$ This proves part (b).
To prove part (c), let $P\in\Pi_{L/2}$ be arbitrary. Since $$P(x)=\int_\XX P(y)\Phi_L(x,y)d\mu(y), \qquad x\in\XX,$$ we obtain from (with $r$ in place of $R$) and that for every $x\in\XX$, \[pf8eqn4\] |P(x)-\_L(;P,x)|&=&|\_P(y)\_L(x,y)d(y)-\_P(y)\_L(x,y)d(y)|\
&& c\_1L\^[-r]{}P\_\_L(x,)\_1cL\^[-r]{}P\_. Hence, if $f\in W^\infty_r$, \[pf8eqn1\] f-\_L(;f)\_&& f-\_[L/2]{}(f)\_+\_L(;f-\_[L/2]{}(f))\_\
&&+ \_[L/2]{}(f)-\_L(;\_[L/2]{}(f))\_\
&& c{f-\_[L/2]{}(f)\_+L\^[-r]{}\_[L/2]{}(f)\_}\
&& cL\^[-r]{}{(\^\*)\^rf\_+f\_}. This proves . Next, let $f\in X^\infty$, and $$\|f-f_1\|_\infty +L^{-r}\|(\Delta^*)^rf_1\|_{\infty}\le 2\omega_r(\infty;f,1/L).$$ Then using and (with $f_1$ in place of $f$), we obtain \[pf8eqn3\] f-\_L(;f)\_&& f-f\_1\_+\_L(;f-f\_1)\_+f\_1-\_L(;f\_1)\_\
& & c{ f-f\_1\_+L\^[-r]{}(\^\*)\^rf\_1\_+L\^[-r]{}f\_1\_}\
&& c{\_r(;f,L\^[-1]{})+L\^[-r]{}f\_}. Applying with $f_1$ in place of $f$, and using part (b) of this proposition, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\|(\Delta^*)^rf_1-(\Delta^*)^r\sigma_L(\nu;f_1)\|_\infty &\le& c\{\|(\Delta^*)^rf_1\|_\infty +\|f_1\|_\infty +\|(\Delta^*)^rf_1\|_\infty\}\\
&\le& c\{\|f-f_1\|_\infty +\|(\Delta^*)^rf_1\|_\infty +\|f\|_\infty\}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, using and the uniform boundedness of the operators $\sigma_L(\nu)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|(\Delta^*)^r\sigma_L(\nu;f)\|_\infty &\!\!\le\!\!&\|(\Delta^*)^r\sigma_L(\nu;f-f_1)\|_\infty +\|(\Delta^*)^rf_1-(\Delta^*)^r\sigma_L(\nu;f_1)\|_\infty+\|(\Delta^*)^rf_1\|_\infty \\
&\le& c\{L^r\|\sigma_L(\nu;f-f_1)\|_\infty +\|f-f_1\|_\infty +\|(\Delta^*)^rf_1\|_\infty +\|f\|_\infty\}\\
&\le& c\{L^r\|f-f_1\|_\infty +\|(\Delta^*)^rf_1\|_\infty +\|f\|_\infty\}\\
&\le& cL^r\{\omega_r(\infty;f,1/L) +L^{-r}\|f\|_\infty\}.\end{aligned}$$ The estimate follows from this estimate and .
\[proofsect\] In this section, we assume all the assumptions made in Section \[manifoldsect\], namely, that , , , , and the product assumption hold. We start with the proof of Theorem \[directtheofirst\]. Let ${\bf W}^*=\{w^*_y\}_{y\in\C^*}$, and $\nu^*$ be the measure that associates with each $y\in\C$ the mass $w^*_y$. As explained in Section \[abstractsect\], the eignet $\GG(\C^*;{\bf W}^*; P)$ can be written more concisely as $$\GG(\C^*; {\bf W}^*;P,x)=:\GG(\nu^*;P,x):=\GG(G;\nu^*;P,x)=\int_\XX ({\cal D}_GP)(y)G(x,y)d\nu^*(y), \qquad x\in\XX.$$ The condition that ${\bf W}^*$ is a $1/L$–regular set of quadrature weights of order $2AL$ corresponding to $\C^*$ can be stated more concisely in the form that $\nu^*\in {\cal M}_{1/L}$, $\|\nu^*\|_{{\cal M}_{1/L}}\le c$, and $\nu^*$ is a quadrature measure of order $2AL$. Theorem \[directtheofirst\] then takes the form of the following Theorem \[directtheo\].
\[directtheo\] Let $L>0$, $\nu^*\in {\cal M}_{1/L}$, $\|\nu^*\|_{{\cal M}_{1/L}}\le c$, and $\nu^*$ be a quadrature measure of order $2AL$. Let $1\le p\le\infty$, $\beta>\a/p'$, $0\le r <\beta$, $f\in W^p_r$. Let $P\in\Pi_L$ satisfy $\|f-P\|_p\le cL^{-r}\|(\Delta^*)^rf\|_p$. Then \[networkdirectbd\] f-(\^\*;P)\_pcL\^[-r]{}(\^\*)\^rf\_p.
The following lemma summarizes some of the major details of the proof of this theorem, so as to be applicable in the proof of some of the other results in Section \[mainsect\].
\[polytoeignetlemma\] Let $n\ge 1$ be an integer, $\nu\in {\cal M}_{2^{-n}}$, $\|\nu\|_{{\cal M}_{2^{-n}}}\le c$. Let $1\le p\le\infty$, $\beta>\a/p'$, $0\le r <\beta$, $P\in\Pi_{2^n}$. We have \[polyeignetdiff\] \_{G(x,y)-\_[2\^n]{}(hb\_[2\^n]{};x,y)}[D]{}\_GP(y)d(y)\_pc2\^[-nr]{}(\^\*)\^rP\_pcP\_p. In addition, if $\nu$ is a quadrature measure of order $A2^n$, and $R>0$, then \[nutomudiff\]\
&& c(R)2\^[-n(R+r)]{}(\^\*)\^rP\_pc(R)2\^[-nR]{}P\_p, and \[peignetapprox\] P-(;P)\_pc2\^[-nr]{}(\^\*)\^rP\_pcP\_p. If $0<\gamma<\beta-\a/p'$, and $\gamma\le r\le \beta$, then \[peignetderapprox\] (\^\*)\^P-(\^\*)\^(;P)\_pc2\^[-n(r-)]{}(\^\*)\^rP\_p.
Since ${\cal D}_GP\in\Pi_{2^n}$, we conclude using , , and with $2^{-n}$ in place of $d$, $2^n$ in place of $L$ and $r$ in place of $\gamma$ that $$\|{\cal D}_GP\|_{\nu;\XX,p}\le c\|{\cal D}_GP\|_p\le c2^{n(\beta-r)}\|(\Delta^*)^rP\|_p \le c2^{n\beta}\|P\|_p.$$ The estimate follows from this and Proposition \[networkkernprop\](b), used with $m=n$, ${\cal D}_GP$ in place of $F$.
Next, for each $x\in\XX$, (with $R+\beta$ in place of $R$) and the last estimate in imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left|\int_\XX \Phi_{2^{n}}(hb_{2^{n}};x,y){\cal D}_GP(y)d\nu(y)-\int_\XX \Phi_{2^{n}}(hb_{2^{n}};x,y){\cal D}_GP(y)d\mu(y)\right|}\\
&\le& c(R)2^{-n(R+\beta)}\|\Phi_{2^{n}}(hb_{2^{n}};x,\circ)\|_{1}\|{\cal D}_GP\|_p\le c_1(R)2^{-n(R+r)}\|(\Delta^*)^rP\|_p. \end{aligned}$$ This proves the first inequality in ; the second follows from .
In this proof only, we write $\tilde\nu=\mu-\nu$, and observe that $\|\tilde\nu\|_{{\cal M}_{2^{-n}}}\le c$. In view of , we obtain \[pf6eqn1\]\
&=&\_{G(x,y)-\_[2\^n]{}(hb\_[2\^n]{};x,y)}[D]{}\_GP(y)d(y) + \_\_[2\^n]{}(hb\_[2\^n]{};x,y)[D]{}\_GP(y)d(y). Using the first estimate in with $\tilde\nu$ in place of $\nu$, we obtain \[pf6eqn2\] \_{G(x,y)-\_[2\^n]{}(hb\_[2\^n]{};x,y)}[D]{}\_GP(y)d(y)\_pc2\^[-nr]{}(\^\*)\^rP\_p. Together with , , this implies .
In the remainder of this proof only, let $G_\gamma(x,y)$ be defined formally by\
$G_\gamma(x,y)=\sum_{j=0}^\infty (1+\ell_j)^\gamma b(\ell_j)\phi_j(x)\phi_j(y)$. Then $G_\gamma$ is clearly a kernel of type $\beta-\gamma>\a/p'$. Let $P\in\Pi_\infty$. For $y\in\XX$, we have $${\cal D}_GP(y) =\sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{\ip{P}{\phi_j}}{b(\ell_j)}\phi_j(y) = \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{\ip{P}{\phi_j}(1+\ell_j)^\gamma}{(1+\ell_j)^\gamma b(\ell_j)}\phi_j(y)={\cal D}_{G_\gamma}((\Delta^*)^\gamma P)(y).$$ Consequently, we obtain for $x\in\XX$, $$\begin{aligned}
(\Delta^*)^\gamma\GG(G;\nu;P,x) &=&\int_\XX G_\gamma(x,y){\cal D}_GP(y)d\nu(y) =\int_\XX G_\gamma(x,y){\cal D}_{G_\gamma}((\Delta^*)^r P)(y)d\nu(y)\\
&=&\GG(G_\gamma;\nu;(\Delta^*)^\gamma P).\end{aligned}$$ The estimate now follows easily from , used with $(\Delta^*)^\gamma P$ in place of $P$, $r-\gamma$ in place of $r$.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof of Theorem \[directtheo\] (and hence, Theorem \[directtheofirst\]).</span> In this proof only, let $n$ be the greatest integer such that $2^n\le L$. Then $\nu^*$ is also a $2^{-n}$– regular quadrature measure of order $2A2^n$, and $\|\nu^*\|_{{\cal M}_{2^{-n}}}\le c$. In view of Proposition \[approxlemma\](b), $\|(\Delta^*)^rP\|_p \le c\|(\Delta^*)^rf\|_p$. Our choice of $P$ and now imply .
$\Box$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof of Theorem \[jacksontheofirst\].</span> We note that in our current notation, $\GG_L(f)=\GG(\nu^*;\sigma_L(f))$. We let $n$ be as in the proof of Theorem \[directtheo\]. Hence, using and Proposition \[approxlemma\](a), we obtain \[pf6eqn3\] f-(\^\*;\_L(f))\_p&& f-\_L(f)\_p +\_L(f)-(\^\*;\_L(f))\_p\
&& f-\_L(f)\_p + cL\^[-r]{}(\^\*)\^r\_L(f)\_p c\_r(p;f, 1/L). Since it is obvious that $\omega_r(p;f, 1/L)\le \|f\|_p$ (by choosing $f_1=0$ in the definition of $\omega_r)$, this implies also that $\|\GG(\nu^*;\sigma_L(f))\|_p\le c\|f\|_p$.
Using with $r=\gamma$ and $\sigma_L(f)$ in place of $P$, we obtain $$\|(\Delta^*)^r\GG(\nu^*;\sigma_L(f))-(\Delta^*)^r\sigma_L(f)\|_p \le c\|(\Delta^*)^r\sigma_L(f)\|_p.$$ Hence, using Proposition \[approxlemma\](a) again, $$\|(\Delta^*)^r\GG(\nu^*;\sigma_L(f))\|_p \le c\|(\Delta^*)^r\sigma_L(f)\|_p\le cL^{r}\omega_r(p;f,1/L).$$ Together with , this implies .
Next, we turn to part (b). In this part of the proof, let $\nu$ be the measure that associates the mass $w_y$ with each $y\in\C$, so that $\|\nu\|_{{\cal M}_{1/L}}\le c$. Then in our current notation, $$\tilde\GG_L(\C;{\bf W};f)=\GG(\C^*; {\bf W}^*; \sigma_L(\C; {\bf W};f))=\GG(\nu^*;\sigma_L(\nu;f)).$$ Using , with $d=1/L$, $H=h$, we obtain $$\|\GG(\nu^*;\sigma_L(\nu;f))\|_p \le c\|\sigma_L(\nu;f)\|_p \le c\|f\|_{\nu;\XX,p}.$$ This proves . The proof of is the same as that of , except that we have to use Proposition \[approxlemma\](c) instead, and the estimates are accordingly as claimed.
$\Box$
During the rest of this section, we assume that (and hence, by Lemma \[tauberlemma\], ) holds. Next, we prove Theorem \[coefftheo\]. This will be done using Lemma \[gtildeloclemma\] and the following general statement about the inverse of matrices. Proposition \[matrixinvprop\] is most probably not new, but we find it easier to prove it than to find a reference for it.
\[matrixinvprop\] Let $M\ge1$ be an integer, ${\bf A}$ be an $M\times M$ matrix whose $(i,j)$–th entry is $A_{i,j}$. $1\le p\le\infty$, and $\gamma\in [0,1)$. If \[diagdom\] \_[i=1i=j]{}\^M |A\_[j,i]{}| |A\_[j,j]{}|, \_[i=1i=j]{}\^M |A\_[i,j]{}| |A\_[j,j]{}|, j=1,,M, and $\lambda=\min_{1\le i\le M}|A_{i,i}|>0$, then ${\bf A}$ is invertible, and \[diagmatrixinvnorm\] \^[-1]{}[**y**]{}\_[\^p]{}((1-))\^[-1]{}\_[\^p]{}, \^M.
Let ${\bf a}=(a_1,\cdots,a_M)\in\RR^M$, and $\y={\bf A}{\bf a}$. First, we consider the case $p=\infty$. Let $j^*$ be the index such that $|a_{j^*}|=\|{\bf a}\|_{\ell^\infty}$. Then, in view of the first estimate in , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|\y\|_{\ell^\infty}&\ge& |y_{j^*}| =\left|\sum_{i=1}^M A_{j^*,i}a_i\right|\ge
|A_{j^*,j^*}||a_{j^*}| -\sum_{i=1\atop i\not=j^*}^M |A_{j^*,i}||a_i|\\ &\ge& |A_{j^*,j^*}|(1-\gamma)\|{\bf a}\|_{\ell^\infty}\ge (1-\gamma)\lambda \|{\bf a}\|_{\ell^\infty}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, ${\bf A}$ is invertible. For every $\y$, there exists ${\bf a}={\bf A}^{-1}\y$. Applying the above chain of inequalities with this ${\bf a}$, we have proved in the case $p=\infty$.
Next, using the second estimate in , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|\y\|_{\ell^1}&=&\sum_{i=1}^M|y_i| =\sum_{i=1}^M\left|\sum_{j=1}^M A_{i,j}a_j\right|\\
&\ge& \sum_{j=1}^M |A_{j,j}||a_j| -\sum_{j=1}^M \sum_{i=1\atop i\not=j}^M |A_{i,j}||a_j|\\
&\ge& \sum_{j=1}^M |A_{j,j}|(1-\gamma)|a_j| \ge \lambda (1-\gamma)\|{\bf a}\|_{\ell^1}.\end{aligned}$$ This proves in the case $p=1$.
The intermediate cases, $1<p<\infty$, of follow from the Riesz–Thorin interpolation theorem.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof of Theorem \[coefftheo\].</span> In this proof only, let $\Psi=\sum_{y\in\C} a_yG(\circ,y)$, and $m$ be chosen so that $2^m\ge c_1q^{-1}$ and holds. Then,with $\tilde g$ as defined just before Lemma \[gtildeloclemma\], $$\Phi_{2^m}(\tilde g ;\Psi,x)=\sum_{j=0}^\infty \tilde g(\ell_j/2^m)\sum_{y\in\C} a_y b(\ell_j)\phi_j(y)\phi_j(x)=\sum_{y\in\C}a_y\Phi_{2^m}(\tilde g b_{2^m};x,y).$$ In this proof only, let ${\bf d}$ denote the vector $(\Phi_{2^m}(\tilde g ;\Psi,x))_{x\in\C}$, where all vectors are treated as column vectors, and ${\bf A}$ denote the $|\C|\times|\C|$ matrix whose $(x,y)$-th entry is given by $\Phi_{2^m}(\tilde g b_{2^m};x,y)$. Then implies that is satisfied with $\gamma=1/2$. Also, implies that $\min_{x\in\C}A_{x,x}\ge c2^{m(\a-\beta)}$, $x\in\C$. Therefore, Proposition \[matrixinvprop\] shows that ${\bf A}$ is invertible. Further, implies that $$\|{\bf a}\|_{\ell^p} \le c2^{m(\beta-\a)}\|{\bf d}\|_{\ell^p}.$$ Now, let $\nu$ be the measure as in Lemma \[gtildeloclemma\]. Then $\nu\in{\cal M}_q$. So, shows that for $2^m\ge c_1/q$, $$\|{\bf d}\|_{\ell^p} =q^{-\a/p}\|\Phi_{2^m}(\tilde g ;\Psi)\|_{\nu;\XX,p}\le cq^{-\a/p}(2^{m}q)^{\a/p}\|\Phi_{2^m}(\tilde g ;\Psi)\|_{p}.$$ In view of applied with $\tilde g$ in place of $H$, $\|\Phi_{2^m}(\tilde g ;\Psi)\|_{p}\le c\|\Psi\|_p$. Hence, for $2^m\ge c_1/q$, $$\|{\bf a}\|_{\ell^p}\le c2^{m(\beta-\a/p')}\|\Psi\|_p.$$ We may now choose $m$ with $2^m\sim q^{-1}$ to arrive at .
$\Box$
Next, we turn our attention to the proof of Theorem \[equivtheo\]. Towards this end, we recall the following theorem ([@devlorbk Chapter 7, Theorem 9.1, also Chapter 6.7]). Our assumption about the centers $\C_m$ in the definition of the spaces $\V_m$ being nested implies that the sequence of spaces $\{\V_m\}$ satisfies the conditions listed in [@devlorbk Chapter 7, (5.2)] with the class $X^p$ in place of $X$ in [@devlorbk], where the density assumption can be verified easily using and the fact that $\delta(\C_m)\to 0$ as $m\to\infty$. The statement of [@devlorbk Chapter 7, Theorem 9.1] is in terms of the Besov spaces in general, we apply it with the parameter $q=\infty$ there.
\[devlortheo\] Let $1\le p\le \infty$, $r>0$. Suppose that for some $r>0$, \[favardest\] (F, \_m)cm\^[-r]{}(\^\*)\^rF\_p, m=1,2,, FW\^p\_r, and \[bernineq\] (\^\*)\^r \_p cm\^[r]{}\_p, \_m, m=1,2,. Then for $0<\gamma<r$, $F\in H^p_\gamma$ if and only if $\sup_{m\ge 1}m^{\gamma}\dist(F,\V_m)\le c(F)$.
Theorem \[directtheo\] (used with $\C_m$, ${\bf W}_m$ in place of $\C^*$, ${\bf W}^*$ respectively) already shows that holds. Thus, to complete the proof of Theorem \[equivtheo\], we need to establish
\[gberntheo\] Let $1\le p\le\infty$, $0<r<\beta-\a/p'$, $\C\subset\XX$ be a finite set, $q=q(\C)$, and $\{a_y\}_{y\in\C}\subset\RR$. Then \[gbernineq\] (\^\*)\^r\_[y]{}a\_yG(,y)\_p cq\^[-r]{}\_[y]{}a\_yG(,y)\_p.
Let $\nu\in{\cal M}_q$ be the measure as in Lemma \[gtildeloclemma\]. In this proof only, let $\Psi=\sum_{y\in\C}a_yG(\circ,y)$. Then Proposition \[networkkernprop\] (b), used with $n=\lfloor \log_2 (1/q)\rfloor$, shows that for any $F :\C\to\RR$, $$\left\|\int_{y\in\XX} \{G(\circ,y)-\Phi_{2^{m}}(hb_{2^{m}};\circ,y)\}F(y)d\nu(y)\right\|_p\le c2^{-m\beta}.2^{\a(m-n)/p'}\|F\|_{\nu;\XX,p}.$$ Using $2^{-n}\sim q$, and the function $F$ defined by $F(y)=a_y$, $y\in\C$, this translates into $$\left\|q^\a\Psi-q^\a\sum_{y\in \C}a_y\Phi_{2^{m}}(hb_{2^{m}};\circ,y)\right\|_p\le c2^{-m\beta}(q2^m)^{\a/p'}q^{\a/p}\|{\bf a}\|_{\ell^p};$$ i.e., $$\left\|\Psi-\sum_{y\in \C}a_y\Phi_{2^{m}}(hb_{2^{m}};\circ,y)\right\|_p\le c2^{-m(\beta-\a/p')}\|{\bf a}\|_{\ell^p}.$$ In view of , this yields \[pf10eqn1\] -\_[y]{}a\_y\_[2\^[m]{}]{}(hb\_[2\^[m]{}]{};,y)\_pc2\^[-m(-/p’)]{}q\^[/p’-]{}\_p.
Next, we note that the function $b_r(t):=(1+|t|)^rb(t)$, $t\in\RR$, is a mask of type $\beta-r$, and also that $(\Delta^*)^rG(\circ,y)=G(b_r;\circ,y)$, $y\in\XX$. Similarly, $(\Delta^*)^r\Phi_{2^{m}}(hb_{2^{m}};\circ,y)=\Phi_{2^{m}}(hb_{r,2^{m}};\circ,y)$. Hence, we may apply with $(\Delta^*)^r G(\circ,y)$ in place of $G$, $\beta-r$ in place of $\beta$, and deduce that \[pf10eqn2\] (\^\*)\^r-(\^\*)\^r\_[y]{}a\_y\_[2\^[m]{}]{}(hb\_[2\^[m]{}]{};,y)\_pc2\^[-m(-r-/p’)]{}q\^[/p’-+r]{}(\^\*)\^r\_p. We now choose $m$ sufficiently large, so that $2^m\sim 1/q$, and $c2^{-m(\beta-r-\a/p')}q^{\a/p'-\beta+r}\le 1/2$. Then , become $$\left\|\Psi-\sum_{y\in \C}a_y\Phi_{2^{m}}(hb_{2^{m}};\circ,y)\right\|_p\le c\|\Psi\|_p,$$ and $$\left\|(\Delta^*)^r\Psi-(\Delta^*)^r\sum_{y\in \C}a_y\Phi_{2^{m}}(hb_{2^{m}};\circ,y)\right\|_p\le (1/2)\|(\Delta^*)^r\Psi\|_p.$$ Since $\sum_{y\in \C}a_y\Phi_{2^{m}}(hb_{2^{m}};\circ,y)\in\Pi_{2^m}$, these estimates and lead to $$\|(\Delta^*)^r\Psi\|_p\le 2\left\|(\Delta^*)^r\sum_{y\in \C}a_y\Phi_{2^{m}}(hb_{2^{m}};\circ,y)\right\|_p\le c2^{mr}\left\|\sum_{y\in \C}a_y\Phi_{2^{m}}(hb_{2^{m}};\circ,y)\right\|_p\le c2^{mr}\|\Psi\|_p.$$ Since $2^m\sim 1/q$, this implies .
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof of Theorem \[equivtheo\].</span> We note that Theorem \[devlortheo\] is applicable in view of Theorem \[directtheo\] and Theorem \[gberntheo\]. The equivalence (a)$\Leftrightarrow$(c) follows from Theorem \[devlortheo\]. The implication (a)$\Rightarrow$(b) follows from Theorem \[jacksontheofirst\]. The implication (b)$\Rightarrow$(c) is clear.
In the case when $p=\infty$, the implication (d)$\Rightarrow$(c) is clear. The implication (a)$\Rightarrow$(d) follows from Theorem \[jacksontheofirst\].
$\Box$
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof of Theorem \[simapproxtheo\].</span> Using , Theorem \[gberntheo\] (used with $\gamma$ in place of $r$), and Theorem \[directtheo\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|(\Delta^*)^\gamma \sigma_m(f) -(\Delta^*)^\gamma \Psi_m\|_p&\le&\|(\Delta^*)^\gamma \sigma_m(f)- (\Delta^*)^\gamma \GG_m(f)\|_p +\|(\Delta^*)^\gamma \GG_m(f)-(\Delta^*)^\gamma \Psi_m\|_p\\
&\le&c\left\{m^{\gamma-r}\|(\Delta^*)^r\sigma_m(f)\|_{p} + m^\gamma\|\GG_m(f)-\Psi_m\|_p\right\}\\
&\le& c\left\{m^{\gamma-r}\|(\Delta^*)^r f\|_{p} + m^\gamma\|f-\GG_m(f)\|_p+m^\gamma\|f-\Psi_m\|_p\right\}\\
&\le&cm^{\gamma-r}\|(\Delta^*)^r f\|_{p}.\end{aligned}$$ In view of Proposition \[approxlemma\], this leads to the desired estimate.
$\Box$
We end this section with the postponed proof of Proposition \[datasetprop\].\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Proof of Proposition \[datasetprop\].</span> In order to prove part (a), let (in this proof only) $\C=\{x_k\}_{k=1}^M$. We define $\C_1^*=\C\cap \Delta(x_1,\e)$. By relabeling the set if necessary, we choose $x_2\in\C_1^*$, and set $\C_2^*=\C_1^*\cap\Delta(x_2,\e)$. Necessarily, $\rho(x_1,\C_2^*)\ge \e$ and $\rho(x_1,x_2)\ge \e$. Since $\C$ is finite, we may continue in this way at most $M$ times to obtain a subset $\tilde \C$ of $\C$ such that $q(\tilde\C)\ge \e$, and moreover, for any $x\in \C$, there is $y\in\tilde\C$ with $\rho(x,y)\le \e$; i.e., $\delta(\tilde\C, \C)\le \e$. It follows that $$\delta(\C) \le \delta(\tilde\C)\le \delta(\C)+\e.$$ This completes the proof of part (a).
To prove part (b), we will use some notation which will be different from the rest of the proof. In view of the fact that $\delta(\C_1)\le (1/2)\delta(\C_0)\le q(\C_0)$, the points of $\C_0$ are already at least $\delta(\C_1)$ separated from each other. Let $\C_1^{\#}$ be the subset of $\C_1\setminus \C_0$ comprising points which are at least $\delta(\C_1)$ away from any point in $\C_0$. Let $\C_1^+\subseteq \C_1^{\#}$ be selected as in part (a), so that \[pf2eqn1\] (\_1\^+,\_1\^[\#]{})(\_1)q(\_1\^+), and $\C_1^*:=\C_1^+\cup \C_0$. Clearly, $\C_1^*\supseteq \C_0$, and $q(\C_1^*)\ge \delta(\C_1)$. If $x\in \C_1$ and there is no point of $\C_0$ within $\delta(\C_1)$ of $x$, then $x\in \C_1^{\#}$. In view of , there is a point in $\C_1^+$ within $\delta(\C_1)$ of $x$. So, in any case, for any $x\in \C_1$, there is a point in $C_1^*$ within $\delta(\C_1)$ of $x$. Therefore, $$\delta(\C_1)\le \delta(\C_1^*) \le 2\delta(\C_1) \le 2q(\C_1^*).$$ This completes the proof of part (b).
To prove part (c), we note that there exist integers $\ell, n\ge 0$ such that \[pf2eqn2\] (2\^k)\^[-1]{}(\_k)(2\^[-n]{}k)\^[-1]{}, k=1,2,. In this proof only, we define $\C_k'=\C_{2^{k(\ell+n+1)}}$, $k=0,1,2,\cdots$. Then it is clear that $\C_k'\subseteq \C_{k+1}'$ and it is easy to check using that $\delta(\C_{k+1}')\le (1/2)\delta(\C_k')$. With the construction as in the proof of part (a), we choose $C_0''\subseteq \C_0'$ such that $$\delta(\C_1')\le (1/2)\delta(\C_0')\le (1/2)\delta(\C_0'')\le q(\C_0'').$$ We then use part (b) with $\C_0''$ in place of $\C_0$ of part (b) and $\C_1'$ in place of $\C_1$ of part (b) to obtain $\C_1''\subset \C_1'$ such that $\C_1''\supseteq \C_0''$, $\delta(C_1')\le \delta(\C_2'')\le 2\delta(\C_1')\le 2q(\C_1'')$, and $\delta(\C_2')\le (1/2)\delta(\C_1')\le (1/2)\delta(\C_1'')$. Proceeding by induction, we construct an increasingly nested sequence $\{\C_k''\subseteq \C_k'\}$ with $\delta(\C_k'')\le 2\delta(\C_k')\le 2q(\C_k'')$. We observe that \[pf2eqn3\] (2\^[k(+n+1)+]{})\^[-1]{}(\_k’)(\_k”) 2(\_k’)2(2\^[k(+n+1)+n]{})\^[-1]{}. If $m\ge 1$ is any integer, we find integer $k$ such that $2^{k(\ell+n+1)}\le m < 2^{(k+1)(\ell+n+1)}$, and define $\tilde\C_m =\C_k''$. Then $\C_m\supseteq \C_{2^{k(\ell+n+1)}}=\C_k'\supseteq \C_k''\supseteq \tilde\C_m$. Moreover, since the value of $k$ corresponding to $m$ does not exceed that corresponding to $m+1$, and the sequence $\{C_k''\}$ is increasingly nested, then $\tilde\C_m\subseteq\tilde\C_{m+1}$. It is easy to verify from that $\delta(\tilde\C_m)\le 2\delta(\tilde\C_m)$ and that $\delta(\tilde\C_m)\sim 1/m$.
$\Box$
[99]{} \#1[[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1 \#2,, \#3,, \#4..[ [*\#3*]{} \#4]{} \#1[[“\#1”,]{}]{}
M. Belkin, I. Matveeva, P. Niyogi,,, Regularization and regression on large graphs,,, Proc. of Computational Learning Theory , Banff, Canada. 2004... M. Belkin and P. Niyogi,,, Semi-supervised learning on Riemannian manifolds,,, To appear in Machine Learning Journal. (also, Tech. Report TR-2001-30, Univ. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.)... M. Belkin, P. Niyogi,,, Towards a theoretical foundation for Laplacian-based manifold methods,,, J. Comput. System Sci. 74 (2008), no. 8, 1289–1308... M. Belkin, P. Niyogi,,, Convergence of Laplacian Eigenmaps,,, http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/ mbelkin/papers/CLEM\_08.pdf... J. Bergh and J. Löfström,,, ,, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1976...
C. K. Chui and D. L. Donoho,,, Special Issue: Diffusion maps and wavelets,,, Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, vol. 21(1), 2006...
R. R. Coifman and M. Maggioni,,, Diffusion wavelets,,, Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal. (2006), 53–94... R. A. DeVore and G. G. Lorentz,,, ,, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1993...
S. B. Damelin,,, On bounds for diffusion, discrepancy and fill distance metrics. Principal manifolds for data visualization and dimension reduction,,, 261–270, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. Eng., 58, Springer, Berlin, 2008...
S. B. Damelin,,, A Walk through Energy, Discrepancy, Numerical Integration and Group Invariant Measures on Measurable Subsets of Euclidean Space,,, Numerical Algorithms, Volume 48 Number 1-3, 2008, pp 213–235... S. B. Damelin and A. J. Devaney,,, Local Paley Wiener theorems for analytic functions on the unit sphere,,, Inverse Problems, (23)(2007), 1–12...
D. L. Donoho and C. Grimes,,, Image manifolds which are isometric to Euclidean space,,, http://www-stat.stanford.edu/ donoho/Reports/2002/WhenIsometry.pdf... D. L. Donoho, O. Levi, J.-L. Starck, and V. J. Martinez,,, Multiscale Geometric Analysis for 3-D Catalogues,,, http://www-stat.stanford.edu/ donoho/Reports/2002/MGA3D.pdf... F. Filbir and H. N. Mhaskar,,, A Bernstein inequality for diffusion polynomials corresponding to a generalized heat kernel,,, Manuscript... F. Filbir, W. Themistoclakis,,, Polynomial approximation on the sphere using scattered data,,, Math. Nachr. [**281**]{} (5) (2008), 650-668...
A. Grigorýan,,, Estimates of heat kernels on Riemannian manifolds,,, Spectral Theory and Geometry (Edinburgh, 1998) (E. B. Davies and Y. Safarov, eds.), London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 273, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 140–225... A. Grigorýan,,, Heat kernels and function theory on metric measure spaces,,, to appear in “Handbook of Geometric Analysis No.2” ed. L. Ji, P. Li, R. Schoen, L. Simon, Advanced Lectures in Math., IP, 2008...
X. He, S. Yan, Y. Hu, P. Niyogi, and H.-J. Zhang,,, Face Recognition Using Laplacianfaces,,, IEEE Trans. pattern analysis and machine intelligence, [**27**]{} (3) (2005), 328–340... L. Hörmander,,, The spectral function of an elliptic operator,,, Acta Math. (1968), 193–218...
P. W. Jones, M. Maggioni, R. Schul,,, Universal local parametrizations via heat kernels and eigenfunctions of the Laplacian,,, Manuscript arXiv:0709.1975... J. Keiner, S. Kunis, and D. Potts,,, Efficient reconstruction of functions on the sphere from scattered data,,, J. Fourier Anal. Appl., (2007), 435–458...
Yu. A. Kordyukov,,, Lp-theory of elliptic differential operators on manifolds of bounded geometry,,, Acta Appl. Math. [**23**]{} (1991), no. 3, 223–260...
S. Lafon,,, Diffusion maps and geometric harmonics,,, PhD thesis, Yale University, Dept of Mathematics & Applied Mathematics, 2004... Q. T. Le Gia and H. N. Mhaskar,,, Localized linear polynomial operators and quadrature formulas on the sphere,,, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 47 (2008/09), no. 1, 440–466...
M. Maggioni and H. N. Mhaskar,,, Diffusion polynomial frames on metric measure spaces,,, Appl. Comput. Harm. Anal., (3) (2008), 329-353... H. N. Mhaskar,,, ,, World Scientific, Singapore, 1996...
H. N. Mhaskar,,, When is approximation by Gaussian networks necessarily a linear process?,,, Neural Networks, [**17**]{} (2004), 989–1001...
H. N. Mhaskar and J. Prestin,,, Polynomial frames: a fast tour,,, in “Approximation Theory XI, Gatlinburg, 2004” (C. K. Chui, M. Neamtu, and L. Schumaker Eds.), Nashboro Press, Brentwood, 2005, 287–318... S. Minakshisundaram and A. Pleijel,,, Some properties of eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator on Riemannian manifolds,,, Canad. J. Math., (1949) 242-256... N. Saito,,, Data analysis and representation on a general domain using eigenfunctions of Laplacian,,, Applied and Computational Harmonic Analysis, (1) (2008), 68–97... A. Singer,,, From graph to manifold Laplacian: the convergence rate,,, Appl. Comp. Harm. Anal., [**21**]{}(1) (2006), 128–134... B. Xu,,, Derivatives of the spectral function and Sobolev norms of eigenfunctions on a closed Riemannian manifold,,, Annals of Global Analysis and Geometry 26: 231–252, 2004...
R. Xu, S. B. Damelin, and D. Wunsch,,, Clustering of Cancer Tissues using Diffusion Maps and Fuzzy ART with Gene Expression Data,,, BME (2008), pp 42–49...
R. Xu, S. B. Damelin, and D. C. Wunsch II,,, Applications of diffusion maps in gene expression data-based cancer diagnosis analysis,,, In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Lyon, France, pp. 4613-4616, August, 2007...
A. Zygmund,,, ,, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977...
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, California State University, Los Angeles, California, 90032, USA, [email protected]. The research of this author was supported, in part, by grants from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Army Research Office.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[\
http:monotone.uwaterloo.ca/$\sim$journal]{} $~$\
\[.2in\]
[**ON STABILITY OF GENERALIZED CAUCHY-TYPE PROBLEM**]{}
.20in
Sandeep P Bhairat\
[Department of Mathematics,\
Institute of Chemical Technology, Mumbai–400 019, (M.S) India.\
]{}
[[**Abstract.**]{} In this paper, we study the stability of solution of initial value problem for fractional differential equation involving generalized Katugampola derivative. Pachpatte inequality is used as handy tool to obtain our result.\
[**Keywords.**]{} Fractional differential equations, Initial value problem, Stability of solutions.\
[**AMS (MOS) subject classification:**]{} 26A33, 34A08, 34D23.]{}
.2in
Introduction
============
Nowadays, the subject of fractional calculus attracted great attention of many researchers and emerged as an advancement in applied mathematics. In last three decades, fractional calculus found useful for capturing naturally arising complex phenomena. The theory of arbitrary order achieved a new height in the description of properties of viscoelastic materials and memory mechanism [@hr2; @kst], also see [@bt1; @fm; @xu]. In recent years there has been a considerable interest in qualitative properties of fractional differential equations by using numerous operators and variety of techniques, see [@as],[@sp2]-[@kmf],[@nehh; @mdk; @ke; @oo].
A new fractional derivative called generalised Katugampola fractional derivative, which has unified approach, generalizes ten existing fractional derivatives (see Definition \[d6\] below). Existence and uniqueness of solution of fractional differential equations (FDE) involving this operator are given in (Section 5, [@oo]). The associated fractional integral operator called Katugampola fractional integral was introduced by U Katugampola in [@ki] which interpolates between Riemann-Liouville and Hadamard fractional integrals.
In [@db5] authors have considered the initial value problem (IVP) $$\label{p1}
\begin{cases}
&{^{\rho}D_{a+}^{\alpha,\beta}x(t)}=f(t,x(t)),\qquad 0<\alpha<1,0\leq\beta\leq1,\rho>0,\\
&{^{\rho}I_{a+}^{1-\gamma}x(a+)}=b,\qquad b\in\mathbb{R}.
\end{cases}$$ for FDE. The IVP is equivalent to the following integral equation $$\label{i1}
x(t)=\frac{b}{\Gamma(\gamma)}{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\gamma-1}+\int_{a}^{t}s^{\rho-1}
{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-s^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\alpha-1}\frac{f(s,x(s))}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds.$$ The existence and stability results are obtained using fixed point theory.
The aim of the present paper is to study the stability of generalised Cauchy-type problem involving generalized Katugampola derivative $$\label{1}
\begin{cases}
&{^{\rho}D_{a+}^{\alpha,\beta}x(t)}=f(t,x(t)),\qquad 0<\alpha<1,0\leq\beta\leq1,\rho>0,\\
&{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}^{(1-\beta)(1-\alpha)}{x(t)\big|}_{t=a}=b,\qquad b\in\mathbb{R}\backslash\{0\}.
\end{cases}$$ Clearly, the IVP is equivalent to the integral equation $$\label{i1}
x(t)=\frac{b}{\Gamma(\gamma)}{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\gamma-1}+\int_{a}^{t}s^{\rho-1}
{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-s^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\alpha-1}\frac{f(s,x(s))}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds.$$
The remaining paper is arranged as follows: in Section 2, we recall the preliminary facts useful for further discussion. In Section 3, we state and prove our main results. Pachpatte inequality is the main ingredient.
Preliminaries
=============
Let us consider some definitions and basic lemmas herein.
\[d1\][@kst] The space $X_{c}^{p}(a,b)\,(c\in\mathbb{R},p\geq1)$ consists of those real-valued Lebesgue measurable functions $g$ on $(a,b)$ for which ${\|g\|}_{X_{c}^{p}}<\infty,$ where $$\begin{gathered}
{\|g\|}_{X_{c}^{p}}={\bigg(\int_{a}^{b}{|t^cg(t)|}^{p}\frac{dt}{t}\bigg)}^{\frac{1}{p}},\quad p\geq1,\,\,c\in\mathbb{R}\\
{\|g\|}_{X_{c}^{p=\infty}}=\text{ess sup}_{a\leq t\leq b}|t^cg(t)|,\quad c\in\mathbb{R}.\end{gathered}$$ In particular, when $c=\frac{1}{p},$ we see that $X_{{1}/{p}}^{c}(a,b)=L_p(a,b).$
\[d2\][@oo] Let $\Omega=[a,b]$ be a finite interval on $\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $a,\rho>0$, $0\leq\gamma<1.$ Denote by $C[a,b]$ a space of continuous functions $g$ on $\Omega$ with the norm $$\begin{gathered}
{\|g\|}_{C}=\max_{t\in\Omega}|g(t)|.\end{gathered}$$ The weighted space $C_{\gamma,\rho}[a,b]$ of functions $g$ on $(a,b]$ is defined by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{space}
C_{\gamma,\rho}[a,b]=\bigg\{g:(a,b]\to\mathbb{R}:{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\gamma}g(t)\in{C[a,b]}\bigg\},\quad0\leq\gamma<1\end{gathered}$$ with the norm $$\begin{gathered}
{\|g\|}_{C_{\gamma,\rho}}={\bigg\|{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\gamma}g(t)\bigg\|}_{C}=\max_{t\in\Omega}\bigg|{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\gamma}g(t)\bigg|,\end{gathered}$$ and $C_{0,\rho}[a,b]=C[a,b].$
\[d3\][@oo] Let $\delta_\rho=\big(t^{\rho-1}\frac{d}{dt}\big),\,\Omega=[a,b]\,(0<a<b<\infty)$ and $\rho>0,\,0\leq\gamma<1.$ For $n\in{\mathbb{N}},$ denote $C_{\delta_\rho,\gamma}^{n}[a,b]-$ the Banach space of functions $g$ which are continuously differentiable, with $\delta_\rho,$ on $[a,b]$ upto $(n-1)$ order and have the derivative $\delta_\rho^ng$ on $(a,b]$ such that $\delta_\rho^ng\in{C_{\gamma,\rho}[a,b]},$ $$\begin{gathered}
C_{\delta_\rho,\gamma}^{n}[a,b]=\big\{g:[a,b]\to{\mathbb{R}}|\delta_\rho^kg\in{C[a,b]}\,\,\,\text{for}\,\,\,
0\leq{k}\leq{n-1},\\
\,\,\,\delta_\rho^ng\,\,\, \text{exists and}\,\,\,\delta_\rho^ng\in{C_{\gamma,\rho}[a,b]}\big\}\end{gathered}$$ with the norm $$\begin{gathered}
{\|g\|}_{C_{\delta_\rho,\gamma}^{n}}=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}{\|\delta_\rho^kg\|}_{C}+{\|\delta_\rho^ng\|}_{C_{\gamma,\rho}},\quad
{\|g\|}_{C_{\delta_\rho}^{n}}=\sum_{k=0}^{n}\max_{t\in\Omega}|\delta_\rho^kg(t)|.\end{gathered}$$
\[d4\][@kd] Let $g\in{X_{c}^{p}(a,b)},$ where $X_{c}^{p}$ is as in Definition \[d1\] and $\alpha>0$. The left-sided Katugampola fractional integral $^{\rho}I_{a+}^{\alpha}$ of order $\alpha$ is defined by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{kil}
^{\rho}I_{a+}^{\alpha}g(t)=\int_{a}^{t}s^{\rho-1}{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-s^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\alpha-1}\frac{g(s)}{\Gamma(\alpha)}ds,\quad t>a.\end{gathered}$$
\[d5\][@kd] Let $\alpha\in{\mathbb{R}^{+}{\setminus}\mathbb{N}}$ and $n=[\alpha]+1,$ where $[\alpha]$ is integer part of $\alpha$ and $\rho>0.$ The left-sided Katugampola fractional derivative $^{\rho}D_{a+}^{\alpha}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kdl}
^{\rho}D_{a+}^{\alpha}g(t)&=\delta_\rho^n (^{\rho}I_{a+}^{n-\alpha}g(s))(t).\end{aligned}$$
[@oo]\[d6\] The left-sided generalized Katugampola fractional derivative $^{\rho}D_{a+}^{\alpha,\beta}$ of order $0<\alpha<1$ and type $0\leq\beta\leq1$ is defined by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{gkl}
{(^{\rho}D_{a+}^{\alpha,\beta}g)}(t)={({^{\rho}I_{a+}^{\beta(1-\alpha)}}\delta_\rho{{^{\rho}I_{a+}^{(1-\beta)(1-\alpha)}}}g)}(t),\end{gathered}$$ for the functions for which right-hand side expression exists and $\rho>0.$
\[l10\][@oo] If $\alpha>0$ and $0<\gamma\leq1,$ then ${^\rho{I}_{a+}^{\alpha}}$ is bounded from ${C_{1-\gamma,\rho}[a,b]}$ into ${C_{1-\gamma,\rho}[a,b]}.$
\[l4\][@kmf] For nonnegative $a_i,\,i=1,\cdots,k,$ $$\label{kl1}
{\bigg(\sum_{i=1}^{k}a_i\bigg)}^{p}\leq{k^{p-1}\sum_{i=1}^{k}{a_i}^{p}},\qquad p\geq1.$$
\[l5\][@bg]\[Pachpatte Lemma\] Let $a(t)$ and $b(t)$ be continuous positive functions defined on $[t_0,\infty),$ $t_0\geq0.$ Let $w:[0,\infty)\to[0,\infty)$ be a continuous monotonic nondecreasing function such that $w(0)=0$ and $w(x)>0$ for $x>0.$ If $u$ is a positive differentiable function on $[t_0,\infty)$ that satisfies $$u'(t)\leq{a(t)w(u(t))+b(t)},\qquad t\in{[t_0,\infty)},$$ then we have $$u(t)\leq{G^{-1}{\bigg[G\bigg(u(t_0)+\int_{t_0}^{t}b(s)ds\bigg)+\int_{t_0}^{t}a(s)ds\bigg]}},$$ for the values of $t$ for which the right-hand side is well-defined, where $$G(r)=\int_{r_0}^{r}\frac{ds}{w(s)},\qquad r>r_0>0.$$
In order to obtain the stability of solution for generalized Cauchy-type problem , we introduce the following spaces: $$\label{workspace}
C_{1-\gamma,\rho}^{\alpha,\beta}[a,b]=\{g\in{C_{1-\gamma,\rho}[a,b]}:{^\rho{D}_{a+}^{\alpha,\beta}}g\in{C_{1-\gamma,\rho}[a,b]}\},$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
C_{1-\gamma,\rho}^{\gamma}[a,b]=\{g\in{C_{1-\gamma,\rho}[a,b]}:{^\rho{D}_{a+}^{\gamma}}g\in{C_{1-\gamma,\rho}[a,b]}\},\,\,0<\gamma\leq1.\end{gathered}$$ Since ${^\rho{D}_{a+}^{\alpha,\beta}}g={^\rho{I}_{a+}^{\beta(1-\alpha)}}{^\rho{D}_{a+}^{\gamma}}g,$ we have $C_{1-\gamma,\rho}^{\gamma}[a,b]\subset{C_{1-\gamma,\rho}^{\alpha,\beta}[a,b]}$ follows from Lemma \[l10\].
Stability of solution
=====================
In this section, we present stability of global solution of the Cauchy-type problem . Following lemma is of great importance in further discussion.
\[l31\] If $\zeta,\vartheta,\varpi>0,$ then $$\begin{gathered}
\label{2}
\hspace{-.3cm}{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{1-\vartheta}\int_{a}^{t}{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-s^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\vartheta-1}
{\bigg(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\zeta-1}s^{\rho-1}e^{-\varpi{\big(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}}ds\leq{C}\varpi^{-\zeta}\end{gathered}$$ for $t>a>0,$ where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $t.$
Denote left-hand side of inequality by $I(t).$ By the change of variable $\xi=\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{t^\rho-a^\rho}$ we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{4}
I(t)={\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{1-\vartheta}\int_{0}^{1}{(1-\xi)}^{\vartheta-1}\xi^{\zeta-1}
e^{-\varpi\xi{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}}d\xi.\end{gathered}$$ Observe that, for $\xi\geq1$ and $[\zeta]+1\geq\zeta,$ we have $\xi^{[\zeta]+1}\geq\xi^{\zeta}.$Since $\zeta+2\geq[\zeta]+2$ and the Gamma function is increasing in $[2,\infty),$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\Gamma(\zeta+2)\geq\Gamma([\zeta]+2)\quad\text{or}\quad\frac{1}{\Gamma([\zeta]+2)}\geq\frac{1}{\Gamma(\zeta+2)}.\end{gathered}$$ Moreover we have $e^{\xi}\geq\frac{\xi^{[\zeta]+1}}{\Gamma([\zeta]+2)}$ and hence $$\begin{gathered}
\label{5}
e^{\xi}\geq\frac{\xi^{[\zeta]+1}}{\Gamma([\zeta]+2)}\geq\frac{\xi^{\zeta}}{\Gamma([\zeta]+2)}\geq\frac{\xi^{\zeta}}{\Gamma(\zeta+2)}\quad\text{implies}\quad e^{-\xi}\leq\frac{\Gamma(\zeta+2)}{\xi^{\zeta}}.\end{gathered}$$ Therefore, for $0\leq\xi<\frac{1}{2}$ we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{7}
{(1-\xi)}^{\vartheta-1}\leq\max{(1,2^{1-\vartheta})}.\end{gathered}$$ For $\frac{1}{2}<\xi\leq1$ and $t$ such that $\varpi\xi{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}\geq1,$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8}
e^{-\varpi\xi{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}}\leq\frac{\Gamma(\zeta+2)}
{{\big(\varpi\xi{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}\big)}^{\zeta}}\leq\frac{\varpi^{-\zeta}}{\xi}{\Gamma(\zeta+2)}
\leq2\varpi^{-\zeta}\Gamma(\zeta+2).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using inequalities -, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\zeta}}&{(1-\xi)}^{\vartheta-1}\xi^{\zeta-1}e^{-{\varpi\xi{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}}}\nonumber\\
&\leq\begin{cases}
\max{(1,2^{1-\vartheta})}{{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}^{\zeta}}\xi^{\zeta-1} e^{-{\varpi\xi{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}}},& \,\, 0\leq\xi<\frac{1}{2} \\
2{(1-\xi)}^{\vartheta-1}\Gamma(\zeta+2)\varpi^{-\zeta}, & \,\, \frac{1}{2}<\xi\leq1.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{9}
I(t)\leq\max{(1,2^{1-\vartheta})}&{{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\zeta}}
\int_{0}^{\frac{1}{2}}\xi^{\zeta-1} e^{-{\varpi\xi{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}}}d\xi\nonumber\\
&~~~~+2\varpi^{-\zeta}\Gamma(\zeta+2)\int_{\frac{1}{2}}^{1}{(1-\xi)}^{\vartheta-1}d\xi.\end{aligned}$$ A substitution $u={\varpi\xi{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}}$ yields that $$\begin{aligned}
I(t)\leq\max{(1,2^{1-\vartheta})}&{{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\zeta}}
\int_{0}^{\infty}
{\bigg(\frac{u}{{\varpi{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}}}\bigg)}^{\zeta-1}
\frac{e^{-u}}{{\varpi{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}}}du\\
&+2\varpi^{-\zeta}\Gamma(\zeta+2){\bigg[\frac{{-(1-\xi)}^{\vartheta}}{\vartheta}\bigg]{\bigg|}_{\xi=\frac{1}{2}}^{1}}.\end{aligned}$$ This gives $$\label{10}
I(t)\leq\max{(1,2^{1-\vartheta})}\varpi^{-\zeta}\Gamma(\zeta)+\frac{2^{1-\vartheta}\varpi^{-\zeta}\Gamma(\zeta+2)}{\vartheta},$$ which results in $$I(t)\leq\max{\{1,2^{1-\vartheta}\}}\varpi^{-\zeta}\Gamma(\zeta){\bigg(1+\frac{\zeta(\zeta+1)}{\vartheta}\bigg)}.$$ For $0<\eta<1,\,e^{\eta}\geq1$, therefore $\Gamma(\zeta+2)e^{\eta}\geq1\geq\eta^{\zeta}$ holds and for $t$ such that $0<{\varpi\xi{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}}<1$ one can proceed in a similar way to conclude the lemma with $C=\max{\{1,2^{1-\vartheta}\}}\Gamma(\zeta){\big(1+\frac{\zeta(\zeta+1)}{\vartheta}\big)}.$
Now we are ready to present our main stability result by using Lemma \[l31\]. We introduce the following hypotheses.
(H1)
: $f(\cdot,x(\cdot))\in{C_{1-\gamma,\rho}^{\beta(1-\alpha)}(a,\infty)}$ for any $x\in{C_{1-\gamma,\rho}[a,\infty)}$ such that $$\label{13}
|f(t,x(t))|\leq{{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\mu}e^{-\sigma\rho{{\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}}}\phi(t){|x(t)|}^m},
\quad t>a>0,\mu\geq0,$$ where $m\in{{\mathbb{N}}}\backslash \{1\}$ and $\phi$ is nonnegative continuous function on $[a,\infty).$
(H2)
: For some $q>\frac{1}{\alpha}$ and $\phi(t){\big(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}^{-m\beta(1-\alpha)}\in{L^{q}(a,\infty)}$ such that $${\bigg({\bigg\|\phi(t)\bigg\|}_{q}\bigg)}^{m-1}{\bigg\|{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{-m\beta(1-\alpha)}\phi(t)\bigg\|}_{q}<K,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
K&={\bigg(\frac{{{(\Gamma(\alpha))}^{mq}}a^m}{{{|b|}^{mq(m-1)}}(m-1)2^{q(m+\alpha-1)-1}}\bigg)}^{1/q}{\bigg(\frac{{(p\sigma\rho)}^{\lambda_1m}}{{\Gamma(\lambda_1)}^m{(1+\frac{\lambda_1}{\lambda_2})}^m}\bigg)}^{1/p},\\
\lambda_1&=1+p[\mu-(1-\gamma)m],\quad \lambda_2=1+p(\alpha-1),\,\,{\mu>(m-1)(1-\gamma)},\end{aligned}$$ and $p$ is the conjugate exponent of $q,$ i.e. $pq=p+q.$
Let $0<\alpha<1,\,0\leq\beta\leq1,$ and $\gamma=\alpha+\beta(1-\alpha).$ Suppose that $f$ satisfies [(H1)]{} and $\phi$ satisfies [(H2)]{}. Then, for any solution of Cauchy-type problem , there exists a positive constant $C$ such that $${|x(t)|}\leq{C}{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\gamma-1},\quad t>a>0.$$
Cauchy-type problem is equivalent to the following Volterra integral equation . Multiply both sides of by ${\big(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}^{1-\gamma}$ and using inequality , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15}
{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{1-\gamma}|x(t)|&\leq |b|+\frac{{\big(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}^{1-\gamma}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}
\int_{a}^{t}s^{\rho-1}{{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-s^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}}^{\alpha-1}
{{\bigg(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}}^{\mu}\nonumber\\
&\hspace{3cm}\times e^{-\sigma\rho\big(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}
\phi(s){|x(s)|}^{m}ds.\end{aligned}$$ Let us denote the left-hand side of by $y(t)$. Then inserting the terms ${\big(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}^{m(1-\gamma)}{\big(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}^{-m(1-\gamma)}$ inside the integral gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{16}
y(t)\leq |b|+&\frac{{\big(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}^{1-\gamma}}{\Gamma(\alpha)}
\int_{a}^{t}s^{\rho-1}{{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-s^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}}^{\alpha-1}
{{\bigg(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}}^{\mu-(1-\gamma)m}\nonumber\\
&\hspace{2cm}\times e^{-\sigma\rho\big(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}
\phi(s){y^{m}(s)}ds,\quad t>a>0.\end{aligned}$$ Applying Holder inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{a}^{t}&s^{\rho-1}{{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-s^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}}^{\alpha-1}{{\bigg(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}
{\rho}\bigg)}}^{\mu-(1-\gamma)m}e^{-\sigma\rho\big(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}\phi(s){y^{m}(s)}ds\\
\leq&{\bigg[\int_{a}^{t}s^{p(\rho-1)}{{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-s^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}}^{p(\alpha-1)}{{\bigg(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}
{\rho}\bigg)}}^{p(\mu-(1-\gamma)m)}e^{-p\sigma\rho\big(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}ds\bigg]}^{1/p}\\
&\hspace{2cm}\times{\bigg[\int_{a}^{t}\phi^{q}(s){y^{qm}(s)}ds\bigg]}^{1/q},\qquad\qquad\qquad t>a>0.\end{aligned}$$ Since $x\in{C_{1-\gamma,\rho}(a,\infty)}$ and $\phi$ satisfies assumption ${(H2)},$ the second integral on the right hand side is finite for each fixed $t.$
Again by hypotheses ${(H2)},$ we have $\lambda_1>0,\lambda_2>0,(p\sigma\rho)>0.$ Thus, $\lambda_1-1=p[\mu-(1-\gamma)m]>0\,\,,\lambda_2-1=(\alpha-1)p>0.$ Thanks to Lemma \[l31\], we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{18}
\int_{a}^{t}s^{\rho-1}{{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-s^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}}^{\alpha-1}&{{\bigg(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}
{\rho}\bigg)}}^{\mu-(1-\gamma)m}e^{-\sigma\rho\big(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}\phi(s){y^{m}(s)}ds\nonumber\\
&\leq{C_1{{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}}^{\alpha-1}}{\bigg[\int_{a}^{t}\phi^{q}(s){y^{qm}(s)}ds\bigg]}^{1/q},\end{aligned}$$ with $C_1={[2^{(\alpha-1)p}\Gamma(\lambda_1)(1+\frac{\lambda_1(\lambda_1+1)}{\lambda_2}){(p\sigma\rho)}^{-\lambda_1}]}^{1/p}.$ Linking and we obtain $$\label{19}
y(t)\leq|b|+{{\hat{C}}_1{{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}}^{-\beta(\alpha-1)}}
{\bigg(\int_{a}^{t}\phi^{q}(s){y^{qm}(s)}ds\bigg)}^{1/q},\,\, t>a>0,$$ for ${\hat{C}}_1=\frac{C_1}{\Gamma(\alpha)}.$ Multiply to both sides of by ${\big(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}^{\beta(\alpha-1)},$ we obtain $$\label{20}
{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\beta(\alpha-1)}y(t)
\leq|b|{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\beta(\alpha-1)}+{\hat{C}}_1
{\bigg(\int_{a}^{t}\phi^{q}(s){y^{qm}(s)}ds\bigg)}^{1/q}.$$ Denote by $z(t)$ the left-hand side of . Insert the term ${\big(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}^{-qm\beta(\alpha-1)}$ ${\big(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\big)}^{qm\beta(\alpha-1)}$ inside the integral on the right-hand side of gives $$\label{21}
z(t)\leq|b|{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\beta(\alpha-1)}+{\hat{C}}_1
{\bigg[\int_{a}^{t}\phi^{q}(s){\bigg(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{-qm\beta(\alpha-1)}{z^{qm}(s)}ds\bigg]}^{1/q}.$$ Raising both sides of to the power $q$, we get $$\label{22}
z^q(t)\leq2^{q-1}{\bigg[{|b|}^{q}{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{q\beta(\alpha-1)}+{{\hat{C}}_1}^q
\int_{a}^{t}\phi^{q}(s){\bigg(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{-qm\beta(\alpha-1)}{z^{qm}(s)}ds\bigg]}.$$ Set $$\label{23}
w(t)={{\hat{C}}_1}^q\int_{a}^{t}\phi^{q}(s){\bigg(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{-qm\beta(\alpha-1)}{z^{qm}(s)}ds,\quad t>a>0.$$ Then, by the continuity of $z(t)$ and assumption ${(H2)},$ the integrand is summable. Clearly $w(a)=0,$ and by differentiation $$\label{24}
w'(t)={{\hat{C}}_1}^q\phi^{q}(t){\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{-qm\beta(\alpha-1)}{z^{qm}(t)},\quad t>a>0.$$ Moreover, $\phi,z$ and right-hand side of are nonnegative, $w$ is a nonnegative continuous and nondecreasing function in $[a,\infty).$
Further, we estimate the right-hand side of in terms of $w(t).$ From and , we obtain $$z^q(t)\leq2^{q-1}{\bigg[{|b|}^{q}{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{q\beta(\alpha-1)}+w(t)\bigg]}.$$ Raising both sides to the power $m$ and using Lemma \[l4\], we get $$\label{25}
z^{qm}(t)\leq2^{mq-1}{\bigg[{|b|}^{mq}{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{mq\beta(\alpha-1)}+w^m(t)\bigg]}.$$ Substituting into yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{26}
w'(t)&\leq2^{mq-1}{\hat{C}_1}^{q}{\phi}^q(t){\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{-mq\beta(\alpha-1)}\nonumber\\
&\hspace{2cm}\times{\bigg[{|b|}^{mq}{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{mq\beta(\alpha-1)}+w^m(t)\bigg]}\nonumber\\
&\leq2^{mq-1}{|b|}^{mq}{\hat{C}_1}^{q}{\phi}^q(t)\nonumber\\
&\hspace{2cm}+2^{mq-1}{\hat{C}_1}^{q}
{\bigg(\frac{{t}^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{-mq\beta(\alpha-1)}{\phi}^q(t)w^m(t).\end{aligned}$$ Applying Pachpatte Lemma (Lemma \[l5\] with $w(x)=x^m$) we infer that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{27}
w(t)\leq{G^{-1}}&\bigg[G\bigg(w(a)+2^{mq-1}{|b|}^{mq}{\hat{C}_1}^q\int_{a}^{t}\phi^q(s)ds\bigg)\nonumber\\
&+2^{mq-1}{\hat{C}_1}^q\int_{a}^{t}{\bigg(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{-mq\beta(\alpha-1)}\phi^q(s)ds\bigg].\end{aligned}$$ Set $$\begin{gathered}
l(t)=2^{mq-1}{|b|}^{mq}{\hat{C}_1}^q\int_{a}^{t}\phi^q(s)ds,\\
k(t)=2^{mq-1}{\hat{C}_1}^q\int_{a}^{t}{\bigg(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{-mq\beta(\alpha-1)}\phi^q(s)ds,\end{gathered}$$ then inequality becomes $$\label{29}
w(t)\leq{G^{-1}}\big[G\big(l(t)\big)+k(t)\big],$$ where we have used the fact $w(a)=0.$ Here $G(r)=\int_{r_0}^{r}\frac{ds}{s^m}$, $r>0,\,r_0>0,$ $$i.e.\,\,\,G(r)=\frac{r^{1-m}}{1-m}-\frac{{r_0}^{1-m}}{1-m}\quad\text{and}\quad G^{-1}(y)=[{r_0}^{1-m}-(m-1)y]^{-1/(m-1)}.$$ The inequality reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{30}
w(t)&\leq G^{-1}{\bigg[\frac{{l(t)}^{1-m}}{1-m}-\frac{{l(t_0)}^{1-m}}{1-m}+k(t)\bigg]}\nonumber\\
&\leq{\bigg[{l(t_0)}^{1-m}-(m-1)\bigg(\frac{{l(t)}^{1-m}}{1-m}-\frac{{l(t_0)}^{1-m}}{1-m}+k(t)\bigg)\bigg]}^{-\frac{1}{m-1}}\nonumber\\
&\leq{[{l(t)}^{1-m}-(m-1)k(t)]}^{-\frac{1}{m-1}},\end{aligned}$$ as long as ${l(t)}^{m-1}k(t)<{\frac{1}{m-1}}.$ In particular, if $${\bigg(\int_{a}^{t}\phi^q(s)ds\bigg)}^{m-1}{\bigg[\int_{a}^{t}\phi^q(s){\bigg(\frac{s^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{-mq\beta(1-\alpha)}ds\bigg]}<K/2$$ then $w(t)\leq{K_1}$ for some positive constant $K_1$ for all $t>a>0$ and thus from , we find that $$z(t)\leq|b|{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\beta(1-\alpha)}+{K_1}^{1/q},$$ and then $$y(t)\leq|b|+{K_1}^{1/q}{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{-\beta(1-\alpha)}\leq{C},\quad t\geq{t_0}>a>0,$$ for some positive constant $C.$ This yields that $$|x(t)|\leq{C}{{\bigg(\frac{t^\rho-a^\rho}{\rho}\bigg)}^{\gamma-1}}\qquad\text{for}\quad t\geq{t_0}>a>0.$$
[00]{} S. Abbas, M. Benchohra, J. E. Lagreg and Y. Zhou; [ A survey on Hadamard and Hilfer fractional differential equations: Analysis and stability,]{} *Chaos, Solitons and Fractals,* [**102**]{}, 47–71, 2017.
R. L. Bagley, P. J. Torvik; A theoretical basis for the application of fractional calculus to viscoelasticity, *J. Rheology*, [**27**]{}, 201–210, 1983.
New Approach to Existence of Solution of Weighted Cauchy-type Problem, [*arXiv:submit/2358393.math.CA,*]{} 9 Aug, 2018. 10 pages.
9 Aug, 2018. 10 pages.
(accepted), 15 pages, 2018.
*Bull. Marathwada Math. Soc.,* [**18**]{} (2) 2017, 1–13.
*Communications in Applied Analysis,* [**22**]{} (1), 121–134, 2018.
*arXiv:1704.02462v1 \[math.CA\],* 2017.
*arXiv:1704.02464v2 \[math.CA\],* 2017. (accepted in IJPAM).
*Nonlinear Dyn. Syst. Theory.,* [**18**]{} (2), 144–153, 2018.
*arXiv:1709.08838v1 \[math.CA\],* 2017.
K. M. Furati, M. D. Kassim, N. -E. Tatar; Existence and uniqueness for a problem involving Hilfer fractional derivative, *Comput.Math.Appl.*, [**64**]{}, 1616–1626, 2012.
R. Hilfer; *Applications of fractional calculus in physics*, World Scientific, New-Jersey, London-Hong Kong, 2000.
M. D. Kassim, K. M. Furati, N. -E. Tatar; On a differential equation involving Hilfer-Hadamard fractional derivative, *Abstr.Appl.Anal.*, vol.2012, 17 pages.
M. D. Kassim, N.-E. Tatar; Well-posedness and stability for a differential problem with Hilfer-Hadamard fractional derivative, *Abstr.Appl.Anal.*, vol.2013, 12 pages.
U. N. Katugampola; New approach to a generalized fractional integral, *Appl.Math.Comput.*, [**218**]{}, 860–865, 2011.
U. N. Katugampola; A new approach to generalized fractional derivatives, *Bull. Math. Anal. Appl.*, [**2014**]{} (6), 1–15, 2014.
U. N. Katugampola; Existence and uniqueness results for a class of generalized fractional differenital equations, eprint *arXiv:1411.5229v2 \[math.CA\]*, 2016.
A. A. Kilbas, H. M. Srivastava, J. J. Trujillo; *Theory and Applications of Fractional Differential Equations*, North-Holland Mathematics Studies 204, Elsevier 2006.
F. Mainardi; *Fractional calculus and waves in linear viscoelastisity*, Imperial College Press, 2010.
B. G. Pachpatte; *Inequalities for fractional differential and integral equations*, Vol 197, Academic Press, 1998.
D. S. Oliveira and E. Capelas de Oliveira, Hilfer-Katugampola fractional derivative, [*eprint arXiv:1705.07733v1 \[math.CA\],*]{} 2017.
Y. Xu, Dynamics of a new chaotic system, [*Proc. of IEEE Conference on Nonlinear Dynamics*]{}, Boston, USA, June 12-14, 2000, pp. 22-26.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The [1-2 ]{}model on the hexagonal lattice is a model of statistical mechanics in which each vertex is constrained to have degree either $1$ or $2$. There are three edge-directions, and three corresponding parameters $a$, $b$, $c$. It is proved that, when $a \ge b \ge c > 0$, the surface given by $\sqrt a = \sqrt b + \sqrt c$ is critical. The proof hinges upon a representation of the partition function in terms of that of a certain dimer model. This dimer model may be studied via the Pfaffian representation of Fisher, Kasteleyn, and Temperley. It is proved, in addition, that the two-edge correlation function converges exponentially fast with distance when $\sqrt a \ne \sqrt b + \sqrt c$. Many of the results may be extended to periodic models.'
address:
- 'Statistical Laboratory, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Cambridge University, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WB, UK'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-3009, USA'
author:
- 'Geoffrey R. Grimmett'
- Zhongyang Li
date: '28 June 2015, revised 1 June 2016, 17 February 2017'
title: 'Critical surface of the [1-2 ]{}model'
---
Introduction and background {#sec:intro}
===========================
The [1-2 ]{}model on the hexagonal lattice was introduced by Schwartz and Bruck [@SB08] as an intermediary in the calculation of the capacity of a constrained coding system. They expressed the capacity via holographic reductions (see [@Val]) in terms of the number of perfect matchings (or dimer configurations), and the latter may be studied via the Pfaffian method of Fisher, Kasteleyn, and Temperley [@F61; @Kast61; @TF61]. The [1-2 ]{}model may be viewed as a model of statistical mechanics of independent interest, and it is related to the Ising model and the dimer model. In the current paper, we study the [1-2 ]{}model within this context, and we establish the exact form of the associated critical curve.
A [1-2 ]{}configuration on the hexagonal lattice ${{\mathbb H}}=({{\mathbb V}},{{\mathbb E}})$ is a subset $F$ of edges such that every vertex is incident with either one or two edges of $F$. There are three real parameters $a,b,c>0$, which are associated with the three classes of edges of ${{\mathbb H}}$. The weight of a configuration on a finite region is the product over vertices $v$ of one of $a,b,c$ chosen according to the edge-configuration at $v$. (See Figure \[fig:sign\].)
Through a sequence of transformations, the [1-2 ]{}model turns out to be linked to an enhanced Ising model, a polygon model, and a dimer model. These connections are pursued here, and in the linked paper [@GL7]. The main result (Theorem \[thm:main\]) states in effect that, when $a\ge b, c>0$, the surface given by $\sqrt a = \sqrt b + \sqrt c$ is critical. This is proved by an analysis of the behaviour of the two-edge correlation function $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle$ as $|e-f|\to{\infty}$. The model is called *uniform* if $a=b=c=1$, and thus the uniform model is not critical in the above sense.
There has been major progress in recent years in the study of two-dimensional Ising models via rhombic tilings and discrete holomorphic observables (see, for example, [@BdT12; @ChelkS2; @ChelkS; @Ken04]). There is a rhombic representation of the critical polygon model associated with the [1-2 ]{}model, and an associated discrete holomorphic function, but this is not explored here.
Certain properties of the underlying hexagonal lattice are utilized heavily in this work, such as trivalence, planarity, and support of a ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$ action. It may be possible to extend many of the results of this paper to certain other graphs with such properties, including the Archimedean lattice $(3, 12^2)$ and the square/octagon lattice $(4, 8^2)$. Further extensions are possible to periodic models on hexagonal and other lattices. (See Remarks \[rem:-1\], \[rem:alt\] and Section \[sec:lis2\].)
It was shown already in [@ZL2] that a (geometric) phase transition exists for the [1-2 ]{}model on ${{\mathbb H}}$. An *$a$-cluster* is a connected set of vertices each having local weight $a$ (as above). It was shown that there exists, a.s. with respect to any translation-invariant Gibbs measure, no infinite path of present edges. In contrast, for given $b$, $c$, there exists no infinite $a$-cluster for small $a$, whereas such a cluster exists for large $a$. The a.s. uniqueness of infinite ‘homogeneous’ clusters was proved in [@ZL3].
This paper is concentrated on the [1-2 ]{}model and its dimer representation. A related representation involves the polygon model on ${{\mathbb H}}$, and the phase transition of the latter model is the subject of the linked paper [@GL7]. The polygon representation is related to the high temperature expansion of the Ising model, and results in an inhomogeneous model that may regarded as an extension of the $O(n)$ model with $n=1$; see [@DPSS] for a recent reference to the $O(n)$ model.
The structure of the current work is as follows. The precise formulation of the [1-2 ]{}model appears in Section \[sec:model\], and the main theorem (Theorem \[thm:main\]) is presented in Section \[sec:mainthm\].
The [1-2 ]{}model is coupled with an Ising model in Section \[partf\], in a manner not dissimilar to the Edwards–Sokal coupling of the random-cluster model (see [@G-RCM Sect. 1.4]). It may be transformed into a dimer model (see [@ZL2]) as described in Section \[sec:dimer\]. In Section \[sec:free\], we gather some conclusions about infinite-volume free energy and infinite-volume measures that are new for the [1-2 ]{}model. Theorem \[thm:main\] is proved in Sections \[sec:morepf\]–\[sec:pf32\] by an analysis using Pfaffians, and further in Sections \[sec:pf-1\] and \[sec:eecad\]. Section \[sec:periodic\] is devoted to extensions of the above results to periodic 1-2 and Ising models to which the Kac–Ward approach of [@Lis] does not appear to apply.
The [1-2 ]{}model {#sec:model}
=================
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a finite graph. A *[1-2 ]{}configuration* on $G$ is a subset $F\subseteq E$ such that every $v \in V$ is incident to either one or two members of $F$. The subset $F$ may be expressed as a vector in the space ${\Sigma}=\{-1,+1\}^E$ where $-1$ represents an absent edge and $+1$ a present edge. Thus the space of [1-2 ]{}configurations may be viewed as the subset of ${\Sigma}$ containing all vectors ${\sigma}$ such that $$\sum_{e\ni v} {\sigma}'_e \in \{1,2\}, {\qquad}v \in V,$$ where $$\label{eq:sigmap}
{\sigma}'(e) = \tfrac12(1+{\sigma}(e)).$$ (In Section \[ssec1\], we will write ${\Sigma}^{\mathrm{e}}$ for ${\Sigma}$, in order to distinguish it from a space of vertex-spins to be denoted ${\Sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}$.)
![An embedding of the hexagonal lattice. Horizontal edges are said to be of type $a$, NW edges of type $b$, and NE edges of type $c$.[]{data-label="fig:hex"}](hex){width="0.45\hsize"}
Suppose now that $G$ is a finite part of the hexagonal lattice ${{\mathbb H}}$, suitably embedded in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$, see Figure \[fig:hex\]. The embedding is such that each edge may be viewed as one of: horizontal, NW, or NE. (Later we shall consider a finite box with toroidal boundary conditions.) Let $a,b,c \ge 0$ be such that $(a,b,c)\ne(0,0,0)$, and associate these three parameters with the edges as indicated in the figure. For ${\sigma}\in{\Sigma}$ and $v \in V$, let ${\sigma}|_v$ be the sub-configuration of ${\sigma}$ on the three edges incident to $v$. There are $2^3=8$ possible local configurations, which we encode as words of length three in the alphabet with letters $\{0,1\}$. That is, for $v \in V$, we observe the states ${\sigma}(e_{v,a}),{\sigma}(e_{v,b}), {\sigma}(e_{v,c})$, where $e_{v,a}$, $e_{v,b}$, $e_{v,c}$ are the edges of type $a$, $b$, $c$ ([respectively]{}) incident to $v$. The corresponding *signature* $s_v$ is the word ${\sigma}'(e_{v,c}){\sigma}'(e_{v,b}){\sigma}'(e_{v,a})$ of length $3$, where ${\sigma}'$ is given in . That is, the signature of $v$ is given as in Figure \[fig:sign\], together with the local weight $w({\sigma}|_v)$ associated with each of the eight possible signatures.
The hexagonal lattice ${{\mathbb H}}$ is, of course, bipartite, and we colour the two vertex-classes *black* and *white*. The upper diagrams of Figure \[fig:sign\] are for black vertices, and the lower for white vertices.
![The eight possible local configurations ${\sigma}|_v$ at a vertex $v$ in the two cases of *black* and *white* vertices. The signature of each is given, and also the local weight $w({\sigma}|_v)$ associated with each instance.[]{data-label="fig:sign"}](sign2){width="0.98\hsize"}
To the vector ${\sigma}\in{\Sigma}$, we assign the weight $$\label{eq:pf-2}
w({\sigma}) = \prod_{v\in V} w({\sigma}|_v).$$ These weights give rise to the partition function $$\label{eq:pf-1}
Z=\sum_{{\sigma}\in{\Sigma}} w({\sigma}),$$ which leads in turn to the probability measure $$\label{eq:pm}
\mu({\sigma}) = \frac1Z w({\sigma}), {\qquad}{\sigma}\in{\Sigma}.$$ It is easily seen that the measure $\mu$ is invariant under the mapping $(a,b,c)\mapsto (ka,kb,kc)$ with $k >0$. It is therefore natural to re-parametrize the [1-2 ]{}model by $$\label{eq:ratio}
(a',b',c')=\frac{(a,b,c)}{\|(a,b,c)\|_2}.$$
We will work mostly with a finite subgraph of ${{\mathbb H}}$ subject to toroidal boundary conditions. Let $n \ge 1$, and let $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$ be the two shifts of ${{\mathbb H}}$, illustrated in Figure \[fig:hex0\], that map an elementary hexagon to the next hexagon in the given directions. The pair $(\tau_1,\tau_2)$ generates a ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$ action on ${{\mathbb H}}$, and we write ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ for the quotient graph of ${{\mathbb H}}$ under the subgroup of ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$ generated by $\tau_1^n$ and $\tau_2^n$. The resulting ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ is illustrated in Figure \[fig:hex0\], and may be viewed as a finite subgraph of ${{\mathbb H}}$ subject to toroidal boundary conditions.
\[1\][![The graph ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ is an $n\times n$ ‘diamond’ wrapped onto a torus, as illustrated here with $n=4$.[]{data-label="fig:hex0"}](torus.pdf "fig:"){width="0.6\hsize"}]{}
Our purpose in this paper is to study the [1-2 ]{}measure on ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ in the infinite-volume limit as $n\to{\infty}$, and to identify its critical surface. As an indicator of phase transition, we shall use the two-point function $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle_n$, where $e$, $f$ are two edges and $\langle \cdot\rangle_n$ denotes expectation.
We do not explore in detail the nature and multiplicity of infinite-volume measures in this paper. There are certain complexities in such issues arising from the absence of a correlation inequality, and some partial results along these lines may be found in [@ZL2 Thm 0.1]. These results are developed in Section \[sec:free\], where the main result of current value is the existence of the infinite-volume limit of the toroidal [1-2 ]{}measure, see Theorem \[es\].
Main results {#sec:mainthm}
============
Consider the [1-2 ]{}model on ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ with parameters $a,b,c >0$. We write $e=\langle x,y\rangle$ for the edge $e$ with endpoints $x$, $y$, and we use $\langle X\rangle_n$ to denote expectation of the random variable $X$ with respect to the probability measure of on ${{\mathbb H}}_n$. We shall make use of a measure of distance $|e-f|$ between $e$ and $f$, and it is largely immaterial which measure we take. For definiteness, consider ${{\mathbb H}}$ embedded in ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ in the manner of Figure \[fig:hex0\], with unit edge-lengths, and let $|e-f|$ be the Euclidean distance between their midpoints.
We shall sometimes require the following geometric condition on two NW edges $e,f \in {{\mathbb E}}$: $$\label{eq:condition0}
\begin{aligned}
&\text{there exists a path $\pi=\pi(e,f)$ of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ from $e$ to $f$}\\
& \text{using only horizontal and NW half-edges}.
\end{aligned}$$
\[thm:main\] Let $a, b, c >0$, and $e,f\in{{\mathbb E}}$.
The limit $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle=\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle_n$ exists.
*Subcritical case.* Let $a \ge b >0$ and $\sqrt a - \sqrt b < \sqrt c< \sqrt a + \sqrt b$. There exists ${\alpha}(a,b,c)>0$ such that $$\label{eq:expfast}
|\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle| \le e^{-{\alpha}|e-f|}, {\qquad}e,f\in{{\mathbb E}}.$$
*Supercritical case.* Let $a \ge b>0$, and let $e$, $f$ be NW edges satisfying . For almost every $c>0$ satisfying either $\sqrt a > \sqrt b + \sqrt c$ or $\sqrt{c}>\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}$, we have that $\lim_{|e-f|\to{\infty}}\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2$ exists and is non-zero. The convergence is exponentially fast in the distance $|e-f|$.
The two-edge function $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle$ behaves (when $a\ge b > 0$) in a qualitatively different manner depending on whether or not $\sqrt a-\sqrt b < \sqrt c<\sqrt a+\sqrt b$. Here is a motivation for condition . Consider the ‘ground states’ when either $c=0$ or $a=b=0$. By examination of the different cases in Figure \[fig:sign\], we may see, subject to , that $$\label{eq:extreme}
\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle = 1{\qquad}\text{if either}{\quad}a,b>0,\ c=0,{\quad}\text{or}{\quad}a=b= 0,\ c>0.$$ The result of part (c) will follow from this by an argument using analyticity (and, moreover, the set of $c$ at which the conclusion of (c) fails is a union of isolated points). Part (c) holds with $e$, $f$ assumed to be horizontal rather than NW.
Theorem \[thm:main\] is not of itself a complete picture of the location of critical phenomena of the [1-2 ]{}model, since the conditions on the parameters in part (c) are allied to the direction of the vector from $e$ to $f$. (The direction NW is privileged in the above theorem. Similar results hold for the other two lattice directions with suitable permutations of the parameters.) We have not ruled out the theoretical possibility of further critical surfaces in the parameter-space $[0,{\infty})^3$.
\[rem:-1\] The quickest proof of Theorem \[thm:main\](b), the subcritical case, (given in Section \[sec:pf-1\]) is based on a result of [@Lis] that imposes a condition on the parameters of edges incident to a vertex $v$, uniformly in $v$. This condition is satisfied in the current setting (see Section \[sec:pf-1\]). In the more general setting of certain periodic but non-constant families of parameters, or possibly of the 1-2 model on other graphs such as the square/octagon lattice, much of Theorem \[thm:main\] remains true, but the condition of [@Lis] does not generally hold. In order to overcome this lacuna for more general systems, we present a further proof of Theorem \[thm:main\](b) in Section \[sec:eecad\] (in the more general form of Theorem \[thm:main4\]) using the dimer-related techniques of the proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]. Such results may be extended in part to more general periodic settings, see Section \[sec:lis2\].
The proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] utilizes a sequence of transformations between the [1-2 ]{}model and the Ising and dimer models, as described in the forthcoming sections. Theorem \[thm:main\](b) is proved in Section \[sec:pf-1\]. Most of the remaining proof is found in Section \[sec:morepf\], with the exponential rate of part (c) proved in Section \[sec:pf32\]. The last is proved via a general result concerning the convergence rate of the determinants of large truncated block Toeplitz matrices to their limit when the symbol is a smooth matrix-valued function on the unit circle.
Spin representations of the [1-2 ]{}model {#partf}
=========================================
Two spin representations of the [1-2 ]{}model are presented here. In the first, the [1-2 ]{}partition function is rewritten in terms of edge-spins. The second is reminiscent of the random-cluster representation of the Potts model. A further set of spin-variables are introduced at the vertices of the graph, together with an Ising-type partition function.
The [1-2 ]{}model as a spin system
----------------------------------
Let ${{\mathbb H}}_n=(V_n,E_n)$ be the quotient hexagonal lattice embedded in the torus in the manner of Figure \[fig:hex0\]. Let ${\Sigma}_n=\{-1,+1\}^{E_n}$, where $-1$ ([respectively]{}, $+1$) represents an absent edge ([respectively]{}, present edge).
For ${\sigma}\in{\Sigma}_n$ and $v\in V_n$, let ${\sigma}_{v,a}$, ${\sigma}_{v,b}$, ${\sigma}_{v,c}$ denote the spins on the incident $a$-edge, $b$-edge, $c$-edge of $v$. Two partition functions $Z$, $Z'$ generate the same measure whenever they differ only in a multiplicative factor (that is, their weight functions satisfy $w({\sigma})=cw'({\sigma})$ for some $c \ne 0$ and all ${\sigma}\in{\Sigma}$), in which case we write $Z {\doteqdot}Z'$. We represent the [1-2 ]{}model as a spin system as follows.
\[prop:12\] Let $a,b,c\ge 0$ such that $(a,b,c)\ne (0,0,0)$. The [1-2 ]{}model with parameters $a$, $b$, $c$ on ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ has partition function $Z_n$ satisfying $Z_n {\doteqdot}Z_n'$ where $$\label{pft}
Z_n':=\sum_{{\sigma}\in{\Sigma}_n}\,\prod_{v\in V_n}
\bigl(1+A{\sigma}_{v,b}{\sigma}_{v,c}+B{\sigma}_{v,a}{\sigma}_{v,c}+C{\sigma}_{v,a}{\sigma}_{v,b}\bigr),$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
A=\frac{a-b-c}{a+b+c},{\quad}B=\frac{b-a-c}{a+b+c},{\quad}C=\frac{c-a-b}{a+b+c}.\label{abc}\end{aligned}$$
By examination of , we see that a vertex with local configuration labelled $a$ in Figure \[fig:sign\] has weight $$1+A-B-C = \frac{4a}{a+b+c},$$ with similar expressions for vertices with the other possible signatures. This is in agreement with –, and the claim follows.
Coupled Ising representation {#ssec1}
----------------------------
Let $A{{\mathbb H}}_n=(A V_n, A E_n)$ be the graph derived from ${{\mathbb H}}_n=(V_n,E_n)$ by adding a vertex at the midpoint of each edge in $E_n$. Let $M E_n=\{M e: e \in E_n\}$ be the set of such midpoints, and $A V_n = V_n \cup M E_n$. The edges $A E_n$ are precisely the half-edges of $E_n$, each being of the form $\langle v, Me\rangle$ for some $v \in V_n$ and incident edge $e \in E_n$.
We introduce an Ising-type model on the graph $A{{\mathbb H}}_n$. The marginal of the model on midpoints $ME_n$ is a [1-2 ]{}model, and the marginal on $V_n$ is an Ising model. This enhanced Ising model is reminiscent of the coupling of the Potts and random-cluster measures, see [@G-RCM Sect. 1.4]. It is constructed initially via a weight function on configuration space, and via the associated partition function. The weights may be complex-valued, and thus there does not always exist an associated probability measure.
The better to distinguish between $V_n$ and $M E_n$, we set ${\Sigma}_n^{\mathrm{e}}=\{-1,+1\}^{ME_n}$ as before, and ${\Sigma}_n^{\mathrm{v}}=\{-1,+1\}^{V_n}$. An edge $e\in E_n$ is identified with the element of $ME_n$ at its centre. A spin-vector is a pair $({\sigma}^{\mathrm{e}},{\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}})\in {\Sigma}^{\mathrm{e}}\times {\Sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}$ with ${\sigma}^{\mathrm{e}}=({\sigma}_{v,s}: v\in V_n,\ s=a,b,c)$ and ${\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}=({\sigma}_v: v \in V_n)$, to which we allocate the (possibly negative, or even complex) weight $$\label{eq:ss}
\prod_{v\in V_n}(1+{\epsilon}_a{\sigma}_v{\sigma}_{v,a})(1+{\epsilon}_b{\sigma}_v{\sigma}_{v,b})(1+{\epsilon}_c{\sigma}_v{\sigma}_{v,c}),$$ where ${\epsilon}_a, {\epsilon}_b, {\epsilon}_c\in{{\mathbb C}}$ are constants associated with horizontal, NW, and NE edges, respectively, and ${\sigma}_{v,a},{\sigma}_{v,b},{\sigma}_{v,c}$ denote the spins on midpoints of the corresponding edges incident to $v\in V_n$. If $u$ and $v$ are endpoints of the same edge $\langle u, v \rangle$ of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$, then ${\sigma}_{u,a}={\sigma}_{v,a}$. In , each factor $1+{\epsilon}_s {\sigma}_v{\sigma}_{v,s}$ ($s=a,b,c$) corresponds to a half-edge of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$. Recalling that $$\label{eq:tanh}
e^{x{\sigma}_1{\sigma}_2}=(1+{\sigma}_1{\sigma}_2\tanh x)\cosh x, {\qquad}x \in {{\mathbb R}},\ {\sigma}_1{\sigma}_2=\pm1,$$ the above spin system is a ferromagnetic Ising model on $A{{\mathbb H}}_n$ when ${\epsilon}_a,{\epsilon}_b,{\epsilon}_c\in(0,1)$.
Marginal on the midpoints $ME_n$ {#ssec2}
--------------------------------
The partition function of is $$\label{eq:pfss}
{Z_n(I)}:=\sum_{{\sigma}^{\mathrm{e}}\in{\Sigma}_n^{\mathrm{e}}}\, \sum_{{\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}\in {\Sigma}_n^{\mathrm{v}}}\, \prod_{v\in V_n}(1+{\epsilon}_a{\sigma}_v{\sigma}_{v,a})(1+{\epsilon}_b{\sigma}_v{\sigma}_{v,b})(1+{\epsilon}_c{\sigma}_v{\sigma}_{v,c}).$$ (The notation ${Z_n(I)}$ is chosen for consistency with the polygon partition function $Z_n(P)$ used in this article and imported from [@GL7].) The product, when expanded, is a sum of monomials in which each ${\sigma}_v$ has a power between $0$ and $3$. On summing over ${\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}$, only terms with even powers of the site-spins ${\sigma}_v$ survive, and furthermore ${\sigma}_v^2=1$, so that $${Z_n(I)}=2^{|V_n|} \sum_{{\sigma}^{\mathrm{e}}\in{\Sigma}_n^{\mathrm{e}}}\,\prod_{v\in V_n}
\bigl(1+{\epsilon}_b{\epsilon}_c{\sigma}_{v,b}{\sigma}_{v,c}+{\epsilon}_a{\epsilon}_c{\sigma}_{v,a}{\sigma}_{v,c}+{\epsilon}_a{\epsilon}_b{\sigma}_{v,a}{\sigma}_{v,b}
\bigr).$$
Let $a,b,c>0$ be such that $ABC\ne 0$ where $A$, $B$, $C$ are given by , and let $${\epsilon}_a=\sqrt{\frac{BC}{A}},
{\quad}{\epsilon}_b=\sqrt{\frac{AC}{B}},
{\quad}{\epsilon}_c=\sqrt{\frac{AB}{C}}.
\label{ce}$$ By , $$\label{eq:new=}
{Z_n(I)}=2^{|V_n|} Z_n',$$ whence the marginal model of on the midpoints of edges of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$, subject to , is simply the [1-2 ]{}model with parameters $a$, $b$, $c$.
Marginal on the vertices $V_n$ {#ssec3}
------------------------------
This time we perform the sum over ${\sigma}^{\mathrm{e}}$ in . Let $g=\langle u,v\rangle\in E_n$ be an edge with weight ${\epsilon}_g$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{{\sigma}_g=\pm 1}\left(1+{\epsilon}_g{\sigma}_u{\sigma}_g\right)\left(1+{\epsilon}_g{\sigma}_v{\sigma}_g\right)
&=2\left(1+{\epsilon}_g^2{\sigma}_u{\sigma}_v\right),\label{ed}\\
\sum_{{\sigma}_g=\pm 1}{\sigma}_g\left(1+{\epsilon}_g{\sigma}_u{\sigma}_g\right)\left(1+{\epsilon}_g{\sigma}_v{\sigma}_g\right)
&=2{\epsilon}_g({\sigma}_u+{\sigma}_v).\label{ed2}\end{aligned}$$ By and , $$\label{eq:pfss2}
{Z_n(I)}= 2^{|E_n|}\sum_{{\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}\in {\Sigma}_n^{\mathrm{v}}} \prod_{g=\langle u,v\rangle\in E_n}
\left(1+{\epsilon}_g^2{\sigma}_u{\sigma}_v\right).$$ By , this is the partition function of an Ising model on ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ with (possibly complex) weights.
Let $e=\langle u,v\rangle$, $f=\langle x,y\rangle$ be distinct edges in $E_n$. Motivated by Section \[ssec2\] and the discussion of the two-edge correlation $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle_n$ of the [1-2 ]{}model, we define $$\label{eq:pfss3}
{\sigma}(e,f) = \frac1{{Z_n(I)}}
\sum_{{\sigma}^{\mathrm{e}}\in{\Sigma}_n^{\mathrm{e}}} \sum_{{\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}\in {\Sigma}_n^{\mathrm{v}}} {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\prod_{v\in V_n}(1+{\epsilon}_a{\sigma}_v{\sigma}_{v,a})(1+{\epsilon}_b{\sigma}_v{\sigma}_{v,b})(1+{\epsilon}_c{\sigma}_v{\sigma}_{v,c}).$$ By –, this equals $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:corr4}
&\frac1{{Z_n(I)}}2^{|E_n|}\sum_{{\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}\in {\Sigma}_n^{\mathrm{v}}}
\frac{{\epsilon}_e({\sigma}_u+{\sigma}_v){\epsilon}_f({\sigma}_x+{\sigma}_y)}{\left(1+{\epsilon}_e^2{\sigma}_u{\sigma}_v\right)\left(1+{\epsilon}_f^2{\sigma}_x{\sigma}_y\right)}
\prod_{g=\langle u,v\rangle\in E_n}\left(1+{\epsilon}_g^2{\sigma}_u{\sigma}_v\right)\\
&\hskip2cm = \sum_{{\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}\in{\Sigma}_n^{\mathrm{v}}} D_{e,f}({\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}) w({\sigma}^v)
\biggl/ \sum_{{\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}\in{\Sigma}_n^{\mathrm{v}}} w({\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}),
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
w({\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}) &= \prod_{g=\langle u,v\rangle\in E_n}\left(1+{\epsilon}_g^2{\sigma}_u{\sigma}_v\right),\\
D_{e,f}({\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}) &=
\frac{{\epsilon}_e({\sigma}_u+{\sigma}_v){\epsilon}_f({\sigma}_x+{\sigma}_y)}
{\left(1+{\epsilon}_e^2{\sigma}_u{\sigma}_v\right)\left(1+{\epsilon}_f^2{\sigma}_x{\sigma}_y\right)}, {\qquad}e=\langle u,v\rangle, \ f=\langle x,y\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ We interpret $D_{e,f}({\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}})$ as $0$ when its denominator is $0$. Since ${\sigma}_1+{\sigma}_2=0$ when ${\sigma}_1{\sigma}_2=-1$, we may write $$D_{e,f}({\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}}) =
\frac{{\epsilon}_e({\sigma}_u+{\sigma}_v){\epsilon}_f({\sigma}_x+{\sigma}_y)}
{(1+{\epsilon}_e^2)(1+{\epsilon}_f^2)}.\label{eecis0}$$
If the weights $w({\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}})$ are positive (which they are not in general), the ratio on the right side of may be interpreted as an expectation. This observation will be used in Section \[sec:pf-1\].
By inspection of , if ${\epsilon}_g^2=\pm 1$ for some $g\in\{a,b,c\}$, then zero mass is placed on configurations ${\sigma}$ for which there exists an edge $\langle u,v\rangle$ of type $g$ with ${\sigma}_u{\sigma}_v=\mp 1$. We turn to the special case of and with $ABC\ne 0$. Then $$\label{eq:eps=}
{\epsilon}_a^2=\begin{cases}
-1 &\text{if and only if } a^2=b^2+c^2,\\
1 &\text{if and only if } bc=0,\\
\end{cases}$$ and similarly for ${\epsilon}_b$, ${\epsilon}_c$. Note in this case that ${\sigma}(e,f)=\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle_n$, the two-edge function for the associated [1-2 ]{}model.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:main\](b) {#sec:pf-1}
--------------------------------
Let $e=\langle u,v\rangle$, $f=\langle x,y\rangle$ be distinct edges in $E_n$ such that $u$, $x$ are white and $v$, $y$ are black. By –, $$\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle_n=
\big\langle D_{e,f}({\sigma}^{\mathrm{v}})\big\rangle^{\mathrm{I}}_n,
\label{eeci}$$ where $\langle \cdot \rangle_n^{\mathrm{I}}$ denotes expectation in the Ising model of . Recall that this Ising model may have complex weights.
By [@Lis Cor. 2.5] and known results for the Kac–Ward operator (see [@CCK; @KLM; @LisF]), we have that $\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle:=\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle_n\to 0$ exponentially fast as $|e-f|\to{\infty}$, so long as the three acute angles with tangents $|{\epsilon}_g^2|$, $g=a,b,c$, have sum ${\theta}$ satisfying ${\theta}<\frac12\pi$.
It suffices to assume that $a \ge b,c >0$ and $\sqrt a < \sqrt b + \sqrt c$. Suppose first that, in addition, $$\label{eq:not0}
a \ne b+c.$$ Let $A$, $B$, $C$ be given by and , so that $A \in (-1,1)\setminus\{0\}$ and $B,C<0$. Note that the ${\epsilon}_g$ of are purely imaginary if $A<0$, and real otherwise. Now, $$\label{eq:iso}
\tan {\theta}=|ABC|\frac{A^{-2}+B^{-2}+C^{-2}}{1-A^2-B^2-C^2},$$ which is finite under and strictly positive if $$\label{eq:sum2}
A^2+B^2+C^2<1.$$ Using , it is a short calculation to see that holds if $a^2+b^2+c^2-2ab-2bc-2ca < 0$, which is indeed valid when $\sqrt a < \sqrt b + \sqrt c$. (See also the proof of Proposition \[prop:Pzero\].) This establishes subject to .
Suppose finally that $a=b+c$, so that $A=0$ and $B,C<0$, $B+C=-1$. It is useful to represent the 1-2 model as a polygon model, via its high-temperature expansion. As explained in [@GL7], the two-edge function satisfies $$\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle_n=\frac{Z_{n,e{\leftrightarrow}f}}{Z_n(P)},$$ where $Z_{n, e{\leftrightarrow}f}$ and $Z_n(P)$ are given at [@GL7 eqns (2.3), (2.7)] with $${\epsilon}_b{\epsilon}_c=A, {\quad}{\epsilon}_a{\epsilon}_c=B, {\quad}{\epsilon}_a{\epsilon}_b=C.$$
For a polygon configuration $\pi$ (that is, a set of edges such that every vertex has even degree), a vertex of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ is said to be of type $ab$ if it is incident to two edges with types $a$ and $b$ (and similarly for $ac$ and $bc$). Since each vertex in the polygon model has even degree, and $A=0$, no vertex of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ has type $bc$. Therefore, any polygon configuration with non-zero weight in $Z_n(P)$ is a disjoint union of cycles comprising $ac$-type and $ab$-type vertices. The vertices on such a cycle form consecutive pairs with the same type, and each such pair contributes weight either $B^2$ or $C^2$. It follows that $Z_n(P)$ is a sum of positive weights.
Suppose first that $e$ and $f$ are $a$-type (horizontal) edges. Let $\pi'$ be a path between the midpoints of $e$ and $f$ that contributes a non-zero weight to $Z_{n,e{\leftrightarrow}f}$, and let $h$ be the number of its $a$-type edges (with each $a$-type half-edge contributing $\frac12$). Then $\pi'$ contains exactly $2h$ vertices of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$, which appear in consecutive pairs with the same type (either $ab$ or $ac$). The product of the weights of the vertices of $\pi'$ is $B^{2v}C^{2(h-v)}$ ($>0$), where $v$ is the number of consecutive pairs with type $ac$. We denote by $T(h,v)$ the set of all such $\pi'$.
Since the removal of $\pi'$ gives a configuration contributing to $Z_n(P)$, and in addition $D:=B^2+C^2<1$, $$\begin{aligned}
0\le \langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle_n &= \frac{Z_{n,e{\leftrightarrow}f}}{Z_n(P)}
\le\frac1{Z_n(P)} \sum_{h,v} \,\sum_{\pi'\in T(h,v)} B^{2v}C^{2(h-v)}Z_n(P)\\
&\le
2\sum_{h=H}^{\infty}\sum_{v=0}^h \binom hv B^{2v}C^{2(h-v)}
= \frac{2 D^H}{1-D},\end{aligned}$$ where $H=\inf\{h: T(h,v)\ne{\varnothing}\text{ for some }v\}$. Since $H \ge c|e-f|$ for some $c>0$, the claim follows for horizontal $e$, $f$.
If either $e$ or $f$ is not horizontal, an extra term appears at one or both of the ends of $\pi'$, and such a term contributes a factor bounded by $|\max\{B,C\}|<1$.
\[rem:subcrit\] The conclusion of Theorem \[thm:main\](b) may be proved as follows subject to the more restrictive condition $a^2<b^2+c^2$. Under this condition, we have that $A,B,C < 0$. The graph ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ is bipartite with vertex-classes coloured black and white (see the discussion around Figure \[fig:sign\]). We now reverse the signs of the spins of black vertices, thereby obtaining a ferromagnetic Ising model. It is easily checked that this is a high-temperature model (as in ), and it follows that $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle\to 0$ exponentially fast as $|e-f|\to{\infty}$.
\[rem:alt\] A further proof of parts of Theorem \[thm:main\] is presented in Section \[sec:eecad\]. This proof is based on ‘dimer’ rather than ‘Ising’ methods, and may be extended to periodic 1-2 models which appear to be currently beyond the Kac–Ward techniques of [@Lis]. See Section \[sec:periodic\].
Dimer representation of the [1-2 ]{}model {#sec:dimer}
=========================================
The decorated dimer model {#ssec:dec}
-------------------------
Let ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}=(V_{n,{\Delta}},E_{n,{\Delta}})$ be the decorated toroidal graph derived from ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ and illustrated on the right of Figure \[fig:12con\]. It was shown in [@ZL2] that there is a correspondence between [1-2 ]{}configurations on ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ and dimer configurations on ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$. This correspondence is summarized in the figure caption, and a more detailed description follows.
![Part of a [1-2 ]{}configuration on ${{\mathbb H}}_n$, and the corresponding dimer (sub)configuration on ${{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}$. When two edges with a common vertex of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ have the same state in the [1-2 ]{}model, the corresponding ‘bisector edge’ is present in the dimer configuration. The states of the bisector edges determine the dimer configuration on the rest of ${{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}$. The edges of ${{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}$ are allocated weights consistently with the [1-2 ]{}weights of Figure \[fig:sign\]. The central lozenge of the right-hand figure is expanded in Figure \[fig:ofd0\].[]{data-label="fig:12con"}](decor1.pdf){width="90.00000%"}
Let ${\sigma}$ be a [1-2 ]{}configuration on ${{\mathbb H}}_n$, and let $v \in V_n$ ($\subseteq V_{n,{\Delta}}$). The vertex $v$ has three incident edges in ${{\mathbb H}}_{n,\Delta}$, which are bisectors of the three angles of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ at $v$. Such a *bisector edge* is present in the dimer configuration on ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$ if and only if the two edges of the corresponding angle have the same ${\sigma}$-state, that is, either both or neither are present. The states of the bisector edges determine the dimer configuration on the entire ${{\mathbb H}}_{n,\Delta}$. Note that the [1-2 ]{}configurations ${\sigma}$ and $-{\sigma}$ generate the same dimer configuration, denoted $D_{\sigma}$.
To the edges of ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$ we allocate weights as follows: edge $e=\langle i,j\rangle$ is allocated weight $w_{i,j}$ where $$\label{eq:weights}
w_{i,j} =
\begin{cases} a &\text{if $e$ is a horizontal bisector edge,}\\
b &\text{if $e$ is a NW bisector edge,}\\
c &\text{if $e$ is a NE bisector edge,}\\
1 &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ The weight of a dimer configuration is the product of the weights of present edges.
To each [1-2 ]{}configuration ${\sigma}$ on ${{\mathbb H}}_n$, there corresponds thus a unique dimer configuration on ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$. The converse is more complicated, and we preface the following discussion with the introduction of the planar graph ${{\mathbb H}}_n'$, derived from ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ by a process of ‘unwrapping’ the torus.
Let ${{\mathbb H}}_n'$ be the planar graph obtained from ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ by cutting through the two homology cycles ${\gamma}_x$ and ${\gamma}_y$ of the torus, as illustrated in Figure \[hex0\]. That is, ${{\mathbb H}}_n'$ may be viewed as the set of edges that intersect the region marked in Figure \[hex0\] (in which $n=4$ and the central edge is labelled $\langle u,v \rangle$). We may consider ${{\mathbb H}}_n'$ as a partial-graph’ ${{\mathbb H}}'_n=(V_n,{\widetilde}{E}_n,H_n)$, where $V_n$ is the vertex set, ${\widetilde}{E}_n$ is the ‘internal’ edge set, and $H_n$ is the set of half-edges having one endpoint in $V_n$ and one outside $V_n$. We write $H_x^1$ and $H_x^2$ ([respectively]{}, $H_y^1$, $H_y^2$) for the sets of half-edges that cross the upper left and lower right sides ([respectively]{}, upper right and lower left sides) of the diamond of Figure \[hex0\]. Let $H_u=H_u^1\cup H_u^2$ for $u=x,y$.
![The $n\times n$ ‘diamond’ of ${{\mathbb H}}$, with $n=4$. The region ${{\mathbb H}}'_n$ comprises all edges and half-edges that intersect the larger diamond. The annulus between the given boundaries comprises a cycle $C_n$ (drawn above in bold), and two further edges incident with the $w_i$.[]{data-label="hex0"}](torus7.pdf){width="0.6\hsize"}
A [1-2 ]{}configuration on ${{\mathbb H}}'_n$ is a subset of edges and half-edges such that, for $v \in V_n$, the total number of edges and half-edges that are incident to $v$ is either 1 or 2. It is explained in [@ZL2 p. 4] that dimer configurations on ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$ are in one-to-two correspondence to [1-2 ]{} configurations on ${{\mathbb H}}_n'$ satisfying any of the following (pairwise exclusive) conditions:
1. for $e\in H_x\cup H_y$, the two corresponding half-edges $e^1\in H_x^1\cup H_y^1$, $e^2\in H_x^2\cup H_y^2$ have the same state (either both are present or neither is present);
2. for $e\in H_x$, the two corresponding half-edges $e^1\in H_x^1$, $e^2\in H_x^2$ have the opposite states (exactly one of them is present); for $e\in H_y$, the two corresponding half-edges $e^1\in H_y^1$, $e^2\in H_y^2$ have the same state;
3. for $e\in H_x$, the two corresponding half-edges $e^1\in H_x^1$, $e^2\in H_x^2$ have the same state; for $e\in H_y$, the two corresponding half-edges $e^1\in H_y^1$, $e^2\in H_y^2$ have the opposite states;
4. for $e\in H_x\cup H_y$, the two corresponding half-edges $e^1\in H_x^1\cup H_y^1$, $e^2\in H_x^2\cup H_y^2$ have the opposite states.
We refer to the above as the *mixed boundary condition* on ${{\mathbb H}}_n'$.
The above mixed boundary condition is more permissive than the periodic condition that gives rise to [1-2 ]{}configurations on the toroidal graph ${{\mathbb H}}_n$, although the difference turns out to be invisible in the infinite-volume limit (see Theorem \[es\]).
The spectral curve of the dimer model {#ssec:spc}
-------------------------------------
We turn now to the spectral curve of the above weighted dimer model on ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$. The reader is referred to [@ZL-sc] for relevant background, and to [@ZL2 Sect. 3] for further details of the following summary.
The fundamental domain of ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$ is the central lozenge of Figure \[fig:12con\], as expanded in Figure \[fig:ofd0\]. The edges of ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$ are oriented as in the latter figure. It is easily checked that this orientation is clockwise odd’, in the sense that any face of ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$, when traversed clockwise, contains an odd number of edges oriented in the corresponding direction. The fundamental domain has $16$ vertices, and its weighted adjacency matrix (or ‘Kasteleyn matrix’) is the $16\times 16$ matrix $\mathbf B=(b_{i,j})$ with $$b_{i,j} = \begin{cases} w_{i,j} &\text{if $\langle i,j\rangle$ is oriented from $i$ to $j$},\\
-w_{i,j} &\text{if $\langle i,j\rangle$ is oriented from $j$ to $i$},\\
0 &\text{if there is no edge between $i$ and $j$},
\end{cases}$$ where $w_{i,j}$ is given by . From $\mathbf B$ we obtain a *modified* adjacency (or ‘Kasteleyn’) matrix $\mathbf B(z,w)$ as follows.
![A single fundamental domain of the decorated graph ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$ obtained from the central lozenge of Figure \[fig:12con\]. See that figure for an illustration of the relationship between this fundamental domain and the original hexagonal lattice ${{\mathbb H}}$. Note the homology cycles ${\gamma}_x$, ${\gamma}_y$ of the torus, and also the two weight-$c$ edges crossed by the central dashed line.[]{data-label="fd"}](fundamx2){width="60.00000%"}
\[fig:ofd0\]
We may consider the graph of Figure \[fig:ofd0\] as being embedded in a torus, that is, we identify the upper left boundary and the lower right boundary, and also the upper right boundary and the lower left boundary, as illustrated in the figure by dashed lines.
Let $w,z \in{{\mathbb C}}$ be non-zero. We orient each of the four boundaries of Figure \[fig:ofd0\] (denoted by dashed lines) from their lower endpoint to their upper endpoint. The ‘left’ and ‘right’ of an oriented portion of a boundary are as viewed by a person traversing in the given direction.
Each edge $\langle u,v\rangle$ crossing a boundary corresponds to two entries in the weighted adjacency matrix, indexed $(u,v)$ and $(v,u)$. If the edge starting from $u$ and ending at $v$ crosses an upper-left/lower-right boundary from left to right ([respectively]{}, from right to left), we modify the adjacency matrix by multiplying the entry $(u,v)$ by $z$ ([respectively]{}, $z^{-1}$). If the edge starting from $u$ and ending at $v$ crosses an upper-right/lower-left boundary from left to right ([respectively]{}, from right to left), in the modified adjacency matrix, we multiply the entry by $w$ ([respectively]{}, $w^{-1}$). We modify the entry $(v,u)$ in the same way. The ensuing matrix is denoted $\mathbf B(z,w)$, for a definitive expression of which, the reader is referred to [@ZL2 Sect. 3].
The *characteristic polynomial* is given (using Mathematica or otherwise) by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pzw}
P(z,w)=\det \mathbf B(z,w) = f(a,b,c;w,z),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f(a,b,c;w,z)&=
a^4+b^4+c^4+6a^2b^2+6a^2c^2+6b^2c^2-2ab\left(z+\frac{1}{z}\right)\left(a^2+b^2-c^2\right)\\
&{\qquad}-2ac\left(w+\frac{1}{w}\right)\left(a^2+c^2-b^2\right)-2bc\left(\frac{z}{w}+\frac{w}{z}\right)
\left(b^2+c^2-a^2\right).
\end{aligned}$$
The *spectral curve* is the zero locus of the characteristic polynomial, that is, the set of roots of $P(z,w)=0$. It is proved in [@ZL2 Lemma 3.2] that the intersection of $P(z,w)=0$ with the unit torus ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ is either empty or a single real point $(1,1)$. Moreover, in the situation when $P(1,1)=0$, the zero $(1,1)$ has multiplicity $2$. It will be important later to identify the conditions under which $P(1,1)=0$.
\[prop:Pzero\] Let $a,b>0$ and $c\geq 0$.
If any of the following hold, $$\mathrm{(i)}{\quad}\sqrt{a}=\sqrt{b}+\sqrt{c},{\quad}\mathrm{(ii)}{\quad}\sqrt{b}=\sqrt{c}+\sqrt{a},{\quad}\mathrm{(iii)}{\quad}\sqrt{c}=\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b},$$ the curve $P(z,w)=0$ intersects the unit torus ${{\mathbb T}}^2=\{(z,w):|z|=1,|w|=1\}$ at the unique point $(1,1)$.
If none of [(i)–(iii)]{} hold, the curve does not intersect the unit torus.
The intersection of $P(z,w)=0$ with ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ can only be either empty or a single point $(1,1)$, by [@ZL2 Lemma 3.2]. Moreover, since $$\label{eq:303}
f(a,b,c;1,1) = (a^2+b^2+c^2-2ab-2bc-2ca)^2,$$ we have that $f(a,b,c;1,1)=0$ if and only if $\sqrt a \pm \sqrt b \pm \sqrt c=0$.
We note for future use that $$\label{eq:304}
P(1,1) = f(a,b,c;1,1)=\tfrac14\bigl[(A^2+B^2+C^2-1)(a+b+c)^2\bigr]^2,$$ where $A$, $B$, $C$ are as in .
Infinite-volume limits {#sec:free}
======================
This paper is directed primarily at the asymptotic behaviour of the two-edge correlation function of the [1-2 ]{}model, rather than at the existence and multiplicity of infinite-volume measures. Partial results in the latter direction are reported in this section. In Section \[ssec:inf\], the weak limit of the toroidal [1-2 ]{}measure is proved via a relationship with the dimer model on a decorated graph. In Section \[ssec:Gibbs\] we prove the non-uniqueness of Gibbs measures for the ‘low temperature’ [1-2 ]{}model. The existence of the infinite-volume free energy is proved in Section \[ssec:free\].
Toroidal limit measure {#ssec:inf}
----------------------
The [1-2 ]{}model may be studied via the dimer representation of Section \[sec:dimer\]. The dimer convergence theorem of [@ZL2] is as follows.
\[thm:dimer\][@ZL2 Prop. 3.3] Consider the dimer measure ${\delta}_{n,{\Delta}}$ on ${{\mathbb H}}_{n,\Delta}$ with parameters $a, b, c>0$. The limit measure ${\delta}_{\Delta}:=\lim_{n\to{\infty}} {\delta}_{n,{\Delta}}$ exists and is translation-invariant and ergodic.
Let $\mu_n^{\mathrm{mix}}$ ([respectively]{}, $\mu_n$) be the [1-2 ]{}probability measure on ${{\mathbb H}}_n'$ ([respectively]{}, on the toroidal ${{\mathbb H}}_n$) with parameters $a$, $b$, $c$ and mixed boundary condition. By the results of [@ZL2] and the invariance of $\mu_n^{\mathrm{mix}}$ under sign changes, $$\mu_n^{\mathrm{mix}}({\sigma})=\mu_n^{\mathrm{mix}}(-{\sigma})=\tfrac{1}{2}{\delta}_{n,{\Delta}}(D_{\sigma}),
\label{sm}$$ where $D_{\sigma}$ is the dimer configuration on ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$ corresponding to the [1-2 ]{}configuration ${\sigma}$ on ${{\mathbb H}}_n'$. Since the topology of weak convergence may be given in terms of finite-dimensional cylinder events, the weak convergence ${\delta}_{n,{\Delta}}\to {\delta}_{\Delta}$ entails the weak convergence of $\mu^{\mathrm{mix}}_n$ to some probability measure $\mu^{\mathrm{mix}}$ on ${{\mathbb H}}$. By Theorem \[thm:dimer\], $\mu^{\mathrm{mix}}$ is translation-invariant. It is noted at [@ZL2 p. 17] that the ergodicity of ${\delta}_{\Delta}$ does not imply that of $\mu^{\mathrm{mix}}$, and indeed there exist parameter values for which $\mu^{\mathrm{mix}}$ is not ergodic, by the result of [@ZL2 Thm 4.9].
\[es\] Let $a,b,c>0$. The limit ${\mu_{\infty}}:=\lim_{n\to{\infty}} \mu_n$ exists and satisfies ${\mu_{\infty}}=\mu^{\mathrm{mix}}$. In particular, for edges $e$, $f$ of ${{\mathbb H}}$, the limit $$\label{eq:limit}
\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle :=\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle_n$$ exists.
Let ${\Omega}_{n,{\Delta}}$ be the sample space of the dimer model on ${{\mathbb H}}_{n,\Delta}$. Let ${\delta}^{\mathrm{ev}}_n$ be the probability measure of the dimer model on ${{\mathbb H}}_{n,\Delta}$ on the subspace ${\Omega}^{\mathrm{ev}}_{n,{\Delta}}$ of configurations with the property that, along each of the two zigzag paths of ${{\mathbb H}}$ that are neighbouring and parallel to ${\gamma}_x$ and ${\gamma}_y$, there are an even number of present bisector edges.
As explained above (see also [@ZL2]), elements of ${\Omega}_{n,{\Delta}}$ correspond to [1-2 ]{}model configurations on ${{\mathbb H}}_n'$ with the mixed boundary condition, and of ${\Omega}^{\mathrm{ev}}_{n,{\Delta}}$ to [1-2 ]{}model configurations on the toroidal graph ${{\mathbb H}}_n$. We show next that $$\label{eq:deconv}
{\delta}_{n,{\Delta}}^{\mathrm{ev}}\to {\delta}_{\Delta},$$ where ${\delta}_{\Delta}:=\lim_{n\to{\infty}}{\delta}_{n,{\Delta}}$ is given in Theorem \[thm:dimer\].
Let $Z_{n,{\Delta}}$ ([respectively]{}, $Z_{n,{\Delta}}^{\mathrm{ev}}$) be the partition function of ${\Omega}_{n,{\Delta}}$ ([respectively]{}, ${\Omega}_{n,{\Delta}}^{\mathrm{ev}}$), and let $K_n(z,w)$ be the modified Kasteleyn matrix of ${{\mathbb H}}_{n,\Delta}$ (see [@ZL2] and Section \[ssec:spc\]). As explained in [@SB08 Sect. 4B], for $z,w\in\{-1,1\}$, ${\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(z,w)$ is a linear combination of partition functions of dimer configurations of four different classes, depending on the parity of the present edges along the two zigag paths winding around the torus. In particular, by [@SB08 Table 1, Sect. 4B], when $n$ is even, $$Z_{n,{\Delta}}^{\mathrm{ev}}=\tfrac{1}{4}\Bigl[{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(-1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(1,-1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(-1,-1)\Bigr].$$ Let $e_i=\langle u_i,v_i \rangle$, $1\le i \le k$, be edges of ${{\mathbb H}}_{n,\Delta}$, and let $M(e_1,\dots,e_k)$ be the event that every $e_i$ is occupied by a dimer. Let $w_{i}>0$ be the edge weight of $e_i$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
&{\delta}^{\mathrm{ev}}_n(M(e_1,\dots,e_k))\\
&\hskip1cm =\prod_{i=1}^{k}w_{e_i}\left|\frac{{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}K_n(1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}K_n(-1,1)+
{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}K_n(1,-1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}K_n(-1,-1)}{{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(-1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(1,-1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(-1,-1)}\right|,
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\widehat}K_n$ is the submatrix of $K_n$ obtained by removing rows and columns indexed by $u_1,v_1,\dots ,u_k,v_k$. As in [@BdeT10 Thm 4], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:66}
& {\delta}_{n,{\Delta}}(M(e_1,\dots,e_k))\\
&\hskip1cm =\prod_{i=1}^{k}w_{e_i}
\left|\frac{-{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}K_n(1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}K_n(-1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}K_n(1,-1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}K_n(-1,-1)}{-{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(-1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(1,-1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(-1,-1)}\right|.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ As in the proof of [@BdeT10 Thm 6], ${\delta}^{\mathrm{ev}}_{n,{\Delta}}(M(e_1,\dots,e_k))$ and ${\delta}_{n,{\Delta}}(M(e_1,\dots,e_k))$ converge as $n \to{\infty}$ to the same complex integral. Since the events $M(e_1,\dots,e_k)$ generate the product ${\sigma}$-field, we deduce .
Finally, we deduce the claim of the theorem. An *even* ([respectively]{}, *odd*) *correlation function* is an expectation of the form $\langle {\sigma}_A \rangle$, with ${\sigma}_A=\prod_{e\in A}{\sigma}_e$ where $A$ is a finite set of edges of ${{\mathbb H}}$ with even ([respectively]{}, odd) cardinality. In order that $\mu_n\to \mu^{\mathrm{mix}}$, it suffices that the correlation functions of $\mu_n$ and $\mu_n^{\mathrm{mix}}$ have the same limit. By invariance under sign change, the odd correlation functions equal $0$.
The relationship between a [1-2 ]{}measure $\mu$ and the corresponding dimer measure ${\delta}$ is as follows. Let $e_1,\dots ,e_k$ be bisector edges of ${{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}$, and let $S(e_1,\dots,e_k)$ be the event that every $e_i$ separates two edges of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ with the same [1-2 ]{}state. Using the correspondence between [1-2 ]{}and dimer configurations, $$\mu(S(e_1,\dots,e_k))={\delta}(M(e_1,\dots,e_k)).$$
Let $k \ge 1$, let $e_1,e_2,\dots,e_{2k}$ be distinct edges of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$, and write ${\sigma}_i={\sigma}_{e_i}$. Then $$\label{eq:couple}
\langle {\sigma}_1\cdots {\sigma}_{2k}
\rangle_\mu=1-2\mu({\sigma}_1\cdots{\sigma}_{2k}=-1).$$ For $i=2,3,\dots, 2k$, let $\pi_i$ be a self-avoiding path between the midpoints of $e_1$ and $e_i$ comprising edges of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ and two half-edges, and let ${{\mathcal A}}_i$ be the event that the number of *absent* bisector edges encountered along $\pi_i$ is odd. As we move along $\pi_i$ in the [1-2 ]{}model, the edge-state changes at a given vertex if and only if the corresponding bisector edge is absent. Therefore, ${\sigma}_1{\sigma}_i=-1$ if and only if ${{\mathcal A}}_i$ occurs, so that $$\label{eq:corr5}
\langle {\sigma}_1{\sigma}_i\rangle_\mu= \mu({\overline}{{\mathcal A}}_i)-\mu({{\mathcal A}}_i).$$
Let ${{\mathcal A}}$ be the event that the set $I=\{i: {{\mathcal A}}_i \text{ occurs}\}$ has odd cardinality. Since $I=\{i: {\sigma}_1\ne {\sigma}_i\}$, we have that $$\label{eq:couple2}
\mu({\sigma}_1\cdots{\sigma}_{2k}=-1)={\delta}({{\mathcal A}}).$$
We return to the measures $\mu_n$ and $\mu_n^{\mathrm{mix}}$. By –, the even correlation functions of $\mu_n$ and $\mu_n^{\mathrm{mix}}$ are convergent as $n\to{\infty}$, with equal limits. It follows that $\mu_n\to {\mu_{\infty}}$ where ${\mu_{\infty}}=\mu^{\mathrm{mix}}$.
Non-uniqueness of Gibbs measures {#ssec:Gibbs}
--------------------------------
We show the existence of at least two Gibbs measures (that is, ‘phase coexistence’) for the ‘low temperature’ [1-2 ]{}model on ${{\mathbb H}}$. Let ${\Sigma}$ be the set of [1-2 ]{}configurations on the infinite lattice ${{\mathbb H}}$, and let ${{\mathcal G}}={{\mathcal G}}(a,b,c)$ be the set of probability measures on ${\Sigma}$ that satisfy the appropriate DLR condition. (We omit the details of DLR measures here, instead referring the reader to the related discussions of [@MB09 Sect. 2.3] and [@G-RCM Sect. 4.4].) Since ${\Sigma}$ is compact, by Prohorov’s theorem [@Bill Sect. 1.5], every sequence of probability measures on ${\Sigma}$ has a convergent subsequence. It may be shown that any weak limit of finite-volume [1-2 ]{}measures lies in ${{\mathcal G}}$, and hence ${{\mathcal G}}\ne{\varnothing}$.
\[pc\] Let $a\geq b >0$. For almost every $c$ satisfying either $0<\sqrt c<\sqrt a-\sqrt b$ or $\sqrt c > \sqrt a+ \sqrt b$, we have that $|{{\mathcal G}}|\ge 2$.
This proof is inspired by that of [@MB09 Thm 6.2], and it makes use of Theorem \[thm:main\], the proof of which has been deferred to Section \[sec:morepf\]. Let $e$ be a given horizontal edge of ${{\mathbb H}}_n$, and let $f_m$ be an edge satisfying such that $\pi(e,f_m)$ has length $m$. By Theorem \[thm:main\](b) and translation invariance, for almost every $c$ satisfying the given inequalities, there exists ${\alpha}>0$ such that $$\label{eq:alpha}
\lim_{m\to{\infty}}\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_{f_m} \rangle^2=\alpha^2,$$ where $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle$ is the limiting two-edge correlation as $n \to{\infty}$ (see Theorem \[es\]). It suffices to show that, subject to , $|{{\mathcal G}}|\ge 2$.
By , there exists a subsequence $(m_k: k \ge 1)$ along which $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_{f_{m_k}}\rangle$ converges to either ${\alpha}$ or $-{\alpha}$. Assume the first; the proof is essentially the same in the second case. For simplicity of notation, we shall assume that $$\lim_{m\to{\infty}} \langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_{f_{m}}\rangle = {\alpha}.$$
By the invariance of ${\mu_{\infty}}$ under sign change of the configuration, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{m\to{\infty}}{\mu_{\infty}}({\sigma}_e=1\mid {\sigma}_{f_{m}}=1)=\tfrac12(1+\alpha),\\
\lim_{m\to{\infty}}{\mu_{\infty}}({\sigma}_e=1\mid{\sigma}_{f_{m}}=-1)=\tfrac12(1-\alpha).\end{aligned}$$ Find $M$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mu_{\infty}}({\sigma}_e=1\mid {\sigma}_{f_{m}}=-1)&<\tfrac12(1-\tfrac12{\alpha})\\
&<\tfrac12(1+\tfrac12{\alpha})
< {\mu_{\infty}}({\sigma}_e=1\mid{\sigma}_{f_{m}}=1),{\qquad}m \ge M.\end{aligned}$$ We may find an increasing subsequence $(r_m: m \ge M)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_{r_m}({\sigma}_e=1\mid {\sigma}_{f_{m}}=-1)&<\tfrac12(1-\tfrac13{\alpha})\\
&<\tfrac12(1+\tfrac13{\alpha})
< \mu_{r_m}({\sigma}_e=1\mid{\sigma}_{f_{m}}=1),{\qquad}m \ge M.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\mu^+$ ([respectively]{}, $\mu^-$) be a subsequential limit of $\mu_{r_m}(\cdot\mid{\sigma}_{f_{m}}=1)$ ([respectively]{}, $\mu_{r_m}(\cdot\mid{\sigma}_{f_{m}}=-1)$), so that $$\mu^{+}({\sigma}_e=1)>\mu^{-}({\sigma}_e=1).$$ In particular, $\mu^+\ne \mu^-$. Since $|e-f_{m}| \to {\infty}$ as $m \to{\infty}$, the measures $\mu^\pm$ satisfy the DLR condition, and therefore they lie in ${{\mathcal G}}$.
Free energy {#ssec:free}
-----------
A *boundary condition* ${{\mathcal B}}_n$ is a configuration on the half-edges $H_n$ of the planar graph ${{\mathbb H}}_n' = (V_n, {\widetilde}E_n, H_n)$, in the notation of Section \[ssec:inf\]. Let $Z_n(a,b,c,{{\mathcal B}}_n)$ be the partition function of the [1-2 ]{}model on ${{\mathbb H}}'_n$ with parameters $a$, $b$, $c$ and boundary condition ${{\mathcal B}}_n$ (as in , say). The free energy, for given $a$, $b$, $c$ and boundary conditions $({{\mathcal B}}_n: n\ge 1)$, is defined to be $${{\mathcal F}}(a,b,c,({{\mathcal B}}_n)) := \lim_{n\to{\infty}}\frac{1}{|V_n|}\log Z_n(a,b,c,{{\mathcal B}}_n)\label{fed},$$ whenever the limit exists.
Let $(a,b,c)\ne (0,0,0)$. The free energy of exists and is independent of the choice of boundary conditions $({{\mathcal B}}_n)$. Moreover, up to a smooth additive constant, it satisfies $${{\mathcal F}}(a,b,c)=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\iint_{[0,2\pi]^2} \log P(e^{i\theta},e^{i\phi})
\,d\theta\, d\phi,\label{fef}$$ where $P$ is given in .
The correspondence between [1-2 ]{}model configurations on ${{\mathbb H}}_n'$ (with the mixed boundary condition) and dimer configurations on ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$ was explained in Section \[ssec:inf\]. It follows that the free energy of that [1-2 ]{}model is the same as that of the corresponding dimer model. The expression follows for that case from a general argument used to compute the free energy of this dimer model, given that either the spectral curve does not intersect the unit torus, or the intersection is a unique real point of multiplicity $2$. See Proposition \[prop:Pzero\] and also [@KOS06 Thm 3.5] and [@BdeT10 Thm 1].
Next we prove that the free energy of is independent of the choice of $({{\mathcal B}}_n)$. To this end, we consider the boxes ${{\mathbb H}}'_n$ and ${{\mathbb H}}'_{n-2}$ illustrated in Figure \[hex0\]. We claim that, for any boundary condition on ${{\mathbb H}}'_n$ (that is, any present/absent configuration on $H_n$) and any [1-2 ]{}model configuration on ${{\mathbb H}}'_{n-2}$ (so that the edge-states on ${\widetilde}{E}_{n-2}\cup H_{n-2}$ are given), there exists a configuration on ${\widetilde}{E}_n\setminus ({\widetilde}{E}_{n-2}\cup H_{n-2})$ such that the composite configuration is a [1-2 ]{}configuration on ${{\mathbb H}}'_n$.
This claim is shown as follows. Consider a given boundary condition on $H_n$ and a [1-2 ]{}configuration on ${{\mathbb H}}'_{n-2}$. The vertex-set $V_n \setminus V_{n-2}$ forms a cycle $C_n$ with even length, together with two further vertices $w_1$, $w_2$ at the left and right corners, see Figure \[hex0\]. From $C_n$ we select a perfect matching. By considering the various possibilities, we may see that it is always possible to allocate states to the two edges between $C_n$ and the $w_i$ in such a way that, in the resulting composite configuration, each $w_i$ has degree either $1$ or $2$.
Let ${{\mathcal B}}_n^0$ be the *free boundary condition*, under which no half-edge is present. We have that $$\bigl|\log Z_n(a,b,c,{{\mathcal B}}_n)-\log Z_{n-2}(a,b,c,
{{\mathcal B}}^0_{n-2})\bigr|\leq |V_n\setminus V_{n-2}|K,$$ for some $K=K(a,b,c)>0$ and all ${{\mathcal B}}_n$. Divide by $|V_n|$ and let $n\to{\infty}$ to obtain the claim. The theorem follows on noting that the number of boundary configurations is $2^{|H_n|}$, and $|H_n|/|V_n| \to 0$ as $n\to{\infty}$.
Proofs of Theorem \[thm:main\]($\mathrm{a}$) and of the limit in Theorem \[thm:main\]($\mathrm{c}$) {#sec:morepf}
===================================================================================================
The basic structure of the proof is as follows. As in Section \[sec:dimer\], the [1-2 ]{}model may be represented as a dimer model on a certain decorated graph ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$ derived from ${{\mathbb H}}_n$. Subject to condition , the two-edge correlation $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle_n$ of the [1-2 ]{}model may be represented in terms of certain cylinder probabilities of the dimer model. Using the theory of dimers, these probabilities may be expressed in terms of ratios of Pfaffians of block Toeplitz matrices, and a similar representation follows for the infinite-volume two-edge correlation $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle$. By Widom’s theorem [@HW0; @HW], the limit ${\Lambda}(a,b,c):= \lim_{|e-f|\to{\infty}} \langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle^2$ exists, and furthermore ${\Lambda}$ is analytic except when the spectral curve intersects the unit torus. This identifies the phases of the [1-2 ]{}model, and they may be identified as sub/supercritical via the extreme values of .
We shall refer to the following condition on the edges $e$, $f$ of ${{\mathbb H}}$: $$\label{eq:condition}
\begin{aligned}
&\text{$e$ and $f$ are midpoints of two NW edges such that}\\
&\text{there exists a path $\pi=\pi(e,f)$ in $A{{\mathbb H}}_n$ from $e$ to $f$}\\
& \text{using only horizontal and NW half-edges}.
\end{aligned}$$ See Figure \[fig:lef2\]. The principal step in the proof is the following.
![A path $\pi$ comprising horizontal and NW mid-edges, connecting the midpoints of two NW edges $e$ and $f$.[]{data-label="fig:lef2"}](path2)
\[anly\] Let $e,f$ be two edges satisfying , and let $a\geq b\geq 0$. The limit ${\Lambda}(a,b,c):=\lim_{|e-f|\to{\infty}}\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2$ exists and is complex analytic in $c\geq 0$ except when $\sqrt{c}=\sqrt{a}-\sqrt{b}$ and $\sqrt{c}=\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}$.
Before giving the proof of Theorem \[anly\], we explain how to deduce some of the claims of Theorem \[thm:main\](a,c); the *exponential rate* of convergence in part (c) is proved in Section \[sec:pf32\].
Part (a) holds by Theorem \[es\].
Let $a \ge b >0$, and let $e$, $f$ satisfy . By Theorem \[anly\], the function ${\Lambda}_3(\cdot):={\Lambda}(a,b,\cdot)$ is complex analytic on each of the intervals $$\begin{aligned}
C_1&=\bigl[0,(\sqrt{a}-\sqrt{b})^2\bigr),\\
C_2&=\bigl((\sqrt{a}-\sqrt{b})^2,(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b})^2\bigr),\\
C_3&= \bigl((\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b})^2,{\infty}\bigr).\end{aligned}$$ (That is to say, for $c \in C_i$ considered as a line in the complex plane, ${\Lambda}_3$ is analytic on some open neighbourhood of $c$.)
Note in passing that, by Remark \[rem:subcrit\], we have ${\Lambda}_3(c)=0$ for $c$ lying in the interval $S:=(\sqrt{a^2-b^2}, \sqrt{a^2+b^2})$. Since $S \subseteq C_2$ and ${\Lambda}_3$ is analytic on $C_2$, we have as implied in part (b) that $\langle {\sigma}_e,{\sigma}_f\rangle \to 0$ as $|e-f|\to{\infty}$. (This is trivial if $a=b$.)
We turn to part (c). Consider first the interval $C_1$, and assume $a > b$. Since non-trivial analytic functions have only isolated zeros, it follows that: either ${\Lambda}_3\equiv 0$ on $C_1$, or ${\Lambda}_3$ is non-zero except possibly on a set of isolated points of $C_1$. By , ${\Lambda}_3(0)=1$, whence the latter holds.
By , $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle=1$ when $a=b=0$ and $c=1$. Since ${\Lambda}_3$ is analytic (and hence continuous) on $C_3$, there exists ${\alpha}>0$ such that ${\Lambda}(a,b,c)\geq \alpha$ in a small (real) neighbourhood of $(0,0,1)$. Since ${\Lambda}$ depends only on the ratios $a:b:c$ (cf. ), we deduce that, for fixed $a,b>0$ and sufficiently large $c$, we have $\Lambda_3(c)\geq {\alpha}>0$. By Theorem \[anly\], ${\Lambda}_3$ is analytic on $C_3$, and the claim holds as above.
The remainder of the section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[anly\]. We shall develop the notation and arguments of Section \[ssec:inf\]. Let $\mu_n^{\mathrm{mix}}$ be the [1-2 ]{}measure on ${{\mathbb H}}_n'$ with the mixed boundary condition of Section \[ssec:inf\], and let $\mu^{\mathrm{mix}}:=\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\mu_n^{\mathrm{mix}}$, as after Theorem \[thm:dimer\]. By Theorem \[es\], the [1-2 ]{}measure $\mu_n$ on ${{\mathbb H}}_n$ satisfies $\mu_n \to {\mu_{\infty}}=\mu^{\mathrm{mix}}$ as $n\to{\infty}$.
Let $e,f$ be edges of the hexagonal lattice ${{\mathbb H}}$ satisfying . Let the path $\pi$ of traverse a total of $2k-1$ edges and two half-edges, so that $\pi$ passes $2k$ bisector edges of the infinite decorated graph ${{\mathbb H}}_{\Delta}$. We denote this set of bisector edges by $$\label{eq:B}
B=\bigl\{b_i=\langle u_i,v_i\rangle: i=1,2,\dots,2k\bigr\},$$ where $v_i\in\pi$.
Our target is to represent $\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle$ as the Pfaffian of a truncated block Toeplitz matrix, as inspired by [@RK1 Sect. 4.7]. A principal difference between [@RK1] and the current work is that, whereas bipartite graphs are considered there and the determinants of weighted adjacency matrices are computed, in the current setting the graph is non-bipartite and we will compute Pfaffians.
To ${{\mathbb H}}_{\Delta}$ we assign a clockwise odd orientation as in Figure \[fig:ofd0\]: the figure shows a clockwise odd orientation of ${{\mathbb H}}_{1,\Delta}$, embedded in a $1\times 1$ torus, that lifts to a clockwise odd orientation of ${{\mathbb H}}_{\Delta}$. As in , a horizontal ([respectively]{}, NW, NE) bisector edge of ${{\mathbb H}}_{\Delta}$ is assigned weight $a$ ([respectively]{}, $b$, $c$), and all the other edges are assigned weight 1. The bisector edges $g_i=\langle u_i,v_i\rangle$ are oriented in such a way that each $g_i$ is oriented from $u_i$ to $v_i$ in this clockwise-odd orientation.
Let $K_n$ be the Kasteleyn matrix of ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$ (as in Section \[ssec:spc\] and [@ZL2]), and let $|v|$ denote the index of the row and column of $K_n$ corresponding to the vertex $v$. Assume that $|v_i|=|u_i|+1$ for $1\le i \le 2k$, and furthermore that $$\label{eq:order}
|u_1|<|v_1|<|u_2|<|v_2|<\dots <|u_{2k}|<|v_{2k}|.$$ Let $K^{-1}$ be the infinite matrix whose entries are the limits of the entries of $K_n^{-1}$ as $n\to{\infty}$. The existence of $K^{-1}$ may be proved by an explicit diagonalization of $K_n$ using periodicity, as in [@ckp00 Sect. 7] and [@ZL1].
We now construct the modified Kasteleyn matrix $K_1(z,w)$ of ${{\mathbb H}}_{1,{\Delta}}$ by multiplying the corresponding entries in its Kasteleyn matrix by $z$ or $z^{-1}$ ([respectively]{}, $w$ or $w^{-1}$), according to the manner in which the edge crosses one of the two homology cycles ${\gamma}_x$, ${\gamma}_y$ indicated in Figure \[fig:ofd0\]. As remarked in Section \[ssec:spc\], the characteristic polynomial $P(z,w)=\det K_1(z,w)$ is the function $f(a,b,c;w,z)$ of , see also [@ZL2 Lemma 9]. The intersection of the spectral curve $P(z,w)=0$ and the unit torus ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ is given by Proposition \[prop:Pzero\].
Consider the toroidal graph ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$. Let ${\gamma}_x$, ${\gamma}_y$ be homology cycles of the torus, which for definiteness we take to be shortest cycles composed of unions of boundary segments of fundamental domains as in Figure \[fig:ofd0\]. Let $K_n(z,w)$ be the modified Kasteleyn matrix of ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$.
For $I\subseteq \{1,2,\dots,2k\}$, let $M_I$ be the event that every $b_i$ with $i\in I$ is present in the dimer configuration. Assume $n$ is sufficiently large that $$\label{eq:noint}
\text{for $1\le i \le 2k$,{\quad}the edge $b_i$ intersects neither $\gamma_x$ nor $\gamma_y$}.$$ For $n$ even, as in , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:234}
&{\mu_{\infty}}(M_I)
=\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\mu_n(M_I)\\
&\hskip3mm=\lim_{n\to{\infty}} J_I
\frac{-{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}K_{n,{I}}(1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}K_{n,{I}}(1,-1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}K_{n,{I}}(-1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}K_{n,{I}}(-1,-1)}
{-{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(1,-1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(-1,1)+{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(-1,-1)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{235}
J_I= \prod_{i\in I}[K_n]_{u_i,v_i},$$ and ${\widehat}A_I$ denotes the submatrix of the matrix $A$ after deletion of rows and columns corresponding to $\{u_i, v_i: i\in I\}$ (see [@ZL2 Thm 0.1]). Note that ${\mu_{\infty}}(M_{\varnothing})=1$.
The limit of can be viewed as follows. Each monomial in the expansion of ${\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(z,w)$, $z,w\in\{-1,1\}$, corresponds to the product of edge-weights of a dimer configuration, with possibly negative sign. The coefficients in the linear combination of ${\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(1,1)$, ${\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(1,-1)$, ${\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(-1,1)$, and ${\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_n(-1,-1)$ are chosen in such a way that the products of edge-weights of different dimer configurations correspond to monomials of the same sign. The numerator of is the sum over dimer configurations containing every $b_i$, $i\in I$; this can be computed by the corresponding sum of monomials in the expansion of the denominator. Under , $[K_n]_{u_i,v_i}:= [K_n(z,w)]_{u_i,v_i}$ is independent of $z,w\in\{-1,1\}$. Since each $b_i$ is oriented from $u_i$ to $v_i$, we have that $[K_n]_{u_i,v_i}=c$, whence $J_I=c^{|I|}$.
\[pfc\] Let $A$ be a $2m\times 2m$ invertible, anti-symmetric matrix, and let $L\subseteq\{1,2,\dots,2m\}$ be a nonempty even subset. Let ${\widehat}A_L$ be the submatrix of $A$ obtained by deleting the rows and columns indexed by elements in $L$, and let $A_L^{-1}$ be the submatrix of $A^{-1}$ with rows and columns indexed by elements in $L$. Then $$(-1)^{S(L)}{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}A_L={\mathrm{Pf}\, }(A){\mathrm{Pf}\, }(A_L^{-1}),
{\quad}\mathrm{where}\ S(L)=\sum_{l\in L} l.$$
See, for example, [@CSS Lemma A.2].
The conclusion of Lemma \[pfc\] holds also when $L={\varnothing}$, subject to the convention that ${\mathrm{Pf}\, }(A_{{\varnothing}}^{-1})=1$.
Returning to , take $L=\{|u_i|,|v_i|: i \in I\}$, so that $(-1)^{S(L)}=(-1)^{|I|}$, by the choices before . When the spectral curve does not intersect the unit torus ${{\mathbb T}}^2$, by Lemma \[pfc\], $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\frac{{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{\widehat}{K}_{n,I}(z,w)}
{{\mathrm{Pf}\, }{K}_n(z,w)}
&=\lim_{n\to{\infty}}(-1)^{|I|}{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K^{-1}_{n,I}(z,w)\\
&=(-1)^{|I|}{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K^{-1}_{I},\end{aligned}$$ where the limit is independent of $z,w\in\{-1,1\}$; see [@ZL1 Lemma 4.8] for a proof of the existence of the limits of the entries of $K_n^{-1}$. By –, $${\mu_{\infty}}(M_I)=(-c)^{|I|}{\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_{I}^{-1}.\label{mm}$$
We shall make use of the following elementary lemma, the proof of which is omitted.
\[lem:gf\] Let $S$ be a random subset of the finite nonempty set $B$. The probability generating function (pgf) $G(x)={{\mathbb E}}(x^{|S|})$ satisfies $$G(1+{\lambda}) = \sum_{I \subseteq B} {\lambda}^{|I|} {{\mathbb P}}(S \supseteq I), {\qquad}{\lambda}\in {{\mathbb R}}.$$
Let $B$ be the set of bisector edges along $\pi$ (see ), and let $S$ be the subset of such edges that are present in the dimer configuration. By , $$\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle = G(-1),$$ where $G$ is the pgf of $|S|$ under the measure ${\mu_{\infty}}$. By and Lemma \[lem:gf\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:237}
\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle = \sum_{I \subseteq B} (-2)^{|I|} {\mu_{\infty}}(M_I)
= \sum_{I \subseteq B} (2c)^{|I|} {\mathrm{Pf}\, }K_I^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ This may be recognized as the Pfaffian of a certain matrix defined as follows.
Let $Y_1(\lambda)$ be the $2\times 2$ matrix $$Y_1(\lambda)=\begin{pmatrix} 0&\lambda\\-\lambda&0 \end{pmatrix},$$ and let $Y_{2k}(\lambda)$ be the $4k\times 4k$ block diagonal matrix with diagonal $2\times 2$ blocks equal to $Y_1(\lambda)$. More precisely, $Y_{2k}(\lambda)$ has rows and columns indexed $u_1, v_1, u_2, v_2, \dots,
u_{2k},v_{2k}$, and $$Y_{2k}(\lambda)=\begin{pmatrix}
Y_1(\lambda)&0&\cdots&0\\
0&Y_1(\lambda)&\cdots&0\\
\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\
0&0&\cdots&Y_1(\lambda)
\end{pmatrix}.$$
\[lem:pf2\] We have that $$\label{eq:236}
\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle
={\mathrm{Pf}\, }[Y_{2k}(1)+2cK_{V_\pi}^{-1}],$$ where $V_\pi=\{u_1,v_1,u_2,v_2,\dots,u_{2k},v_{2k}\}$.
It suffices by that $$\label{eq:pf3-}
{\mathrm{Pf}\, }[Y_{2k}(1)+A] = \sum_{I\subseteq B}{\mathrm{Pf}\, }A_I,$$ where $A=(a_{i,j})$ is a $4k\times 4k$ anti-symmetric matrix with consecutive pairs of rows/columns indexed by the set $B=\{1,2,\dots,2k\}$, and $A_I$ is the submatrix of $A$ with pairs of rows and columns indexed by $I\subseteq B$.
Let $G=(V,E)$ be the complete graph with vertex-set $V=\{1,2,\dots,4k\}$, and recall that $$\label{eq:pfa-}
{\mathrm{Pf}\, }A =\sum_{\mu\in \Pi}{\mathrm{sgn}}(\pi_\mu)\prod_{\substack {(i,j)\in\mu\\ i<j}}a_{i,j},$$ (see [@Kast61; @Thom]), where $\Pi$ is the set of perfect matchings of $G$, and the permutation $\pi_\mu\in S_{4k}$ is given by $$\label{eq:pfa2-}
\pi_\mu=\begin{pmatrix}
1 &2 &3 & 4 &\cdots &4k-1 &4k\\
i_i &j_1 & i_2 & j_2 &\cdots &i_{2k} &j_{2k}
\end{pmatrix}$$ where $\mu =\{(i_r,j_r): 1\le r \le 2k\}$, $i_1<i_2<\dots < i_{2k}$, and $i_r<j_r$.
By , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pfa+}
{\mathrm{Pf}\, }[Y_{2k}(1)+A] &=
\sum_{\mu\in \Pi}{\mathrm{sgn}}(\pi_\mu)\prod_{\substack {(i,j)\in\mu\\ i<j}}[Y_{2k}(1)+A]_{i,j}\\
&=\sum_{K\subseteq V}\biggl(
\sum_{\mu\in \Pi}{\mathrm{sgn}}(\pi_\mu) \prod_{\substack {(i,j)\in\mu\\i\in K,\ i<j}}[Y_{2k}(1)]_{i,j}
\prod_{\substack {(i,j)\in\mu\\ i\notin K,\ i<j}}a_{i,j}\biggr).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The penultimate product is $0$ unless every $i\in K$ is odd and satisfies $(i,i+1)\in \mu$. Therefore, with $J=\frac12(K+1)\subseteq B$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Pf}\, }[Y_{2k}(1)+A]
&=\sum_{J\subseteq B}\biggl(
\sum_{\mu\in \Pi}{\mathrm{sgn}}(\pi_\mu)
\prod_{\substack {(i,j)\in\mu,\ i<j\\ i,j\notin (2J-1)\cup (2J)}}a_{i,j}\biggr)\\
&=\sum_{J\subseteq B} {\mathrm{Pf}\, }A_{B\setminus J},\end{aligned}$$ as required for .
Recall that a matrix is *Toeplitz* if every descending diagonal is constant, and a block matrix is *block Toeplitz* if each block is Toeplitz and every descending diagonal of blocks is constant. Now, $Y_{2k}\left(1\right)+2cK_{V_\pi}^{-1}$ is a truncated block Toeplitz matrix each block of which has size $4\times 4$. We propose to use Widom’s formula (see Theorem \[wi\]) to study the limit of its determinant as $k\to{\infty}$. In this limit, the matrix becomes an infinite block Toeplitz matrix $T(\psi)$ with symbol given by $$\psi(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\phi(z,e^{i\theta})\,d\theta\label{psz}$$ where $$\label{pszi}
\phi(z,e^{i{\theta}}) =Y_2(1)+ 2cK_1^{-1}(z,e^{i{\theta}})_{(1:4)},$$ and $A_{(1:4)}$ denotes the $4 \times 4$ submatrix of the matrix $A$ with rows and columns indexed by $u_1,v_1,u_2,v_2$ as in Figure \[fig:ofd0\]. This follows by the explicit calculation $$[K^{-1}]_{u,v}=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}e^{i k\phi}[K_1^{-1}(e^{i\theta},e^{i\phi})]_{u,v'}\,d\theta\, d\phi,{\qquad}u,v\in V_\pi,\label{kiuv}$$ where $v'$ is the translation of $v$ to the same fundamental domain as $u$, and $k$ is the number of fundamental domains traversed in moving from $v'$ to $v$, with sign depending on the direction of the move. When $k\neq 0$, is the $k$th Fourier coefficient of the symbol . See [@ZL1 Sect. 4] for a similar computation.
\[lem:lem102\] Let $z\in{{\mathbb C}}$ with $|z|=1$. When the spectral curve does not intersect the unit torus ${{\mathbb T}}^2$, we have that $\det \psi(z)=1$.
Let ${{\mathbb H}}_{m,n,\Delta}$ be the toroidal graph comprising $m\times n$ fundamental domains (a fundamental domain is drawn in Figure \[fig:ofd0\]). We can think of ${{\mathbb H}}_{m,n,\Delta}$ as the quotient graph of ${{\mathbb H}}_{\Delta}$ under the action of $m{{\mathbb Z}}\times n{{\mathbb Z}}$. To ${{\mathbb H}}_{m,n,\Delta}$ we allocate the clockwise-odd orientation of Figure \[fig:ofd0\].
Let $K_{m,n}(z,w)$ be the corresponding modified Kasteleyn matrix. Assume the cycle $\gamma_x$ ([respectively]{}, $\gamma_y$) crosses $2n$ ([respectively]{}, $2m$) edges, whose weights are multiplied by $z$ or $z^{-1}$ ([respectively]{}, $w$ or $w^{-1}$), depending on their orientations. Note that $K_{1,1}=K_{1}$.
The toroidal graph ${{\mathbb H}}_{1,n,\Delta}$ is a line of $n$ copies of the graph of Figure \[fig:ofd0\], aligned parallel to ${\gamma}_x$. It contains $2n$ (bisector) edges with weight $c$, of which we select two, denoted $e_1$, $e_2$, lying in the same fundamental domain. Let ${{\mathbb H}}^*_{1,n,\Delta}$ be the oriented graph obtained from ${{\mathbb H}}_{1,n,\Delta}$ by reversing the orientations of $e_1$ and $e_2$, and let $K^*_{1,n}(z,w)$ be the modified Kasteleyn matrix of ${{\mathbb H}}^*_{1,n,\Delta}$.
Let $X({\lambda})$ be the $4n\times 4n$ matrix $$X({\lambda})=\begin{pmatrix}
Y_1({\lambda})&0&0\\0&Y_1({\lambda})&0\\0&0&0
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Since $e_1$ and $e_2$ have weight $c$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ratios}
\frac{\det K^*_{1,n}(z,w)}{\det K_{1,n}(z,w)}&=
\frac{\det[K^*_{1,n}(z,w)-K_{1,n}(z,w)+K_{1,n}(z,w)]}{\det K_{1,n}(z,w)}\\
&=\frac{\det\left[X(-2c)+K_{1,n}(z,w)\right]}{\det K_{1,n}(z,w)}\nonumber\\
&=\det\left[X(-2c)K_{1,n}^{-1}(z,w)+I\right]\nonumber\\
&=\det\left[Y_2(-2c)K_{1,n}^{-1}(z,w)_{(1:4)}+I\right]\nonumber\\
&= \det\left[2cK_{1,n}^{-1}(z,w)_{(1:4)}+Y_2\left(1\right)\right],\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ for $w=\pm 1$, since $Y_2(1)Y_2(-1)=I$ and $\det Y_2(1)=1$. Here, $K_{1,n}^{-1}(z,w)_{(1:4)}$ is the submatrix of $K_{1,n}^{-1}(z,w)$ comprising the rows and columns indexed by the four vertices incident with the $e_i$, see Figure \[fig:ofd0\].
By an explicit diagonalization of $K_{1,n}^{-1}$ as in [@ckp00 Sect. 7], for any two vertices $u$, $v$ in the same fundamental domain, the limit $$\label{lmk}
\lim_{n\to{\infty}} [K_{1,n}^{-1}(z,w)]_{u,v}=
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}[K_{1}^{-1}(z,e^{i\theta})]_{u,v}\,d\theta$$ exists and is independent of the choice of $w=\pm 1$. The proof of the next lemma is deferred until the current proof is completed.
\[lem:det\] For $z\in{{\mathbb C}}$, the limit $$\label{eq:458}
{\delta}(z,w)=\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\frac{\det K^*_{1,n}(z,w)}{\det K_{1,n}(z,w)}$$ satisfies ${\delta}(z,-1)={\delta}(z,1) =\pm 1$.
We deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\det\psi(z)&=\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\det\left[Y_2\left(1\right)+2cK_{1,n}^{-1}(z,1)_{(1:4)}\right]
{\quad}&&\text{by \eqref{psz}, \eqref{pszi}, \eqref{lmk}}\\
&={\delta}(z,1)=\pm 1&&\text{by \eqref{eq:ratios} and Lemma \ref{lem:det}.}\end{aligned}$$ Setting $z=1$, we have by that $\det \psi(1)\ge 0$ since it is the limit of a ratio of determinants of two anti-symmetric matrices. By and the forthcoming , $\psi$ is continuous on the unit circle when the spectral curve does not intersect ${{\mathbb T}}^2$, and the claim follows. (Note that is a general fact whose proof does not depend on Lemma \[lem:lem102\].) Therefore, $\psi(z)=1$ for $|z|=1$.
By –, ${\delta}(z,-1)={\delta}(z,1)=:{\delta}(z)$, say. We claim that $$\label{eq:457}
\det K^*_{1,n}(z,-1)=\det K_{1,n}(z,1),{\qquad}\det K^*_{1,n}(z,1)=\det K_{1,n}(z,-1).$$ By –, ${\delta}(z,-1)=1/{\delta}(z,1)$, so that ${\delta}(z)=\pm 1$ as claimed.
We prove next. Each non-vanishing term in the expansion of $\det K_{1,n}^*(z,-1)$ and $\det K_{1,n}(z,1)$ corresponds to a cycle configuration on ${{\mathbb H}}_{1,n,\Delta}^*$, that is, a configuration of cycles and doubled edges in which each vertex has two incident edges. Let $C$ be an oriented cycle of ${{\mathbb H}}_{1,n,{\Delta}}^*$ viewed as an unoriented graph, and recall that $e_1$ and $e_2$ have opposite orientations in ${{\mathbb H}}_{1,n,\Delta}$ and ${{\mathbb H}}_{1,n,\Delta}^*$. It suffices that $C$ contributes the same sign on both sides of the left equation of . Let $c(C)$ ([respectively]{}, $w(C)$) be the number of $c$-type ([respectively]{}, $w$-type) edges crossed by $C$. By a consideration of parity, $c(C)$ is even if and only if $w(C)$ is even, and in this case $C$ contributes the same sign. We claim that $w(C)=1$ if $c(C)=1$. It is standard that $C$ is either contractible or essential, and that $C$, if essential, has homology type $\pm 1$ in the direction ${\gamma}_x$. Therefore, $w(C)=1$, and the claim follows. The second equation of follows similarly.
We remind the reader of Widom’s theorem.
\[wi\] Let $T_m(\xi)$ be a finite block Toeplitz matrix with given symbol $\xi$ and $m\times m$ blocks. Assume $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{k=-{\infty}}^{{\infty}}\|\xi_k\|+\left(\sum_{k=-{\infty}}^{{\infty}}|k|\cdot
\|\xi_k\|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}<{\infty},\\
\det\xi(e^{i\theta})\neq 0,\qquad \frac{1}{2\pi}\Delta_{0\leq\theta\leq
2\pi}\arg\det\xi(e^{i\theta})=0,\end{gathered}$$ where $\|\cdot\|$ denotes Hilbert–Schmidt norm, $\xi_k$ is the $k$th Fourier coefficient of $\xi$, and $$\frac{1}{2\pi}\Delta_{0\leq\theta\leq
2\pi}\arg\det\xi(e^{i\theta})=
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|\zeta|=1} d\zeta\, \frac{\partial}{\partial\zeta}\log\det\xi(\zeta).$$ Then $$\lim_{m\to{\infty}}\frac{\det T_m(\xi)}{G(\xi)^{m+1}}=E(\xi),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:wi}
G(\xi)&=\exp\left\{\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\log\det\xi(e^{i\theta})\,d\theta\right\},\\
E(\xi)&=\det \left[T(\xi)T(\xi^{-1})\right],\label{eq:wi2}\end{aligned}$$ where $T(\xi)$ is the semi-infinite Toeplitz matrix with symbol $\xi$, and the last $\det$ refers to the determinant defined for operators on Hilbert space differing from the identity by an operator of trace class.
We note that, when the spectral curve does not intersect the unit torus, $\psi$ given by is a smooth matrix-valued function on the unit circle, whence $$\|\psi_k\|\leq C\alpha^k,$$ for some $C>0$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$, and all $k > 0$, where $\psi_k$ is the $k$th Fourier coefficient of $\psi$.
This holds as in the proofs of [@ZL1 Lemmas 4.4–4.7], and the full details are omitted. Here is an outline.
The symbol $\psi$ is a $4\times 4$ matrix-valued function. Let $n$ be the number of NW edges in the path of connecting $e$ and $f$. By the computations of Section \[sec:morepf\] (see and ), $$\label{eq:345}
\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle^2=\det T_n(\psi),$$ where $T_n(\psi)$ is a truncated block Toeplitz matrix consisting of the first $n\times n$ blocks of an infinite block Toeplitz matrix $T(\psi)$ with symbol $\psi$ (so that $T_n(\psi)$ is a $4n \times 4n$ matrix). By Lemma \[lem:lem102\], when the spectral curve does not intersect the unit torus ${{\mathbb T}}^2$, we have $G(\psi)=1$, where $G(\psi)$ is given in . By Theorem \[wi\], $$\label{eq:lambdalim}
{\Lambda}(a,b,c)=\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\det T_n(\psi)=E(\psi),$$ where $E(\psi)$ is given in .
Non-analyticity of ${\Lambda}$ may arise only as follows. One may write $$[K_1^{-1}(z,w)]_{i,j}=\frac{Q_{i,j}(z,w)}{P(z,w)},\label{k1i}$$ where $Q_{i,j}(z,w)$ is a Laurent polynomial in $z$, $w$ derived in terms of certain cofactors of $K_1(z,w)$, and $P(z,w)=\det K_1(z,w)$ is the characteristic polynomial of the dimer model on ${{{\mathbb H}}_{n,{\Delta}}}$. It follows that ${\Lambda}$ is analytic when $P(z,w)$ has no zeros on the unit torus ${{\mathbb T}}^2$. The last occurs only under the condition of Proposition \[prop:Pzero\], and the claim follows.
Proof of exponential convergence in Theorem \[thm:main\]($\mathrm{c}$) {#sec:pf32}
======================================================================
We develop the method of proof of Widom’s formula, Theorem \[wi\], see [@HW0; @HW]. For a positive integer $r$, let $A_r\cap K_r$ be the Banach algebra of $r\times r$ matrix-valued functions on the unit circle under the norm $$\|\phi\|=\sum_{k=-{\infty}}^{{\infty}}\|\phi_k\|+
\left(\sum_{k=-{\infty}}^{{\infty}}|k|\cdot\|\phi_k\|^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$ where $\phi_k$ is the $k$th Fourier coefficient of the matrix-valued function $\phi$. Note that the trigonometric polynomials are dense in $A_r\cap K_r$.
The main theorem of this section is as follows.
\[ms8\] Let $T(\psi)$ be a semi-infinite block Toeplitz matrix with symbol $\psi$, where $\psi$ is an $r\times r$ matrix-valued, $C^{\infty}$-function on the unit circle. Let $T_n(\psi)$ be the truncated block Toeplitz matrix consisting of the first $n\times n$ blocks of $T(\psi)$. In the limit as $n\to\infty$, $\det T_n(\psi)$ converges to its limit exponentially fast.
We recall from the last section, and note that $\psi$ is a matrix-valued function in $A_4\cap K_4$. Let $H(\psi)$ be the Hankel matrix with symbol $\psi$, $$H(\psi)=\bigl(\psi_{i+j+1}\bigr)_{0\leq i,j<{\infty}},$$ and write $$\label{eq:346}
{\widetilde}\psi(z)=\psi(z^{-1}).$$
Let $e$, $f$ be NW edges of the hexagonal lattice satisfying . In the representation of the edge–edge correlation $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle_n$, the symbol $\psi$ is $C^{\infty}$ on the unit circle whenever the spectral curve does not intersect the unit torus.
We recall from Proposition \[prop:Pzero\] that, when $a\geq b,c >0$ and $$\sqrt{a}\neq \sqrt{b}+\sqrt{c}, {\qquad}\sqrt{c}\neq \sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b},$$ the characteristic polynomial $P(z,w)$ has no zeros on the unit torus. As in Section \[sec:morepf\], $\psi(\xi)$ is a matrix-valued function defined on the unit circle, each entry of which has the form $$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{Q(\xi,e^{i\phi})}{P(\xi,e^{i\phi})}\,d\phi,$$ where $P(z,w)$ is the characteristic polynomial, and $Q(z,w)$ is a Laurent polynomial. When $P(z,w)$ has no zeros on the unit torus, $\psi(\xi)$ is a $C^{{\infty}}$ function on the unit circle, and the $n$th Fourier coefficient of $\psi(\xi)$ decays exponentially to 0 as $|n|\to{\infty}$.
[**Assume first that the operator $T({\widetilde}{\psi})$ is invertible as an operator on ${l}_2$ sequences of $r$-vectors**]{}. This is equivalent to assuming that the matrix-valued function $\psi$ has a factorization of the form $$\psi=\psi_{+}\psi_{-},\label{ppm}$$ where the $\psi_{\pm}$ are invertible in $A_r\cap K_r$, and the $\psi_{+}^{\pm1}$ ([respectively]{}, $\psi_{-}^{\pm 1}$) have Fourier coefficients that vanish for negative ([respectively]{}, positive) indices. As in [@HW Sect. 3], we have $$\frac{\det T_n(\psi)}{G(\psi)^{n+1}}=
\det\Bigl(I-P_nH(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1})P_nT(\psi_{+}^{-1})P_n\Bigr),\label{dq}$$ where $P_nA$ is the submatrix of $A$ consisting of its first $nr$ rows, and $BP_n$ is the submatrix of $B$ consisting of its first $nr$ columns. Recall that $G$ is given by .
Now we define operator norms, and discuss inequalities regarding these norms.
For a compact operator $A$ on a Hilbert space, and $1\leq p\leq {\infty}$, let $\|A\|_p$ denote the $p$-norm of the eigenvalue-sequence of $(A^*A)^{\frac{1}{2}}$, where $A^*$ is the conjugate transpose of $A$. The $\infty$-norm is the usual operator norm and is so defined even if $A$ is not compact. The $2$-norm is the Hilbert–Schmidt norm, and the $1$-norm is the trace-norm. The set of compact operators with finite $p$-norm is denoted by $\varPhi_p$. Thus $\varPhi_1$ is the set of operators of trace class; $\varPhi_2$ is the set of Hilbert–Schmidt operators; and $\varPhi_{\infty}$ is the set of compact operators.
As in [@HW Sect. 2], we have the following lemma
Let $1\leq p\leq \infty$. If $A\in\varPhi_{p}$ and $B,C\in\varPhi_{\infty}$, then $BAC\in\varPhi_p$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\|BAC\|_p\leq \|A\|_p\|B\|_{{\infty}}\|C\|_{{\infty}}.\end{aligned}$$
If $A,B\in\varPhi_2$, then $AB\in \varPhi_1$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\|AB\|_1\leq \|A\|_2\|B\|_2.\end{aligned}$$
Assume that $\psi(\zeta)$ is a $C^{\infty}$ $r\times r$ matrix-valued function on the unit circle with exponential decaying Fourier coefficients. Assume also that $\psi$ has a factorization given by . Then $\psi_+^{\pm 1}$, $\psi_-^{\pm1}$, ${\widetilde}{\psi}_{+}^{\pm1}$, ${\widetilde}{\psi}_-^{\pm1}$ are all $C^{\infty}$ $r\times r$ matrix-valued functions on the unit circle with exponential decaying Fourier coefficients.
By the arguments of [@HW p. 10], when $T({\widetilde}{\psi})$ is invertible, ${\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1}$ is a matrix-valued function whose sequence of non-negative Fourier coefficients is $T^{-1}({\widetilde}{\psi})(I,0,0,\dots)$. By [@TS02 Thm 1.3], the entries in the first column of $T({\widetilde}{\psi})^{-1}$ decay exponentially as the entry moves away from the diagonal, whence the $n$th Fourier coefficient of ${\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1}$ decays to zero exponentially as $|n|\to{\infty}$.
The exponential decay of Fourier coefficients and smoothness of $\psi_+^{\pm 1}$, $\psi_-^{\pm1}$, ${\widetilde}{\psi}_{+}^{\pm1}$, ${\widetilde}{\psi}_-^{\pm1}$ follow.
By explicit computations (see [@HW]), $$H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1})T(\psi_{+}^{-1})=H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1}).$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl\|H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1})P_n&T(\psi_{+}^{-1})-H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1})T(\psi_{+}^{-1})\Bigr\|_1\\
&=\bigl\|H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1})(P_n-I)T(\psi_{+}^{-1})\bigr\|_1\\
&\leq\bigl\|H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1})(P_n-I)\bigr\|_1\cdot \|T(\psi_{+}^{-1})\|_{{\infty}}\\
&\leq\|H(\psi)\|_2\cdot\|H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1})(P_n-I)\|_2\cdot\|T(\psi_{+}^{-1})\|_{{\infty}}.\end{aligned}$$
Assume that $\psi$ is a $r\times r$ matrix-valued, $C^{\infty}$ function on the unit circle with exponential decaying Fourier coefficients, and assume that $\psi$ has a factorization given by (\[ppm\]). Let ${\mathrm{Tr}}(A)$ be the trace of $A$. Then there exists $0<\beta_1<1$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|T(\psi_+^{-1})\|_{{\infty}}&<{\infty},\label{in1}\\
\|H(\psi)\|_2&=\bigl[{\mathrm{Tr}}(H^*(\psi)H(\psi))\bigr]^{\frac{1}{2}}<{\infty},\label{in2}\\
\|H({\widetilde}\psi_{-}^{-1})(P_n-I)\|_2&=
{\mathrm{Tr}}\bigl[(P_n-I)H^*({\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1})(P_n-I)\bigr]^{\frac{1}{2}}<\beta_1^n.\label{in3}\end{aligned}$$
Note that $\|T(\psi_+^{-1})\|_{{\infty}}$ is exactly the maximal singular value of $T(\psi_+^{-1})$. Note also that $T(\psi_+)^{-1}$ is an upper triangular matrix whose off-diagonal entries decay exponentially fast. Let $$A=[T(\psi_+)^{-1}]^*T(\psi_+)^{-1}=(a_{i,j})_{i,j\in {{\mathbb N}}}.$$ It is not hard to check that the off-diagonal entries of $A$ decay exponentially fast with respect to their distance to the diagonal. Moreover, $\|T(\psi_+^{-1})\|_{{\infty}}^2$ is the maximal eigenvalue of $A$. It is well known that $$\|T(\psi_+^{-1})\|_{{\infty}}^2\leq\max_{j} \sum_{i=1}^{\infty}|a_{ij}|<\infty,$$ and follows. The inequality is obtained since the diagonal entries of $H^*(\psi)H(\psi)$ decay exponentially when moving down the diagonal. Equation is similar.
Now, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exd1}
\Bigl\|P_nH(\psi)H(&{\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})P_n-H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})\Bigr\|_1\\
&\leq \bigl\|P_nH(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})(P_n-I)\bigr\|_1+\bigl\|(P_n-I)H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})\bigr\|_1\notag\\
&\leq \|P_n\|_{{\infty}}\cdot\|H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})(P_n-I)\|_1+\|(P_n-I)H(\psi)\|_2\cdot\|H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})\|_2\notag\\
&\leq\|H(\psi)\|_2\cdot\|H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})(P_n-I)\|_2+\|(P_n-I)H(\psi)\|_2\cdot\|H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})\|_2\notag\\
&\leq \beta_2^n,\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $0<\beta_2<1$. The last inequality holds because the $(i,j)$ entries of $H(\psi)$ and $H({\widetilde}{\psi})$ decay exponentially in $i+j$.
The following cases may occur:
$I-H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})$ is invertible,
$I-H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})$ is not invertible.
*Assume Case I occurs.* By the formula of [@ggk p. 116], $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl|\det\bigl(I-P_nH(\psi)&H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1})P_nT(\psi_{+}^{-1})P_n\bigr)-
\det\bigl(I-H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})\bigr)\Bigr|\label{es2}\\
&\leq e^{\|H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})\|_1}
(e^{Q_n}-1)
\notag\\
&\leq \beta_3^n,\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $$Q_n:=\left\|\bigl(I-H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})\bigr)^{-1}\Bigl(P_nH(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1})P_nT({\widetilde}{\psi}_{+}^{-1})P_n-H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})\Bigr)\right\|_1$$ and $0<\beta_3<1$.
*Assume Case II occurs.* We follow the approach of [@ggk pp. 116–117]. When $I-H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})$ is not invertible, the point 1 is an isolated eigenvalue of finite type for $H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1})$. Let $P$ be the corresponding Riesz projection, and put $H_1=\mathrm{Im}\,P$, $H_2=\mathrm{Ker}\,P$, so that $H_1$ is finite-dimensional. For simplicity, we write $$\begin{aligned}
F_n&:=P_nH(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{-}^{-1})P_nT(\psi_{+}^{-1})P_n,\\
A&:=H(\psi)H({\widetilde}{\psi}^{-1}).\end{aligned}$$ With respect to the decomposition $H=H_1\oplus H_2$, we have $$F_n=\begin{pmatrix}
K_{11}^{(n)} &K_{12}^{(n)}\\
K_{21}^{(n)}&K_{22}^{(n)}
\end{pmatrix},{\qquad}A=\begin{pmatrix}
A_{11}&0\\
0&A_{22}
\end{pmatrix},$$ and it follows as in that $$\|F_n-A\|_2\leq \|F_n-A\|_1\leq \beta_4^n,$$ for some $0<\beta_4<1$. Moreover, $$(F_n-A)^*(F_n-A) =
\begin{pmatrix}
L_1 & \cdots\\
\cdots & L_2
\end{pmatrix},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
L_1 &= (K_{11}^{(n)}-A_{11})^*(K_{11}^{(n)}-A_{11})+(K_{21}^{(n)})^*K_{21}^{(n)},\\
L_2 &=(K_{12}^{(n)})^*K_{12}^{(n)}+(K_{22}^{(n)}-A_{22})^*(K_{22}^{(n)}-A_{22}).\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\|F_n-A\|_2^2&={\mathrm{Tr}}\left((K_{11}^{(n)}-A_{11})^*(K_{11}^{(n)}-A_{11})\right)+{\mathrm{Tr}}\left((K_{21}^{(n)})^*K_{21}^{(n)}\right)\\
&\hskip1cm +{\mathrm{Tr}}\left((K_{22}^{(n)}-A_{22})^*(K_{22}^{(n)}-A_{22})\right)+{\mathrm{Tr}}\left((K_{12}^{(n)})^*K_{12}^{(n)}\right)\\
&=\|K_{11}^{(n)}-A_{11}\|_2^2+\|K_{21}^{(n)}\|_2^2+\|K_{12}^{(n)}\|_2^2+\|K_{22}^{(n)}-A_{22}\|_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\|K_{11}^{(n)}-A_{11}\|_2&\leq \beta_4^n,\\
\|K_{12}^{(n)}\|_2&\leq \beta_4^n,\\
\|K_{21}^{(n)}\|_2&\leq \beta_4^n.\end{aligned}$$
As in [@ggk pp. 116–117], with each $I_j$ an identity matrix of suitable size, $$\det(I-F_n)=\det\left(I_1-K_{11}^{(n)}+K_{12}^{(n)}(I_2-K_{22}^{(n)})^{-1}K_{21}^{(n)}\right)\det \bigl(I_2-K_{22}^{(n)}\bigr),$$ and $$\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\det\bigl (I_2-K_{22}^{(n)}\bigr)=\det(I-A_{22}).$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl\|I_1-K_{11}^{(n)}+{}&K_{12}^{(n)}(I_2-K_{22}^{(n)})^{-1}K_{21}^{(n)}-(I_1-A_{11})\Bigr\|_1\\
&\leq \|K_{11}^{(n)}-A_{11}\|_1+\|K_{12}^{(n)}\|_2\cdot\|I_2-K_{22}^{(n)}\|_{{\infty}}
\cdot\|K_{21}^{(n)}\|_2\\
&\leq \beta_6^n,\end{aligned}$$ for some $0<\beta_6<1$. Since $I_1-K_{11}^{(n)}+K_{12}^{(n)}(I_2-K_{22}^{(n)})^{-1}K_{21}^{(n)}$ is a finite matrix, all the norms are equivalent, we have $$\left|\det\left(I_1-K_{11}^{(n)}+K_{12}^{(n)}(I_2-K_{22}^{(n)})^{-1}K_{21}^{(n)}\right)-\det(I_1-A_{11})\right|\leq \beta_7^n,$$ for some $0< \beta_7<1$.
Since (by Lemma \[lem:lem102\]) $G(\psi)=1$, we obtain that, when $T({\widetilde}{\psi})$ is invertible, $\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle^2$ converges to its limit exponentially fast in the limit as $|e-f|\to{\infty}$. This completes the consideration of Case II.
[**Assume now that $T({\widetilde}{\psi})$ is not invertible.**]{} Since $T({\widetilde}{\psi})$ is Fredholm of index $0$, by [@HW], there exists $\phi$ with only finitely many non-zero Fourier coefficients, such that $T({\widetilde}{\psi}+{\epsilon}{\widetilde}{\phi})$ is invertible for sufficiently small ${\epsilon}\neq 0$. Therefore, $$\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\frac{\det T_n(\psi+{\epsilon}\phi)}{G(\psi+{\epsilon}\phi)^{n+1}}=\det \bigl[T(\psi+{\epsilon}\phi)T\bigl((\psi+{\epsilon}\phi)^{-1}\bigr)\bigr],$$ for ${\epsilon}$ belonging to some punctured disk with centre $0$. Using the same arguments as above we obtain that, for sufficiently small $|{\epsilon}|>0$, $$\left|\frac{\det T_n(\psi+{\epsilon}\phi)}{G(\psi+{\epsilon}\phi)^{n+1}}-
\det \bigl[T(\psi+{\epsilon}\phi)T\bigl((\psi+{\epsilon}\phi)^{-1}\bigr)\bigr]
\right|\leq \beta_5^n\label{tg}$$ for some $0<\beta_5<1$ independent of ${\epsilon}$. This is obtained by first expressing the ratio on the left side of as in , then follow the previous argument. Note that $\beta_5$ depends on the exponential decay rate of $(\psi+{\epsilon}\phi)_k$ as $k\rightarrow\infty$, which can be made universal for ${\epsilon}$ with $|{\epsilon}|$ sufficiently small. Since the component functions on the left side of are analytic in ${\epsilon}$ on some disk $\{\epsilon\in{{\mathbb C}}:|\epsilon|\leq c_0\}$, by the maximum principle, holds for ${\epsilon}=0$ also. Hence $\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2$ converges to its limit exponentially fast. The proof of Theorem \[ms8\] is complete.
Alternative proof of Theorem \[thm:main\]($\mathrm{b}$) {#sec:eecad}
=======================================================
We find it slightly more convenient to work here with horizontal edges rather than NW edges, and there is no essential difference in the proof. Let $e, f\in{{\mathbb E}}$ be horizontal edges. There exists a horizontal edge $g \in {{\mathbb E}}$ such that: $e$ and $g$ ([respectively]{}, $f$ and $g$) are connected by a path ${l}_{eg}$ ([respectively]{}, ${l}_{fg}$) of $A{{\mathbb H}}$ comprising only horizontal and NW ([respectively]{}, NE) edges, and the unique common edge of ${l}_{eg}$ and ${l}_{fg}$ is $g$. Let $m+1$ ([respectively]{}, $n+1$) be the number of horizontal edges in ${l}_{eg}$ ([respectively]{}, ${l}_{fg}$). Write $m \wedge n=\min\{m,n\}$ and $m \vee n = \max\{m,n\}$.
\[thm:main4\] Assume the parameters of the 1-2 model satisfy $$\label{eq:ass5}
a\geq b>0, {\quad}c>0,{\quad}\sqrt{a}\neq \sqrt{b}+\sqrt{c},{\quad}\sqrt{c}\neq\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}.$$
The limit $${\Lambda}(a,b,c):= \lim_{m,n\to{\infty}}\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2$$ exists, and $$\left|\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle^2-{\Lambda}\right|
\leq C\alpha^{m \wedge n},\label{dr}$$ where $C>0$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$ are constants independent of $m$, $n$.
If, in addition, $\sqrt{a}<\sqrt{b}+\sqrt{c}$ and $\sqrt{c}<\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}$, then $C>0$, ${\alpha}\in(0,1)$ may be chosen such that $$|\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle|\leq C\alpha^{|e-f|}.\label{eds}$$
\(a) By a computation similar to that leading to , $\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2$ may be expressed in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2=\det\begin{pmatrix}
T_m(\psi_1)& A_{m,n}\\B_{n,m}&T_{n}(\psi_2)\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_i$ is a $4 \times 4$ matrix-valued function (see ), $T_r(\psi_i)$ is a $4r\times 4r$ truncated block Toeplitz matrix with symbol $\psi_i$, and $A_{m,n}$ ([respectively]{}, $B_{n, m}$) is a $4m\times 4n$ ([respectively]{}, $4n\times 4m$) matrix with entries satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
|A_{m,n}(i,j)|\leq C\beta_1^{i+j},{\qquad}|B_{n,m}(i,j)|\leq C\beta_1^{i+j},\end{aligned}$$ where $C>0$, $\beta_1\in(0,1)$ are constants independent of $i$, $j$.
Let $\phi_1$, $\phi_2$ be two matrix-valued functions defined on the unit circle with only finitely many non-vanishing Fourier coefficients, such that $T({\widetilde}{\psi}_1+{\epsilon}{\widetilde}{\phi}_1)$ and $T({\widetilde}{\psi}_2+{\epsilon}{\widetilde}{\phi}_2)$ are invertible for complex ${\epsilon}\neq 0$ with sufficiently small modulus (recall ). Let ${\epsilon}>0$ be given accordingly, and let $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{i,{\epsilon}}=\varphi_i+{\epsilon}\phi_i,{\qquad}i=1,2.\end{aligned}$$ Since $T({\widetilde}{\psi}_{i,{\epsilon}})$ is invertible, we have (as in Section \[sec:pf32\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{i,{\epsilon}}=\psi_{i,{\epsilon}, +}\psi_{i,{\epsilon},-},{\qquad}i=1,2,\end{aligned}$$ where the $\psi_{i,{\epsilon},\pm}$ are invertible in $A_4\cap K_4$, and $\psi_{i,{\epsilon},+}^{\pm 1}$ ([respectively]{}, $\psi_{i,{\epsilon},-}^{\pm 1}$) have Fourier coefficients that vanish for negative ([respectively]{}, positive) indices.
Subject to , by Proposition \[prop:Pzero\] the spectral curve has no zeros on the unit torus. As explained after Theorem \[wi\], the entries of the Toeplitz matrix (Fourier coefficients of a smooth function on the unit circle) decay exponentially as their distances from the diagonal go to infinity.
By computations similar to those of [@HW p. 8], $$\begin{aligned}
&\begin{pmatrix}T_m(\psi_{1,{\epsilon}})& A_{m,n}\\ B_{n,m}& T_n(\psi_{2,{\epsilon}})\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
T_{m}(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T_{m}(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})&0\\0& T_n(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T_n(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})\end{pmatrix}\label{dt}\\
&\hskip1cm =\begin{pmatrix}
T_m(\psi_{1,{\epsilon}})T_{m}(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T_{m}(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})&A_{m,n}T_{n}(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T_{n}(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})\\B_{n,m}T_{m}(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T_{m}(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})&T_n(\psi_{2,{\epsilon}})T_{n}(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T_{n}(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})\end{pmatrix}\notag\\
&\hskip1cm =I_{4m+4n} - S_{m,n},\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $I_r$ is the $r\times r$ identity matrix and $$S_{m,n}=\begin{pmatrix}
P_mH(\psi_{1,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_mT_m(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})&-A_{m,n}T_{n}(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T_{n}(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})\\-B_{n,m}T_{m}(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T_{m}(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})&P_nH(\psi_{2,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_nT_n(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})\end{pmatrix}.$$
We now take determinants of . As in [@HW p. 8], $$\begin{aligned}
\det[T_{m}(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})]\det[T_{m}(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})]&=G(\psi_{1,\epsilon,-}^{-1})^{m+1}G(\psi_{1,\epsilon,+}^{-1})^{m+1}\\
&=\frac{1}{G(\psi_{1,\epsilon})^{m+1}},\end{aligned}$$ whence $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{G(\psi_{1,{\epsilon}})^{m+1}G(\psi_{2,{\epsilon}})^{n+1}}
\det\begin{pmatrix}
T_m(\psi_{1,{\epsilon}})&A_{m,n}\\B_{n,m}&T_{n}(\psi_{2,{\epsilon}})\end{pmatrix}
=\det\left(I_{4m+4n}-S_{m,n}\right).\label{dtt}\end{aligned}$$
Let $$\begin{aligned}
S=\begin{pmatrix}
H(\psi_{1,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})
&-AT(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})\\
-BT(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})
&H(\psi_{2,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})\end{pmatrix},
\label{ds}\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ and $B$ are infinite matrices obtained as the limits of $A_{m,n}$ and $B_{n,m}$, as $m,n\to{\infty}$. Note that $S$ is a trace-class operator. Therefore, $\det(I-S)$ is well-defined and complex analytic in $a,b,c$, whenever the entries of $S$ are analytic in $a,b,c$ (see [@GK69], and also [@ggk Lemma 3.1] and [@ZL1 Lemma 4.6]). Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\|S_{m,n}-S\|_1
&\leq \bigl\|A_{m,n}T_{n}(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T_{n}(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})-AT(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})\bigr\|_1\\
&{\qquad}+\bigl\|B_{n,m}T_{m}(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T_{m}(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})-BT(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})\bigr\|_1\\
&{\qquad}+\bigl\|P_mH(\psi_{1,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_mT_m(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})-H(\psi_{1,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})\bigr\|_1\\
&{\qquad}+\bigl\|P_nH(\psi_{2,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_nT_n(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})-H(\psi_{2,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})\bigr\|_1.\end{aligned}$$ Using similar arguments as in , we can show that $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl\|P_mH(\psi_{1,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_mT_m(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})-H(\psi_{1,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})\bigr\|_1 &\leq \beta_2^m,\\
\bigl\|P_nH(\psi_{2,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_nT_n(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})-H(\psi_{2,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})\bigr\|_1 &\leq \beta_2^n,\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta_2\in(0,1)$ is a constant independent of $m,n,{\epsilon}$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
|A(i,j)| \leq C\beta_1^{i+j},{\quad}|B(i,j)| \leq C\beta_1^{i+j},{\quad}|T(\psi_*)(i,j)| \leq C\beta_3^{|i-j|},\end{aligned}$$ subject to . Here, $\psi_{*}\in\{\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1},\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1},\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1},\psi_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1}\}$, and $\beta_1, \beta_3\in(0,1)$ are independent of $i,j,{\epsilon}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
{4}
\bigl|AT(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})(i,j)\bigr|&&\leq C_1\beta_4^{i+j},&&{\qquad}\bigl|BT(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})T(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})(i,j)\bigr|&&\leq C_1\beta_4^{i+j},\\
|AT(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})(i,j)|&&\leq C_1\beta_4^{i+j},&&{\qquad}|AT(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})(i,j)|&&\leq C_1\beta_4^{i+j},\\
|BT(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})(i,j)|&&\leq C_1\beta_4^{i+j},&&{\qquad}|BT(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})(i,j)|&&\leq C_1\beta_4^{i+j},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_1>0$, $\beta_4\in(0,1)$ are constants independent of $i,j,{\epsilon}$.
Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl\|P_mAT(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_n-AT(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})\Bigr\|_1\leq C_2\beta_5^{m \wedge n},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_2>0$, $\beta_5\in(0,1)$ are constants independent of $i,j,{\epsilon}$.
Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl\|P_mA &T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_n T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_n-P_mA T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})P_n\Bigr\|_1\\
&=\|P_m A T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})(P_n-I)T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})P_n\|_1\\
&\leq \|P_m A T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})(P_n-I)\|_1\cdot\|T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})P_n\|_{{\infty}}\\
&\leq C_3 \beta_6^{n},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl\|P_mAP_n &T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_n T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_n-P_mA T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_nT(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})P_n\Bigr\|_1\\
&=\|P_m A (P_n-I)T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_nT(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})P_n\|_1\\
&\leq \|P_m A(P_n-I)\|_1\cdot\| T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_nT(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})P_n\|_{{\infty}}\\
&\leq C_3 \beta_6^{n},\end{aligned}$$ where $C_3>0$, $\beta_6\in(0,1)$ are constants independent of $m,n,{\epsilon}$.
We consider the following cases:
1. $I-S$ is invertible,
2. $I-S$ is not invertible.
*If Case I occurs*, following arguments similar to those of Section \[sec:pf32\], $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl|\det(I-S_{m,n})-\det(I-S)\bigr|\leq C_4\beta_7^{m \wedge n},\label{dttt}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_4>0$, $\beta_7\in(0,1)$ are constants independent of $m,n,{\epsilon}$. *If Case II occurs*, by considering the Riesz projection and following similar arguments, $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl|\det(I-S_{m,n})-\det(I-S)\bigr|\leq C_5\beta_8^{m \wedge n},\label{ddtt}\end{aligned}$$ where $C_5>0$, $\beta_8\in(0,1)$ are constants independent of $m,n,{\epsilon}$.
Letting ${\epsilon}\to 0$ and using analyticity (as in Section \[sec:pf32\]) subject to , we have $${\Lambda}:=\lim_{m,n\to{\infty}}\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle^2=\det(I-S)\big|_{\epsilon=0},$$ by , , and the fact that $G(\psi_i)=1$ (the last follows by Lemma \[lem:lem102\] and ). Moreover, holds.
\(b) The above argument applies also when $m$ is fixed and $n\to{\infty}$. In this case, we replace $S$ in by $$\begin{aligned}
S_m&=\begin{pmatrix}
P_mH(\psi_{1,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})P_mT_m(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})
&-A_{m,{\infty}}T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})\\
-B_{{\infty},m}T_m(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T_m(\psi_{1,{\epsilon},+}^{-1})
&H(\psi_{2,{\epsilon}})H({\widetilde}{\psi}_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})T(\psi_{2,{\epsilon},-}^{-1})
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where $A_{m,{\infty}}$, $B_{{\infty},m}$ are matrices obtained from $A_{m,n}$, $B_{n,m}$ by letting $n\to{\infty}$. Now, $\det(I-S_m)$ exists since $S_m$ is a trace-class operator, and $$\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle^2=\det(I-S_m)\big|_{\epsilon=0}, {\qquad}m \ge 0,\label{nii}$$ as above. We claim that there exists $C>0$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$, independent of $m,n$, such that $$\left|\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2-\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2\right|\leq C\alpha^n,
{\qquad}m,n \ge 0.
\label{edd}$$ To show , first, following the same computations as above, we obtain $$\|S_{m,n}-S_m\|_1\leq C_7\beta_9^n,$$ for constants $C_7>0$, $\beta_9\in(0,1)$ independent of $m,n,\epsilon$.
We consider the following cases:
1. $I-S$ is invertible,
2. $I-S$ is not invertible.
*In Case I*, for sufficiently large $m$, $I-S_m$ is also invertible. Following the arguments of [@ggk pp. 115–116], we obtain $$\bigl|\det(I-S_{m,n})-\det(I-S_m)\bigr|\leq C_8\beta_{10}^n,$$ for $C_8>0$, $\beta_{10}\in(0,1)$ independent of $m,n,\epsilon$.
*In Case II*, the point $1$ is an isolated eigenvalue of finite type for $S$. Let $P$ be the corresponding Riesz projection, and put $H_1=\mathrm{Im}\, P$, $H_2=\mathrm{Ker}\, P$, so that $H_1$ is finite dimensional. With respect to the decomposition, we have $$S_{m,n}=\begin{pmatrix}
K_{11}^{(m,n)}&K_{12}^{(m,n)}\\K_{21}^{(m,n)}&K_{22}^{(m,n)}\end{pmatrix},
{\qquad}S_{m}=\begin{pmatrix}
K_{11}^{(m)}&K_{12}^{(m)}\\K_{21}^{(m)}&K_{22}^{(m)}\end{pmatrix}.$$ We now follow the argument of [@ggk pp. 115–116] and the proof in Section \[sec:pf32\], to obtain .
Fix $m$, and note that $S_m\bigr|_{{\epsilon}=0}$ is an operator of trace class. By [@ZL1 Thm 4.6] (see also [@GK69]) and , $\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\langle{\sigma}_e {\sigma}_f\rangle^2=\det(I-S_m)\bigr|_{{\epsilon}=0}$ is analytic in $a,b,c$ subject to $$\label{eq:subsq}
a,b,c>0,{\quad}\sqrt{a}<\sqrt{b}+\sqrt{c},{\quad}\sqrt{b}<\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{c},{\quad}\sqrt{c}<\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b}.$$ By Remark \[rem:subcrit\], $\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\langle{\sigma}_e {\sigma}_f\rangle^2=0$ when $$\label{eq:subsq2}
a,b,c>0,{\quad}a^2<b^2+c^2,{\quad}b^2<a^2+c^2, {\quad}c^2<a^2+b^2.$$ The set of $(a,b,c)$ satisfying is a subset of the (connected) subset of ${{\mathbb R}}^3$ given by , and it follows by analyticity that $$\lim_{n\to{\infty}}\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2=0,{\qquad}m \ge 0,$$ subject to .
By the arguments that led to , there exists $C>0$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$, independent of $m,n$, such that, subject to , $$\left|\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle^2-\lim_{m\to{\infty}}\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2\right|
\leq C\alpha^m,{\qquad}m,n \ge 0,\label{edd1}$$ and, in addition, $$\lim_{m\to{\infty}}\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2=0,{\qquad}n \ge 0,\\
\label{nn}$$ We combine – to obtain $$\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2\leq C\alpha^{m\vee n},$$ which implies with amended $C$, ${\alpha}$.
Periodic 1-2 models {#sec:periodic}
===================
Two-edge correlation for periodic models
----------------------------------------
Some of the previous results may be extended to certain periodic models, as explained next. Since each edge of ${{\mathbb H}}$ touches exactly one white vertex, a 1-2 model may be specified by assigning a parameter-vector $(a_w,b_w,c_w)$ to each *white* vertex $w$. For $k,l\in{{\mathbb N}}$, we call the ensuing model $ k\times l$ *periodic* if $$(a_w,b_w,c_w) = (a_v,b_v,c_v), {\qquad}v=\tau_1^k\tau_2^l w,$$ where the maps $\tau_i$ are illustrated in Figure \[fig:hex0\].
By the techniques of Sections \[sec:morepf\], if the parameter-vectors of a periodic model are such that the associated spectral curve does not intersect the unit torus, then the entries of the corresponding inverse Kasteleyn matrix $K^{-1}(v,w)$ converge to 0 exponentially as $|v-w|\to{\infty}$. Following the procedure of Section \[sec:eecad\], we obtain the following (in which the notation of Theorem \[thm:main4\] has been adopted).
\[thm:main5\] Let $k,l \ge 1$. Assume the 1-2 model is $k\times l$ periodic, and the spectral curve does not intersect the unit torus.
The limit ${\Lambda}:= \lim_{m,n\to{\infty}}\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f\rangle^2$ exists, and $$\left|\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle^2-{\Lambda}\right|
\leq C\alpha^{m \wedge n},\label{dr}$$ where $C>0$, $\alpha\in(0,1)$ are constants independent of $m$, $n$. If $m=0$, we have $$\left|\langle{\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle^2-{\Lambda}\right|
\leq C\alpha^{n}.\label{dr}$$
If, in addition, $\lim_{|e-f|\rightarrow\infty}\langle\sigma_e\sigma_f\rangle^2=0$, then $C>0$, ${\alpha}\in(0,1)$ may be chosen such that $$|\langle {\sigma}_e{\sigma}_f \rangle|\leq C\alpha^{|e-f|}.\label{eds}$$
1-2 and Ising models with period $k \times 1$ {#sec:lis2}
---------------------------------------------
We discuss a special case of periodic 1-2 models, namely, models with period $k\times 1$. By the forthcoming Theorem \[thm:periodic\], the spectral curves of such models can intersect the unit torus only at real points. The conclusions of Theorem \[thm:main5\] follow whenever the corresponding characteristic polynomial $P(z,w)$ satisfies $P(\pm1,\pm1)\neq 0$. Similar arguments are valid for periodic Ising models, as exemplified in the forthcoming Example \[ex:perI\], which illuminates the differences between the assumptions of the current paper and those of [@Lis].
Let $k \ge 2$ and consider a $k\times 1$ periodic 1-2 model. Let ${{\mathbb H}}_{\Delta}$ be as in Section \[sec:dimer\], and let ${{\mathbb H}}_{\Delta,k,1}$ be the quotient graph of ${{\mathbb H}}_{\Delta}$ under the weight preserving action of ${{\mathbb Z}}^2$. Note that ${{\mathbb H}}_{\Delta,k,1}$ is a finite graph that can be embedded in a torus. We can divide ${{\mathbb H}}_{\Delta,k,1}$ into $k$ parts, each of which is bounded by a quadrilateral region enclosing a NE/SW edge of the original lattice ${{\mathbb H}}$, see Figure \[fig:1kd\].
![The decorated graph ${{\mathbb H}}_{\Delta,2,1}$; the hexagonal lattice ${{\mathbb H}}$ is represented by green lines.[]{data-label="fig:1kd"}](1kd2){width="0.6\hsize"}
There are two vertices of ${{\mathbb H}}$ lying in the $i$th such quadrilateral region (see Figure \[fig:12con\]), and to these we assign local weights $(a_{i1},b_{i1},c_{i1})$ and $(a_{i2},b_{i2},c_{i2})$, respectively. As in Section \[ssec:spc\], we derive the modified weighted adjacency matrix $K(z,w)$ of ${{\mathbb H}}_{{\Delta},k,1}$, with characteristic polynomial $P(z,w)$.
\[thm:periodic\] The only possible intersection of the spectral curve $\{(z,w):P(z,w)=0\}$ with the unit torus ${{\mathbb T}}^2=\{(z,w):|z|=1,\,|w|=1\}$ is a single real point.
Note that a double dimer configuration is a union of cycles and doubled edges with the property that each vertex is incident to exactly two present edges. An (unoriented) $z$-*edge* is an edge which has weight $z$ or $z^{-1}$ when oriented. Each double-dimer configuration of the determinant $P(z,w)$ falls into exactly one of the following two cases:
it occupies each $z$-edge exactly once, i.e., each $z$-edge is in a cycle of the double dimer configuration.
each $z$-edge is either unoccupied or occupied exactly twice, i.e., each $z$-edge is either absent or a doubled edge in the double dimer configuration.
Each $k\times 1$ fundamental domain is comprised of $k$ $1\times 1$ blocks. For $1\leq i\leq n$, let $u_i,v_i$ be the two vertices of the hexagonal lattice lying in the $i$th block, see Figure \[fig:1kd\].
Each configuration in Case 1 consists of a single essential cycle of even length, together with some doubled edges. The partition function of configurations in Case 1 is $$P_1=\frac{1}{z}\prod_{i=1}^{k}\left[A_iw+B_i\right]+z\prod_{i=1}^{k}\left[\frac{A_i}{w}+B_i\right],$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A_i=&-a_{i1}^2a_{i2}b_{i2} - a_{i1}a_{i2}^2b_{i1} - a_{i1}b_{i1}b_{i2}^2 + a_{i1}b_{i1}c_{i2}^2 - a_{i2}b_{i1}^2b_{i2} + a_{i2}b_{i2}c_{i1}^2,\\
B_i=&-a_{i1}^2a_{i2}c_{i2} - a_{i1}a_{i2}^2c_{i1} + a_{i1}b_{i2}^2c_{i1} - a_{i1}c_{i1}c_{i2}^2 + a_{i2}b_{i1}^2c_{i2} - a_{i2}c_{i1}^2c_{i2}.
\end{aligned}$$
Configurations in Case 2 depend on configurations of each $1\times 1$ block, which are determined by configurations of boundary edges. Let $Q_i^{00}$ ([respectively]{}, $Q_i^{22}$) denote the partition function at the $i$th block when both its $z$-edges are unoccupied ([respectively]{}, occupied). Let $Q_i^{20}$ ([respectively]{}, $Q_i^{02}$) denote the partition function at the $i$th block when its left ([respectively]{}, right) $z$-edge is occupied twice, while the right ([respectively]{}, left) edge is unoccupied. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
Q_i^{00}&=\left(a_{i1}a_{i2} - \frac{b_{i1}c_{i2}}{w} + b_{i1}b_{i2} + c_{i1}c_{i2} - b_{i2}c_{i1}w\right)\\
&\hskip3cm \times \left(a_{i1}a_{i2} -\frac{ b_{i2}c_{i1} }{w}+ b_{i1}b_{i2} + c_{i1}c_{i2} - b_{i1}c_{i2}w\right),\\
Q_i^{02}&=W\left[a_{i2}^2b_{i1}c_{i1} + a_{i1}c_{i2}a_{i2}b_{i1} + a_{i1}b_{i2}a_{i2}c_{i1} + b_{i2}c_{i2}\left(b_{i1}^2 - b_{i1}c_{i1}\left(w+\frac{1}{w}\right) + c_{i1}^2\right)\right],\\
Q_i^{20}&=W\left[a_{i1}^2b_{i2}c_{i2} + a_{i2}c_{i1}a_{i1}b_{i2} + a_{i2}b_{i1}a_{i1}c_{i2} + b_{i1}c_{i1}\left(b_{i2}^2 - b_{i2}c_{i2}\left(w+\frac{1}{w}\right) +c_{i2}^2\right)\right],\\
Q_i^{22}&=-b_{i1}b_{i2}c_{i1}c_{i2}\left(w-\frac{1}{w}\right)^2+(a_{i1}b_{i2}+a_{i2}b_{i1})^2+(a_{i1}c_{i2}+a_{i2}c_{i1})^2\\
&\hskip3cm +\left(a_{i2} ^2 b_{i1} c_{i1} + a_{i1}^2 b_{i2} c_{i2} + a_{i1} a_{i2} b_{i1} c_{i2} + a_{i1} a_{i2} b_{i2} c_{i1}\right)\left(w+\frac{1}{w}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ where $W=(w-w^{-1})$.
Let $z_i$ be the $z$-edge connecting the $i$th $1\times 1$ block and the $[(i+1){{\ \textrm{mod}\ }}k]$th $1\times 1$ block, and let $t_i\in\{0,1,2\}$ denote the occupation time of $z_i$ by a given double dimer configuration, which is to say that $$t_i =\begin{cases} 0 &\text{if $z_i$ is absent},\\
2 &\text{if $z_i$ is a doubled edge},\\
1 &\text{if $z_i$ is in a cycle}.
\end{cases}$$ The partition function in Case 2 is $$P_2=\sum_{t_1,\dots,t_k\in\{0,2\}}\prod_{i=1}^{i}Q_i^{t_{i-1}t_{i}}.$$ Let $w=e^{i\phi}$, so that $Q_i^{00},Q_i^{22}\geq 0$. By periodicity, in each configuration, the number of $Q^{02}$ blocks equals the number of $Q^{20}$ blocks. Therefore in all terms in $P_{2}$ where $\sin\phi$ appears, which are exactly the terms where $Q^{02}$ and $Q^{20}$ appear, $\sin\phi$ has even degree. Moreover, given that all the local weights are strictly positive, each term in the expansion of $P_2$ with $\sin\phi$ is non-negative. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
P(z,w)=P_1+P_2
=P_1+\prod_{i=1}^{k}Q_i^{00}+\prod_{i=1}^{k}Q_i^{22}+F(w),\end{aligned}$$ where $F(w)\geq 0$ is the sum of all terms in $P_2$ in which $Q^{02}$ and $Q^{20}$ appear at some $1\times 1$ blocks. Let $G(z,w)=z[P(z,w)-F(w)]$. For given $w$, $G(z,w)$ is a quadratic polynomial in $z$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
C_0=\prod_{i=1}^{k}\left[A_iw+B_i\right],{\qquad}C_1=\prod_{i=1}^{k}Q_i^{00}+\prod_{i=1}^{k}Q_i^{22}.\end{aligned}$$ The roots of $G(\cdot, w)$ are $$z^\pm=\frac{C_1\pm\sqrt{C_1^2-4|C_0|^2}}{2{\overline}{C_0}}.\label{z12}$$ Let $w=e^{i\phi}$, and note that $$C_1^2-4|C_0|^2 \geq 4\left(\prod_{i=1}^{k}[Q_i^{00}Q_i^{22}]-\prod_{i=1}^{k}\left[A_i^2+B_i^2+2A_iB_i\cos\phi\right]\right).$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
&Q_i^{00}Q_i^{22}-\left(A_i^2+B_i^2+2A_iB_i\cos\phi\right)\\
&{\quad}=-\left(w-\frac{1}{w}\right)^2\\
&{\qquad}\times\left(a_{i1}^2b_{i2} c_{i2} + a_{i2} c_{i1} a_{i1} b_{i2} + a_{i2} b_{i1} a_{i1} c_{i2}+b_{i1} c_{i1}\left( b_{i2}^2+c_{i2}^2-2b_{i2}c_{i2}\cos\phi\right) \right)\\
&{\qquad}\times\left(a_{i2}^2 b_{i1} c_{i1} + a_{i1} c_{i2} a_{i2} b_{i1} + a_{i1} b_{i2} a_{i2} c_{i1} + b_{i2} c_{i2} (b_{i1}^2 - 2b_{i1} c_{i1} \cos\phi -c_{i1}^2 )\right).\end{aligned}$$
Let $a_i,b_i,c_i> 0$. Then $C_1^2-4|C_0|^2\geq 0$ with equality only if $w$ is real. If $C_1^2-4|C_0|^2>0$, then $|z^\pm|\neq 1$ and $G(\cdot,w)$ has no zeros on the unit circle. Hence $G(z,w)$ has no zeros on ${{\mathbb T}}\times ({{\mathbb T}}\setminus\{\pm 1\})$. Since there exists at least one pair $\theta,\tau\in\{0,1\}$ with $$P\bigl((-1)^{\theta},(-1)^{\tau}\bigr)=\det K\bigl((-1)^{\theta},(-1)^{\tau}\bigr)>0,$$ we have that $G(z,w)\geq 0$ on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$, with equality only if $w$ is real. By , when $w$ is real and $C_1^2-4|C_0|^2=0$, then $z^+=z^-$ is real. Therefore, the only possible intersection of $P(z,w)$ with ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ is a single real point.
The above technique applies also to the spectral curve of the Ising model (not necessarily ferromagnetic) with $k\times 1$ periodicity on the triangular lattice. The details are omitted.
\[mim\] Consider a periodic Ising model on the triangular lattice. To each edge $e$, associate a coupling constant $J_e\in {{\mathbb R}}$. Assume the coupling constants are translation-invariant with period $k\times 1$ where $k\ge 1$. The only possible intersections of the spectral curve with the unit torus are real points.
\[ex:perI\] Here is an example which explores the generality of the arguments of the current paper. We start with an Ising model on the triangular lattice ${{\mathbb T}}$, with edge interactions $J_e\in {{\mathbb R}}$ that are periodic with period $2\times 1$. Let ${{\mathbb H}}$ be the dual hexagonal lattice of ${{\mathbb T}}$. The corresponding Fisher graph ${{\mathbb F}}$ is obtained from ${{\mathbb H}}$ by replacing each vertex by a triangle. Each triangle edge is assigned weight $1$, and a non-triangle edge crossing an edge $e$ of ${{\mathbb T}}$ has weight $e^{2J_e}$.
The dimer model on ${{\mathbb F}}$ with the above edge-weights corresponds to the Ising model on the triangular lattice. Note that the spins of the Ising model are placed at centres of the dodecagons of ${{\mathbb F}}$. Two adjacent spins have the same state ([respectively]{}, opposite states) if and only if the corresponding non-triangle edge of ${{\mathbb F}}$ separating the two dodecagons are present ([respectively]{}, absent).
See Figure \[fig:12fisher\] for an illustration, where $a_1,b_1,c_1,a_2,b_2,c_2$ are the edge-weights $e^{2J_e}$.
![The Fisher graph with $2\times 1$ periodic edge weights[]{data-label="fig:12fisher"}](12fisher){width="0.3\hsize"}
Given the clockwise-odd orientation of Figure \[fig:12fisher\], we can compute the characteristic polynomial $P(z,w)=\det K(z,w)$, where $K(z,w)$ is the modified weighted adjacency matrix whose rows and columns are indexed by vertices in the $2\times 1$ fundamental domain. By Corollary \[mim\], when $a_1,b_1,c_1,a_2,b_2,c_2>0$, the only possible intersection of $P(z,w)$ with the unit torus are real.
The function $P(z,w)$ may be calculated as in Section \[ssec:spc\], and it may be checked that, when $(a_1,b_1,c_1,a_2,b_2,c_2)=(1.1,0.9,0,0,0.5,0.5)$, $$\label{eq:suff}
P(1,1)P(1,-1)P(-1,1)P(-1,-1)\neq 0.$$ Let $(a_1,b_1,b_2,c_2)=(1.1,0.9,0.5,0.5)$ and assume that $c_1$, $a_2$ are positive and sufficiently small that continues to hold. By Proposition \[mim\], the spectral curve does not intersect the unit torus. As in [@BdeT10; @ckp00; @KOS06], the Ising free energy may be expressed in the form . However, when $(a_1,b_1,b_2,c_2)=(1.1,0.9,0.5,0.5)$ and $c_1$, $a_2$ are positive and sufficiently small, then neither the high-temperature nor the low-temperature condition of [@Lis] is satisfied.
Moreover, using the technique of [@ZL1], the square of the spin–spin correlation may be expressed as the determinant of a block Toeplitz matrix. By applying similar techniques as in Sections \[sec:pf32\]–\[sec:eecad\], we can obtain the convergence rate of the spin–spin correlation of the Ising model of whenever the spectral curve does not intersect the unit torus.
Harnack curve
-------------
We present next another sufficient condition for the spectral curve $P(z,w)=0$ to intersect the unit torus at only real points. The exponential convergence rate for two-edge correlation functions follows by Theorem \[thm:main5\].
Harnack curves were studied in [@GM00; @MR01]. Simply speaking, a Harnack curve is the real part of a real algebraic curve $A$ (real zeros of a Laurent polynomial with real coefficients) such that the map from $A$ to ${{\mathbb R}}^2$ is at most two-to-one. It was proved in [@KO06; @KOS06] that the spectral curve of any positive-weight, bi-periodic, planar, bipartite dimer model is a Harnack curve. Using the combinatorial results of [@Dub11], we infer that the spectral curve of any ferromagnetic, bi-periodic, planar Ising model is also a Harnack curve. If the Ising model is not ferromagnetic, there may exist a concrete counterexample in which the spectral curve is not Harnack, [@RKp]. We give here a simple proof that, under certain conditions, the assumption that the spectral curve is Harnack implies that its intersections with the unit torus are necessarily real.
Let $P(z,w)$ be a Laurent polynomial taking real values on the unit torus. If $A:=\{(z,w)\in{{\mathbb C}}^2: P(z,w)=0\}$ is a Harnack curve, then $A$ can only intersect the unit torus ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ at real points.
Define the logarithmic Gaussian map $\gamma_P:A\rightarrow {{\mathbb C}}P^1$ by $$\gamma_P(z,w)=\left(z\frac{\partial P}{\partial z},w\frac{\partial P}{\partial w}\right),$$ and also ${\mathrm{Log}}: A\rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^2$ by $${\mathrm{Log}}: (z,w)\mapsto (\log|z|,\log|w|)\label{logr}.$$ By [@GM00 Lemma 5], $A$ is Harnack, whence the real zeros satisfy $A\cap {{\mathbb R}}^2=\gamma_{P}^{-1}({{\mathbb R}}P^1)$. By [@GM00 Lemma 3], $\gamma_P^{-1}({{\mathbb R}}P^1)$ consists of the singular points of the map ${\mathrm{Log}}$.
Let $(z,w)=(e^{i\theta},e^{i\phi})\in A\cap{{\mathbb T}}^2$. Since $P(z,w)$ is a Laurent polynomial, we have that $$\frac{\partial P}{\partial {\overline}{z}}=0,{\qquad}\frac{\partial P}{\partial {\overline}{w}}=0,$$ and hence $$\gamma_P(z,w)=\left(i\frac{\partial P}{\partial \theta},i\frac{\partial P}{\partial \phi}\right).$$ Given that $P$ takes real values on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$, $\gamma_P(z,w)\in {{\mathbb R}}P^1$. Hence $A\cap {{\mathbb T}}^2\subseteq \gamma_P^{-1}({{\mathbb R}}P^1)=A\cap {{\mathbb R}}^2$. Therefore, any zero of $P(z,w)$ on ${{\mathbb T}}^2$ is real.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported in part by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under grant EP/I03372X/1. ZL’s research was supported by the Simons Foundation grant $\#$351813 and National Science Foundation DMS-1608896. We thank the referee for a detailed and useful report.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The game of best choice (also known as the secretary problem) is a model for sequential decision making with a long history and many variations. The classical setup assumes that the sequence of candidate rankings are uniformly distributed. Given a statistic on permutations, one can generalize the uniform distribution on the symmetric group by weighting each permutation according to an exponential function in the statistic. We play the game of best choice on the Ewens and Mallows distributions that are obtained in this way from the number of left-to-right maxima and number of inversions in the permutation, respectively. For each of these, we give the optimal strategy and probability of winning. We also introduce a general class of permutation statistics that always produces games of best choice whose optimal strategy is positional. Specializing this result produces a new proof of a foundational result from the literature on the secretary problem.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, MSC 1911, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA 22807'
author:
- Brant Jones
title: Weighted games of best choice
---
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
The game of best choice (or secretary problem) is a model for sequential decision making. In the simplest variant, an [**interviewer**]{} evaluates $N$ [**candidates**]{} one by one. After each interview, the interviewer ranks the current candidate against all of the candidates interviewed so far, and decides whether to [**accept**]{} the current current candidate (ending the game) or to [**reject**]{} the current candidate (in which case, they cannot be recalled later). The goal of the game is to hire the best candidate out of $N$. It turns out that the optimal strategy is to reject an initial set of candidates, of size $N/e$ when $N$ is large, and use them as a training set by hiring the next candidate who is better than all of them (or the last candidate if no subsequent candidate is better). The probability of hiring the best candidate out of $N$ with this strategy also approaches $1/e$.
The classical model assumes that all $N!$ interview rank orders are equally likely, which we believe is mathematically expedient but unrealistic. Over the period that the player is conducting the $N$ interviews, there may exist extrinsic trends in the candidate pool. Also, as the interviewer ranks the candidates at each step, they acquire information about the domain that allows them to hone the pool to include more relevant candidates. Overall, this results in candidate ranks that are improving over time rather than uniform. We call this process [**intrinsic learning**]{}. As a first step towards understanding such mechanisms, we are interested in studying how different assumptions for the distribution of interview rank orders change the optimal strategy and probability of success in the game of best choice. Continuing work from [@fowlkes] and [@jones18], we establish in this paper a class of weighted models that generalize the uniform game in a natural way.
We model interview orderings as [**permutations**]{}. The permutation $\pi$ of $N$ is expressed in [**one-line notation**]{} as $[\pi_1 \pi_2 \cdots \pi_N]$ where the $\pi_i$ consist of the elements $1, 2, \ldots, N$ (so each element appears exactly once). In the best choice game, $\pi_i$ is the rank of the $i$th candidate interviewed [*in reality*]{}, where rank $N$ is best and $1$ is worst. What the player sees at each step, however, are [*relative*]{} rankings. For example, corresponding to the interview order $\pi = [2516374]$, the player sees the sequence of permutations $$1, 12, 231, 2314, 24153, 241536, 2516374$$ and must use only this information to determine when to accept a candidate, ending the game. The [**left-to-right maxima**]{} of $\pi$ consist of the elements $\pi_j$ that are larger in value than all elements $\pi_i$ lying to the left. The [**inversions**]{} of $\pi$ consist of pairs $\pi_i > \pi_j$ where $i <
j$.
Now, let $c: {\mathfrak{S}}_N \rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}$ be a statistic on the symmetric group of permutations of size $N$. Then we can weight the permutation $\pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N$ by ${\theta}^{c(\pi)}$ where ${\theta}$ is a positive real number to obtain a discrete probability distribution on ${\mathfrak{S}}_N$. When ${\theta}= 1$, we recover the uniform model. Distributions of this form were introduced by Mallows where $c(\pi)$ represented some measure of distance from a fixed permutation, typically the identity. More recently, these distributions have been used by researchers in combinatorics; see [@elizalde; @bouvel; @log-book] for example. In our first result, Theorem \[t:main\], we show that for a large class of statistics the optimal strategy in the weighted game of best choice has the same form as that for the classical model: to reject an initial set of candidates and accept the next left-to-right maximum thereafter. This seems mildly surprising given that the full history of relative rankings are available at each step to guide a strategy; evidently, however, the positions of the left-to-right maxima are the only information required to play these games optimally. Also, it seems remarkable that even for $\theta = 1$ where this result is reported to be well-known, we have not encountered reasoning along the lines we have given here. Hence, our proof gives a new perspective on an important result from the literature on the secretary problem; see Remark \[r:hist\].
In our setting, we interpret $c(\pi)$ as a goal for intrinsic learning by the interviewer, over the course of the $N$ interviews. The first model is based on the Ewens distribution where $c(\pi)$ is the number of left-to-right maxima in $\pi$. When ${\theta}> 1$, this has the effect of amplifying the probability of experiencing candidates whose rank exceeds that of all earlier candidates. The second model is based on what has become known as the Mallows distribution where $c(\pi)$ is the number of inversions in $\pi$. When ${\theta}< 1$, this has the effect of dampening the probability of experiencing “disappointing pairs,” where an earlier candidate ranks higher than a later candidate. In terms of permutation patterns, the Mallows model weights each permutation $\pi$ by the number of $21$-instances in $\pi$, which facilitates comparison with results in [@fowlkes] and [@jones18] for the $321$-avoiding model.
Once we know by Theorem \[t:main\] that [*some*]{} positional strategy is optimal for each value of $\theta$, we can define the [**strategy function**]{} ${\kappa}_N(\theta)$ for a weighted game of best choice to be the number of candidates that we initially reject in the optimal strategy for value $\theta$. Hence, ${\kappa}_N$ is some function from $\mathbb{R}_{> 0}$ to $\{0, 1, \cdots,
N-1\}$. In Corollary \[c:ewensmain\], we describe this function precisely for the Ewens model.
When we perform the asymptotic analysis for the Ewens model, we find that the optimal strategy depends on ${\theta}$ with the optimal number of initial rejections being $k = N/e^{1/{\theta}}$. Remarkably though, the probability of success is always $1/e$, independent of ${\theta}$, neither better nor worse than the classical case.
The Mallows model is more subtle. When ${\theta}< 1$, the optimal strategy is to reject all but the last $j = \max(-1/(\ln {\theta}), 1)$ candidates and select the next left-to-right maximum thereafter. This “right-justified” strategy succeeds with probability $j {\theta}^{j-1} (1-{\theta})$. When ${\theta}> 1$, the optimal strategy is “left-justified,” rejecting the first $k$ candidates for some $k$ depending on ${\theta}$ but independent of $N$. Consequently, this shows that the classical model (as embedded in the Mallows model) is highly unstable, another reason we find it to be unrealistic: even an infinitesimal change away from ${\theta}= 1$, where the asymptotic optimal strategy rejects about $37\%$ of the candidates, results in an optimal strategy that asymptotically rejects either $0\%$ or $100\%$ of the candidates. This suggests a goal for future work of finding models where the asymptotic optimal strategy varies continuously with parameterizations of the distribution.
We now mention some earlier work in this area. Martin Gardner’s 1960 Scientific American column popularized what he called “the game of googol,” although the problem has roots which predate this. His article has been reprinted in [@gardner]. One of the first papers to systematically study the game of best choice in detail is [@gilbert--mosteller]. Many other variations and some history have been given in [@ferguson] and [@freeman]. Recently, researchers (e.g. [@kleinberg08]) have begun applying the best-choice framework to online auctions where the “candidate rankings” are bids (that may arrive and expire at different times) and the player must choose which bid to accept, ending the auction.
Only a few papers have previously considered nonuniform distributions for the secretary problem. Pfeifer [@pfeifer] considers the case where interview ranks are independent but have cumulative distribution functions containing parameters determined by the position of the interview. The paper [@reeves--flack] considers an explicit continuous probability distribution that allows for dependencies between nearby arrival ranks via a single parameter. Inspired by approximation theory, the paper [@kleinberg--etal] studies some general properties of non-uniform rank distributions for the secretary problem.
We now outline the rest of the paper. In Section \[s:setup\] we review the form of the optimal strategy for games of best choice, and show in Section \[s:tilt\] that any sufficiently local statistic will generate a game with an optimal strategy having the same form as the classical model. In Sections \[s:ew\] and \[s:aew\], we obtain precise and asymptotic results for the Ewens model. The Mallows model is treated in Section \[s:m\].
The weighted game of best choice {#s:setup}
================================
Fix a discrete probability distribution on the symmetric group ${\mathfrak{S}}_N$ where $f(\pi)$ is the probability of the permutation $\pi~\in~{\mathfrak{S}}_N$. This defines a game of best choice as follows.
\[d:pflat\] Given a sequence of $i$ distinct integers, we define its [**flattening**]{} to be the unique permutation of $\{1, 2, \ldots, i\}$ having the same relative order as the elements of the sequence. Given a permutation $\pi$, define the [**$i$th prefix flattening**]{}, denoted ${\pi|_{[i]}}$, to be the permutation obtained by flattening the sequence $\pi_1, \pi_2, \ldots, \pi_i$. In the [**game of best choice**]{} some $\pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N$ is chosen randomly, with probability $f(\pi)$, and each prefix flattening ${\pi|_{[1]}}, {\pi|_{[2]}}, \ldots$ is presented sequentially to the player. If the player stops at value $N$, they win; otherwise, they lose.
In this work, we are primarily interested in probability distributions obtained from weighting by some statistic $c : {\mathfrak{S}}_N \rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}$ and a positive real number $\theta$ via $$f(\pi) = \frac{ \theta^{c(\pi)} }{ \sum_{\pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N} \theta^{c(\pi)} }.$$ For example, we may take $c(\pi)$ to be the number of left-to-right maxima in $\pi$, obtaining the [**Ewens distribution**]{}; if $c(\pi)$ is the number of inversions then we obtain the [**Mallows distribution**]{}. When $\theta = 1$, we recover the [**complete uniform distribution**]{}.
A [**strike strategy**]{} for a game of best choice is defined by a collection of prefixes from $\bigcup_{i=1}^N {\mathfrak{S}}_i$ that we call the [**strike set**]{}. To play the strategy on a particular interview ordering $\pi$, compare prefix flattenings to the strike set at each step. As soon as the $i$th prefix flattening occurs in the strike set, accept the candidate at position $i$ and end the game. Otherwise, the strike strategy rejects the candidate at position $i$ to continue playing. It follows directly from the definitions that any strategy (including the optimal strategy) for a game of best choice can be represented as a strike strategy because the player has only the relative ranking information captured in the prefix flattenings to guide them as they play. We can visualize the set of all possible prefixes as a tree, partially ordered by containment of prefix flattening, which we call the [**prefix tree**]{}. See Figure \[f:treeex\] for a small example.
To find the optimal strike set, we define several conditional probabilities. For brevity, we say that $\pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N$ is [**$p$-prefixed**]{} if it contains $p$ as a prefix flattening, and we say that $\pi$ is [**$p$-winnable**]{} if including $p$ in the strike set would win the interview order $\pi$. Explicitly for $p = p_1 p_2 \cdots p_k$, we have that $\pi$ is $p$-winnable if $\pi$ is $p$-prefixed and $\pi_k = N$. For each prefix $p$, the [**strike probability**]{} ${\mathcal{S}}(p)$ is the probability of winning the game if the prefix $p$ is included in the strike set restricted to those interview rank orders having $p$ as a prefix. Since each denominator of $f(\pi)$ is just a normalizing constant, we may cancel it obtaining $${\mathcal{S}}(p) = \left( \sum\limits_{p\text{-winnable } \pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N} \theta^{c(\pi)} \right)\Big/\left( \sum\limits_{p\text{-prefixed } \pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N} \theta^{c(\pi)} \right)$$ In particular, ${\mathcal{S}}_N(p)$ is $0$ unless $p$ ends in a left-to-right maximum; for this reason we refer to a prefix as [**eligible**]{} if it ends in a left-to-right maximum or has size $N$ (included for completeness). Hence, it suffices to restrict our attention to strike sets
1. consisting of prefixes that are eligible, and
2. having no pair of elements such that one contains the other as a prefix flattening, and
3. such that every permutation in ${\mathfrak{S}}_N$ contains some element of the strike set as a prefix flattening.
Given this setup, we let ${\mathcal{S}}(p^{\circ})$ be the “open” probability of a win if we play optimally, using any strike set consisting of prefixes that contain (but are not equal to) $p$. Similarly, let ${\mathcal{S}}(\bar{p})$ be the “closed” probability of a win if we play optimally, using any strike set consisting of prefixes that contain (and may include) $p$. Let each of these be conditional probabilities with [**standard denominator**]{} $\sum_{p\text{-prefixed } \pi \in
{\mathfrak{S}}_N} \theta^{c(\pi)}$. Then, it follows directly from the definitions that $${\mathcal{S}}(\bar{p}) = \max({\mathcal{S}}(p), {\mathcal{S}}(p^{\circ})).$$ This formula can be used to recursively determine ${\mathcal{S}}(\bar{1})$, the globally optimal probability of a win. To also keep track of the globally optimal strategy, let us say that $p$ is [**positive**]{} if ${\mathcal{S}}(p) \geq {\mathcal{S}}(p^{\circ})$ and [**negative**]{} otherwise. The positive prefixes represent locally optimal strikes.
With the setup given above, a globally optimal strike set for a weighted game of best choice consists of the subset $A$ of positive prefixes that are minimal when partially ordered by prefix-containment. The probability of winning is $\bigoplus_{p \in A} {\mathcal{S}}(p)$ where we define $\frac{a}{b} \oplus \frac{c}{d} =
\frac{a+c}{b+d}$ and use the standard denominator for all strike probabilities.
We first show that all of the probabilities are determined. The prefixes of size $N$ are positive, which serves as a base case for induction on the size of a prefix. Given the probabilities for prefixes of sizes greater than $i$, the ${\mathcal{S}}(p^{\circ})$ probabilities for each prefix of size $i$ can be obtained as $\bigoplus_{p\text{-prefixed } q \text{ of size }i+1}{\mathcal{S}}(\bar{q})$, and then the ${\mathcal{S}}(\bar{p})$ probabilities can be determined from the formula. (The $\oplus$ operation represents the probability of a disjoint union of events.) This process is essentially a discrete version of “backwards induction.”
The positive prefixes are locally optimal by definition. If a prefix $p$ has no (proper) prefix flattenings that are positive, then $p$ must be globally optimal as well.
Consider the tree shown in Figure \[f:treeex\] for $N = 4$ at ${\theta}= 1$. The strike probabilities ${\mathcal{S}}(p)$ are illustrated in the figure. Since ${\mathcal{S}}(123) =
3/4 \geq 1/4 = {\mathcal{S}}(123^{\circ})$, we have that $123$ is a positive prefix. Similarly, ${\mathcal{S}}(12) = 6/12 \geq 5/12 = {\mathcal{S}}(12^{\circ})$ so $12$ is also a positive prefix. On the other hand, ${\mathcal{S}}(1) = 6/24 < 11/24 = {\mathcal{S}}(1^{\circ})$ so $1$ is a negative prefix. The optimal strike set consists of $12$ (contributing $6/12$), $213$ (contributing $3/4$), $3124$ (contributing $1/1$), and $3214$ (contributing $1/1$), together with all of the prefixes of size $4$ that aren’t already related to one of these, each contributing a strike probability of $0/1$. The optimal probability is the $\oplus$-sum of these contributions, namely $11/24$.
Prefix equivariance and positional strategies {#s:tilt}
=============================================
While any game of best choice has an optimal strike strategy, the classical game (where $f(\pi) = 1/N!$ uniformly) is optimized by a [**positional strategy**]{} in which the player rejects the first $k$ candidates and accepts the next left-to-right maximum thereafter. From our point of view, this seems to be a minor miracle as there are [*many*]{} antichains in the partial order of prefix-containment that would serve as potentially optimal strike sets but only $N$ possible positional strategies. In this section, we give a concrete explanation for this and generalize it to a class of weighted games.
The key idea is to use a fundamental bijection in order to transport structure around the prefix tree. To define it, let ${\mathcal{T}}(p^{\circ})$ be the “open” subforest of prefixes containing (but not equal to) $p$, and let ${\mathcal{T}}(\bar{p})$ be the “closed” subtree of prefixes containing $p$, including $p$ itself.
Suppose that $p = [12 \cdots k]$ and let $\sigma_q$ be the permutation that rearranges the prefix $p$ to give some other prefix $q$ of size $k$. We can extend this to an action on ${\mathcal{T}}(\bar{p})$, denoted $\sigma_q \cdot \pi$, by similarly permuting the first $k$ entries and fixing the last $i-k$ entries of $\pi$, where $i$ is the size of $\pi \in {\mathcal{T}}(\bar{p})$. Then $\sigma_q$ is a bijection from ${\mathcal{T}}(\bar{p})$ to ${\mathcal{T}}(\bar{q})$.
Suppose that the statistic $c$ satisfies $c(\pi) - c(\sigma_q \cdot \pi) = c(12
\cdots k) - c(q)$ for all prefixes $q$ and all $\pi \in {\mathcal{T}}(\overline{12 \cdots
k})$, where $k$ is the size of $q$. Then, we say that $c$ is a [**prefix equivariant**]{} statistic.
This condition essentially says that the change in the statistic $c(\pi)$ that results from permuting the first $k$ entries of $\pi$ is the same as the change that would result if we restricted $c$ to $k$ entries. Hence, statistics that count sufficiently local phenomena in permutations will be prefix equivariant.
It is straightforward to check that $c(\pi) = \#$ left-to-right maxima in $\pi$ and $c(\pi) = \#$ inversions in $\pi$ are each prefix equivariant statistics. Explicitly, if $\pi = \pi_1 \pi_2 \cdots \pi_k | \pi_{k+1} \pi_{k+2} \cdots
\pi_m$ has the form of an increasing block of size $k$ followed by an arbitrary block, then we may observe that rearranging the first block may change the number of left-to-right maxima within that block, but it cannot change the left-to-right maximal status of any entry in the second block. Similarly, rearranging the first block may change the number of inversions within that block, but it cannot add or remove an inversion pair where the smaller entry lies in the second block. On the other hand, $c(\pi) = \#321$-instances in $\pi$ is not prefix equivariant because, for example, $c(2468|1357) = 0$ yet $c(4268|1357) = 1$ even though $c(2468) = 0 = c(4268)$.
\[t:pres\] Any statistic that is prefix equivariant yields strike probabilities that are preserved under the restricted bijection $\sigma_q: {\mathcal{T}}(12 \cdots k^{\circ})
\rightarrow {\mathcal{T}}(q^{\circ})$, where $k$ is the size of $q$. If $q$ is eligible then these probabilities are also preserved under $\sigma_q: {\mathcal{T}}(\overline{12 \cdots
k}) \rightarrow {\mathcal{T}}(\bar{q})$.
Consequently, for $p \in {\mathcal{T}}(12 \cdots k^{\circ})$ (and additionally for $p = [12 \cdots k]$ if $q$ is eligible), we have that
- the ${\mathcal{S}}(p^{\circ})$ probabilities are preserved by $\sigma_q$, and
- the ${\mathcal{S}}(\bar{p})$ probabilities are preserved by $\sigma_q$, and
- if $p$ and $q$ are eligible, we have $p$ is positive if and only if $\sigma_q \cdot p$ is positive.
Fix $q$ to be any prefix of size $k$, and let $p \in {\mathcal{T}}(\overline{12 \cdots k})$ with size $m$. Then, ${\mathcal{S}}(p) = \frac{ \sum_{p\text{-winnable } \pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N} \theta^{c(\pi)} }{
\sum_{p\text{-prefixed } \pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N} \theta^{c(\pi)} }$.
Since the weights satisfy $c(\pi) - c(\sigma_q \cdot \pi) = c(12 \cdots k) -
c(q)$ for all $\pi \in {\mathcal{T}}(\overline{12 \cdots k})$, we have $${\mathcal{S}}(\sigma_q \cdot p) = \frac{ \sum_{(\sigma_q \cdot p)\text{-winnable } \pi
\in {\mathfrak{S}}_N} \theta^{c(\pi)} }{ \sum_{(\sigma_q \cdot p)\text{-prefixed } \pi
\in {\mathfrak{S}}_N} \theta^{c(\pi)} } = \frac{ \sum_{p\text{-winnable } \pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N}
\theta^{c(\sigma_q \cdot \pi)} }{ \sum_{p\text{-prefixed } \pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N} \theta^{c(\sigma_q \cdot \pi)} }$$ which is $\frac{ \theta^{c(q) - c(12 \cdots k)} }{ \theta^{c(q) - c(12 \cdots
k)}} S(p)$ unless $q$ happens to be ineligible and $p = [12 \cdots k]$ in which case $\sigma_q \cdot p = q$ and so ${\mathcal{S}}(q) = 0$.
The probability ${\mathcal{S}}(p^{\circ})$ is an $\oplus$-sum of strike probabilities, say $${\mathcal{S}}(p^{\circ}) = {\mathcal{S}}(r_1) \oplus {\mathcal{S}}(r_2) \oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathcal{S}}(r_n),$$ for some prefixes $r_i \in \bigcup_{j = m+1}^N {\mathfrak{S}}_j$. Then since $\sigma_q$ is a strike-probability preserving bijection, we have $${\mathcal{S}}((\sigma_q \cdot p)^{\circ}) = {\mathcal{S}}(\sigma_q \cdot r_1) \oplus {\mathcal{S}}(\sigma_q \cdot
r_2) \oplus \cdots \oplus {\mathcal{S}}(\sigma_q \cdot r_n)$$ $$= \frac{ \theta^{c(q) - c(12 \cdots k)} }{ \theta^{c(q) - c(12 \cdots
k)}} {\mathcal{S}}(r_1) \oplus \frac{ \theta^{c(q) - c(12 \cdots k)} }{ \theta^{c(q) - c(12
\cdots k)}} {\mathcal{S}}(r_2) \oplus \cdots \oplus \frac{ \theta^{c(q) - c(12 \cdots k)}
}{ \theta^{c(q) - c(12 \cdots k)}} {\mathcal{S}}(r_n)$$ which is $\frac{ \theta^{c(q) - c(12 \cdots k)} }{ \theta^{c(q) - c(12 \cdots
k)}} {\mathcal{S}}(p^{\circ})$.
The other consequences follow directly from the definitions.
Thus, it suffices to restrict our attention to subtrees lying under increasing prefixes. To avoid clutter in the remainder of the results, we abuse notation to let ${\mathcal{S}}(p), {\mathcal{S}}(p^{\circ})$, and ${\mathcal{S}}(\bar{p})$ each refer to their numerators over the standard denominator $\sum_{p\text{-prefixed } \pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N}
\theta^{c(\pi)}$. To ensure that this is valid, we avow that all of our equalities will occur between quantities for which their implied denominators agree.
\[t:pc\] For the increasing prefixes $p = [12 \cdots (k-1)]$ and $q = [12 \cdots k]$, we have $${\mathcal{S}}(p^{\circ}) = {\mathcal{S}}(\bar{q}) + {\mathcal{S}}(q^{\circ}) \sum_{\substack{\text{nontrivial
permutations} \\r \text{ of } q \text{ having } p \text{ as a prefix }}} \theta^{c(r)-c(q)}, \text{ and }$$ $${\mathcal{S}}(p) = {\mathcal{S}}(q) \sum_{\substack{\text{nontrivial permutations} \\r \text{ of }
q \text{ having } p \text{ as a prefix }}} \theta^{c(r)-c(q)}.$$
There are $k$ children of $p$ in the prefix tree; they are distinguished by their value in the last position. The prefix $q$ itself is an eligible child so ${\mathcal{S}}(\bar{q})$ is the optimal probability under this subtree. The subtrees under each of the other $k-1$ children of $p$ are isomorphic to ${\mathcal{T}}(q^{\circ})$ via the bijection $\sigma_r$ where $r$ is a nontrivial permutation of $q$ having $p$ as a prefix. For each $\pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N$ that is won in ${\mathcal{S}}(q^{\circ})$, we have $\theta^{c(\sigma_r \cdot \pi)} = \theta^{c(\pi)} \theta^{c(r)-c(q)}$ by prefix equivariance, and the first result follows.
The second result is similar. First, observe that none of the $q$-prefixed $\pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N$ are $p$-winnable. Each of the $p$-winnable permutations arises by applying one of the $\sigma_r$ to a $q$-winnable permutation $\pi$. This has the effect of placing the value $N$ into position $k-1$, as desired. Prefix equivariance produces a factor of $\theta^{c(r)-c(q)}$ for each choice of $\sigma_r$.
\[c:t1\] For any increasing prefixes $p = [12 \cdots (k-1)]$ and $q = [12 \cdots k]$, we have that if $q$ is negative then $p$ is negative.
Suppose $q$ is negative so ${\mathcal{S}}(q^{\circ}) > {\mathcal{S}}(q)$. Then, by Theorem \[t:pc\] we have $${\mathcal{S}}(p^{\circ}) = {\mathcal{S}}(\bar{q}) + {\mathcal{S}}(q^{\circ}) \sum_{\substack{\text{nontrivial permutations} \\r \text{ of } q \text{ having } p \text{ as a prefix }}} \theta^{c(r)-c(q)}$$ $$> {\mathcal{S}}(q) \left( 1 + \sum_{\substack{\text{nontrivial permutations} \\r \text{ of } q \text{ having } p \text{ as a prefix }}} \theta^{c(r)-c(q)} \right) = {\mathcal{S}}(q) + {\mathcal{S}}(p) \geq {\mathcal{S}}(p),$$ so $p$ is negative as well.
\[t:main\] For a weighted game of best choice defined using a prefix equivariant statistic, the optimal strategy is positional.
By Corollary \[c:t1\], there exists some $k$ such that all of the increasing prefixes with size less or equal to $k$ are negative, and all of the increasing prefixes with size greater than $k$ are positive. Applying the $\sigma_q$ isomorphisms, the same $k$ also serves to separate positive and negative eligible prefixes in the rest of the tree by Theorem \[t:pres\]. Hence, the optimal strike strategy coincides with the positional strategy that rejects the first $k$ candidates and accepts the next left-to-right maximum thereafter.
\[r:hist\] It is interesting to compare this proof at ${\theta}= 1$ with arguments from the literature on the secretary problem. The paper of Gilbert–Mosteller [@gilbert--mosteller] is often cited (e.g. by [@ferguson]) as a proof of the result that among all potential strategies, the optimal one must be positional. However, their proof only considers strategies that always stop at a single particular position and does not address the possibility that a player may stop at various positions depending on the relative rankings encountered in the game. The paper of Kadison [@kadison] does provide a complete proof of the desired result (along different lines than ours), but it does not seem to have been widely cited.
$$\scalebox{0.67}{ \begin{tikzpicture}[grow=down]
\tikzstyle{level 1}=[sibling distance=120mm]
\tikzstyle{level 2}=[sibling distance=40mm]
\tikzstyle{level 3}=[sibling distance=10mm]
\node {$\substack{1 \\ \ \\ \frac{6{\theta}}{{\theta}^4 + 6{\theta}^3 + 11{\theta}^2 + 6{\theta}}}$ }
child{ node {$\substack{12 \\ \ \\ \frac{6{\theta}^2}{{\theta}^4 + 5{\theta}^3 + 6{\theta}^2}}$ }
child{ node {$\substack{123 \\ \ \\ \frac{3{\theta}^3}{{\theta}^4 + 3{\theta}^3}}$ }
child{ node{$\substack{1234 \\ \ \\ \frac{{\theta}^4}{{\theta}^4}}$}}
child{ node{1243}}
child{ node{1342}}
child{ node{2341}}
}
child{ node[gray] {132 }
child{ node{$\substack{1324 \\ \ \\ \frac{{\theta}^3}{{\theta}^3}}$} }
child{ node{1423}}
child{ node{1432}}
child{ node{2431}}
}
child{ node[gray] {231 }
child{ node{$\substack{2314 \\ \ \\ \frac{{\theta}^3}{{\theta}^3}}$} }
child{ node{2413}}
child{ node{3412}}
child{ node{3421}}
}
}
child{ node[gray] {21 }
child{ node {$\substack{213 \\ \ \\ \frac{3{\theta}^2}{{\theta}^3 + 3{\theta}^2}}$ }
child{ node{$\substack{2134 \\ \ \\ \frac{{\theta}^3}{{\theta}^3}}$}}
child{ node{2143}}
child{ node{3142}}
child{ node{3241}}
}
child{ node[gray] {312 }
child{ node{$\substack{3124 \\ \ \\ \frac{{\theta}^2}{{\theta}^2}}$} }
child{ node{4123}}
child{ node{4132}}
child{ node{4231}}
}
child{ node[gray] {321 }
child{ node{$\substack{3214 \\ \ \\ \frac{{\theta}^2}{{\theta}^2}}$} }
child{ node{4213}}
child{ node{4312}}
child{ node{4321}}
}
};
\end{tikzpicture}
}$$
In Figure \[f:treeex\] we have illustrated the prefix tree with ineligible prefixes shown in gray and strike probabilities given below each eligible prefix.
Precise results for Ewens distribution {#s:ew}
======================================
When we weight by $c(\pi) = \#$ left-to-right maxima in $\pi$, we obtain the Ewens distribution. In this section, we work out the optimal best choice strategy for all $N$.
Let ${\{N\}!}$ be the polynomial in ${\theta}$ defined by $${\{N\}!} = {\theta}({\theta}+1)({\theta}+2) \cdots ({\theta}+(N-1)).$$
The following result justifies our “${\theta}$-analogue” notation.
We have $${\{N\}!} = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N} \theta^{\# \text{left-to-right maxima in } \pi}.$$ Hence, the coefficients of ${\theta}$ in ${\{N\}!}$ are Stirling numbers (of the type used to count permutations by number of cycles).
This is straightforward to prove using induction since we may extend each permutation $\pi$ of $N-1$ by placing one of the values $1, 2, \ldots, N-1$ in the last position and arranging the complementary values according to $\pi$ (this does not create a new left-to-right maximum so contributes $(N-1)
{\{N-1\}!}$ to ${\{N\}!}$) or by simply appending the value $N$ to the last position of $\pi$ (which does create a new left-to-right maximum, so contributes ${\theta}{\{N-1\}!}$ to ${\{N\}!}$).
The equivalence between the number of cycles and number of left-to-right maxima (attributed to Rényi) is accomplished by writing the cycle notation for a permutation using the maximum element in a cycle as the starting point and then arranging the cycles with increasing maximum elements.
We are primarily interested in $$W(N,k) = \sum_{k\text{-winnable } \pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N} {\theta}^{\#\text{left-to-right maxima in } \pi}.$$ Here, we say that $\pi$ is [**$k$-winnable**]{} if it would be won by the positional strategy that rejects the first $k$ candidates and accepts the next left-to-right maximum thereafter. Some examples of these polynomials are given in Figure \[f:W\]. Our next result provides a recursive description for them.
\[t:W\] We have $$W(N,k) = (N-1) W(N-1,k) + \frac{(N-2)!}{(k-1)!} {\theta}{\{k\}!}$$ with initial conditions $W(1, 0) = {\theta}$ and $W(N,N) = 0$.
We have two cases for the $k$-winnable permutations $\pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_{N}$.
- If the last position contains one of the values $1, 2, \ldots, N-1$, then it is not a left-to-right maximum and we may view the complementary values as some $k$-winnable $\widetilde{\pi} \in {\mathfrak{S}}_{N-1}$. Hence, these contribute $(N-1) W(N-1,k)$ to $W(N,k)$.
- If the last position contains $N$ then it is a left-to-right maximum and the value $N-1$ must lie in one of the first $k$ positions in order for $\pi$ to be $k$-winnable. We can choose the rest of the values to place among the first $k$ positions in ${ {N-2} \choose {k-1}}$ ways and then permute them, keeping track of the number of left-to-right maxima with ${\{k\}!}$. For each of these, we may also then permute the rest of the entries in positions $k+1, k+2, \ldots, N-1$ in $(N-k-1)!$ ways. All together, these contribute $${\theta}^1 { {N-2} \choose {k-1}} {\{k\}!} (N-k-1)! = \frac{(N-2)!}{(k-1)!}
{\theta}{\{k\}!}$$ to $W(N,k)$.
The initial conditions are immediate.
Now, let ${\Delta W}(N,k) = W(N,k+1) - W(N,k)$. The zeros of these polynomials will determine the intervals of ${\theta}$ that produce games for which a given positional strategy is optimal. We begin by translating the recurrence.
\[c:Wrec\] We have $${\Delta W}(N,k) = (N-1) {\Delta W}(N-1,k) + {\theta}^2 \frac{(N-2)!}{k!} {\{k\}!}$$ with initial conditions ${\Delta W}(N,N-2) = {\theta}({\theta}-(N-1)){\{N-2\}!}$.
By Theorem \[t:W\], we have $${\Delta W}(N,k) = W(N,k+1) - W(N,k) = (N-1) \left(W(N-1,k+1) - W(N-1,k)\right)$$ $$+ {\theta}(N-2)! \left( \frac{ {\{k+1\}!} }{ k! } - \frac{{\{k\}!}}{(k-1)!} \right)$$ $$= (N-1) {\Delta W}(N-1,k) + {\theta}\frac{(N-2)!}{k!} {\{k\}!} \left( ({\theta}+ k) - k \right)$$ yielding the result.
The initial conditions follow by subtracting $W(N,N-2) = (2N-3) {\theta}{\{N-2\}!}$ from $W(N,N-1) = {\theta}{\{N-1\}!}$.
It turns out that we can solve this recurrence.
\[t:dwmain\] We have $${\Delta W}(N,k) = c_1(N,k) \left( \left(\sum_{i=k+1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{i}\right){\theta}- 1 \right) {\theta}{\{k\}!}$$ for some $c_1$ which is constant in ${\theta}$. Hence, ${\Delta W}$ has only real roots. Moreover, the only positive root of ${\Delta W}(N,k)$ occurs at $${\theta}= 1 \Big/ \left(\sum_{i=k+1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{i}\right).$$
We fix $N$ and argue by induction. The base case for $k = N-2$ matches the initial conditions in Corollary \[c:Wrec\] with $c_1(N,N-2) = (N-1)$.
Now suppose the result holds for $N-1$. Then, by Corollary \[c:Wrec\] $${\Delta W}(N,k) = (N-1) \left( c_1 \left( \left(\sum_{i=k+1}^{N-2} \frac{1}{i}\right){\theta}- 1 \right) {\theta}{\{k\}!} \right) + {\theta}^2 \frac{(N-2)!}{k!} {\{k\}!}$$ $$= \left( (N-1) c_1 \left( \left(\sum_{i=k+1}^{N-2} \frac{1}{i}\right){\theta}- 1 \right) + {\theta}\frac{(N-2)!}{k!} \right) {\theta}{\{k\}!}$$ $$= (N-1) c_1 \left( \left( \frac{(N-2)(N-3) \cdots (k+1)}{(N-1) c_1} + \frac{\sum\limits_{k+1 \leq i \leq N-2}\ \ \prod\limits_{\substack{k+1 \leq j \leq N-2 \\ j \neq i}} j }{(N-2)(N-3) \cdots (k+1)} \right) {\theta}- 1 \right) {\theta}{\{k\}!}.$$ Now, if we let $c_1 = (N-2)(N-3) \cdots (k+1)$, we may rewrite the linear term as $$\left( \frac{(N-2)(N-3) \cdots (k+1)}{(N-1)(N-2)(N-3) \cdots (k+1)} + \frac{(N-1)\sum\limits_{k+1 \leq i \leq N-2}\ \ \prod\limits_{\substack{k+1 \leq j \leq N-2 \\ j \neq i}} j }{(N-1)(N-2)(N-3) \cdots (k+1)} \right) {\theta}- 1 = \left( \sum_{i=k+1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{i}\right){\theta}- 1$$ obtaining $(N-1) c_1 \left( \left( \sum_{i=k+1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{i}\right){\theta}- 1
\right) {\theta}{\{k\}!}$ as desired.
\[c:ewensmain\] We have $${\kappa}_N({\theta}) = \begin{cases}
0 & \text{ if } 0 < {\theta}\leq \left(\sum_{i=1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{i}\right)^{-1} \\
k & \text{ if } \left(\sum_{i=k}^{N-1} \frac{1}{i}\right)^{-1} < {\theta}\leq \left(\sum_{i=k+1}^{N-1} \frac{1}{i}\right)^{-1} \\
N-1 & \text{ if } {\theta}> N-1.
\end{cases}$$
Since, for fixed $N$, the positive roots from Theorem \[t:dwmain\] are unique and increasing in $k$, we find that the strategy function ${\kappa}_N({\theta})$ is increasing as well.
This completely determines the optimal strategy precisely for all $N$. Some of the cutoff values for ${\theta}$ are illustrated in Figure \[f:cr\]. We have highlighted the optimal range including ${\theta}= 1$ corresponding to the classical uniform case.
Asymptotic results for Ewens distribution {#s:aew}
=========================================
To facilitate a comparison with the classical case, we can also solve the Ewens model asymptotically.
Optimal strategy
----------------
For fixed ${\theta}$ and large $N$, the optimal $k$ is given by solving $${\theta}^{-1} = \sum_{i=k}^{N-1} \frac{1}{i} = \sum_{i=k}^{N-1} \frac{1}{i/(N-1)} \frac{1}{N-1}$$ for $k$. The latter is a Riemann sum approximation for the integral $\int_x^1
\frac{1}{t} \ dt$ where $t = \frac{i}{N-1}$ and $x = \frac{k}{N-1}$.
Therefore, as $N \rightarrow \infty$ we obtain $${\theta}^{-1} = \int_x^1 \frac{1}{t} \ dt = -\ln x$$ which we can solve for $x = 1/e^{1/{\theta}}$. Thus, the optimal number of initial rejections is approximately $k = N/e^{1/{\theta}}$ for $N$ sufficiently large. A plot is shown in Figure \[f:4\].
$$\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{ewens_thetak}$$
Optimal probability of success
------------------------------
Reviewing the previous section, we find that can solve $W(N,k)$ explicitly. Each $W(N,k)$ polynomial is just a constant in ${\theta}$ (that depends on $N$ and $k$) times the polynomial ${\theta}{\{k\}!}$.
\[t:eds\] For all $N$ and $k \geq 1$, we have $$W(N,k) = {\theta}{\{k\}!} \frac{(N-1)!}{(k-1)!} \sum_{i=k}^{N-1} \frac{1}{i}.$$ When $k = 0$, we have $W(N,0) = (N-1)! {\theta}$.
This is straightforward to prove by induction from Theorem \[t:W\].
Since the optimal value of $k$ satisfies ${\theta}= \left(\sum_{i=k}^{N-1}
\frac{1}{i}\right)^{-1}$ we can cancel it and the optimal probability $W$ simplifies to $$\frac{W(N,k)}{{\{N\}!}} = \frac{{\{k\}!}}{(k-1)!} \frac{(N-1)!}{{\{N\}!}}.$$
When ${\theta}$ is an integer, this is just a ratio of binomial coefficients, but for arbitrary positive real ${\theta}$ we use gamma functions (see e.g. [@NIST]). By iterating the recurrence ${\Gamma}(z+1)=z{\Gamma}(z)$ we obtain ${\{N\}!} = \frac{{\Gamma}({\theta}+N)}{{\Gamma}({\theta})}$. Hence, $$\frac{{\{k\}!}}{(k-1)!} \frac{(N-1)!}{{\{N\}!}}
= \frac{{\Gamma}({\theta}+k)}{{\Gamma}({\theta})(k-1)!} \frac{{\Gamma}({\theta})(N-1)!}{{\Gamma}({\theta}+N)}
= \frac{{\Gamma}({\theta}+k)}{{\Gamma}(k)} \frac{{\Gamma}(N)}{{\Gamma}({\theta}+N)}.$$ Using $\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty} \frac{{\Gamma}(x+{\theta})}{{\Gamma}(x) x^{\theta}} = 1$, we get $$\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{{\Gamma}({\theta}+k)}{{\Gamma}(k)} \frac{{\Gamma}(N)}{{\Gamma}({\theta}+N)}
= \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{k^{\theta}}{N^{\theta}}
= \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \left(\frac{k}{N}\right)^{{\theta}}
= \left(\frac{1}{e^{1/{\theta}}}\right)^{\theta}= 1/e.$$ Remarkably, this probability of success is independent of ${\theta}$.
Results for Mallows distribution {#s:m}
================================
We now turn to the Mallows distribution defined by $c(\pi) = \#$inversions in $\pi$. We begin by working out the standard “${\theta}$-analogue” for this statistic.
Let ${[N]}$ be the polynomial in ${\theta}$ defined by $1+{\theta}+{\theta}^2+\cdots+{\theta}^{N-1}$. Let ${[N]!}$ be the polynomial in ${\theta}$ defined by $${[N]!} = {[N]} {[N-1]} \cdots {[1]}.$$
We have $${[N]!} = \sum_{\pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N} \theta^{\# \text{inversions in } \pi}.$$
This is straightforward to prove using induction since we may extend each permutation $\pi$ of $N-1$ by placing one of the values $i = 1, 2, \ldots, N$ in the last position and arranging the complementary values according to $\pi$. This creates $N-i$ new inversions, so contributes ${[N]} {[N-1]!}$ to ${[N]!}$.
Let us redefine $$W(N,k) = \sum_{k\text{-winnable } \pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_N} {\theta}^{\#\text{inversions in } \pi}$$ for the Mallows distribution. Our next result provides a recursive description for these polynomials.
\[t:mW\] We have $$W(N,k) = {\theta}{[N-1]} W(N-1,k) + {\theta}^{N-k-1} {[k]} {[N-2]!}$$ with initial conditions $W(1, 0) = 1$ and $W(N,N) = 0$.
We have two cases for the $k$-winnable permutations $\pi \in {\mathfrak{S}}_{N}$.
- If the last position contains one of the values $i = 1, 2, \ldots,
N-1$, then it contributes $N-i$ to the inversion count and we may view the complementary values as some $k$-winnable $\widetilde{\pi} \in
{\mathfrak{S}}_{N-1}$. Hence, these contribute ${\theta}{[N-1]} W(N-1,k)$ to $W(N,k)$.
- If the last position contains $N$ then the value $N-1$ must lie in one of the first $k$ positions in order for $\pi$ to be $k$-winnable. These choices for the position of value $N-1$ contribute ${\theta}^{N-k-1} {[k]}$. For each of these, we choose a permutation of size $N-2$ to fill in the remaining positions, keeping track of the inversions with ${[N-2]!}$.
The initial conditions are immediate.
We can solve this recurrence.
\[c:mm\] We have $$W(N,k) = {\theta}^{N-k-1} {[N-1]!} \sum_{i=k}^{N-1} \frac{ {[k]} }{ {[i]} }$$ for $k > 0$ and $W(N,0) = {\theta}^{N-1} {[N-1]!}$.
This is straightforward to prove by induction on $N$ from Theorem \[t:mW\].
For this distribution, the precise transition probabilities for each $N$ seem to be inaccessible, being roots of polynomials (with complex solutions) that use many repeated root extractions as opposed to the rational numbers we obtained in the Ewens case. However, we obtain some interesting asymptotic results. Figure \[f:m1\] shows a plot of the optimal success probability for various values of ${\theta}< 1$ based on the following theorem.
$$\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{mallows_tleq1}$$
If ${\theta}< 1$ then the optimal strategy as $N$ becomes large is to reject the first $N-j$ candidates where $j = \max(-1/(\ln {\theta}), 1)$, and select the next left-to-right maximum thereafter. This strategy succeeds with probability $j
{\theta}^{j-1} (1-{\theta})$. If $1/e < {\theta}< 1$, this probability of success simplifies to $e^{-1} \left(\frac{{\theta}- 1}{{\theta}\ln {\theta}}\right)$.
Rewriting the probability $W(N,k)/{[N]!}$ from Corollary \[c:mm\] gives $${\theta}^{N-k-1} \frac{ {[k]} }{ {[N]} } \sum_{i=k}^{N-1} \frac{1}{{[i]}} =
(1-{\theta}) {\theta}^{N-k-1} \frac{1-{\theta}^k}{1-{\theta}^N} \sum_{i=k}^{N-1} \frac{ 1 }{ 1-{\theta}^i }$$ $$= \frac{{\theta}^N-{\theta}^{N-1}-{\theta}^{N-k}+{\theta}^{N-k-1}}{1 - {\theta}^N} \sum_{i=k}^{N-1} \frac{ 1 }{
1-{\theta}^i }.$$
For fixed ${\theta}\in (0,1)$, as $N$ becomes large, the fraction tends to ${\theta}^{N-k-1}(1 - {\theta})$ and the terms in the series become close to $1$ so the probability reduces to ${\theta}^{N-k-1}(1-{\theta})(N-k)$. By continuity, this sequence converges to a positive value if and only if the $N-k$ sequence converges to a finite value.
So we let $j = N-k$ obtaining $\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} W(N,k)/{[N]!}
= j {\theta}^{j-1} (1-{\theta})$. Differentiating with respect to $j$ and set equal to zero, we solve to obtain the optimal $j = -1/(\ln {\theta})$. For ${\theta}< 1/e$, we have $j < 1$ but we cannot reject more than $N-1$ candidates so max appears in the expression.
The case where ${\theta}> 1$ is less interesting from our intrinsic learning perspective but we sketch the behavior of these models for mathematical completeness. Taken together, the results also prove that the asymptotically optimal strategy does not vary continuously with the parameter ${\theta}$ which would seem to limit the durability of any “policy advice” derived from the classical model (such as e.g. [@golden]).
$$\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{mallows_g1k1} \includegraphics[scale=0.25]{mallows_g1k2} \includegraphics[scale=0.25]{mallows_g1k3}$$
\[c:mm2\] Fix ${\theta}> 1$ and an integer $k \geq 1$. Then, $$\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{W(N,k)}{{[N]!}} = ({\theta}-1) \frac{{\theta}^k - 1}{{\theta}^{k+1}} \sum_{i=k}^{\infty} \frac{1}{{\theta}^i - 1}.$$ In particular, we approach a single asymptotic distribution as $N {\rightarrow}\infty$ so the optimal strategy will be to reject some number of initial candidates (not depending on $N$) and select the next left-to-right maximum thereafter.
Once again, consider $$\frac{W(N,k)}{{[N]!}} = \frac{{\theta}^N-{\theta}^{N-1}-{\theta}^{N-k}+{\theta}^{N-k-1}}{{\theta}^N - 1} \sum_{i=k}^{N-1} \frac{ 1 }{ {\theta}^i - 1 }.$$ For fixed ${\theta}> 1$, as $N$ becomes large, the fraction tends to $1-{\theta}^{-1}-{\theta}^{-k}+{\theta}^{-(k+1)} = (1-{\theta}^{-1})(1 - {\theta}^{-k})$ and the series converges (e.g. by the integral test).
Thus, every $k$-positional strategy has some nonzero probability in the limit as $N \rightarrow \infty$. As $k$ becomes large, the series tends to zero, being approximately $\sum_{i=k}^\infty (1/{\theta})^i = {\theta}^{-k}/(1-{\theta}^{-1})$. Therefore, the optimal asymptotic probability will occur for some fixed $k$ (depending on ${\theta}$).
Figure \[f:m2\] shows some plots (obtained numerically) of the optimal success probabilities for various values of ${\theta}$ and $k$. For any particular value of ${\theta}> 1$, one can explicitly compute the probabilities in Corollary \[c:mm2\] and find the optimal strategy $k$. For example, it appears that $k = 1$ is optimal for all ${\theta}> 1.285$ (approximately). Although the series always converges, finding a closed form for its limiting value involves the “$q$-digamma function” which prevents us from obtaining a simple description of the optimal strategy in general. It also appears that the maximal probability of success for these models occurs when ${\theta}\approx 1.55$ (for which $k = 1$ is the optimal strategy). It would be interesting to determine this maximum more precisely.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Laura Taalman, John Webb, and Becky Wild for helpful discussions related to this work.
[ABNP16]{}
Nicolas Auger, Mathilde Bouvel, Cyril Nicaud, and Carine Pivoteau, *Analysis of algorithms for permutations biased by their number of records*, Proceedings of the 27th [I]{}nternational [C]{}onference on [P]{}robabilistic, [C]{}ombinatorial and [A]{}symptotic [M]{}ethods for the [A]{}nalysis of [A]{}lgorithms—[A]{}of[A]{}’16, Jagiellonian Univ., Dep. Theor. Comput. Sci., Kraków, 2016, p. 12. [MR ]{}[3817514]{}
Richard Arratia, A. D. Barbour, and Simon Tavaré, *Logarithmic combinatorial structures: a probabilistic approach*, EMS Monographs in Mathematics, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2003. [MR ]{}[2032426]{}
M. Babaioff, N. Immorlica, D. Kempe, and Kleinberg R., *Online auctions and generalized secretary problems*, SIGecom Exchange **7** (2008), 1–11.
Harry Crane, Stephen DeSalvo, and Sergi Elizalde, *The probability of avoiding consecutive patterns in the [M]{}allows distribution*, Random Structures Algorithms **53** (2018), no. 3, 417–447. [MR ]{}[3854041]{}
Thomas S. Ferguson, *Who solved the secretary problem?*, Statist. Sci. **4** (1989), no. 3, 282–296, With comments and a rejoinder by the author. [MR ]{}[1015277]{}
Aaron Fowlkes and Brant Jones, *Positional strategies in games of best choice*, [arXiv:1810.09887 \[math.CO\]]{} (2018).
P. R. Freeman, *The secretary problem and its extensions: a review*, Internat. Statist. Rev. **51** (1983), no. 2, 189–206.
Martin Gardner, *New mathematical diversions*, revised ed., MAA Spectrum, Mathematical Association of America, Washington, DC, 1995. [MR ]{}[1335231]{}
John P. Gilbert and Frederick Mosteller, *Recognizing the maximum of a sequence*, J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. **61** (1966), 35–73. [MR ]{}[0198637]{}
Brant Jones, *Avoiding patterns and making the best choice*, [ arXiv:1812.00963 \[math.CO\]]{} (2018).
Richard V. Kadison, *Strategies in the secretary problem*, Exposition. Math. **12** (1994), no. 2, 125–144. [MR ]{}[1274782]{}
Thomas Kesselheim, Robert Kleinberg, and Rad Niazadeh, *Secretary problems with non-uniform arrival order*, S[TOC]{}’15—[P]{}roceedings of the 2015 [ACM]{} [S]{}ymposium on [T]{}heory of [C]{}omputing, ACM, New York, 2015, pp. 879–888. [MR ]{}[3388268]{}
Frank W. J. Olver, Daniel W. Lozier, Ronald F. Boisvert, and Charles W. Clark (eds.), *N[IST]{} handbook of mathematical functions*, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010, With 1 CD-ROM (Windows, Macintosh and UNIX). [MR ]{}[2723248]{}
Dietmar Pfeifer, *Extremal processes, secretary problems and the [$1/e$]{} law*, J. Appl. Probab. **26** (1989), no. 4, 722–733. [MR ]{}[1025389]{}
J. H. Reeves and V. F. Flack, *A generalization of the classical secretary problem: dependent arrival sequences*, J. Appl. Probab. **25** (1988), no. 1, 97–105. [MR ]{}[929508]{}
Dimitris A. Sardelis and Theodoros M. Valahas, *Decision making: a golden rule*, Amer. Math. Monthly **106** (1999), no. 3, 215–226. [MR ]{}[1682342]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study the stability problem of a star-shaped network of elastic strings with a local Kelvin-Voigt damping. Under the assumption that the damping coefficients have some singularities near the transmission point, we prove that the semigroup corresponding to the system is polynomially stable and the decay rates depends on the speed of the degeneracy. This result improves the decay rate of the semigroup associated to the system on an earlier result of Z. Liu and Q. Zhang in [@LZ] involving the wave equation with local Kelvin-Voigt damping and non-smooth coefficient at interface.'
address: 'UR Analysis and Control of PDEs, UR 13ES64, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Sciences of Monastir, University of Monastir, Tunisia'
author:
- Fathi Hassine
title: 'Stability of a star-shaped network with local Kelvin-Voigt damping and non-smooth coefficient at interface'
---
Introduction
============
We consider one-dimensional wave propagation through $N+1$ edges (with $N\geq1$) consisting of an elastic and a Kelvin-Voigt medium all connected to one transmission point. The later material is a viscoelastic material having the properties both of elasticity and viscosity. More precisely we consider the following initial and boundary-value problem $$\label{IWKVS1}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\ds\ddot{u}_{0}(x,t)-u_{0}''(x,t)=0&(x,t)\in(0,\ell_{0})\times(0,+\infty),
\\
\ds\ddot{u}_{j}(x,t)-\left[u_{j}'(x,t)+d_{j}(x)\dot{u}_{j}'(x,t)\right]'=0&(x,t)\in(0,\ell_{1})\times(0,+\infty),\,j=1,\ldots,N,
\\
u_{j}(\ell_{j},t)=0&t\in(0,+\infty),\,j=0,\ldots,N,
\\
u_{0}(0,t)=\dots=u_{N}(0,t)&t\in(0,+\infty),
\\
\ds u_{0}'(0,t)+\sum_{j=1}^{N}u_{j}'(0,t)+d_{j}(0)\dot{u}_{j}'(0,t)=0&t\in(0,+\infty),
\\
\ds u_{j}(x,0)=u_{j}^{0}(x),\;\dot{u}_{j}(x,0)=u_{j}^{1}(x)&x\in(0,\ell_{j}),\,j=0,\ldots,N,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where the point stands for the time derivative and the prime stands for the space derivative, $u_{j}:[0,\ell_{j}]\times[0,+\infty[\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ for $j=0,\ldots,N$ are the displacement of the of the string of length $\ell_{j}$ and the coefficient damping $d_{j}$ is assumed to be a non-negative function.
The natural energy of system is given by $$E(t)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}\left(|\dot{u}_{j}(x,t)|^{2}+|u_{j}'(x,t)|^{2} \right)\,{{\rm d}}x$$ and it is dissipated according to the following law $$\frac{{{\rm d}}}{{{\rm d}}t}E(t)=-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}d_{j}(x)\,|\dot{u}_{j}'(x,t)|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x,\;\forall\,t>0.$$ The stability of this model was intensively studied in this last two decades:
On high dimensional case: Liu and Rao [@liu-rao2] proved the exponential decay of the energy providing that the damping region is a neighborhood of the whole boundary, and further restrictions are imposed on the damping coefficient. Next, this result was generalized and improved by Tebou [@tibou2] when damping is localized in a suitable open subset, of the domain under consideration, which satisfies the piecewise multipliers condition of Liu. He shows that the energy of this system decays polynomially when the damping coefficient is only bounded measurable, and it decays exponentially when the damping coefficient as well as its gradient are bounded measurable, and the damping coefficient further satisfies a structural condition. Recently, Using Carleman estimates Ammari et al. [@AHR2] show a logarithmic decay rate of the semigroup associated to the system when the damping coefficient is arbitrary localized. Next, Burq generalized this result in [@burq2]. This author shows also a polynomial decay rate of the semigroup when the damping region verifying some geometric control condition of order equal to $\ds\frac{1}{2}$ and of order equal to $\ds\frac{1}{4}$ for a cubic domain with eventual degeneracy on the coefficient damping in case of dimension $2$.
In case of the interval (or when $N=1$): It is well known that the Kelvin-Voigt damping is much stronger than the viscous damping in the sens that if the entire medium is of the Kelvin-Voigt type, the damping for the wave equation not only induces exponential energy decay but also the associated to semigroup is analytic [@huang2]; while the entire medium of the viscous type, the associate semigroup is only exponential stable [@CFNS] and does not have any smoothing property since the spectrum of the semigroup generator has a vertical asymptote on the left hand side of the imaginary axes of the complex plane. When the damping is localized (i.e., distributed only on the proper subset of the spatial domain), such a comparison is not valid anymore. While the local viscous damping still enjoys the exponential stability as long as the damped region contains an interval of any size in the domain, the local Kelvin–Voigt damping doesn’t follow the same analogue. Chen et al. [@chen-liu-liu] proved lack of the exponential stability when the damping coefficient is a step function. This unexpected result reveals that the Kelvin–Voigt damping does not follow the ”geometric optics" condition (see [@blr]). And Liu and Rao [@liu-rao1] proved that the solution of this model actually decays at a rate of $t^{-2}$. The optimality of this order was proven by Alves et al. in [@ARSVG]. In 2002, it was shown in [@liu-liu2] that exponential energy decay still holds if the damping coefficient is smooth enough. Later, the smoothness condition was weakened in [@zhang] and satisfies the following condition $$a'(0)=0,\qquad \int_{0}^{x}\frac{|a'(s)|^{2}}{a(s)}\,{{\rm d}}s\leq C|a'(x)|\quad \forall\,x\in[0,1].$$ This indicates that the asymptotic behavior of the solution depends on the regularity of the damping coefficient function, which is not the case for the viscous damping model. Renardy [@renardy] in 2004 proved that the real part of the eigenvalues are not bounded below if the damping coefficient behaves like $x^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha>1$ near the interface $x=0$. Under this same condition Liu et al. [@liu-liu-zhang] proved that the solution of the system is eventually differentiable which also guarantees the exponential stability since there is no spectrum on the imaginary axis and the system is dissipative. In 2016, Under the assumption that the damping coefficient has a singularity at the interface of the damped and undamped regions and behaves like $x^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha\in(0,1)$ near the interface, [@LZ] proved that the semigroup corresponding to the system is polynomially stable and the decay rate depends on the parameter $\alpha$.
In case of multi-link structure: In [@hassine1] we proved that the semigroup is polynomially stable when the coefficient damping is piecewise function with an optimal decay rate equal to $2$ (we refer also to [@hassine2] for the case of transmission Euler-Bernoulli plate and wave equation with a localized Kelvin-Voigt damping). Recently, Ammari et al. [@ALS] consider the tree of elastic strings with local Kelvin-Voigt damping. They proved under some assumptions on the smoothness of the damping coefficients, say $W^{2,\infty}$, and some other considerations that the semigroup is exponentially stable if the damping coefficient is continuous at every node of the tree and otherwise it is polynomially stable with a decay rate equal to $2$.
In light of all the above results it is obvious to say that the asymptotic behavior of the solution to system depends on the regularity on the damping coefficient function. In this paper we want to generalize and improve the polynomial decay rate given by Liu and Zhang in [@LZ] when the damping coefficient has a singularity at the interface and behaves like $x^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha\in(0,1)$. Precisely, we make the following assumptions: For every $j=1,\ldots,N$
- There exist $a_{j},\,b_{j}\in[0,\ell_{j}]$ with $a_{j}<b_{j}$ such that $$\label{IWKVS4}
[a_{j},b_{j}]\subset{\mathrm{supp}}(d_{j})\qquad\text{ and }\qquad d_{j}\in L^{\infty}(0,\ell_{j}).\tag{A \addtocounter{equation}{1}\theequation}$$
- There exist $\alpha_{j}\in(0,1)$ and $\kappa_{j}\geq 0$ such that $$\label{IWKVS2}
\lim_{x\to 0^{+}}\frac{d_{j}(x)}{x^{\alpha_{j}}}=\kappa_{j}.\tag{A \addtocounter{equation}{1}\theequation}$$
- There exists $\eta_{j}\in[0,1)$ such that $$\label{IWKVS3}
\lim_{x\to 0^{+}}\frac{xd_{j}'(x)}{d_{j}(x)}=\eta_{j}.\tag{A \addtocounter{equation}{1}\theequation}$$
\[IWKVS6\] The typical example of functions $d_{j}$ that satisfies assumptions , and , is when $d_{j}(x)=x^{\alpha_{j}}$ with $\alpha_{j}\in(0,1)$ for every $j=1,\ldots,N$. An interesting example too is when we take $d_{j}(x)=x^{\alpha_{j}'}|\ln(x)|^{\beta_{j}}$ with $\alpha_{j}'\in(0,1)$ and $\beta_{j}>0$ in this case assumptions , and are satisfied with $\kappa_{j}=0$, $\alpha_{j}=\alpha_{j}'-\varepsilon_{j}$ for all $0<\varepsilon_{j}<\alpha_{j}'$ and $\eta_{j}=\alpha_{j}'$.
Let $\ds\mathcal{H}= V\times\prod_{j=0}^{N}L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})$ be the Hilbert space endowed with the inner product define for $(u,v)=\left((u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(v_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\right)\in\mathcal{H}$ and $(\tilde{u},\tilde{v})=\left((\tilde{u}_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(\tilde{v}_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\right)\in\mathcal{H}$ by $$\left\langle (u,v),(\tilde{u},\tilde{v})\right\rangle_{\mathcal{H}}=\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}u_{j}'(x)\,.\,\overline{\tilde{u}}_{j}'(x)\,{{\rm d}}x+\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}v_{j}(x)\,.\,\overline{\tilde{v}}_{j}(x)\,{{\rm d}}x,$$ where $V$ is the Hilbert space defined by $$V=\left\{(u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\in\prod_{j=0}^{N}H^{1}(0,\ell_{j}): u_{j}(\ell_{j})=0\;\forall j=0,\ldots,N;\;u_{0}(0)=\dots=u_{N}(0)\right\}.$$ By setting $U(t)=\left((u_{j}(t))_{j=0,\ldots,N},(v_{j}(t))_{j=0,\ldots,N}\right)$ and $U^{0}=\left((u_{j}^{0})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(u_{j}^{1})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\right)$ we can rewrite system as a first order differential equation as follows $$\label{WPWKVS1}
\dot{U}(t)=\mathcal{A}U(t),\qquad U(0)=U^{0}\in\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A}),$$ where $$\mathcal{A}\left((u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(v_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\right)=\left((v_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(u_{0}'',[u_{1}'+d_{1}v_{1}']',\ldots,[u_{N}'+d_{N}v_{N}']')\right),$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})=\bigg\{\left((u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(v_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\right)\in\mathcal{H}:\;(v_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\in V;\;u_{0}''\in L^{2}(0,\ell_{0});
\\
[u_{j}'+d_{j}v_{j}']'\in L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})\,\forall\,j=1,\ldots,N;\;u_{0}'(0)+\sum_{j=1}^{N}u_{j}'(0)+d_{j}(0)v_{j}'(0)=0\bigg\}. \end{aligned}$$
\[IWKVS5\] Assume that for $j=1,\ldots,N$ the coefficient functions $d_{j}\in\mathcal{C}([0,\ell_{j}])\cap\mathcal{C}^{1}((0,\ell_{j}))$ are such that conditions , and hold. Then, the semigroup $e^{t\mathcal{A}}$ associated to system (see Proposition \[WPWKVS4\]) is polynomially stable precisely we have: There exists $C>0$ such that $$\|e^{t\mathcal{A}}U^{0}\|_{\mathcal{H}}\leq\frac{C}{(t+1)^{\frac{2-\alpha}{1-\alpha}k}}\left\|U^{0}\right\|_{\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A}^{k})}\quad\forall\,U^{0}=\left((u_{j}^{0})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(u_{j}^{1})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\right)\in\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A}^{k})\;\forall\,t\geq 0,$$ where $\ds\alpha=\min\{\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{N}\}$.
This theorem reveals that the stability order of the semigroup $e^{t\mathcal{A}}$ associated to problem depends on the behavior of the damping coefficients $d_{j}$ described by the parameters $\alpha_{j}$ for $j=1,\dots,N$. This result improves the decay rate of the energy given in [@LZ] from $\ds\frac{1}{1-\alpha}$ to $\ds\frac{2-\alpha}{1-\alpha}$ and make it more meaningful in fact, as $\alpha$ goes to $1^{-}$ the order of polynomial stability $\ds\frac{2-\alpha}{1-\alpha}$ goes to $\infty$ which is consistent with the exponential stability when $\alpha=1$ (see [@ALS; @LZ; @liu-liu2; @LZ]) and as $\alpha$ goes to $0^{+}$ the order of polynomial stability $\ds\frac{2-\alpha}{1-\alpha}$ goes to $2$ which is consistent with the optimal order stability when $\alpha=0$ (see [@ARSVG; @hassine1; @liu-rao1]).
When the coefficient functions $d_{j}$ behave polynomially near $0$ as $x^{\alpha_{j}}$ with $0<\alpha_{j}<1$ then from Theorem \[IWKVS5\] the semigroup $e^{t\mathcal{A}}$ decays polynomially with the decay rate given above in the theorem. Moreover, when $d_{j}$ decay faster than $x^{\alpha_{j}}$ and slower than $x^{\alpha_{j}+\varepsilon}$ for all $\varepsilon>0$ this can may be seen for instance with the example of $d_{j}(x)=x^{\alpha_{j}}|\ln(x)|^{\beta_{j}}$ with $\beta_{j}>0$ then according to Remark \[IWKVS6\] the semigroup $e^{t\mathcal{A}}$ decays polynomially with the decay rate equal to $\ds\frac{2-\alpha+\varepsilon}{1-\alpha+\varepsilon}$ for each $\varepsilon\in(0,\alpha)$ where $\ds\alpha=\min\{\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{N}\}$. Consequently, this decay rate is worse than if the coefficient functions $d_{j}$ behave near $0$ like $x^{\alpha_{j}}$ and better than if the coefficient functions $d_{j}$ behave near $0$ like $x^{\alpha_{j}'}$ for any $\alpha_{j}'>0$ such that $\alpha_{j}'<\alpha_{j}$.
This article is organized as follows. In section \[WPWKVS\], we prove the well posedness of system . In section \[SSWKVS\], we show that the semigroup associated to the generator $\mathcal{A}$ is strongly stable . In section \[PSWKVS\], we prove the polynomial decay rate given by Theorem \[IWKVS5\].
Well-posedness {#WPWKVS}
==============
In this section we use the semigroup approach to prove the well-posedness of system .
\[WPWKVS4\] Assume that condition holds. Then $\mathcal{A}$ generates a $C_{0}$-semigroup of contractions $e^{t\mathcal{A}}$ on the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$.
For any $(u,v)=\big((u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(v_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\big)\in\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})$, we have $$\langle\mathcal{A}(u,v),(u,v)\rangle_{\mathcal{H}}=-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}d_{j}(x)|\partial_{x}v_{j}(x)|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x.$$ This shows that the operator $\mathcal{A}$ is dissipative.\
Given $(f,g)=\big((f_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(g_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\big)\in\mathcal{H}$ we look for $(u,v)=\big((u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(v_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\big)\in\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})$ such that $\mathcal{A}(u,v)=(f,g)$, this is also written $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}
v_{j}=f_{j}\quad\forall\, j=0,\ldots,N,
\\
u_{0}''=g_{0},
\\
(u_{j}'+d_{j}v_{j}')'=g_{j}\quad\forall\, j=1,\ldots,N,
\\
u_{j}(\ell_{j})=0\quad\forall\, j=0,\ldots,N,
\\
u_{0}(0)=\dots=u_{N}(0),
\\
\ds u_{0}'(0)+\sum_{j=1}^{N}u_{j}'(0)+d_{j}(0) v_{j}'(0)=0,
\end{array}\right.$$ or equivalently $$\label{WPWKVS3}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
v_{j}=f_{j}\quad\forall\, j=0,\ldots,N,
\\
u_{0}''=g_{0},
\\
u_{j}''=g_{j}-(d_{j}f_{j}')'\quad\forall\, j=1,\ldots,N,
\\
u_{j}(\ell_{j})=0\quad\forall\, j=0,\ldots,N,
\\
u_{0}(0)=\dots=u_{N}(0),
\\
\ds u_{0}'(0)+\sum_{j=1}^{N}u_{j}'(0)+d_{j}(0)f_{j}'(0)=0.
\end{array}\right.$$ For this aim we set the continuous coercive and bi-linear form in $V$ $$L(u,\tilde{u})=\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}u_{j}'\,.\,\overline{\tilde{u}}_{j}'\,{{\rm d}}x.$$ By Lax-Milligram theorem there exists a unique element $(u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\in V$ such that $$\label{WPWKVS2}
\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}u_{j}'\,.\,\overline{\tilde{u}}_{j}'\,{{\rm d}}x=-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}d_{j}f_{j}'\,.\,\overline{\tilde{u}}_{j}'\,{{\rm d}}x-\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}g_{j}\,.\,\overline{\tilde{u}}_{j}\,{{\rm d}}x.$$ It follows that by taking in the sens of distribution that $\partial_{x}^{2}u_{0}=g_{0}$ in $L^{2}(0,\ell_{0})$ and $u_{j}''=g_{j}-[d_{j}f_{j}']'$ in $L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})$ for all $j=1,\ldots,N$. Back again to and integrating by parts we find that $\ds u_{0}'(0)+\sum_{j=1}^{N}u_{j}'(0)+d_{j}(0)f_{j}'(0)=0$. This prove that the operator $\mathcal{A}$ is surjective. Moreover, by multiplying the second line by $\overline{u}_{1}$ of and the third line by $\overline{u}_{j}$ and integrating over $(0,\ell_{0})$ and $(0,\ell_{j})$ respectively and summing up then by Poincaré inequality and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality we find that there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}|u_{j}'|^{2}{{\rm d}}x\leq C\left(\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}|f_{j}'|^{2}{{\rm d}}x+\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}|g_{j}|^{2}{{\rm d}}x\right)$$ which combined with the first line of leads to $$\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}|u_{j}'|^{2}{{\rm d}}x+\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}|v_{j}|^{2}{{\rm d}}x\leq C\left(\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}|f_{j}'|^{2}{{\rm d}}x+\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}|g_{j}|^{2}{{\rm d}}x\right).$$ This implies that $0\in\rho(\mathcal{A})$ and by contraction principle, we easily get $R(\lambda-\mathcal{A})=\mathcal{H}$ for sufficient small $\lambda>0$. Since $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})$ is dense in $\mathcal{H}$ then thanks to Lumer-Phillips theorem [@Pazy Theorem 1.4.3], $\mathcal{A}$ generates a $C_{0}$-semi-group of contractions on $\mathcal{H}$.
As a consequence of Proposition \[WPWKVS4\] we have the following well-posedness result of system .
For any initial data $U^{0}\in\mathcal{H}$, there exists a unique solution $U(t)\in\mathcal{C}([0,\,+\infty[,\,\mathcal{H})$ to the problem . Moreover, if $U^{0}\in\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})$, then $$U(t)\in\mathcal{C}([0,\,+\infty[,\, \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A}))\cap\mathcal{C}^{1}([0,\,+\infty),\, \mathcal{H}).$$
Strong stability {#SSWKVS}
================
The aim of this section is to prove that the semi-group generated by the operator $\mathcal{A}$ is strongly stable. In another words this means that the energy of system degenerates over the time to zero.
\[SSWKVS4\] Assume that condition holds. Then for every $\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}$ the operator $(i\lambda-\mathcal{A})$ is injective.
Since $0\in\rho(\mathcal{A})$ (according to the proof of Theorem \[WPWKVS2\]), we only need to check that for every $\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}^{*}$ we have $\ker(i\lambda I-\mathcal{A})=\{0\}$. Let $\lambda\neq 0$ and $(u,v)=\big((u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(v_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\big)\in\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})$ such that $$\label{SSWKVS6}
\mathcal{A}(u,v)=i\lambda (u,v)$$ Taking the real part of the inner product in $\mathcal{H}$ of with $(u,v)$ and using the dissipation of $\mathcal{A}$, we get $${\mathrm{Re}}\,i\lambda\|(u,v)\|_{\mathcal{H}}^{2}={\mathrm{Re}}\,\langle\mathcal{A}(u,v),(u,v)\rangle_{\mathcal{H}}=-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}d_{j}(x)|v_{j}'(x)|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x=0,$$ which implies that $$\label{SSWKVS1}
d_{j}v_{j}'=0\quad \text{in }L^{2}(0,\ell_{j}),\; \forall\, j=1,\ldots,N.$$ Inserting into , we obtain $$\label{SSWKVS2}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
i\lambda u_{j}=v_{j}&\text{in }(0,\ell_{j}),\quad j=0,\ldots,N,
\\
\lambda^{2} u_{j}+u_{j}''=0&\text{in }(0,\ell_{j}),\quad j=0,\ldots,N,
\\
u_{j}(\ell_{j})=0&j=0,\ldots,N,
\\
u_{1}(0)=\dots=u_{N}(0)&
\\
\ds\sum_{j=0}^{N}u_{j}'(0)=0&
\end{array}\right.$$ Combining with the first line of , we get $$u_{j}'=0 \quad\text{a.e in } [a_{j},b_{j}]\quad\forall\,j=1,\ldots,N.$$ Since $u_{j}\in H^{2}(0,\ell_{j})$ then following to the embedding $H^{1}(0,\ell_{j})\hookrightarrow C^{0}(0,\ell_{j})$ we have $$\label{SSWKVS3}
u_{j}'\equiv0\quad\text{in } [a_{j},b_{j}]\quad\forall\,j=1,\ldots,N.$$ Which by the second line of leads to $$u_{j}\equiv 0\quad\text{in } [a_{j},b_{j}]\quad\forall\,j=1,\ldots,N.$$ So for every $j=1,\ldots,N$, $u_{j}$ and $v_{j}$ are solution to the following problem $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
i\lambda u_{j}=v_{j}&\text{in }(0,\ell_{j}),
\\
\lambda^{2} u_{j}+u_{j}''=0&\text{in }(0,\ell_{j}),
\\
u_{j}(a_{j})=u_{j}'(a_{j})=0,
\end{array}\right.$$ and this clearly gives that $u_{j}=v_{j}\equiv 0$ in $(0,\ell_{j})$ for every $j=1,\ldots,N$. Following to system we have then $$\label{SSWKVS9}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
i\lambda u_{0}=v_{0}&\text{in }(0,\ell_{0}),
\\
\lambda^{2} u_{0}+u_{0}''=0&\text{in }(0,\ell_{0})
\\
u_{0}(\ell_{0})=u_{0}'(\ell_{0})=0&
\end{array}\right.$$ which gives also that $u_{0}=v_{0}\equiv 0$ in $(0,\ell_{0})$. This shows that $(u,v)=(0,0)$ and consequently $(i\lambda I-\mathcal{A})$ is injective for all $\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}$.
\[SSWKVS5\] Assume that condition holds. Then for every $\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}$ the operator $(i\lambda-\mathcal{A})$ is surjective.
Since $0\in\rho(\mathcal{A})$ (see proof of Theorem \[WPWKVS2\]), we only need to check that for every $\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}^{*}$ we have $R(i\lambda I-\mathcal{A})=\mathcal{H}$. Let $\lambda\neq 0$, then given $(f,g)=\big((f_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(g_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\big)\in\mathcal{H}$ we are looking for $(u,v)=\big((u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(v_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\big)\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})$ such that $$\label{SSWKVS7}
(i\lambda I-\mathcal{A})(u,v)=(f,g),$$ or equivalently $$\label{SSWKVS8}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
v_{j}=i\lambda u_{j}-f_{j}&\text{in }(0,\ell_{j}),\quad j=0,\ldots,N,
\\
-\lambda^{2} u_{0}-u_{0}''=i\lambda f_{0}+g_{0}&\text{in }(0,\ell_{0}),
\\
-\lambda^{2} u_{j}-(u_{j}'+i\lambda d_{j}u_{j'})'=i\lambda f_{j}+g_{j}-(d_{j}f_{j}')'&\text{in }(0,\ell_{j}),\quad j=1,\ldots,N.
\end{array}\right.$$ We define for all $u=((u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\big)\in V$ the operator $$Au=\big(-u_{0}'',-(u_{1}'+i\lambda d_{j}u_{1}')',\ldots,-(u_{N}'+i\lambda d_{N} u_{N}')'\big).$$ Thanks to Lax-Milgram’s theorem [@LM Theorem 2.9.1], it is easy to show that $A$ is an isomorphism from $V$ into $V'$ (where $V'$ is the dual space of $V$ with respect to the pivot space $H$). Then the second ant the third line of can be written as follows $$\label{SSWKVS12}
u-\lambda^{2}A^{-1}u=A^{-1}\big(i\lambda f_{0}+g_{0},i\lambda f_{1}+g_{1}-(d_{1}f_{1}')',\ldots,i\lambda f_{N}+g_{N}-(d_{N}f_{N}')'\big).$$ If $u\in\ker(I-\lambda A^{-1})$, then we obtain $$\label{SSWKVS10}
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\lambda^{2}u_{0}+u_{0}''=0&\text{in }(0,\ell_{0}),
\\
\lambda^{2}u_{j}+(u_{j}'+i\lambda d_{j}u_{j}')'=0&\text{in }(0,\ell_{j}),\quad j=1,\ldots,N.
\end{array}\right.$$ For $j=1,\ldots,N$ we multiply each line of by $\overline{u}_{j}$ and integrating over $(0,\ell_{j})$ and summing up $$\label{SSWKVS11}
\lambda^{2}\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}|u_{j}|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x-\sum_{j=0}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}|u_{j}'|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x-i\lambda\sum_{j=1}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}d_{j}|u_{j}'|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x=0.$$ By taking the imaginary part of we get $$\sum_{j=1}^{N}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}d_{j}|u_{j}'|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x=0.$$ This means that $d_{j}u_{j}'=0$ in $(0,\ell_{j})$ for all $i=1,\ldots,N$, which inserted into one gets $$\lambda^{2}u_{j}+u_{j}''=0\quad\text{in }(0,\ell_{j}),\quad j=0,\ldots,N.$$ Then using the same arguments as proof of Lemma \[SSWKVS4\] we find that $u=0$. Hence, we proved that $\ker(I-\lambda^{2}A^{-1})=\{0\}$. Besides, thanks to the compact embeddings $V\hookrightarrow H$ and $H\hookrightarrow V'$ the operator $A^{-1}$ is compact in $V$. So that, following to Fredholm’s alternative, the operator $(I-\lambda^{2}A^{-1})$ is invertible in $V$. Therefore, equation have a unique solution in $V$. Thus, the operator $i\lambda I-\mathcal{A}$ is surjective. This completes the proof.
Thanks to Lemmas \[SSWKVS4\] and \[SSWKVS5\] and the closed graph theorem we have $\sigma(\mathcal{A})\cap i{\mathbb{R}}=\emptyset$. This with Arendt and Batty [@AB] result following to which a $C_{0}$-semi-group of contractions in a Banach space is strongly stable, if $\rho(\mathcal{A})\cap i{\mathbb{R}}$ contains only a countable number of continuous spectrum of $\mathcal{A}$ lead to the following
Assume that condition holds. Then the semigroup $(e^{t \mathcal{A}})_{t \geq 0}$ is strongly stable in the energy space $\mathcal{H}$ i.e., $$\lim_{t\to+\infty}\|e^{t \mathcal{A}}U^{0}\|_{\mathcal{H}}=0,\quad \forall\,U^{0}\in\mathcal{H}.$$
Polynomial stability {#PSWKVS}
====================
In this section, we prove Theorem \[IWKVS5\]. The idea is to estimate the energy norm and boundary terms at the interface by the local viscoelastic damping. The difficulty is to deal with the higher order boundary term at the interface so that the energy on $(0,\ell_{0})$ can be controlled by the viscoelastic damping on $(0,\ell_{j})$ for every $j=1,\ldots, N$. Our proof is based on the following result
[@borichevtomilov Theorem 2.4]\[PSWKVS2\] Let $e^{tB}$ be a bounded $C_{0}$-semi-group on a Hilbert space $X$ with generator $B$ such that $i{\mathbb{R}}\in\rho(A)$. Then $e^{tB}$ is polynomially stable with order $\ds\frac{1}{\gamma}$ i.e. there exists $C>0$ such that $$\|e^{tB}u\|_{X}\leq \frac{C}{t^{\frac{1}{\gamma}}}\|u\|_{\mathcal{D}(B)}\quad\forall\,u\in\mathcal{D}(B)\;\forall\, t\geq 0,$$ if and only if $$\limsup_{|\lambda|\rightarrow\infty}\|\lambda^{-\gamma}(i\lambda I-B)^{-1}\|_{X}<\infty.$$
According to Proposition \[PSWKVS2\] we shall verify that for $\alpha=\min\{\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{N}\}$ and $\ds\gamma=\frac{1-\alpha}{2-\alpha}$ there exists $C_{0}>0$ such that $$\label{PSWKVS3}
\inf_{\substack{\|((u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(v_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N})\|_{\mathcal{H}}=1
\\
\lambda\in{\mathbb{R}}}}\lambda^{\gamma}\left\|i\lambda\left((u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(v_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\right)-\mathcal{A}\left((u_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N},(v_{j})_{j=0,\ldots,N}\right)\right\|_{\mathcal{H}}\geq C_{0}.$$ Suppose that fails then there exist a sequence of real numbers $\lambda_{n}$ and a sequence of functions $(u_{n},v_{n})_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}=\big((u_{0,n},\ldots,u_{N,n}),(v_{0,n},\ldots,v_{N,n})\big)_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\subset\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\lambda_{n}\,\longrightarrow\,\infty\;\text{ as }\;n\,\longrightarrow\,\infty,&
\\
&\big\|(u_{n},v_{n})\big\|=1,&\label{PSWKVS4}
\\
&\lambda_{n}^{\gamma}\left\|i\lambda_{n}(u_{n},v_{n})-\mathcal{A}(u_{n},v_{n})\right\|_{\mathcal{H}}=o(1).&\label{PSWKVS9}\end{aligned}$$ Since, we have $$\label{PSWKVS10}
\lambda_{n}^{\gamma}{\mathrm{Re}}\langle i\lambda (u_{n},v_{n})-\mathcal{A}(u_{n},v_{n}),(u_{n},v_{n})\rangle=\lambda_{n}^{\gamma}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\int_{0}^{\ell_{j}}d_{j}|v_{j,n}'|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x$$ then using and we obtain $$\label{PSWKVS11}
\sum_{j=1}^{n}\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}v_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}=o(\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{\gamma}{2}}).$$ Following to we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{n}^{\gamma}(i\lambda_{n} u_{j,n}-v_{j,n})&=f_{j,n}\,\longrightarrow\,0\quad\text{in } H^{1}(0,\ell_{j}),\;j=0,\ldots,N,\label{PSWKVS5}
\\
\lambda_{n}^{\gamma}(i\lambda_{n} v_{0,n}-u_{0,n}'')&=g_{0,n}\,\longrightarrow\,0\quad\text{in } L^{2}(0,\ell_{0}),\label{PSWKVS6}
\\
\lambda_{n}^{\gamma}(i\lambda_{n} v_{j,n}-T_{j,n}')&=g_{j,n}\,\longrightarrow\,0\quad\text{in } L^{2}(0,\ell_{j}),\;j=1,\ldots,N,\label{PSWKVS7}\end{aligned}$$ with the transmission conditions $$\begin{aligned}
u_{0,n}(0)=\dots=u_{N,n}(0),\label{PSWKVS57}
\\
u_{0,n}'(0)+\sum_{j=1}^{N}T_{j,n}(0)=0,\label{PSWKVS58}\end{aligned}$$ where for $j=1,\ldots,N$ we have denoted by $$\label{PSWKVS8}
T_{j,n}=u_{j,n}'+d_{j}v_{j,n}'=(1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j})u_{j,n}'-\lambda_{n}^{-\gamma}d_{j}f_{j,n}'.$$ By and we find $$\label{PSWKVS12}
\sum_{j=1}^{n}\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}=o(\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}).$$ One multiplies by $(x-\ell_{0})\overline{u}_{0,n}'$ integrating by parts over the interval $(0,\ell_{0})$ and use and we get $$\label{PSWKVS13}
\int_{0}^{\ell_{0}}\left(|u_{0,n}'|^{2}+|v_{0,n}|^{2}\right)\,{{\rm d}}x-\ell_{0}\left(|u_{0,n}'(0)|^{2}+|v_{0,n}(0)|^{2}\right)=o(1).$$ We multiply by $v_{j,n}$ for $j=1,\ldots,N$ and by $v_{0,n}$ then integrating over $(0,\ell_{j})$ for $j=0,\ldots,N$ and summing up to get $$\label{PSWKVS14}
i\lambda_{n}^{\gamma+1}\sum_{j=0}^{N}\|v_{j,n}\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}^{2}+\lambda_{n}^{\gamma}\sum_{j=0}^{N}\langle u_{j,n}',v_{j,n}'\rangle_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}+\lambda_{n}^{\gamma}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}v_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}=o(1).$$ We take the inner product of with $u_{j,n}$ in $H^{1}(0,\ell_{j})$ for $j=0,\ldots,N$ and summing up, $$\label{PSWKVS15}
i\lambda_{n}^{\gamma+1}\sum_{j=0}^{N}\|u_{j}'\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}^{2}-\lambda_{n}^{\gamma}\sum_{j=0}^{N}\langle v_{j,n}',u_{j,n}'\rangle_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}=o(1).$$ Adding and and taking the imaginary part of the equality then by we arrive at $$\label{PSWKVS17}
\sum_{j=0}^{N}\left(\|u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}-\|v_{j,n}\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}\right)=o(1).$$ At this stage we recall the following Hardy type inequalities
[@MV Theorem 3.8]\[PSWKVS16\] Let $L>0$ and $a:[0,L]\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ be such that $a\in\mathcal{C}([0,L])\cap\mathcal{C}^{1}((0,L])$ and satisfying $$\lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}\frac{x a'(x)}{a(x)}=\eta\in[0,1).$$ Then there exists $C(\eta,L)>0$ such that for all locally continuous function $z$ on $[0,L]$ satisfying $$z(0)=0\quad\text{ and }\quad\int_{0}^{L}a(x)|z'(x)|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x<\infty$$ the following inequality holds $$\int_{0}^{L}\frac{a(x)}{x^{2}}|z(x)|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x\leq C(\eta,L)\int_{0}^{L}a(x)|z'(x)|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x.$$
[@LZ Lemma 2.2]\[PSWKVS18\] Let $L>0$ and $\rho_{1},\,\rho_{2}>0$ be two weight functions defied on $(0,L)$. Then the following conditions are equivalent: $$\label{PSWKVS19}
\int_{0}^{L}\rho_{1}(x)|Tf(x)|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x\leq C\int_{0}^{L}\rho_{2}(x)|f(x)|^{2}\,{{\rm d}}x,$$ and $$K=\sup_{x\in(0,L)}\left(\int_{0}^{L-x}\rho_{1}(x)\,{{\rm d}}x\right)\left(\int_{L-x}^{L}\left[\rho_{2}(x)\right]^{-1}\,{{\rm d}}x\right)<\infty$$ where $\ds Tf(x)=\int_{0}^{x}f(s)\,{{\rm d}}x$. Moreover, the best constant $C$ in satisfies $K\leq C\leq 2K$.
Let $\beta$ such that $\ds\frac{1-\alpha_{j}}{2}<\beta<1$ for all $j=1,\ldots,N$ and $\delta_{j}$ are positive numbers that will be specified later. Following to Lemmas \[PSWKVS16\] and \[PSWKVS18\] and assumptions and then for $n$ large enough $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PSWKVS20}
\|v_{j,n}\|_{L^{2}\left(\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]\right)}&\leq\max_{x\in\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]}\left\{\frac{x^{1-\beta}}{d_{j}(x)^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right\}\left\|\frac{d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}}{x}(x^{\beta}v_{j,n})\right\|_{L^{2}\left(\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]\right)}\nonumber
\\
&\leq C\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}(1-\beta-\frac{\alpha_{j}}{2})}\left(\left\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}x^{\beta}v_{j,n}'\right\|_{L^{2}([0,\ell_{j}])}+\beta\left\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}x^{\beta-1}v_{j,n}\right\|_{L^{2}([0,\ell_{j}])}\right)\nonumber
\\
&\leq C\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}(1-\beta-\frac{\alpha_{j}}{2})}\left\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}v_{j,n}'\right\|_{L^{2}([0,\ell_{j}])}.\end{aligned}$$ Performing the following calculation and uses one finds $$\begin{gathered}
\label{PSWKVS21}
\min_{x\in\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]}\left\{|v_{j,n}(x)|+|T_{j,n}(x)|\right\}\leq\sqrt{2}\lambda_{n}^{\frac{\delta_{j}}{2}}\left(\|v_{j,n}\|_{L^{2}\left(\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]\right)}+\|T_{j,n}\|_{L^{2}\left(\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]\right)}\right)\\
\leq\sqrt{2}\lambda_{n}^{\frac{\delta_{j}}{2}}\left(\|v_{j,n}\|_{L^{2}\left(\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]\right)}+\|u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}\left(\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]\right)}+\|d_{j}v_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}\left(\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]\right)}\right)\\
\leq C\lambda_{n}^{\frac{\delta_{j}}{2}}\Bigg(\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}(1-\beta-\frac{\alpha_{j}}{2})}\left\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}v_{j,n}'\right\|_{L^{2}([0,\ell_{j}])}+\max_{x\in\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]}\{d_{j}(x)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\}\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}([0,\ell_{j}])}\\
+\max_{x\in\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]}\{d_{j}(x)^{\frac{1}{2}}\}\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}v_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}([0,\ell_{j}])}\Bigg)\\
\leq C\lambda_{n}^{\frac{\delta_{j}}{2}}\left(\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}(1-\beta-\frac{\alpha_{j}}{2})}\left\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}v_{j,n}'\right\|_{L^{2}([0,\ell_{j}])}+\lambda_{n}^{\frac{\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}}{2}}\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}([0,\ell_{j}])}+\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}}{2}}\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}v_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}([0,\ell_{j}])}\right).\end{gathered}$$ Inserting , into , then we obtain $$\min_{x\in\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]}\left\{|v_{j,n}(x)|+|T_{j,n}(x)|\right\}=\left(\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}(\frac{1-\alpha_{j}}{2}-\beta)-\frac{\gamma}{2}}+\lambda_{n}^{\frac{\delta_{j}}{2}(\alpha_{j}+1)-\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}+\lambda_{n}^{\frac{\delta_{j}}{2}(1-\alpha_{j})-\frac{\gamma}{2}}\right)o(1),$$ for every $\beta$ such that $\ds\frac{1-\alpha_{j}}{2}<\beta<1$ for every $j=1,\ldots,N$. Then we can choose $\beta$ such that $\ds-\delta_{j}(\frac{1-\alpha_{j}}{2}-\beta)-\frac{\gamma}{2}<0$ for every $j=1,\ldots,N$. Hence, as long as we choose $\delta_{j}>0$ and $\gamma>0$ such that $$\label{PSWKVS22}
\frac{\delta_{j}}{2}(\alpha_{j}+1)-\frac{\gamma}{2}-1\leq0\qquad\text{and}\qquad\frac{\delta_{j}}{2}(1-\alpha_{j})-\frac{\gamma}{2}\leq0\quad\forall\,j=1,\ldots,N.$$ the following estimate holds $$\label{PSWKVS23}
\min_{x\in\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]}\left\{|v_{j,n}(x)|+|T_{j,n}(x)|\right\}=o(1).$$ And consequently, we are able to find $\xi_{j,n}\in\left[\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}}{2},\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}}\right]$ such that $$\label{PSWKVS24}
|v_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n})|=o(1)\qquad\text{and}\qquad |T_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n})|=o(1).$$
We set $$z_{j,n}^{\pm}(x)=\frac{i\lambda_{n}}{\sqrt{1+\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}}\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}v_{j,n}(\tau)\,{{\rm d}}\tau\pm v_{j,n}(x),\qquad\forall\,x\in[0,\xi_{j,n}].$$ Then we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{PSWKVS25}
z_{j,n}^{\pm\;\prime}(x)=-\frac{i\lambda_{n}d_{j}'(x)}{4(1+\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x))}(z_{j,n}^{+}(x)+z_{j,n}^{-}(x))\mp\frac{i\lambda_{n}}{\sqrt{1+\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}}z_{j,n}^{\pm}(x)
\\
\mp\frac{\lambda_{n}^{2}}{1+\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}v_{j,n}(\tau)\,{{\rm d}}\tau\pm v_{j,n}'(x).\end{gathered}$$ Combining and we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PSWKVS26}
\pm v_{j,n}'(x)&=\pm i\lambda_{n} u_{j,n}'(x)\mp\lambda_{n}^{-\gamma}f_{j,n}'(x)=\pm\frac{i\lambda_{n}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}T_{j,n}(x)\pm\frac{i\lambda_{n}^{1-\gamma}d_{j}(x)}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}}f_{j,n}'(x)\mp\lambda_{n}^{-\gamma}f_{j,n}'(x)\nonumber
\\
&=\pm\frac{i\lambda_{n}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}}T_{j,n}(x)\mp\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\gamma}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}f_{j,n}'(x).\end{aligned}$$ Integrating over $(x,\xi_{j,n})$ and multiplying by $\ds\pm\frac{i\lambda_{n}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}$ then we get $$\label{PSWKVS27}
\mp\frac{\lambda_{n}^{2}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}v_{j,n}(\tau)\,{{\rm d}}\tau=\pm\frac{i\lambda_{n}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}(T_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n})-T_{j,n}(x))\pm\frac{i\lambda_{n}^{1-\gamma}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}g_{j,n}(\tau)\,{{\rm d}}\tau.$$ Inserting and into , we find $$\label{PSWKVS28}
z_{j,n}^{\pm\;\prime}(x)=\mp\frac{i\lambda_{n}}{\sqrt{1+\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}}z_{j,n}^{\pm}(x)-\frac{i\lambda_{n}d_{j}'(x)}{4(1+\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x))}(z_{j,n}^{+}(x)+z_{j,n}^{-}(x))\pm\frac{i\lambda_{n}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}T_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n})\pm F_{j,n}(x)$$ where $$F_{j,n}(x)=-\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\gamma}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}f_{j,n}'(x)+\frac{i\lambda_{n}^{1-\gamma}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(x)}\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}g_{j,n}(\tau)\,{{\rm d}}\tau.$$ Solving , then for every $x\in[0,\xi_{j,n}]$, one gets $$\begin{gathered}
\label{PSWKVS29}
z_{j,n}^{\pm}(x)=v_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n})e^{\mp(q_{j,n}(x)-q_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n}))}-\int_{\xi_{j,n}}^{x}e^{\mp(q_{j,n}(x)-q_{j,n}(s))}\frac{i\lambda_{n}d_{j}'(s)}{4(1+\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s))}(z_{j,n}^{+}(s)+z_{j,n}^{-}(s))\,{{\rm d}}s
\\
\pm T_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n})\int_{\xi_{j,n}}^{x}e^{\mp(q_{j,n}(x)-q_{j,n}(s))}\frac{i\lambda_{n}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)}{{\rm d}}s\pm\int_{\xi_{j,n}}^{x}e^{\mp(q_{j,n}(x)-q_{j,n}(s))}F_{j,n}(s)\,{{\rm d}}s\end{gathered}$$ where $$q_{j,n}(x)=i\lambda_{n}\int_{0}^{x}\frac{{{\rm d}}s}{\sqrt{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)}}.$$
For all $x\in[0,\xi_{j,n}]$ we have $$q_{j,n}(x)=i\lambda_{n}\int_{0}^{x}\frac{e^{i\varphi_{j,n}(s)}}{(1+(\lambda_{j,n}d_{j}(s))^{2})^{\frac{1}{4}}}\,{{\rm d}}s$$ where $$\varphi_{j,n}(s)=-\frac{1}{2}\arg(1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j,n}(s)).$$ Consequently, $${\mathrm{Re}}(q_{j,n}(x))=\pm\lambda_{n}\int_{0}^{x}\frac{\sin(\varphi_{j,n}(s))}{(1+(\lambda_{j,n}d_{j}(s))^{2})^{\frac{1}{4}}}\,{{\rm d}}s.$$ When $s\in[0,\xi_{j,n}]$ and from assumption we have $$\label{PSWKVS30}
\frac{1}{(1+(\lambda_{j,n}d_{j}(s))^{2})^{\frac{1}{4}}}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
O(1)&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}\geq 1
\\
O(\lambda_{n}^{\frac{\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}-1}{2}})&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}<1
\end{array}\right.$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PSWKVS31}
|\sin(\varphi_{j,n}(s))|&=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1+(\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s))^{2}}}}\nonumber
\\
&=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
O(\lambda_{n}^{1-\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}})&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}>1
\\
O(1)&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}\leq1.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ With $0\leq x\leq s\leq\xi_{j,n}$, from and we see that $$\begin{aligned}
|{\mathrm{Re}}(q_{j,n}(x)-q_{j,n}(s))|&\leq\lambda_{n}\int_{x}^{s}\frac{|\sin(\varphi_{j,n}(\tau))|}{(1+(\lambda_{n}d_{j}(\tau))^{2})^{\frac{1}{4}}}{{\rm d}}\tau\nonumber
\\
&\leq\sup_{\tau\in(x,s)}\left\{\frac{|\sin(\varphi_{j,n}(\tau))|}{(1+(\lambda_{n}d_{j}(\tau))^{2})^{\frac{1}{4}}}\right\}\lambda_{n}(s-x)\nonumber
\\
&=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
O(\lambda_{n}^{-(\alpha_{j}+1)\delta_{j}+2})=o(1)&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}>1
\\
O(\lambda_{n}^{1-\delta_{j}})=O(\lambda_{n}^{1-\frac{1}{\alpha_{j}}})=o(1)&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}=1
\\
O(\lambda_{n}^{\frac{\delta_{j}(\alpha_{j}-2)+1}{2}})&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}<1.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PSWKVS32}
|e^{\pm(q_{j,n}(x)-q_{j,n}(s))}|\leq 1\end{aligned}$$ providing that $\delta_{j}>0$ satisfying and $$\label{PSWKVS33}
\delta_{j}\geq\frac{1}{\alpha_{j}}\quad\text{or}\quad\delta_{j}\leq\frac{1}{2-\alpha_{j}}\qquad \forall\, j=1,\ldots,N.$$ From for every $x\in[0,\xi_{j,n}]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PSWKVS34}
\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}\frac{{{\rm d}}s}{|1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)|}&=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
O(1)(\xi_{j,n}-x)&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}\geq1
\\
O(\lambda_{n}^{\alpha_{j}\delta_{j}-1})(\xi_{j,n}-x)&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}<1
\end{array}\right.\nonumber
\\
&=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
O(\lambda_{n}^{-\delta_{j}})&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}\geq1
\\
O(\lambda_{n}^{(\alpha_{j}-1)\delta_{j}-1})&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}<1
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PSWKVS38}
\left(\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}\frac{{{\rm d}}s}{|1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)|^{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
O(\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{\delta_{j}}{2}})&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}\geq1
\\
O(\lambda_{n}^{(\alpha_{j}-\frac{1}{2})\delta_{j}-1})&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}<1.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, when $\delta_{j}$ and $\gamma$ satisfy and , form , and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PSWKVS35}
|T_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n})|.\left|\int_{\xi_{j,n}}^{x}e^{\mp(q_{j,n}(x)-q_{j,n}(s))}\frac{i\lambda_{n}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)}{{\rm d}}s\right|&\leq|T_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n})|.\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}\frac{\lambda_{n}}{|1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)|}{{\rm d}}s\nonumber
\\
&=o(1)\quad\forall\,x\in[0,\xi_{j,n}].\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, under the same conditions on $\delta_{j}$ and $\gamma$, due to , and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PSWKVS36}
\left|\int_{\xi_{j,n}}^{x}e^{\mp(q_{j,n}(x)-q_{j,n}(s))}\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\gamma}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)}f_{j,n}'(s)\,{{\rm d}}s\right|&\leq\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}\frac{\lambda_{n}^{-\gamma}}{|1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)|}|f_{j,n}'(s)|\,{{\rm d}}s\nonumber
\\
&\leq\lambda_{n}^{-\gamma}\|f_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}\left(\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}\frac{\,{{\rm d}}s}{|1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)|^{2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber
\\
&=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
o(\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{\delta_{j}}{2}-\gamma})&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}\geq 1
\\
o(\lambda_{n}^{\delta_{j}(\alpha_{j}-\frac{1}{2})-\gamma-1})&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}<1
\end{array}\right.\nonumber
\\
&=o(1)\quad\forall\,x\in[0,\xi_{j,n}],\end{aligned}$$ and due to , and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PSWKVS37}
\int_{\xi_{j,n}}^{x}&e^{\mp(q_{j,n}(x)-q_{j,n}(s))}\frac{i\lambda_{n}^{1-\gamma}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)}\int_{s}^{\xi_{j,n}}g_{j,n}(\tau)\,{{\rm d}}\tau\,{{\rm d}}s\nonumber
\\
&=\left|\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}\int_{x}^{\tau}e^{\mp(q_{j,n}(x)-q_{j,n}(s))}\frac{\lambda_{n}^{1-\gamma}}{1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)}g_{j,n}(\tau)\,{{\rm d}}\tau\,{{\rm d}}s\right|\nonumber
\\
&\leq\lambda_{n}^{1-\gamma}\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}\int_{x}^{\tau}\frac{|g_{j,n}(\tau)|}{|1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)|}\,{{\rm d}}\tau\,{{\rm d}}s\nonumber
\\
&\leq\lambda_{n}^{1-\gamma}\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}\frac{{{\rm d}}s}{|1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)|}\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}|g_{j,n}(\tau)|\,{{\rm d}}\tau\nonumber
\\
&=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
o(\lambda_{n}^{1-\gamma-\frac{3\delta_{j}}{2}})&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}\geq 1
\\
o(\lambda_{n}^{\delta_{j}(\alpha_{j}-\frac{3}{2})-\gamma})&\text{if }\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}<1
\end{array}\right.\nonumber
\\
&=o(1)\quad\forall\,x\in[0,\xi_{j,n}].\end{aligned}$$ Combining and yields $$\label{PSWKVS39}
\left|\int_{\xi_{j,n}}^{x}e^{\mp(q_{j,n}(x)-q_{j,n}(s))}F_{j,n}(s)\,{{\rm d}}s\right|=o(1)\quad\forall\,x\in[0,\xi_{j,n}].$$ From assumption we have $d_{j}'(s)>0$ near $0$, then by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and assumption we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PSWKVS40}
\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}\frac{\lambda_{n}d_{j}'(s)}{|1+i\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s)|}{{\rm d}}s&\leq\left(\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}\frac{\lambda_{n}^{2}d_{j}'(s)}{1+(\lambda_{n}d_{j}(s))^{2}}{{\rm d}}s\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\left(\int_{x}^{\xi_{j,n}}d_{j}'(s)\,{{\rm d}}s\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber
\\
&\leq\left(\arctan(\lambda_{n}^{2}d_{j}(\xi_{j,n}))-\arctan(\lambda_{n}^{2}d_{j}(x))\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\left(d_{j}(\xi_{j,n})-d_{j}(x)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber
\\
&=O(\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{\alpha_{j}\delta_{j}}{2}})\quad\forall\,x\in[0,\xi_{j,n}].\end{aligned}$$ Inserting , , , and into , then we get $$|z_{j,n}^{\pm}(x)|\leq o(1)(m_{j,n}+1)\quad\forall\,x\in[0,\xi_{j,n}],$$ where $$m_{j,n}=\max_{x\in[0,\xi_{j,n}]}\{|z_{j,n}^{+}(x)|+|z_{j,n}^{-}(x)|\},$$ which leads to $$\label{PSWKVS41}
m_{j,n}=o(1).$$
Since we can write $$v_{j,n}(x)=\frac{1}{2}(z_{j,n}^{+}(x)-z_{j,n}^{-}(x))$$ then we follow from that $$\label{PSWKVS42}
\|v_{j,n}\|_{L^{2}(0,\xi_{j,n})}=\frac{1}{2}\|z_{j,n}^{+}-z_{j,n}^{-}\|_{L^{2}(0,\xi_{j,n})}\leq\frac{m_{j,n}}{2}\sqrt{\xi_{j,n}}=o(\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{\delta_{j}}{2}})$$ and $$\label{PSWKVS43}
|v_{j,n}(0)|=\frac{1}{2}|z_{j,n}^{+}(0)-z_{j,n}^{-}(0)|\leq \frac{m_{j,n}}{2}=o(1).$$ Integrating over $(0,\xi_{j,n})$, $$\label{PSWKVS44}
i\lambda_{n}\int_{0}^{\xi_{j,n}}v_{j,n}(s)\,{{\rm d}}s-T_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n})+T_{j,n}(0)=\lambda_{n}^{-\gamma}\int_{0}^{\xi_{j,n}}g_{j,n}(s)\,{{\rm d}}s.$$ Due to and the fact that $a(0)=0$, we have $$\label{PSWKVS45}
\left|i\lambda_{n}\int_{0}^{\xi_{j,n}}v_{j,n}\,{{\rm d}}s\right|=\frac{1}{2}|z_{j,n}^{+}(0)-z_{j,n}^{-}(0)|=o(1).$$ Substituting , and into yields $$\label{PSWKVS46}
|T_{j,n}(0)|=o(1).$$
Substituting , into , by the transmission conditions and we conclude $$\label{PSWKVS47}
\int_{0}^{\ell_{0}}\left(|u_{0,n}'|^{2}+|v_{0,n}|^{2}\right)\,{{\rm d}}x=o(1).$$ For $j=1,\ldots,N$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PSWKVS48}
\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}u'_{j}\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}&\geq\|d_{j}^{\frac{1}{2}}u'_{j}\|_{L^{2}(\xi_{j,n},\ell_{j})}\geq \min_{x\in(\xi_{j,n},\ell_{j})}\left(\sqrt{d_{j}(x)}\right)\|u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(\xi_{j,n},\ell_{j})}\nonumber
\\
&\geq\sqrt{d_{j}(\xi_{j,n})}\|u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(\xi_{j,n},\ell_{j})}\geq C\xi_{j,n}^{\frac{\alpha_{j}}{2}}\|u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(\xi_{j,n},\ell_{j})}\geq C\lambda_{n}^{-\frac{\delta_{j}\alpha_{j}}{2}}\|u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(\xi_{j,n},\ell_{j})}.\end{aligned}$$ From we have $\ds\frac{\alpha_{j}\delta_{j}}{2}\leq\frac{\gamma}{2}+1$ for every $j=1,\ldots,N$, then by combining and one gets $$\label{PSWKVS49}
\|u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(\xi_{j,n},\ell_{j})}=o(\lambda_{n}^{\frac{\alpha_{j}\delta_{j}}{2}-\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}).$$ Therefore by the trace formula $$\label{PSWKVS51}
|u_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n})|=o(\lambda_{n}^{\frac{\alpha_{j}\delta_{j}}{2}-\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}).$$ By trace formula and we have $$\label{PSWKVS54}
|u_{j,n}(0)|\leq C\|u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}=O(\lambda_{n}^{\frac{\alpha_{j}\delta_{j}}{2}-\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}).$$ From and one has $$\label{PSWKVS50}
\lambda_{n}\|u_{j,n}\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}=O(1).$$ Multiplying by $\lambda_{n}^{-\gamma}\overline{u}_{j,n}$ and integrating over $(0,\xi_{j,n})$ then by integrating by parts we arrive $$\begin{gathered}
\label{PSWKVS52}
i\lambda_{n}\langle v_{j,n},u_{j,n}\rangle_{L^{2}(0,\xi_{j,n})}+\langle d_{j,n}v_{j,n},u_{j,n}\rangle_{L^{2}(0,\xi_{j,n})}+\|u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(0,\xi_{j,n})}
\\
+T_{j,n}(0)\overline{u}_{j,n}(0)-T_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n})\overline{u}_{j,n}(\xi_{j,n})=o(\lambda_{n}^{-\gamma}).\end{gathered}$$ Inserting , , , , and into one finds $$\label{PSWKVS53}
\|u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(0,\xi_{j,n})}=o(1),\quad\forall\,j=1,\ldots,N.$$ So that, adding and , we obtain $$\label{PSWKVS55}
\|u_{j,n}'\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}=o(1),\quad\forall\,j=1,\ldots,N.$$ From , and leads to $$\label{PSWKVS56}
\|v_{j}\|_{L^{2}(0,\ell_{j})}=o(1),\quad\forall\,j=1,\ldots,N.$$ This conclude the prove since now we have proved that $\|(u_{n},v_{n})\|_{\mathcal{H}}=o(1)$ from , and providing that and hold true.
Finally, noting that the best $\gamma$ and $\delta_{j}$, in term of maximization of $\gamma$, that satisfies and are where $\ds\gamma=\max\left\{\frac{1-\alpha_{j}}{2-\alpha_{j}},\;j=1,\ldots,N\right\}$ and $\ds\delta_{j}=\frac{1}{2-\alpha_{j}}$ for $j=1,\ldots,N$. This completes the proof.
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
The author thanks professor Kaïs Ammari for his advices, his suggestions and for all the discussions.
[99]{}
The asymptotic behavior of the linear transmission problem in viscoelasticity, [*Math. Nachr.*]{}, [**287**]{} (2014), 483–497.
Stabilization for the wave equation with singular Kelvin-Voigt damping, [*Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis*]{}, [**236**]{} (2020), 577–601.
Stabilization for the wave equation with singular Kelvin-Voigt damping, [*Semigroup Forum,*]{} [**100**]{} (2020), 364–382.
Tauberian theorems and stability of one-parameter semigroups, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,*]{} [**306**]{} (1988), 837–852.
Sharp sufficient conditions for the observation, control, and stabilization of waves from the boundary, [*SIAM J. Control Optim.,*]{} [**30**]{} (1992), 1024–1065.
Optimal polynomial decay of function and operator semigroups, [*Math. Ann.,*]{} [**347**]{}, (2010), 455–478.
Decays for Kelvin-Voigt damping wave equations I: The black box perturbative method, [*arXiv:1904.08318v1,*]{} (2019).
Exponential decay of energy of evolution equation with locally distributed damping, [*SIAM J. Appl. Math.,*]{} [**51**]{} (1991), 266–301.
Spectrum and stability for elastic systems with global or local Kelvin-Voigt damping, [*SIAM J. Appl. Math.,*]{} [**59**]{} (1999), 651–668.
Stability of elastic transmission systems with a local Kelvin-Voigt damping, [*European Journal of Control,*]{} [**23**]{} (2015), 84–93.
Asymptotic behavior of the transmission Euler-Bernoulli plate and wave equation with a localized Kelvin-Voigt damping, [*Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems - Series B,*]{} [**21**]{} (2016), 1757–1774.
Logarithmic stabilization of the Euler-Bernoulli transmission plate equation with locally distributed Kelvin-Voigt damping, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.,*]{} [**455**]{} (2017), 1765–1782.
Characteristic conditions for exponential stability of linear dynamical systems in Hilbert space, [*Ann. Differential Equations.,*]{} [**1**]{} (1985), 43–56.
On the mathematical model for linear elastic systems with analytic damping, [*SIAM J. Control Optim.,*]{} [**26**]{} (1988), 714–724.
, Dunod, Paris, 1968.
Exponential decay of energy of vibrating strings with local viscoelasticity, [*Z. Angew. Math. Phys.,*]{} [**53**]{} (2002), 265–280.
Eventual differentiability of a string with local Kelvin–Voigt damping, [*ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var.,*]{} [**23**]{} (2017), 443–454.
Characterization of polynomial decay rate for the solution of linear evolution equation, [*Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Physik (ZAMP),*]{} [**56**]{} (2005), 630–644.
Exponential stability for wave equations with local Kelvin-Voigt damping, [*Zeitschrift für Angewandte Mathematik und Physik (ZAMP),*]{} [**57**]{} (2006), 419–432.
Stability of string with local Kelvin-Voigt damping and nonsmooth coefficient at interface, [*SIAM J. control optim.,*]{} [**54**]{} (4) (2016), 1859–1871.
Carleman estimates for one-dimensional degenerate heat equations, [*J. evol. equ.,*]{} [**6**]{} (2006), 325–362.
, Springer, New York, 1983.
On the spectrum of $C_0$-semigroups, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,*]{} [**284**]{} (1984), 847–857.
On localized Kelvin–Voigt damping, [*Z. Angew. Math. Mech,*]{} [**84**]{} (2004), 280–283.
Stabilization of some elastic systems with localized Kelvin-Voigt damping, [*Discrete and continuous dynamical systems,*]{} [**36**]{} (2016), 7117–7136.
Exponential stability of an elastic string with local Kelvin–Voigt damping, [*Z. Angew. Math. Phys.,*]{} [**61**]{} (2010), 1009–1015.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Photocatalytic materials are pivotal for the implementation of disruptive clean energy applications such as conversion of H$_{2}$O and CO$_{2}$ into fuels and chemicals driven by solar energy. However, efficient and cost-effective materials able to catalyze the chemical reactions of interest when exposed to visible light are scarce due to the stringent electronic conditions that they must satisfy. Chemical and nanostructuring approaches are capable of improving the catalytic performance of known photoactive compounds however the complexity of the synthesized nanomaterials and sophistication of the employed methods make systematic design of photocatalysts difficult. Here, we show by means of first-principles simulation methods that application of biaxial stress, $\eta$, on semiconductor oxide thin films can modify their optoelectronic and catalytic properties in a significant and predictable manner. In particular, we show that upon moderate tensile strains CeO$_{2}$ and TiO$_{2}$ thin films become suitable materials for photocatalytic conversion of H$_{2}$O into H$_{2}$ and CO$_{2}$ into CH$_{4}$ under sunlight. The band gap shifts induced by $\eta$ are reproduced qualitatively by a simple analytical model that depends only on structural and dielectric susceptibility changes. Thus, epitaxial strain represents a promising route for methodical screening and rational design of photocatalytic materials.'
author:
- Zhao Liu
- Joel Shenoy
- Cesar Menéndez
- 'Judy N. Hart'
- 'Charles C. Sorrell'
- Claudio Cazorla
title: Strain engineering of oxide thin films for photocatalytic applications
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The adverse effects of burning fossil fuels and the growing concentration of CO$_{2}$ in the atmosphere are motivating intense research efforts towards large-scale production of clean fuels and conversion of carbon dioxide into useful chemicals. In this context, generation of H$_{2}$ from water and reduction of CO$_{2}$ into methane (CH$_{4}$) and other valuable substances by using energy from sunlight represent two very promising sustainable approaches [@fajrina19; @xie16].
Sunlight-induced dissociation of H–O and C–O bonds in water environment involves the use of photocatalytic materials that should fulfill quite stringent electronic requirements. For instance, the band gap ($E_{g}$) of photocatalytic materials must be below $\sim 3$ eV in order to absorb solar radiation within the visible spectral range. At the same time, a semiconductor able to catalyze the synthesis of H$_{2}$ in water or the reduction of CO$_{2}$ into CH$_{4}$ should possess a conduction-band edge higher in energy than the corresponding redox potential ($-4.4$ and $-4.6$ eV, respectively, relative to the vacuum level) and the valence-band edge lower than the H$_{2}$O oxidation potential ($-5.6$ eV) [@xie16; @shenoy19]. Furthermore, active photocatalysis requires efficient separation of the photogenerated charge carriers (low exciton binding energy) and their rapid transportation to the reaction sites (long electron-hole recombination time) [@park16].
Cerium and titanium dioxide, CeO$_{2}$ and TiO$_{2}$, are two extensively investigated catalyst materials that present high structural stability, commercial availability, and low toxicity. Examples of applications in which CeO$_{2}$ and TiO$_{2}$ are exploited include fuel and solar cells, water purification, corrosion-resistant coatings, therapeutic agents, and gas sensors, to cite just a few [@rahimi16; @castano15; @montini16]. Nevertheless, the band gap of both catalysts are larger than $3.0$ eV, which severely restricts their absorbance of sunlight (to only $\approx 3$% of the solar irradiation that reaches the earth’s surface [@kowalsa08]). Chemical and nanostructuring strategies have been employed successfully to reduce the band gaps of CeO$_{2}$ and TiO$_{2}$ and thus improve their photocatalytic activity under sunlight [@asahi01; @mitsudome11]. Nevertheless, the usual complexity associated with the energy landscapes of nanomaterials and the required synthesis methods make it difficult to identify what key parameters improve photocatalytic efficiency irrespective of the material [@park16]. As a consequence, progress in “photocatalysis by design”, which is different from just ranking photocatalyst materials by their performance (“black box screening”), remains limited [@takanabe17]. In addition to such design constraints, precious co-catalysts like Pt and Au typically are employed for improving photocatalytic performance, which is not suitable for practical applications [@xie16; @kowalsa08].
In this article, we show by means of first-principles simulations based on density functional theory that biaxial strain, $\eta$ (which can be achieved in practice by growing thin films on substrates presenting a lattice parameter mismatch through, for example, pulsed laser deposition techniques [@hu18; @heo17]), can be exploited to tune the optoelectronic and photocatalytic properties of some binary oxides in a substantial and controlled manner. Specifically, we predict that under feasible tensile strains of $\approx +2$ and $+3$% [@gopal17; @benson17] CeO$_{2}$ and TiO$_{2}$ become suitable materials for conversion of H$_{2}$O into H$_{2}$ and of CO$_{2}$ into CH$_{4}$ under sunlight. Such potential enhancements in photocatalytic activity result from sizeable band gap reductions ($\sim 10$%) and correct positioning of the valence and conduction-band edges under $\eta$. Meanwhile, the effects of epitaxial strain on the band gap of ZnO, another well-known semiconductor photocatalyst [@choi18], are found to be only marginal ($|\Delta E_{g}| / E_{g} \sim 1$%). We present quantitative and physically intuitive arguments that explain the origins of such irregular $\eta$-driven effects on $E_{g}$ in terms of dielectric susceptibility and metal-oxygen bond length changes.
{width="1.00\linewidth"}
It is worth noting that recent experimental and theoretical works have already proposed epitaxial strain as a means for tuning $E_{g}$ in some oxide materials such as TiO$_{2}$ [@yin10; @kelaidis18], ZnO [@choi18], SnO$_{2}$ [@zhou14], and CdO [@yan12]. However, a clear and general understanding of how biaxial strain affects the photocatalytic performance of binary oxides is still missing. For instance, the relative $E_{g}$ variations induced by tensile biaxial strain are negative in some materials (band gap decreases in TiO$_{2}$ and SnO$_{2}$ [@yin10; @zhou14]) whereas positive in others (band gap increases in ZnO [@choi18]). Likewise, the $E_{g}$ changes driven by compressive biaxial strain are positive in some materials (TiO$_{2}$ and SnO$_{2}$ [@yin10; @zhou14]) whereas negative or almost null in others (ZnO [@choi18] and CdO [@yan12]). These results indicate that the causes of $\eta$-induced band gap shifts cannot be traced down uniquely to simple structural changes [@yin10; @zhou14; @wagner02] since those changes are quite monotonous under biaxial strain regardless of the material. Moreover, the influence of $\eta$ on the band alignments of binary oxides has been neglected in previous studies despite their potential impact on the photocatalytic activity. Hence, the present theoretical work identifies the key factors that drive $\eta$-induced band gap changes and fills the existing knowledge gaps. The results presented next show that strain engineering, either used on its own or as a complement to other existing approaches, can be a powerful tool for rational design and systematic improvement of photocatalytic materials.
First-principles computational methods {#sec:methods}
======================================
First-principles calculations based on density functional theory (DFT) [@cazorla15a; @cazorla12b; @cazorla17a] are performed to simulate and analyze the influence of biaxial strain ($\eta$) on several representative binary oxide photocatalysts. We use the PBEsol functional [@pbesol] as is implemented in the VASP software package [@vasp]. A “Hubbard–$U$” scheme [@hubbard] with $U = 3$ eV is employed for a better treatment of the localized Ce $4f$, Ti $3d$, and Zn $3d$ electronic orbitals. We use the “projector augmented wave” method to represent the ionic cores [@paw] by considering the following electrons as valence: Ce $4f$, $5d$, $6s$, and $4d$; Gd $4f$, $5d$, and $6s$; Ti $3d$, $4s$, $3p$, and $3s$; Zn $3d$ and $4s$; and O $2s$ and $2p$. Wave functions are represented in a plane-wave basis truncated at $650$ eV. For integrations within the Brillouin zone we employ Monkhorst-Pack [**k**]{}–point grids [@kpoint] with a density equivalent to that of $16 \times 16 \times 16$ in the fluorite CeO$_{2}$ unit cell. Strained-bulk geometry relaxations are performed with a conjugate-gradient algorithm that allows for volume variations while imposing the structural constraints defining thin films ($|a|=|b|$ and $\alpha = 90^{\circ}$) [@cazorla15; @cazorla17; @cazorla17b; @cazorla18]. Periodic boundary conditions are applied along the three directions defined by the lattice vectors, so that possible surface effects are completely avoided in the simulations. The relaxations are halted when the forces acting on the atoms fall below $0.01$ eV$\cdot$Å$^{-1}$. By using these technical parameters we obtain zero-temperature energies that are converged to within $0.5$ meV per formula unit. Biaxial strain conditions are simulated at $\Delta \eta = 1$% intervals. In order to estimate accurate band gaps and band alignments, we employ the hybrid HSE06 exchange-correlation functional [@hse06] to perform single-point calculations on the equilibrium geometries determined at the PBEsol$+U$ level [@shenoy19]. The generation of non-stoichiometric and Gd-doped fluorite CeO$_{2}$ thin films are explained in the Supplementary Methods along with some details of their energy and structural properties.
To calculate accurate band alignments we follow the work done by Moses and co-workers on binary semiconductors [@moses11]. Briefly, both bulk and slab calculations are performed from which the alignment of the electrostatic potential within the semiconductor material can be obtained relative to the vacuum level. From the slab calculations, the difference between the average electrostatic potential within the semiconductor material and in vacuum is obtained. From the bulk calculations, the band structure shifts relative to the average electrostatic potential are determined. These calculations are performed at each $\eta$ point and involve the estimation of macroscopic and planar average potentials (Supplementary Methods). The planar potential is computed by averaging potential values within a well defined plane (for instance, perpendicular to the surface of the slab), and the macroscopic potential is obtained by taking averages of the planar potential over distances of one unit cell along the chosen direction [@resta88; @cazorla12]. The slab systems should be thick enough to ensure that the electron density in the center of the slab is practically equal to that in the bulk material. We have found that $1.2$–$1.8$ nm thick oxide slabs accompanied by similarly large portions of vacuum provide sufficiently well converged results for the electrostatic potentials. Further technical details of our band alignment calculations are provided in the Supplementary Methods.
Results and Discussion {#sec:results}
======================
The changes induced by biaxial strain, $\eta$, on the structural, electronic, and photocatalytic properties of CeO$_{2}$, TiO$_{2}$, and ZnO as calculated with first-principles methods based on density functional theory (DFT, Sec. \[sec:methods\] and Supplementary Methods) are presented first. Both compressive ($\eta < 0$) and tensile ($\eta > 0$) biaxial strains ranging from zero up to a maximum absolute value of $7$% have been considered in the simulations. These values are comparable in magnitude to the $\eta$’s achieved experimentally in the same materials [@gopal17; @benson17; @choi18]. At the end of this section, we introduce a simple analytical model that depends only on structural and dielectric susceptibility changes and reproduces qualitatively, and helps in understanding, the general band gap trends induced by $\eta$.
Fluorite CeO$_{2}$ (111) {#subsec:ceo2-111}
------------------------
At room temperature, bulk ceria (CeO$_{2}$) presents a cubic phase known as fluorite (space group $Fm\overline{3}m$) in which the Ce ions form a face centered cubic sublattice and the oxygens a simple cubic. Ceria thin films commonly exhibit three high-symmetry orientations $\{111\}$, $\{011\}$, and $\{001\}$. In this section, we consider the $\{111\}$ case; results for the $\{001\}$ geometry will be presented in the next section.
In the fluorite structure each Ce ion is surrounded by eight equidistant oxygens. Upon application of (111) biaxial strain, some crystal symmetries are broken (space group changes to $R\overline{3}m$) and two characteristic metal-oxygen bond lengths emerge, Ce–O1 and Ce–O2, which are six- and two-fold degenerate, respectively (Fig.\[fig1\]a). The Ce–O1 bonds are oriented perpendicular to the (111) plane, in which the strain is applied, and thus under compressive (tensile) biaxial strain they are stretched (reduced). Conversely, the Ce–O2 bonds, which are mostly contained within the (111) plane, are shortened (stretched) under compressive (tensile) biaxial strain (Fig.\[fig1\]b). Due to the higher degeneracy of the Ce–O2 bonds, the average metal-oxygen neighbouring length decreases under compressive biaxial strain and increases under tensile $\eta$ (Fig.\[fig1\]b). For instance, at the maximum simulated compressive (tensile) biaxial strain the average Ce–O distance is reduced (elongated) by $1.4$ ($2.5$)% of the unstrained value.
The sizable structural changes induced by $\eta$ suggest the possibility of finding similarly large variations in the band gap ($E_{g}$) of (111)–oriented CeO$_{2}$ thin films [@yin10; @zhou14]. In fact, as shown in Fig.\[fig1\]c, this turns out to be the case. Specifically, $E_{g}$ increases practically linearly under compressive biaxial strain, reaching a maximum value of $3.4$ eV at $\eta = -7$%. According to our DFT calculations the band gap of unstrained CeO$_{2}$ is $3.1$ eV, which compares very well with the experimental value of $3.2$ eV [@goubin04], hence a maximum relative $E_{g}$ increase of $10$% is achieved. Under tensile biaxial strain, $E_{g}$ also varies significantly although not in a regular manner. The band gap first decreases to below $3.0$ eV at $\eta \approx +2$% but beyond that strain point its value remains practically constant (Fig.\[fig1\]c). As a result, a maximum $\eta$-driven $E_{g}$ reduction of $4$% is obtained. It is worth noting that the largest $E_{g}$ variation is achieved under compressive $\eta$ whereas the largest average Ce–O length change is achieved under tensile strain. This observation suggests that, at least for (111)–oriented CeO$_{2}$ thin films, the band gap shifts induced by $\eta$ cannot be explained exclusively in terms of the accompanying structural changes.
Figure \[fig1\]c also shows the band alignments of (111)–oriented CeO$_{2}$ thin films, that is, the energy level of the valence-band (VB) and conduction-band (CB) edges as a function of $\eta$. In the absence of any strain, our calculations predict a VB edge located at $-7.3$ eV and CB at $-4.2$ eV with respect to the vacuum level, which are in fairly good agreement with the available experimental data ($E_{\rm VB}^{\rm expt} = -6.9$ eV and $E_{\rm CB}^{\rm expt}
= -4.1$ eV [@wen18]). For photocatalytic water-splitting purposes, the electronic band structure of unstrained CeO$_{2}$ (111) presents two important limitations. First, the corresponding $E_{g}$ is too large for absorption of visible light, and second, the position of the VB (CB) edge is too far below (too close to) the water oxidation potential of $-5.6$ eV (the proton reduction potential of $-4.4$ eV) [@xie16; @shenoy19]. Interestingly, biaxial strain can be used to partly overcome both of those limitations. Under tensile strain, the energy of the VB edge increases steadily and becomes equal to $-6.9$ eV at $\eta = +7$%, $0.4$ eV closer to the water oxidation potential than for unstrained CeO$_{2}$. At the same strain, the CB edge reaches a maximum value of $-4.0$ eV and the band gap becomes smaller than $3$ eV. Thus, under $\eta > 0$ sunlight can be absorbed more efficiently and the VB and CB edges are situated more appropriately for water splitting (that is, $1.3$ eV below and $0.4$ eV above the corresponding redox potentials). Meanwhile, under compressive strain the energy of the VB edge decreases steadily and the CB level remains more or less constant. As a consequence, the band gap of CeO$_{2}$ (111) increases almost linearly with increasing strain magnitude in the $\eta < 0$ region. We note that the band gap of unstrained bulk ceria is indirect and remains so in the investigated $\eta$ interval (Supplementary Figure 1).
The influence of biaxial strain on the VB and CB edges of CeO$_{2}$ (111) (and thus on the band gap, defined as $E_{g} \equiv E_{\rm CB} - E_{\rm VB}$) can be understood in terms of the concomitant electronic and structural changes. In bulk ceria, the top of the VB is mostly composed of oxygen $2p$ orbitals that form a bonding state with Ce $4f$ orbitals, while the bottom of the CB is mostly composed of cerium $4f$ orbitals that form an antibonding state with O $2p$ orbitals (Fig.\[fig1\]d). Compressive (tensile) strain reduces (increases) the average Ce–O bond length, which energetically favors (frustrates) the bonding state. Consequently, the energy of the VB edge decreases under $\eta < 0$ and increases under $\eta > 0$. On the other hand, the bottom of the CB is found to be quite insensitive to compressive strains (Fig.\[fig1\]c). When the anion-cation bond lengths are reduced, the kinetic energy associated with the antibonding state typically increases (since it is proportional to $k^{2}$, where $k$ represents the reciprocal lattice vector in the extended Brillouin zone) [@wei99]; that increase in kinetic energy would bring the CB higher in energy. However, the $p$–$f$ level repulsion appears to diminish slightly under compressive strain owing to the increased delocalization of the Ce $4f$ orbitals (see density of states peaks above the Fermi energy level in Fig.\[fig1\]d, where the Ce $4f$ states extend over a wider energy range for $\eta < 0$). These two effects tend to oppose each other thus leaving the CB edge unaffected by compressive strain. Under tensile strain, the energy of the antibonding state eventually rises due to a significant increase in the localization of the Ce $4f$ orbitals (Supplementary Figure 2) which enhances the $p$–$f$ level repulsion and overcomes the accompanying decrease in kinetic energy.
{width="1.00\linewidth"}
Fluorite CeO$_{2}$ (001) {#subsec:ceo2-001}
------------------------
Upon application of (001) biaxial strain, the degeneracy of the eight equidistant oxygens surrounding each Ce ion (characteristic distance Ce–O1 in Fig. \[fig2\]a) is not lifted, but the symmetry of the crystal changes from cubic to tetragonal (space group $I4/mmm$) due to contraction or elongation of the out-of-plane $c$ axis relative to the two in-plane lattice vectors $a = b$ (Fig.\[fig2\]b). The changes driven by (001) strain on $E_{g}$ are noticeably different from those found in the (111) case (Figs.\[fig2\]c and \[fig1\]c). In particular, the band gap now is hardly affected by compressive strain but is significantly reduced under tensile strain. For instance, at $\eta = +7$% the band gap is $2.2$ eV, $\approx 30$% lower than the value obtained at equilibrium conditions; at $\eta \approx +3$%, $E_{g}$ is already smaller than $3.0$ eV. Plots of the electronic energy bands indicate that the band gap remains indirect regardless of $\eta$ (Supplementary Figure 3), as for the CeO$_{2}$ (111) thin films.
The influence of $\eta$ on the band edges of (001)–oriented CeO$_{2}$ thin films can also be rationalized in terms of the accompanying structural and electronic changes. In this case, we have not explicitly calculated the band alignments however, in analogy to the (111) case, we assume that the energy of the VB edge decreases under $\eta < 0$ (increases under $\eta > 0$) due to enhancement (frustration) of the $p$–$f$ bonding interactions induced by shortening (elongation) of the Ce–O1 bonds. Based on this assumption and there being no effect of compressive strain on the band gap, it is expected that the energy of the CB edge decreases under compressive strain due to increased delocalization of the unoccupied Ce $4f$ orbitals (Supplementary Figure 4), which weakens the $p$–$f$ antibonding interactions and counteracts the concurrent increase in kinetic energy [@wei99]. Hence, both the VB and CB edges decrease under $\eta < 0$ producing no net change in the band gap. Under tensile strain, however, it can be inferred from the decrease in the band gap that the bottom of the conduction band remains more or less constant with respect to the vacuum level, possibly due to a compensation effect between the increased localization of the Ce $4f$ orbitals (see density of states peaks above the Fermi energy level in Fig.\[fig2\]d, where the Ce $4f$ states extends over a narrower energy range for $\eta > 0$), which tends to bring the CB higher in energy, and the reduction in kinetic energy, which tends to lower it.
{width="1.00\linewidth"}
It has been demonstrated thus far that biaxial strain can have a significant impact on the optoelectronic properties of stoichiometric CeO$_{2}$. It is reasonable to ask then whether similar control of functionality can be achieved in non-stoichiometric and metal-doped ceria thin films with $\eta \neq 0$, which can be prepared through advanced synthesis techniques [@mofarah19; @korobko12]. The results shown in Fig.\[fig3\] indicate that this is indeed the case. Our simulations of non-stoichiometric ceria, CeO$_{2-\delta}$, considering an arbitrary but representative $\delta$ of $0.125$ [@mofarah19] (Sec. \[sec:methods\] and Supplementary Methods), show that both positive and negative $\eta$’s can be used to reduce substantially $E_{g}$ (by $\sim 10$% of the value obtained at zero strain, which is $2.1$ eV), with tensile strain being particularly effective (Fig.\[fig3\]a). Band gaps of $1.7$ and $1.4$ eV are obtained respectively at the highest compressive and tensile strain values considered in this study. These sizable $E_{g}$ reductions result from the combined action of oxygen vacancies, which are known to reduce the neighbouring Ce$^{4+}$ ions and lower the CB edge due to the appearance of new unoccupied $4f$ states (Fig.\[fig3\]b) [@mofarah19], and biaxial strain.
Likewise, in Ce$_{1-2x}$Gd$_{2x}$O$_{2-x}$ (001) thin films with an arbitrary but representative composition of $x = 0.03$ [@korobko12], our DFT simulations (Sec. \[sec:methods\] and Supplementary Methods) indicate that tensile strain is also capable of reducing $E_{g}$ considerably (Fig.\[fig3\]c). For instance, at $\eta = +7$% the band gap of Gd-doped ceria is $1.7$ eV, which is approximately $30$% smaller than the value estimated at zero strain ($2.5$ eV). In Gd-doped ceria, the presence of Gd$^{3+}$ ions prevents the reduction of Ce$^{4+}$ ions surrounding the oxygen vacancies (in contrast to what occurs in CeO$_{2-\delta}$). As a consequence, the relative $E_{g}$ variation induced by $\eta$ in Ce$_{1-2x}$Gd$_{2x}$O$_{2-x}$ (001) is very similar to that found in the undoped stoichiometric system (Fig.\[fig2\]c). The high delocalization of the Ce $4f$ orbitals forming the bottom of the CB in Ce$_{1-2x}$Gd$_{2x}$O$_{2-x}$ (001) (Fig.\[fig3\]d), however, leads to a noticeable reduction in the band gap as compared to undoped CeO$_{2}$ (001), which renders a practically constant $E_{g}$ difference of $\approx 0.5$ eV between the two systems across the entire range of $\eta$ values.
{width="1.00\linewidth"}
Anatase TiO$_{2}$ (001) {#subsec:tio2-001}
-----------------------
Bulk TiO$_{2}$ is generally found in the rutile, anatase, or brookite phase. The rutile and anatase polymorphs find use in major industrial applications while brookite is of little technological relevance due to its difficult synthesis [@yamada12]. Rutile possesses tetragonal symmetry (space group $P4_{2}/mmm$) and a band gap of $\approx
3$ eV, and is the energetically most favorable polymorph at room temperature. Anatase also presents tetragonal symmetry (space group $I4_{1}/amd$) and its band gap is $3.2$ eV [@yamada12]. Although the $E_{g}$ of anatase is larger than that of rutile, the former phase typically exhibits superior photocatalytic activity owing to better positioning of the band edges and longer electron-hole recombination times [@batzill11; @choi94]. Hence it is of particular interest to investigate the influence of $\eta$ on the band gap and band alignments of anatase, to see whether it is possible to further improve the photocatalytic performance of TiO$_{2}$.
In anatase TiO$_{2}$, each Ti ion is surrounded by six neighbouring oxygens and forms two characteristic bonds with them, Ti–O1 and Ti–O2, which are respectively two- and four-fold degenerate (Fig.\[fig4\]a). When biaxially strained in the (001) plane, the Ti–O1 bonds, which are oriented out-of-plane, become elongated under compressive strain and shortened under tensile strain (Fig.\[fig4\]b). Conversely, the Ti–O2 bonds, which are oriented at only a small angle to the (001) plane, are reduced under $\eta < 0$ and stretched under $\eta > 0$ (Fig.\[fig4\]b). Consequently, as in most oxide semiconductors [@cazorla17; @bousquet10], the average metal-oxygen bond length decreases under compressive strain (by $0.8$% of the equilibrium value at $\eta = -7$%) and increases under tensile strain (by $2.7$% at $\eta = +7$%).
{width="1.00\linewidth"}
Concerning the electronic properties, at zero biaxial strain we estimate $E_{g} = 3.3$ eV, which is in good agreement with the experimental value of $3.2$ eV [@yamada12]. Under compressive strain, the band gap increases almost linearly, achieving a maximum value of $4.0$ eV at $\eta = -7$% (Fig.\[fig4\]c). Under tensile strain, however, the band gap decreases steadily and becomes smaller than $3$ eV at $\eta \approx +3$%. A minimum band gap of $2.8$ eV is estimated at the largest tensile distortion considered in this study (Fig.\[fig4\]c). We note that $E_{g}$ remains indirect regardless of $\eta$ (Supplementary Figure 5).
Such a regular $E_{g}$ variation driven by biaxial strain across the entire range of strain values is in contrast to what was found for both the (111) and (001) orientations of CeO$_{2}$, and can be explained in terms of the concurrent VB and CB edge shifts (Fig.\[fig4\]c). In bulk anatase, the top of the VB is principally composed of oxygen $2p$ orbitals that form a bonding state with Ti $3d$ orbitals while the bottom of the CB is mostly composed of Ti $3d$ orbitals that form an antibonding state with O $2p$ orbitals (Fig.\[fig4\]d). Compressive strain has little effect on the position of the VB edge, due to a compensation effect between enhancement of bonding interactions (which tends to lower the VB) and increase in kinetic energy (which tends to increase the VB), whereas tensile strain tends to bring it higher in energy, owing to frustration of the bonding state (which dominates over the decrease in kinetic energy). Meanwhile, the position of the CB edge moves significantly higher in energy under compressive strain, due to a dominant increase in the kinetic energy (since the localization of the unoccupied Ti $3d$ orbitals appears to decrease slightly at $\eta < 0$, Supplementary Figure 6). Under tensile strain, the CB edge remains more or less constant owing to a small increase in the localization of the unoccupied Ti $3d$ orbitals at $\eta > 0$ (Fig.\[fig4\]d) that is counterbalanced by a decrease in the kinetic energy. We note that, in analogy to CeO$_{2}$ thim films, the $E_{g}$ shifts induced by $\eta$ do not appear to be directly or exclusively correlated with the accompanying structural changes (i.e., the band gap variation is almost linear across the entire range of $\eta$ values, Fig.\[fig4\]c, whereas the structural fluctuations are most prominent under tensile strain, Fig.\[fig4\]b).
The band alignments in anatase TiO$_{2}$ (001) are greatly affected by biaxial strain (Fig.\[fig4\]c). In the absence of planar stress, our calculations render a VB edge at $-7.9$ eV and CB at $-4.6$ eV relative to the vacuum level, which are in reasonable agreement with the available experimental data ($E_{\rm VB}^{\rm expt} =
-7.6$ eV and $E_{\rm CB}^{\rm expt} = -4.4$ eV [@batzill11]). Under tensile strains of $> +3$%, the band gap becomes smaller than $3$ eV, the corresponding VB edge gets closer to the H$_{2}$O oxidation potential (for instance, at $\eta = +4$%, $E_{\rm VB}$ is $-7.6$ eV), and the CB edge remains more or less constant around the value $-4.6$ eV. At these biaxial strain conditions, the energy of the CB edge is around the reduction potential of CO$_{2}$ (Fig.\[fig4\]c), hence tensilely strained anatase is predicted to be a suitable photocatalyst for driving the conversion of carbon dioxide into methane (CH$_{4}$) in aqueous environment under visible light [@xie16]. Given the proximity of the CO$_{2}$ and water reduction potentials, it is likely that biaxially strained anatase TiO$_{2}$ ($\eta > 0$) is also a suitable material for driving the production of hydrogen fuel from H$_{2}$O under visible light.
Zinc-blende and wurtzite ZnO (001) {#subsec:zno-001}
----------------------------------
ZnO thin films are used in a wide variety of optoelectronic applications due to the relative abundance of their elements and direct band gap of $\approx 3.3$ eV [@ozgur05]. The two common ZnO polymorphs are wurtzite (hexagonal symmetry, space group $P6_{3}mc$) and zinc-blende (cubic symmetry, space group $F\overline{4}3m$), which are shown in Figs.\[fig5\]a-b. In wurtzite ZnO, each metal ion is coordinated to four neighboring oxygens and forms two characteristic metal-oxygen bond lengths, Zn–O1 and Zn–O2 (Fig.\[fig5\]a), which are single and three-fold degenerate, respectively. The evolution of the Zn–O1 and Zn–O2 distances as induced by $\eta$ in the (001) plane are shown in Fig.\[fig5\]c. The Zn–O1 bond length is oriented out-of-plane and displays an anomalous behavior in the sense that it contracts under compressive biaxial strain and expands under tensile biaxial strain. Such an anomalous behavior, which is not observed in the Zn–O2 case (Fig.\[fig5\]c), probably is related to the negative thermal expansion observed in bulk ZnO [@wang13]. On average, however, the mechanical behavior of wurtzite ZnO thin films is normal, namely, volume contraction at $\eta < 0$ and volume expansion at $\eta > 0$ relative to the unstrained reference system. Meanwhile, the zinc-blende structure, in which there is only one type of bond length, Zn–O1 (Fig.\[fig5\]b), presents a quite typical deformation behavior when biaxially strained in the (001) plane.
Figure \[fig5\]d shows the band gaps of (001)–oriented ZnO thin films as a function of biaxial strain for the two crystal structures. In the absence of any strain, we estimate an $E_{g}$ of $2.7$ eV for the wurtzite phase and $2.4$ eV for the zinc-blende phase. These results, in contrast to the systems analyzed previously, are not in good agreement with the experimental value of $3.3$ eV [@choi18]. A possible explanation for such a large band gap discrepancy may be the very low density of electronic states found at the bottom of the CB (Fig.\[fig5\]e), which may complicate the estimation of $E_{g}$ both at the experimental and theoretical levels.
We find that the impact of $\eta$ on the band gap of ZnO thin films is practically negligible (at least in comparison to the CeO$_{2}$ and TiO$_{2}$ cases), which is consistent with previous experimental observations [@choi18]. For instance, according to our first-principles calculations, $E_{g}$ for the wurtzite phase increases by just $2$% at $\eta = +5$% and decreases by $3$% at $\eta = -5$%; in comparison, a reduction of $4$% was obtained at $\eta \approx
-5$% in experimental work [@choi18]. Meanwhile, the band gap for the zinc-blende phase is changed by even smaller amounts, with only a $0.5$% reduction at $\eta = +7$% and a $0.5$% increase at $\eta = -7$% (note the opposite sign in the strain-driven $E_{g}$ change as compared to the wurtzite case, Fig.\[fig5\]d). We note that the band gap of ZnO remains direct for all $\eta$ (Supplementary Figure 7).
The reason behind the marginal effects of biaxial strain on the $E_{g}$ of ZnO thin films seems to be related to the fact that the majority of electronic states forming both the top of the VB and the bottom of the CB are oxygen $2p$ orbitals (Figs.\[fig5\]e-f and Supplementary Figure 8). As a consequence of such an electronic band-structure symmetry the VB and CB edges are shifted very similarly when the crystal is subjected to external stress, thus leaving $E_{g}$ practically invariant.
------------------------------------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$\qquad \qquad \eta \qquad \qquad $ $ -7\% $ $ +7\% $ $ -7\% $ $ +7\% $ $ -7\% $ $ +7\% $ $ -7\% $ $ +7\% $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
${\rm CeO_{2}~(111)}$ $-0.063 $ $-0.043 $ $-0.014 $ $0.025 $ $+5 $ $-1 $ $+10 $ $-4 $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
${\rm CeO_{2}~(001)}$ $0.033 $ $0.136 $ $-0.029 $ $0.038 $ $+1 $ $-11 $ $+2 $ $-29 $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
${\rm (a)~TiO_{2}~(001)}$ $-0.109 $ $0.063 $ $-0.008 $ $0.027 $ $+6 $ $-6 $ $+21 $ $-14 $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
${\rm (w)~ZnO~(001)} $ $0.022 $ $-0.039 $ $-0.020 $ $0.026 $ $+1 $ $-1 $ $-4 $ $+2 $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
${\rm (zb)~ZnO~(001)} $ $0.074 $ $ 0.061 $ $-0.010 $ $0.012 $ $-3 $ $-4 $ $+1 $ $-1 $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
------------------------------------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
\[tab:summary\]
Explanation of the observed $E_{g}$ trends using a simple model {#subsec:model}
---------------------------------------------------------------
In previous sections we have demonstrated by means of computational first-principles methods that biaxial strain can be used to alter substantially the optoelectronic and photocatalytic properties of some binary oxide semiconductors. However, the influence of $\eta$ on the electronic band structure properties of binary oxide materials appears to be non-systematic and consequently difficult to predict. For instance, compressive biaxial strain hardly has any effect on the band gap of (001) CeO$_{2}$ thin films whereas it induces a large $E_{g}$ increase in both (111) CeO$_{2}$ and (001) TiO$_{2}$ (Secs.\[subsec:ceo2-111\]–\[subsec:tio2-001\]). On the other hand, the effects of $\eta$ on the structural properties of binary oxides (provided that are stable and do not undergo phase transitions) are quite regular and relatively easy to foresee. Essentially, the metal-oxygen bond lengths for all the analyzed oxides are stretched by an average value of $\sim
1$% under moderate tensile biaxial strains and reduced by roughly the same amount under compressive biaxial strains. These outcomes suggest that the origins of the optoelectronic and photocatalytic variations induced by biaxial strain cannot be explained uniquely in terms of simple structural changes [@yin10; @zhou14; @wagner02]. In fact, a more sophisticated and general understanding of how photocatalytic activity can be tuned through $\eta$ is highly desirable for improving the design and computational screening of potential energy materials.
According to well-established theories [@omar75], the band gap of a material is influenced by the first Fourier coefficient of the crystal field, which results from the superposition of atomic potentials within the solid. The crystal field essentially depends on the interatomic distances, dielectric screening (or, alternatively, quantity of charge in the atomic environment), and density of atoms in the solid [@sun01]. By shortening the atomic distances and/or weakening the dielectric screening, the crystal field is enhanced and as a result the band gap is widened. Conversely, by increasing the bond lengths and/or enhancing the dielectric screening the crystal field is depleted and the band gap is reduced. Therefore, there are two possible ways of modifying the crystal field along with the band gap in a structurally stable solid – changing its lattice parameters and/or its dielectric properties [@sun01].
By combining deformation potential theory ($E_{g} (\sigma) \propto \sigma$, where $\sigma$ represents mechanical stress) [@yin10; @wei99] and the Kramers-Kroning relation ($E_{g} (\chi) \propto \chi^{-1/2}$, where $\chi$ represents the dielectric susceptibility of the material) [@sun01; @lu15], we have deduced a simple analytical model that is able to describe qualitatively the band gap variations induced by biaxial strain on binary oxide semiconductors. Specifically, we express the $\eta$-driven relative variations of the band gap as: $$\frac{\Delta E_{g}(\eta)}{E_{g}(0)} = -\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{\Delta \chi (\eta)}{\chi (0)} + 2
\cdot \frac{\Delta d (\eta)}{d (0)} \right)~,
\label{eq:model}$$ where the dependence of each term on biaxial strain is explicitly noted (for instance, “(0)” denotes unstrained), $\Delta A (\eta) \equiv A(\eta) - A(0)$, $d$ represents the average metal-oxygen bond length, and the stress-strain relationship $\Delta \sigma / \sigma \approx - \Delta d / d$ has been used (the minus sign accounts for the fact that negative biaxial strains correspond to positive stresses and *vice versa*). Our model treats the effects of structural and dielectric fluctuations on the band gap as independent quantities, that is, $E_{g} (\sigma,\chi) =
f(\sigma) \cdot g(\chi)$ where $f$ and $g$ are the two functions specified above; because of this, the model cannot be quantitatively exact. Nevertheless, in spite of its limitations, this model provides a general and physically intuitive understanding of the results reported in the previous sections for binary oxides without the need to consider the details of the specific band structure of each material.
Table I shows the $\Delta E_{g} / E_{g}$ values obtained for biaxially strained CeO$_{2}$, TiO$_{2}$, and ZnO thin films at the largest $\eta$’s considered in this study using both DFT methods (exact) and the analytical model expressed in Eq.(\[eq:model\]) (approximate). The corresponding $\Delta \chi / \chi$ and $\Delta d / d$ values are also reported in Table I. The dielectric susceptibility is calculated with the formula $\chi = \epsilon_{\infty}
-1$, where $\epsilon_{\infty}$ represents the ion-clamped dielectric constant of the material (estimated with perturbation DFT techniques) [@cazorla15]. In the case of CeO$_{2}$ and TiO$_{2}$ thin films Eq.(\[eq:model\]) reproduces the relative band gap variations induced by biaxial strain correctly (albeit only at the qualitative level). For example, the analytical model predicts a reduction (increase) in $E_{g}$ under tensile (compressive) strain and the largest band gap variation is found for (001)–oriented CeO$_{2}$ thin films at $\eta > 0$. On the other hand, the $\Delta E_{g} / E_{g}$ values estimated with Eq.(\[eq:model\]) are systematically lower in magnitude than those calculated directly with DFT techniques by roughly a factor of $2$. In the case of ZnO thin films, the analytical model consistently predicts band gap variations similar in magnitude to those obtained with DFT methods; however, the corresponding signs are reversed in most cases. This comparison indicates that the limitations of Eq.(\[eq:model\]) become more pronounced when trying to reproduce small $\Delta E_{g} / E_{g}$ values (as expected, given the qualitative nature of the model).
The data shown in Table I along with the analytical model in Eq.(\[eq:model\]) allow us to understand better the origins of the non-systematic $E_{g}$ trends found in binary oxides under biaxial strain. As mentioned earlier, the $\Delta d / d$ changes induced by $\eta$ are systematic and general to most materials, but the $\Delta \chi / \chi$ variations are not. For example, for (001)–oriented CeO$_{2}$ thin films, the dielectric susceptibility always increases with increasing magnitude of biaxial strain, irrespective of whether it is tensile or compressive. In contrast, for (001)–oriented TiO$_{2}$ anatase thin films, compressive (tensile) strain produces a reduction (increase) in $\chi$. Consequently, according to Eq.(\[eq:model\]) and the data in Table I, the changes induced by $\eta$ on the dielectric properties of each material are ultimately responsible for the irregular behavior observed in $\Delta E_{g} / E_{g}$. For instance, the large band gap changes found for (001)–oriented CeO$_{2}$ thin films under $\eta > 0$ and for (001)–oriented TiO$_{2}$ anatase thin films under $\eta < 0$ can be traced to the $\Delta \chi / \chi$ and $\Delta d / d$ terms having the same sign and hence being additive (Table I). Likewise, the small band gap changes found for (111)–oriented CeO$_{2}$ thin films under $\eta > 0$ and for wurtzite (001)–oriented ZnO thin films either under $\eta > 0$ or $\eta < 0$ can be traced to the $\Delta \chi / \chi$ and $\Delta d
/ d$ terms having opposite signs (Table I). The new insights presented in this section in terms of the role of dielectric susceptibility changes can be useful for better understanding the electronic behavior of binary oxide semiconductors subjected to biaxial strain, and for improving the design of potential photocatalytic materials.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this study we have demonstrated by means of first-principles methods that biaxial strain can be used to tune the optoelectronic and photocatalytic properties of binary oxide semiconductors in a substantial and predictable manner. The changes caused by $\eta$ on the band gap of simple oxides can be understood in terms of structural and dielectric susceptibility variations that alter the crystal field and thus the bonding–antibonding splitting. The structural changes induced by biaxial strain on binary oxides are quite general and regular, but the accompanying changes in electronic screening are not systematic. As a result of those two distinct and sometimes opposing contributions, we find that the biaxial strain has different effects on the band gap of different oxides – the band gaps of stoichiometric CeO$_{2}$ and anatase TiO$_{2}$ can be reduced below $3$ eV under moderate tensile strains of $\approx +2$% and $+3$%, respectively, whereas the band gap of ZnO is only marginally affected (namely, $|\Delta E_{g}| / E_{g} \sim 1$%) by $|\eta|$’s as large as $7$%. We have also shown that $\eta$ has a significant influence on the band gap of non-stoichiometric and metal-doped binary oxide semiconductors. Furthermore, biaxial strain can alter significantly the energy levels of the valence and conduction band edges. In particular, we find that under tensile strain $(111)$–oriented CeO$_{2}$ and $(001)$–oriented TiO$_{2}$ thin films become suitable photocatalysts for driving the splitting of H$_{2}$O into H$_{2}$ and O$_{2}$ and the reduction of CO$_{2}$ into CH$_{4}$, respectively, in aqueous environment under sunlight. Strain engineering, therefore, offers a systematic design tool for achieving improved photocatalytic activity in binary oxide semiconductors, either on its own or in combination with other nanostructuring approaches.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Computational resources and technical assistance were provided by the Australian Government and the Government of Western Australia through the National Computational Infrastructure (NCI) and Magnus under the National Computational Merit Allocation Scheme and The Pawsey Supercomputing Centre.
[30]{} Fajrina, N. $\&$ Tahir, M. A critical review in strategies to improve photocatalytic water splitting towards hydrogen production. *Int. J. Hydrog. Energy* **44**, 540 (2019).
Xie, S., Zhang, Q., Liu, G. $\&$ Wang, Y. Photocatalytic and photoelectrocatalytic reduction of CO$_{2}$ using heterogeneous catalysts with controlled nanostructures. *Chem. Commun.* **52**, 35 (2016).
Shenoy, J., Hart, J. N., Grau-Crespo, R., Allan, N. L. $\&$ Cazorla, C. Mixing Thermodynamics and Photocatalytic Properties of GaP-ZnS solid solutions. *Adv. Theory Simul.* **2**, 1800146 (2019).
Park, H., Kim, H.-I., Moon, G.-H. $\&$ Wonyong, C. Photoinduced charge transfer processes in solar photocatalysis based on modified TiO$_{2}$. *Energy Environ. Sci.* **9**, 411 (2016).
Rahimi, N., Pax, R. A. $\&$ Gray, E. M. Review of functional titanium oxides. I: TiO$_{2}$ and its modifications. *Prog. Solid State Ch.* **44**, 86 (2016).
Castano, C. E., O’Keefe, M. J. $\&$ Farenholtz, W. G. Cerium-based oxide coatings. *Curr. Opin. Solid St. M.* **19**, 69 (2015).
Montini, T., Melchionna, M., Monai, M. $\&$ Fornasiero, P. Fundamentals and catalytic applications of CeO$_{2}$‐-based materials. *Chem. Rev.* **116**, 5987 (2016).
Kowalsa, E., Remita, H., Colbeau-Justin, C., Hupka, J. $\&$ Belloni, J. Modification of titanium dioxide with platinum ions and clusters: Application in photocatalysis. *J. Phys. Chem. C* **112**, 1124 (2008).
Asahi, R., Morikawa, T., Ohwaki, T., Aoki, K. $\&$ Taga, Y. Visible-light photocatalysis in nitrogen-doped titanium oxides. *Science* **293**, 269 (2001).
Mitsudome, T., Mikami, Y., Matoba, M., Mizugaki, T., Jitsukawa, K. $\&$ Kaneda, K. Design of a silver-cerium dioxide core-shell nanocomposite catalyst for chemoselective reduction reactions. *Angew Chem. Int. Ed.* **51**, 136 (2012).
Takanabe, K. Photocatalytic water splitting: Quantitative approaches toward photocatalyst by design. *ACS Catal.* **7**, 8006 (2017).
Hu, S., Cazorla, C., Xiang, F., Ma, H., Wang, J., Wang, J., Wang, X., Ulrich, C., Chen, L. $\&$ Seidel, J. Strain control of giant magnetic anisotropy in metallic perovskite SrCoO$_{3-\delta}$ thin films. *ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces* **10**, 22348 (2018).
Heo, Y., Hu, S., Sharma, P., Kim, K.-E., Jang, B.-K, Cazorla, C., Yang, C.-H., $\&$ Seidel, J. Impact of isovalent and aliovalent doping on mechanical properties of mixed phase BiFeO$_{3}$. *ACS Nano* **11**, 2805 (2017).
Gopal, C. B. *et al.* Equilibrium oxygen storage capacity of ultrathin CeO$2-\delta$ depends non-monotonically on large biaxial strain. *Nat. Commun.* **8**, 15360 (2017).
Benson, E. E. *et al.* Semiconductor-to-metal transition in rutile TiO$_{2}$ induced by tensile strain. *Chem. Mater.* **29**, 2173 (2017).
Choi, H.-J., Jang, W., Mohanty, B. C., Jung, Y.S., Soon, A. $\&$ Cho, Y.-S. Origin of prestress-driven optical modulations of flexible ZnO thin films processed in stretching mode. *J. Phys. Chem. Lett.* **9**, 5934 (2018).
Yin, W.-J., Che, S., Yang, J.-H., Gong, X.-G., Yan, Y. $\&$ Wei, S.-H. Effective band gap narrowing of anatase TiO$_{2}$ by strain along a soft crystal direction. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **96**, 221901 (2010).
Kelaidis, N., Kordatos, A., Christopoulos, S.-R.G. $\&$ Chroneos, A. A roadmap of strain in doped anatase TiO$_{2}$. *Sci. Rep.* **8**, 12790 (2018).
Zhou, W., Liu, Y., Yang, Y. $\&$ Wu, P. Band gap engineering of SnO$_{2}$ by epitaxial strain: Experimental and theoretical investigations. *J. Phys. Chem. C* **118**, 6448 (2014).
Yan, Q. M., Rinke, P., Winkelnkemper, M., Qteish, A., Bimberg, D., Scheffler, M. $\&$ Van de Walle, C. G. Strain effects and band parameters in MgO, ZnO, and CdO. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **101**, 152105 (2012).
Wagner, J.-M. $\&$ Bechstedt, F. Properties of strained wurtzite GaN and AlN: Ab initio studies. *Phys. Rev. B* **66**, 115202 (2002).
Cazorla, C. The role of density functional theory methods in the prediction of nanostructured gas-adsorbent materials. *Coord. Chem. Rev.* **300**, 142 (2015).
Cazorla, C., Rojas-Cervellera, V. $\&$ Rovira, C. Calcium-based functionalization of carbon nanostructures for peptide immobilization in aqueous media. *J. Mater. Chem.* **22**, 19684 (2012).
Cazorla, C. $\&$ Boronat, B. Simulation and understanding of atomic and molecular quantum crystals. *Rev. Mod. Phys.* **89**, 035003 (2017).
Perdew, J. P., Ruzsinszky, A., Csonka, G. I, Vydrov, O. A, Scuseria, G. E., Constantin, L. A., Zhou, X. $\&$ Burke, K. Restoring the density-gradient expansion for exchange in solids and surfaces. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **100**, 136406 (2008).
Kresse, G. $\&$ Fürthmuller, J. Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set. *Phys. Rev. B* **54**, 11169 (1996); Kresse, G. $\&$ Joubert, D. From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method. *Phys. Rev. B* **59**, 1758 (1999).
Dudarev, S. L., Botton, G. A., Savrasov, S. Y., Humphreys, C. J. $\&$ Sutton, A. P. Electron-energy-loss spectra and the structural stability of nickel oxide: An LSDA+U study. *Phys. Rev. B* **57**, 1505 (1998).
Blöchl P. E. Projector augmented-wave method. *Phys. Rev. B* **50**, 17953 (1994).
Monkhorst, H. J. $\&$ Pack, J. D. Special points for Brillouin-zone integrations. *Phys. Rev. B* **13**, 5188 (1976).
Cazorla, C. $\&$ Stengel, M. Electrostatic engineering of strained ferroelectric perovskites from first-principles. *Phys. Rev. B* **92**, 214108 (2015).
Cazorla, C. Lattice effects on the formation of oxygen vacancies in perovskite thin films. *Phys. Rev. Appl.* **7**, 044025 (2017).
Cazorla, C., Diéguez, O. $\&$ ${\rm \acute{I}}$${\rm \tilde{n}}$iguez, J. Multiple structural transitions driven by spin-phonon couplings in a perovskite oxide. *Sci. Adv.* **3**, e1700288 (2017).
Cazorla, C. $\&$ Íñiguez J. Giant direct and inverse electrocaloric effects in multiferroic thin films. *Phys. Rev. B* **98**, 174105 (2018).
Krukau, A. V., Vydrov, O. A., Izmaylov, A. F. $\&$ Scuseria, G. E. Influence of the exchange screening parameter on the performance of screened hybrid functionals. *J. Chem. Phys.* **125**, 224106 (2006).
Moses, P. G., Miao, M., Yan, Q., $\&$ Van de Walle, C. G. Hybrid functional investigations of band gaps and band alignments for AlN, GaN, InN, and InGaN. *J. Chem. Phys.* **134**, 084703 (2011).
Baldereschi, A., Baroni, S. $\&$ Resta, R. Band offsets in lattice-matched heterojunctions: A model and first-principles calculations for GaAs/AlAs. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **61**, 734 (1988).
Cazorla, C. $\&$ Stengel, M. First-principles modeling of Pt/LaAlO$_{3}$/SrTiO$_{3}$ capacitors under an external bias potential. *Phys. Rev. B* **85**, 075426 (2012).
Goubin, F., Rocquefelte, X., Whangbo, M.-H., Montardi, Y., Brec, R. $\&$ Jobic, S. Experimental and theoretical characterization of the optical properties of CeO$_{2}$, SrCeO$_{3}$, and Sr$_{2}$CeO$_{4}$ containing Ce$^{4+}$ ($f^{0}$) ions. *Chem. Mater.* **16**, 662 (2004).
Wen, X.-J., Niu, C.-G., Zhang, L., Liang, C. $\&$ Zeng, G.-M. A novel Ag$_{2}$O/CeO$_{2}$ heterojunction photocatalysts for photocatalytic degradation of enrofloxacin: possible degradation pathways, mineralization activity and an in depth mechanism insight. *Appl. Catal. B-Environ.* **221**, 701 (2018).
Wei, S.-H. $\&$ Zunger, A. Predicted band-gap pressure coefficients of all diamond and zinc-blende semiconductors: Chemical trends. *Phys. Rev. B* **60**, 5404 (1999).
Mofarah, S. S., Adabifiroozjaei, E., Webster, R., Koshy, P., Nekouei, R. K., Lim, S., Yao, Y., Cazorla, C., Liu, Z., Lambropoulos, N. $\&$ Sorrell, C. C. Proton-assisted creation of controllable volumetric oxygen vacancy in ultrathin ceria for pseudo-capacitive energy storage applications. *Nat. Commun.* **10**, 2594 (2019).
Korobko, R., Patlolla, A., Kossoy, A., Wachtel, E., Tuller, H. L., Frenkel, A. I. $\&$ Lubomirsky, I. Giant electrostriction in Gd-Doped ceria. *Adv. Mater.* **24**, 5857 (2012).
Yamada, Y. $\&$ Kanemitsu, Y. Determination of electron and hole lifetimes of rutile and anatase TiO$_{2}$ single crystals. *Appl. Phys. Lett.* **101**, 133907 (2012).
Batzill, M. Fundamental aspects of surface engineering of transition metal oxide photocatalysts. *Energy Environ. Sci.* **4**, 3275 (2011).
Choi, W., Termin, A. $\&$ Hoffmann, M. R. The role of metal ion dopants in quantum-sized TiO$_{2}$: Correlation between photoreactivity and charge carrier recombination dynamics. *J. Phys. Chem. C* **98**, 13669 (1994).
Bousquet, E., Spaldin, N. A. $\&$ Ghosez, P. Strain-induced ferroelectricity in simple rocksalt binary oxides. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **104**, 037601 (2010).
Ozgur, U., Alivov, Y. I., Liu, C., Teke, A., Reshchikov, M. A., Dogan, S., Avrutin, V., Cho, S.-J. $\&$ Morkoc, H. A comprehensive review of ZnO materials and devices. *J. Appl. Phys.* **98**, 041301 (2005).
Wang, Z., Wang, F., Wang, L., Jia, Y. $\&$ Sun, Q. First-principles study of negative thermal expansion in zinc oxide. *J. Appl. Phys.* **114**, 063508 (2013).
Omar, M. A. *Elementary Solid State Physics: Principles and Applications* (New York: Addison-Wesley, 1975).
Sun, C. Q., Sun, X. W., Tay, B. K., Lau, S. P., Huang, H. T. $\&$ Li, S. Dielectric suppression and its effect on photoabsorption of nanometric semiconductors. *J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.* **34**, 2359 (2001).
Haiming, L. $\&$ Meng, X. Correlation between band gap, dielectric constant, Young’s modulus and melting temperature of GaN nanocrystals and their size and shape dependences. *Sci. Rep.* **5**, 16939 (2015).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In models with a light scalar field (the ‘acceleron’) coupled to neutrinos, neutrino masses depend on neutrino density. The resulting coupled system of mass varying neutrinos (MaVaNs) and the acceleron can act as a negative pressure fluid and is a candidate for dark energy [@Fardon:2003eh] . MaVaNs also allow for higher $\Sigma$m$_\nu$ than terrestrial bounds, giving late forming warm dark matter. In this paper we study the effect of increasing neutrino mass on the CMB spectrum, implementing MaVaNs cosmology using CMBEASY. We find that the CMB spectrum is only affected at very low multipoles. Cosmic variance allows for significant warm dark matter at late times. This implies that in MaVaNs cosmology $\sigma_8$ as determined by the CMB may not be a good determinant of structure evolution at late times, potentially reducing the tension between $\sigma$$_{8}$ as reported by Planck Collaboration [@PlanckSZ:2013] without increasing the tension in the Planck determined value of Hubble’s constant. In addition, in MaVaNs theories, CMB data do not necessarily constrain possible neutrino mass results in terrestrial experiments.'
author:
- 'Akshay Ghalsasi and Ann E. Nelson'
bibliography:
- 'neutrino.bib'
title: Effects of Mass Varying Neutrinos on Cosmological Parameters as determined from the Cosmic Microwave Background
---
Introduction
============
The standard model of cosmology ($\Lambda$CDM) describes cosmological data rather well. In $\Lambda$CDM the energy density of the universe has five components: cold dark matter, baryons, photons, neutrinos, and dark energy . Although neutrinos are assumed to be very light in $\Lambda$CDM it is a fairly straightforward extension to consider the case of more massive neutrinos. Since $\Lambda$CDM is such a good fit to the observed data, it is hard to concoct a model that changes significantly the evolution of the components of the total energy density at or before recombination. An alternative is to change the behavior of the components after recombination, preferably at late times, so that the CMB spectrum and distance to surface of last scattering are not significantly affected.
The fact that at present times the dark energy density is of the same order of that of dark matter ($\rho$$_{CDM}$/$\rho$$_\Lambda$ = 1/3) is called the ‘cosmic coincidence problem’. We also have other ‘coincidences’ in the fact that the other components of energy density i.e. baryons, photons, and neutrinos were also comparable to dark energy within a redshift of a few z. This problem is puzzling because all the different components of the energy density redshift differently. The behavior of dark energy is not known at very high redshifts, but we know it redshifts very slowly at from z = 1 to present times ($\omega$ $\approx$ -1). If we assume that dark energy really is the cosmological constant i.e. $\omega$ = -1 throughout history then we have the coincidence problem mentioned above. On the other hand we can make dark energy ‘track’ one of the other components such as dark matter or baryons until recent times after which dark energy switches to redshifting very slowly. Dark matter and baryons are consistent with redshifting as 1/a$^3$ since recombination. We can track baryons even further back to BBN. Hence it will be hard to postulate a model where dark energy tracks dark matter or baryons until recent times because that will only replace the coincidence problem with the ‘why now’ problem, i.e. why did the dark energy stop tracking these components only recently. Neutrinos offer more possibilities as the present energy density of neutrinos is not measured. We know that three species of neutrinos were relativistic at BBN until fairly recently, since non relativistic neutrinos act as hot dark matter and tend to erase structure on smaller scales. In ref. [@Fardon:2003eh] it was proposed that dark energy density tracks neutrino energy density, assuming that neutrino mass is not a fixed quantity but rather a dynamical one. If neutrinos couple to a light scalar field scalar field called the acceleron, the scalar field effective potential is a function of the neutrino number density. For a broad range of acceleron potentials the acceleron evolves adiabatically, tracking the minimum of its effective potential, with the neutrino mass also evolving. Depending on the form of the acceleron potential, the neutrino-acceleron fluid together may produce ‘dark energy’ which can explain the observed acceleration of the universe. Since the effective potential and hence the neutrino mass are a function of the number density, the model is called mass varying neutrinos or MaVaNs.
The aim of the present paper is to study the impact of MaVaNs on cosmology, particularly the CMB spectrum. This will help us study the viability of MaVaNs as a theory and constrain its parameter space.
The next section discusses MaVaNs, their properties and some relations pertaining to their behavior. For more details and derivations consult [@Fardon:2003eh].
MaVaNs
======
Mass Varying Neutrinos are neutrinos whose mass varies as a function of their number density and hence as a function of the scale factor. In one implementation of the theory the SM neutrinos get their mass from coupling to a sterile neutrino, which in turn gets its mass from the vev of a scalar field the ‘acceleron’. As the universe expands the sterile neutrino gets lighter and the SM neutrinos get heavier due to the to the see-saw mechanism. It can be shown [@Fardon:2003eh] that when the neutrinos are non relativistic the effective potential for the MaVaNs-acceleron fluid is given by $$V(m_\nu) = m_\nu n_\nu + V_0(m_\nu)$$ where $V_0$ is the acceleron potential. The minimum of this potential is given by $$V^{'}(m_\nu) = n_\nu + V^{'}_{0}(m_\nu)$$
The equation of state is then given by $$\omega + 1 = -\frac{\delta log V}{3\delta log a}
= \frac{m_\nu n_\nu}{V}
= \frac{-m_\nu V_{0}^{'}(m_\nu)}{V(m_\nu)}$$ where we have used equation \[2\] to get the second and third equality. If we assume a power law dependence for the acceleron potential as a function of mass with a small exponent ($V_0$($m_\nu$) $\propto$ $m_\nu$$^{-k}$) then we get $$\omega = \frac{-1}{1+k}$$ Assuming that $\omega$ scales slowly with the scale factor, using equation \[2\] we can show that when the neutrinos are non relativistic $$m_\nu \propto \it a^{-3\omega}$$ We can also show that when the neutrinos are relativistic their mass scales as follows $$m_\nu \propto \it a^{-(3\omega+1)/2}$$ If $\omega$ = -1 as in the case of a cosmological constant then the SM neutrinos have a mass inversely proportional to their number density when non relativistic.
A potential problem with this theory is that when neutrinos become nonrelativistic an instability may develop where the neutrinos clump on small scales, with the inter clump distance being large compared with the acceleron Compton wavelength, in which case the acceleron field is no longer smooth and no longer acts as dark energy [@matias]. We assume that such an instability does not develop, which can be arranged either by an acceleron potential which is sufficiently flat, or a semi relativistic neutrino coupled to the acceleron [@Fardon:2006].
Thus in this theory the neutrino mass becomes important only during recent times i.e. z $\approx$ few, depending on the present mass of the neutrino. Even if the neutrino mass today is several eV, the neutrinos are nearly massless during recombination and the mass does not directly affect the CMB spectrum. Indirectly, however, if $h$ is held constant, the MaVaNs theory would have a different distance to the last scattering which would change the position of the acoustic peaks. It is therefore necessary to refit the cosmological parameters in the MaVaNs theory in order to obtain accord with the CMB fluctuation spectrum.
In figure 1 we have plotted comparisons of $\rho{_\nu}$ for $\Lambda$CDM and MaVaNs for different neutrino masses to compare how the neutrino energy density should vary in the two theories. In figure 2 we have plotted how neutrinos with the same mass but different $\omega$ vary as a function of the scale factor in the MaVaNs theory. It might seem that we are violating the terrestrial bounds on $\Sigma$m$_\nu$. However studies of gravitational clustering of massive neutrinos in the background of dark matter halos find significant overdensities can occur, thus possibly reducing the neutrino mass as measured by terrestrial experiments [@Singh:2002de] relative to the mass influencing larger scale cosmology.
Note that the sterile neutrinos introduced in the MaVaNs theory do not affect cosmology as they are much heavier and out of thermal equilibrium at high redshift. Terrestrial evidence for sterile neutrinos with properties which would otherwise be incompatible with cosmology would be evidence in favor of MaVaNs[@Weiner:2005ac].
![\[fig:epsart\] Evolution of energy density for neutrinos in $\Lambda$CDM as compared to MaVaNs with $\omega$ = -1. ‘a’$=1/(1+z)$ is the scale factor.](rhonucomparison.pdf)
![\[fig:epsart\] Evolution of energy density for MaVaNs neutrinos with $\Sigma$m$_\nu$ = 6 eV but with $\omega$ = -1, -0.93, -0.86. ](rhonucomparisonomega.pdf)
Going back to equation \[3\] we can see for $\omega$ $\neq$ -1 the dark energy can also vary as a function of the scale factor. We find the quintessence energy density goes as follows in the non relativistic neutrino regime $$V_{0}(m_\nu) \propto m_\nu^{-k} \propto a^{-\frac{3 k}{1+k}}$$
As can be seen for $\omega$ = -1 i.e $\it k$ = 0 $V_0$ is a constant. But for $\omega$ $\neq$ -1 we get the acceleron potential to depend on the scale factor giving rise to varying dark energy density.
In our implementation of the MaVaNs neutrinos, the neutrinos act like matter after becoming non relativistic and are still influencing the evolution of dark energy.
Implemenation
=============
We used the Planck Likelihood calculator for the range 50 $\le$ $\it l$ $\le$ 2500 to find our base $\Lambda$CDM model which was implemented using the publicly available code CMBEASY. We used a Metropolis algorithm to vary $\Omega_m$h$^2$, $\Omega_b$h$^2$, $\it h$ and the scalar amplitude $A_s$ to find our best fit parameters. We however kept $\tau$ = 0.0925 and $n_s$ = 0.9624 which are the best fit values obtained by Planck [@PlanckCosmoParameters:2013]. We assumed a flat universe and $\Omega_\Lambda$ was set such that $\Omega_{total}$ = 1. We also have $\Sigma$m$_\nu$ = 0.06 eV and N$_{eff}$ = 3.046. For our best fit values for the base model, we obtained $\Omega_m$h$^2$ = 0.1385, $\Omega_b$h$^2$ = 0.02197, $\it h$ = 0.686 and $\sigma_8$ = 0.8237. These are somewhat different from the best fit values obtained by Planck [@PlanckCosmoParameters:2013]. We attribute this to the fact that we are using a different code to calculate the CMB anisotropy (CMBEASY as opposed to CAMB) and possibly somewhat different nuisance parameters (see the Appendix for the list of nuisance parameters). The fact that our best fit model is somewhat different from Planck’s best fit model does not affect the main point of the study, which is trying to compare different MaVaNs cosmologies with a base $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.
We implemented MaVaNs cosmology by making modifications to CMBEASY. Different MaVaNs cosmologies are parametrized by having different $\omega$ and $\Sigma$m$_\nu$. We found the best fit values for each of the MaVans cosmologies by following the same likelihood minimization procedure above.
For the cases where $\omega$$ \neq$ -1 we use the Quintessence class in CMBEASY. Since CMBEASY dosen’t have a class that models the MaVaNs potential, the specific potential we use is the inverse power law and we tune the exponent of our power law to give us dark energy density that we would expect from MaVaNs. Although we cannot get an exact MaVaNs like behavior for the quintessence energy density, we demand that they have similar values from z = 0 to z $\approx$ 4 after which the Dark Energy is subdominant compared to matter. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the fact that the inverse power law is a good approximate fit to what we would expect from MaVaNs.
Analysis
========
To compare the temperature power spectrum of a best fit MaVaNs model to the base $\Lambda$CDM model consult figure 5. As can be clearly seen the two spectra agree everywhere except at very low $\it l$, where the base MaVaNs spectrum gives a much larger $D_l$ than the base $\Lambda$CDM spectrum. The low $\it l$ spectrum is plotted in figure 6.
The low $\it l$ modes are affected by the late time ISW effect, which is increased because we have neutrinos which are acting like a significant amount of warm dark matter, and therefore less dark energy. We can potentially use this late time ISW effect to put bounds on the current neutrino mass. However we first have to account for the cosmic variance.The cosmic variance of the quadrupole is given by $\Delta$$D_2\ $ = 0.63$D_2$. The error bars which are mostly due to cosmic variance have been plotted in figure 6. As can be seen both the $\Lambda$CDM and MaVaNs with $\Sigma$m$_\nu$ = 6 lie outside the 1$\sigma$ error bars. Although it is true that the discrepancy is slightly pronounced for MaVaNs with $\Sigma$m$_\nu$ = 6 as compared to $\Lambda$CDM, it still does not contribute significantly more to $\Delta$$\chi^2$. Moreover, the mechanism that is causing the low $\it l$ anomaly for $\Lambda$CDM, such as running of the spectral tilt, will affect MaVaNs as well making the MaVaNs spectrum for low $\it l$ and in better concordance with observations. For these reasons we consider $\Sigma$m$_\nu$ = 6 to be an acceptable present day neutrino mass.[^1]
![\[fig:epsart\] The red curve shows the best fit temperature spectrum for our base $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.The blue curve show the best fit temperature spectrum for a MaVaNs cosmology with $\omega$ = -1 and $\Sigma$m$_\nu$ = 6 eV.As we can see the two curves agree really well for most values of $\it l$ except for the very low $\it l$. ](lcdmvsmavanstemperature.pdf)
![\[fig:epsart\] This is same as figure 5 except for low $\it l$ modes. The red curve shows the best fit temperature spectrum for our base $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.The blue curve show the best fit temperature spectrum for a MaVaNs cosmology with $\omega$ = -1 and $\Sigma$m$_\nu$ = 6 eV. Their corresponding error bars for the quadrupole are also shown. The two curves are different for $\it l$ $\le$ 10 but start concurring as we go higher in $\it l$.](lowllcdmvsmavanstemperature.pdf)
We have tabulated our results for the cosmological parameters of various cosmologies in table 1. Since we are scanning the parameter space over 4 parameters, the criterion for the error bars is that the log likelihood should not be more than 2.38 lower compared to the best fit model. This gives us our 68$\%$ bounds. $\Omega_b$h$^2$ and $\Omega_m$h$^2$ have not been listed because they were not found to change significantly with the model. This makes sense since the neutrinos in both cosmologies are effectively massless at and before recombination. This implies that recombination must have happened at the same redshift in either theory and hence $\rho_b$ and $\rho_m$ should be the same at recombination and hence throughout history in both cosmologies. This is also what we see in our likelihood fits. The only parameters that change significantly within cosmologies are H$_0$ and $\sigma_8$. H$_0$ is different between MaVaNs and base $\Lambda$CDM since the distance to last scattering is different in both theories for the same H$_0$ which will result in shifting in the position of the acoustic peaks. Thus H$_0$ has to be tuned in MaVaNs to get the correct distance to last scattering. The H$_0$ decreases with increasing $\omega$. For $\omega$ = -1, the best fit H$_0$ is slightly higher than the $\Lambda$CDM base model. For $\omega$ = -0.93 it is already significantly lower that $\Lambda$CDM base model. So as to not increase the tension between CMB measurements of H$_0$ and other measurements of H$_0$, $\omega$ lower than -0.93 is probably not feasible.
Possible Application to the $\sigma_8$ discrepancy in Planck
------------------------------------------------------------
The Planck Collaboration recently reported their results of the measurement of the anisotropy of the CMB background [@PlanckCosmoParameters:2013] and found it to be consistent with $\Lambda$CDM Cosmology. They reported the measured value of the RMS fluctuations of matter density in linear theory today to be $$\sigma_{8}=0.834\pm0.027 (68\%;Planck,\Sigma m_\nu=0.06 eV)$$
One can also determine the RMS fluctuations of the matter density by measuring cluster counts as a function of redshift. The Planck Collaboration measured this function from the Sunyaev-Zeldovich (SZ) effect on the CMB photons along whose line of sight the clusters lie. They used a sample of 189 clusters for whom the signal-to-noise ratio was more than seven. They found that the number of clusters in each red shift bin was significantly smaller than what you would expect from $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. They measured the RMS value of the matter density fluctuations to be [@PlanckSZ:2013]
$$\sigma_{8} = 0.77\pm0.02$$
in tension with the value derived from the temperature spectrum.
One way to reduce this tension would be to have a higher neutrino mass. However in $\Lambda$CDM cosmology increasing the neutrino mass decreases significantly the value of Hubble’s constant in order to get a good fit to the temperature power spectrum which increases the already existing tension between H$_0$ as measured by Planck and other experiments[@PlanckCosmoParameters:2013].
In order to resolve this issue we need to be able to change the matter power spectrum without affecting the temperature power spectrum. MaVaNs are a candidate for this purpose since they act as effectively massless during recombination but become massive later acting as warm dark matter. As evidenced by table 1 using MaVaNs we can get a significant decrease in $\sigma_8$ as calculated in linear theory without changing $\it h$ significantly.
Cosmology $\omega$ $\Sigma$m$_\nu$ (eV) $\it h$ $\sigma_8$
-------------- ---------- ---------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- --
$\Lambda$CDM -1 0.06 0.6855 $\pm$ 0.0125 (0.686) 0.824 $\pm$ 0.013 (0.824)
MaVaNs -1 3.00 0.691 $\pm$ 0.013 (0.691) 0.820 $\pm$ 0.013 (0.820)
MaVaNs -1 6.00 0.691 $\pm$ 0.012 (0.691) 0.806 $\pm$ 0.012 (0.807)
MaVaNs -0.96 3.00 0.681 $\pm$ 0.012 (0.680) 0.8135 $\pm$ 0.0125 (0.814)
MaVaNs -0.96 6.00 0.678 $\pm$ 0.014 (0.680) 0.801 $\pm$ 0.013 (0.799)
MaVaNs -0.93 3.00 0.6715 $\pm$ 0.0125 (0.672) 0.8075 $\pm$ 0.0125 (0.807)
MaVaNs -0.93 6.00 0.669 $\pm$ 0.013 (0.672) 0.793 $\pm$ 0.013 (0.792)
Conclusions
===========
We have shown when the other cosmological parameters are allowed to vary , a good fit can be obtained to the temperature fluctuation spectrum, even though the neutrino mass and hence the neutrino energy density become important at late times. The only cosmological parameters affected are H$_0$ (to match the distance to last scattering) and $\sigma_8$. We find that we can obtain a significantly smaller $\sigma_8$ in MaVaNs as compared to $\Lambda$CDM without changing H$_0$ very much. Hence MaVaNs are a possible solution to Planck $\sigma_8$ discrepancy. Including the low $\it l$ data in the likelihood calculation will help us put upper bounds on the current neutrino mass. We leave this for future studies.
An interesting corollary to these results is that in MaVaNs theories, CMB data do not constrain possible neutrino mass results in terrestrial experiments. A discrepancy between the neutrino mass as determined from the CMB fits and the neutrino mass determined locally would be strong evidence for MaVaNs.
The $\sigma_8$ that we have calculated here has been done in linear theory. Structure formation simulations which include mass varying neutrinos are called for to establish these results conclusively. In our study we assumed that the neutrinos do not clump. One can also study the cosmology in the case of a heavier acceleron where neutrino clumping occurs and ‘neutrino nuggets’ are formed. It will also be interesting to check the MaVaNs scenario described by [@Fardon:2006]. It also remains to be checked whether MaVaNs is consistent with other data sets such as BAO. We leave this for future studies.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors would like to thank the creators of CMBEASY code for making such a excellent and well documented code available to the public. We also would like to thank Tom Quinn for helpful discussions on the subject. Partial support was provided by the DOE under Grant No. DE-FG02-96ER40956.
Appendix: List of nuisance parameters used
==========================================
The nuisance parameters labelled as Planck were obtained from Table 5 of [@PlanckCosmoParameters:2013] and are the best fit values for Planck+WP data set. The remaining ones were guessed based on the priors listed in Table 4 of the same paper.\
$A^{PS}_{100}$ = 152 (Planck)\
$A^{PS}_{143}$ = 63.3 (Planck)\
$A^{PS}_{217}$ = 117.0 (Planck)\
$A^{CIB}_{143}$ = 0.0 (Planck)\
$A^{CIB}_{217}$ = 27.2 (Planck)\
$A^{tSZ}_{143}$ = 6.80 (Planck)\
$r^{PS}_{143*217}$ = 0.916 (Planck)\
$r^{CIB}_{143*217}$ = 0.406 (Planck)\
$\gamma$$^{CIB}$ = 0.601 (Planck)\
$c_{100}$ = 1.0006\
$c_{217}$ = 0.9966\
$\xi$$^{tsz*CIB}$ = 0.03(Planck)\
$A^{ksz}$ = 0.9(Planck)\
$\beta$$^{i}$$_{j}$ = 1\
[^1]: Here we have only considered the quadrupole since looking at Planck data the effects of the ISW effect will be most pronounced for $\it l$ = 2. In practice we should consider all multipoles with $\it l$ $\le$ 50 that we have so far neglected in our likelihood calculations. These have been left for future studies and in principle will help put an upper bound on MaVaNs masses.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Lattice Boltzmann Method(LBM) has achieved considerable success on simulating complex flows. However, how to impose correct boundary conditions on the fluid-solid interface with complex geometries is still an open question. Here we proposed a velocity interpolation based bounce-back scheme where the ideas of interpolated bounce-back and non-equilibrium extrapolation are combined. The proposed scheme is validated by several well-defined benchmark cases. It is shown that the proposed scheme offers a better accuracy at high Reynolds number and less dependency on solids positions which may crucial in many engineering and science applications.'
address:
- 'School of Civil Engineering, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia'
- 'State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing, China'
- 'Department of Civil Engineering and Industrial Design, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK'
- 'School of Engineering, Westlake University, Hangzhou, China'
author:
- Pei Zhang
- 'S.A. Galindo-Torres'
- Hongwu Tang
- Guangqiu Jin
- 'A. Scheuermann'
- Ling Li
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: 'Velocity interpolation based Bounce-Back scheme for non-slip boundary condition in Lattice Boltzmann Method'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Lattice Boltzmann Method(LBM) has emerged as an effective approach of Computational Fluid Dynamics(CFD) during the last decades, and it has attracted numerous interests in simulating complex flows. The success of LBM is mainly contributed by several unique advantages. First, the solution of advection in LBM is exact which reduce the numerical diffusion errors in conventional CFD methods [@van2006galilean]. Second, the locality of collision operator guarantees a high parallelization efficiency of LBM codes. Furthermore, microscopic interactions can be better represented in LBM due to the kinetic nature. However, how to impose correct boundary conditions on the fluid-solid interface (FSI) with complex geometries is still an open question. The most common assumption for FSI is non-slip boundary condition in which the fluid velocities at FSI are equal to solid surface velocities. There are mainly three categories of technologies in LBM to achieve non-slip boundary: Kinetic Boundary Conditions (KBC), partially saturated cells method (PSM) and Immersed Boundary Method (IBM).
The simplest KBC is the bounce-back scheme: fluid molecules which contact with the solid surface are reflected back to the fluid domain with opposite velocity. It has been proven that the bounce-back scheme holds the second-order accuracy of LBM in space. However, the bounce-back scheme can only be applied when FSI lies exactly at the nodes or middle of two neighbouring nodes (half-way bounce-back). Otherwise, the real FSI is replaced by an approximated stairwise boundaries which may damage the accuracy of LBM. The idea of using interpolation on distribution functions to reduce geometrical errors is firstly introduced by Bouzidi et al [@bouzidi2001momentum]. This interpolated bounce-back scheme is improved by Yu et al [@yu2003viscous] in which the treatments on distributions are unified regardless of the position of FSI. Filippova [@filippova1998grid] proposed other interpolation scheme and further modified by Mei et al. [@mei1999accurate] to improve the numerical stability. It is found that the relative errors of mentioned interpolation schemes depend on viscosity [@peng2016implementation], Ginzburg [@ginzburg2003multireflection] developed a multireflection boundary condition which is viscosity-independent. Information at three neighbouring nodes is needed in the multireflection boundary condition. However, there may not always have enough information to implement interpolations in practice, thus Tao et al. [@tao2018one] introduce an one-point second-order curved boundary condition recently. Guo et al. [@guo2002extrapolation] reconstituted the distributions at closest solid nodes by equilibrium and non-equilibrium part, the velocity, density and non-equilibrium are extrapolated from the fluid domain, also known as non-equilibrium extrapolation scheme. All KBCs share some common characters like sharp interfaces, no fluid inside of solids, direct modification on distributions.
The original PSM proposed by Noble et al. [@noble1998lattice; @cook2004direct] is designed for particulate flows. The basic idea is mixing the effects of fluid and bounce-back on FSI by volume average. The weighting strategy depends on solid volume fraction where $0$ means fully Saturated and $1$ means fully bounce-back. The biggest advantage of PSM is the smooth transition between fluid and solid nodes, and no refilling algorithms are needed for moving boundaries which is very common for KBCs. Also, the locality and flexibility of PSM are highly desirable for complex flows. For instance, PSM is coupled with Discrete Element Method (DEM) [@feng2007coupled] for dense particulate flows and also for general shaped particles [@galindo2013coupled; @galindo2015micro] by using the sphero-polyhedron technique [@galindo2012breaking; @galindo2009molecular; @galindo2010molecular; @galindo2013strength]. Recently, PSM is modified by Zhang et al. [@zhang2017efficient] with Multi-Relaxation model and an efficient particle contact detection strategy.
IBM proposed by Peskin [@peskin2002immersed] also attracted lots of attention due to its flexibility and robustness. Fluid feels solid boundaries by an external force field. Feng et al. [@feng2004immersed] combined IBM with LBM firstly, the penalty method is employed to link flows and particle motions. The IBM is enhanced by Luo et al. [@luo2007modified] where velocity distributions at the boundary layer are introduced to improve the accuracy near particle surfaces. The idea of momentum exchange is also combined with IBM to avoid user-defined parameters in penalty methods [@niu2006momentum]. Wu et al. [@wu2009implicit] notice that the non-slip condition is not exactly satisfied in explicit IBMs, thus an implicit velocity correction based IBM is proposed. Most of IBMs have a diffuse interface due to the smoothed external force field, the sharp interface can also be achieved in IBM as shown in [@kang2011comparative].
As mentioned, the sharp interface can only be found in KBCs and servral IBMs, thus KBCs are surposed to be more accurate. Here we presented an improved version of KBC where the ideas of interpolated bounce-back schemes and non-equilibrium extrapolation scheme are combined, the proposed scheme shows better accuracy at high Reynolds number and less dependency on solids positions which may crucial in many appilcations.
The structure of the paper is organized as follows: Sec. \[sec:lbm\] describes the basics of LBM. Sec. \[sec:bc\] explains the ideas and approximations of proposed scheme. And validations are presented in Sec. \[sec:benchmark\] with several well-defined benchmark cases. Finally Sec. \[sec:conclusion\] presents conclusions from the present work.
Lattice Boltzmann method for fluid {#sec:lbm}
==================================
Flows are solved by the Lattice Boltzmann Method [@galindo2012numerical; @galindo2013lattice] with the D2Q9 model where spaces are divided into square lattices and the velocity domain is discretized into 9 discrete velocity vectors as follows:
$$\resizebox{0.5\hsize}{!}
{$\overrightarrow{e}_i = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l l}
0, & \quad \text{$i$ = 0,}\\[0.5ex]
(\pm1,0,),(0,\pm1), & \quad \text{$i$ = 1 to 4,}\\[0.5ex]
(\pm1,\pm1), & \quad \text{$i$ = 5 to 8,}\\
\end{array} \right.$}$$
Based on the Chapman-Enskog expansion of the Boltzmann equation, an evolution rule is applied to every distribution function [@mohamad2011lattice]: $$f_i(\overrightarrow{x}+\overrightarrow{e}_i\delta{t},t+\delta{t}) = f_i(\overrightarrow{x},t) + \Omega_{col},$$ where $f_i$ is the probability distribution function, $\overrightarrow{x}$ is the position of the local lattice, $\delta{t}$ is the time step and $\Omega_{col}$ is the collision operator. The most widely used form of $\Omega_{col}$ is the so-called Bhatnagar-Gross-Krook (BGK) collision operator: $\Omega_{col} = \frac{\delta{t}}{\tau}(f^{eq}_{i}-f_i)$, with $f^{eq}_{i}$ the equilibrium distribution given by, $$f^{eq}_{i} = \omega_i\rho \bigg(1 + 3\frac{\overrightarrow{e}_i \cdot \overrightarrow{u}}{C^2} + \frac{9(\overrightarrow{e}_i \cdot \overrightarrow{u})^2}{2C^4} - \frac{3u^2}{2C^2}\bigg),
\label{eq:feq}$$ where $C=\delta{x}/\delta{t}$ is the characteristic lattice velocity ($\delta{x}$ is the lattice size), here we choose $C=\delta{x}=\delta{t}=1$. The weights are $\omega_0=4/9$, $\omega_i=1/9$ for $i=$1 to 4, and $\omega_i=1/36$ for $i=$5 to 8.
The BGK collision operator assumes that the collision only depends on a dimensionless relaxation time $\tau$, where $\tau=3\nu+0.5$. However, It’s found that the simulations become unstable when the value of $\tau$ is close to 0.5 [@galindo2013coupled]. Therefore, the BGK collision operator is only suitable for flow at relatively low Reynolds numbers. To overcome this limitation, the multiple relaxation time (MRT) collision operator is adopted in this study as follows:
$$\Omega_{col} = \mathbf{\hat{M}^{-1}\hat{S}}(m^{eq}_{i}-m_i),
\label{eq:mrt}$$
with $m_i=\mathbf{\hat{M}}f_i$, where $\mathbf{\hat{M}}$ is a matrix used to transform the probability distribution function $f_i$ to velocity moments linearly. For the D2Q9 model, the moments are arranged as: $m_0=\rho$; $m_1=e$; $m_2=\epsilon$; $m_{3,5}=j_{x,y}$ are components of the momentum $\overrightarrow{j}=(j_x,j_y)=\rho \overrightarrow{u}$; $m_{4,6}=q_{x,y}$ are related to components of the heat flux $\overrightarrow{q}=(q_x,q_y)$; $m_7=p_{xx}$; and $m_8=p_{xy}$ are related to the components of the strain-rate tensor. The equilibrium moments are the functions of conserved moments (density $\rho$ and moment density $\overrightarrow{j}$) and the non-conserved moments are given by [@lallemand2000theory], $$\begin{array}{cc}
m^{eq}_1=e^{eq}=\rho(-2+3\overrightarrow{j}\cdot\overrightarrow{j}), & m^{eq}_2=\epsilon^{eq}=\rho(1-3\overrightarrow{j}\cdot\overrightarrow{j}), \\[2ex]
m^{eq}_4=q_x^{eq}=-j_x, & m^{eq}_6=q_y^{eq}=-j_y, \\[2ex]
m^{eq}_7=p_{xx}^{eq}=\frac{{j_x}^2-{j_y}^2}{\rho}, & m^{eq}_8=p_{xy}^{eq}=\frac{j_x j_y}{\rho},
\end{array}$$ the transformation matrix is defined as: $$\mathbf{\hat{M}} = \begin{bmatrix}
\phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 \\[0.3em]
-4&-1 &-1 &-1 &-1 & \phantom{-}2 & \phantom{-}2 & \phantom{-}2 & \phantom{-}2 \\[0.3em]
\phantom{-}4 &-2 &-2 &-2 &-2 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 \\[0.3em]
\phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}0 &-1 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}1 &-1 &-1 & \phantom{-}1 \\[0.3em]
\phantom{-}0 &-2 & 0 & \phantom{-}2 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}1 &-1 &-1 & \phantom{-}1 \\[0.3em]
\phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}0 &-1 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 &-1 & \phantom{-}1 \\[0.3em]
\phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 &-2 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}2 & \phantom{-}1 & \phantom{-}1 &-1 &-1 \\[0.3em]
\phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}1 &-1 & \phantom{-}1 &-1 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 \\[0.3em]
\phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}0 & \phantom{-}1 &-1 & \phantom{-}1 &-1
\end{bmatrix}
\label{eq:M}$$
In Eq. \[eq:mrt\], $\mathbf{\hat{S}}$ is the diagonal relaxation matrix in velocity moments. The kinetic viscosity is related to $\mathbf{\hat{S}}$, the diagonal elements of $\mathbf{\hat{S}}$ is given as: $$\resizebox{0.45\hsize}{!}
{$s_{i,i} = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l l}
0.3, & \quad \text{$i$ = 0,3,5}\\[0.5ex]
1.5, & \quad \text{$i$ = 1,2}\\[0.5ex]
1.2, & \quad \text{$i$ = 4,6}\\[0.5ex]
\frac{1}{3\nu+0.5}, & \quad \text{$i$ = 7,8}\\
\end{array} \right.$}$$
Here the Mach number is defined as the ratio of the maximum velocity to $C$. When $Ma\ll1$, the LBE can be used to recover the Navier-Stokes equation. More detail can be found in [@mohamad2011lattice]. The macroscopic fluid properties such as density $\rho$ and flow velocity $\overrightarrow{u}$ can be determined by the zero-th and the first order moment of the distribution function: $$\begin{array}{ll}
\rho(\overrightarrow{x}) &= \sum_{i=0}^{8} f_i(\overrightarrow{x}),\\[2ex]
\overrightarrow{u}(\overrightarrow{x}) &= \frac{1}{\rho(\overrightarrow{x})} \sum_{i=0}^{8} f_i(\overrightarrow{x})\overrightarrow{e}_i ,
\end{array}$$
fluid-solid interface boundary conditions {#sec:bc}
=========================================
![Schematic of the bounce back role at FSI, where “s" for the closest solid node, “w" for wall, “f" for the boundary node, “ff" for the neighbouring fluid node of “f", “d" for the depart position where molecules arrive to “f" at next time step.[]{data-label="fig:ibb"}](ibb){width="0.8\linewidth"}
The no-penetration non-slip boundary condition needs to be imposed on the fluid-solid interface properly. There are mainly two categories of boundary schemes can satisfy the requirements. Firstly, macroscopic boundary conditions where macroscopic properties are modified, such as velocity corrected immersed boundary method in which the effects of boundaries are replaced by a smoothed external force field for fluid. In the second category, the distribution functions are used directly to impose boundary conditions. Here we consider the later one since it can maintain a sharp interface and fit the kinetic nature of LBM.
The computational nodes are divided into fluid nodes and solid nodes, the fluid nodes which are close to the solid boundary are further identified as boundary nodes (Fig. \[fig:ibb\]). Since the uniform-sized mesh is used in classic LBM, the curved boundaries generally locate between boundary nodes and solid nodes. Thus the distribution functions at boundary nodes which streamed from solid nodes are missing, the key task is to determine missing distribution functions properly.
The simplest solution is the bounce-back role where molecules depart from $f$ with velocity $\bm{e}_{i'}$ hit on wall and return back to node $f$ with opposite discrete velocity ($\bm{e}_{i}$). It is clear that the wall is assumed to be located at the middle point between point $s$ and $f$ regardless of the actual position. This assumption leads to stairwise boundaries which damage the second order accuracy of LBM. Therefore, Bouzidi et al [@bouzidi2001momentum] proposed an interpolated bounce-back scheme to reduce geometrical errors. As shown in Fig. \[fig:ibb\], molecules depart from $d$ with velocity $\bm{e}_{i'}$ will end up to node $f$ after bounce-back on the wall, the position of $d$ depends on $q=\abs{\bm{x}_f-\bm{x}_w}/\abs{\bm{x}_f-\bm{x}_s}$. For $q \leqslant 0.5$, the distribution function after collision $f^{+}_{i'}(\bm{x}_d,t)$ can be linearly interpolated using the information at node $f$ and $ff$. For $q>0.5$, $d$ lies between $f$ and $w$ where no information of distributions are known. Also, the exploration can be used but it’s unfavourable due to numerical stability issues and unbounded errors. After steaming, molecules depart from $f$ with velocity $\bm{e}_{i'}$ will end up to $d$, thus $f_{i}(\bm{x}_f,t+\delta{t})$ can be determined based on $f_{i}(\bm{x}_d,t+\delta{t})$ and $f_{i}(\bm{x}_ff,t+\delta{t})$. Bouzidi’s scheme can be summarized as:
$$f_{i}(\bm{x}_f,t+\delta{t}) = 2qf^{+}_{i'}(\bm{x}_f,t) + (1-2q)f^{+}_{i'}(\bm{x}_{ff},t) + 6\omega_{i'}\rho_{0}\frac{\bm{e}_i \cdot \bm{u}_{w}}{C^2}, \quad \text{$q \leqslant 0.5$}
\label{eq:q_less}$$
$$f_{i}(\bm{x}_f,t+\delta{t}) = \frac{1}{2q}(f^{+}_{i'}(\bm{x}_f,t)+ 6\omega_{i'}\rho_{0}\frac{\bm{e}_i \cdot \bm{u}_{w}}{C^2}) + \frac{2q-1}{2q}f_{i}(\bm{x}_{f},t), \quad \text{$q > 0.5$}
\label{eq:q_larger}$$
where $\bm{u}_w$ is the wall velocity, notice that the term in Eq. \[eq:q\_less\] and \[eq:q\_larger\] which including $\bm{u}_w$ indicates the momentum exchange due to the moving wall [@ladd1994numerical].
Yu et al [@yu2003viscous] proposed an unified interpolated bounce-back scheme regardless of the value of $q$. The idea is to evaluate distributions at wall $f_{i'}(\bm{x}_w,t+\delta{t})$ first, then the bounce-back role is applied, the missing distributions at $f$ after streaming $f_{i}(\bm{x}_f,t+\delta{t})$ is interpolated between $f_{i}(\bm{x}_w,t+\delta{t})$ and $f_{i}(\bm{x}_ff,t+\delta{t})$. Yu’s scheme can be summarized as: $$f_{i}(\bm{x}_w,t+\delta{t}) = qf^{+}_{i'}(\bm{x}_f,t) + (1-q)f^{+}_{i'}(\bm{x}_{ff},t) + 6\omega_{i'}\rho_{0}\frac{\bm{e}_i \cdot \bm{u}_{w}}{C^2},$$
$$f_{i}(\bm{x}_f,t+\delta{t}) = \frac{1}{1+q}(f_{i}(\bm{x}_w,t+\delta{t}) + \frac{q}{1+q}f_{i}(\bm{x}_{ff},t+\delta{t}),$$
velocity interpolation based bounce-back scheme {#sec:vibb}
-----------------------------------------------
Beside of interpolated bounce-back schemes, Guo et al [@guo2002extrapolation] introduced a non-equilibrium extrapolation boundary condition, where virtual distributions at solid node $s$ are decomposed into equilibrium part $f^{eq}_{i}(\bm{x}_s,t)$ and non-equilibrium part $f^{neq}_{i}(\bm{x}_s,t)$. $f^{eq}_{i}(\bm{x}_s,t)$ can be determined by Eq. \[eq:feq\] with $\bm{u}_s$ and $\rho_s$. Both $\bm{u}_s$ and $f^{neq}_{i}(\bm{x}_s,t)$ are extrapolated from fluid nodes $f$ and $ff$. Since the fluctuation of density is of order $O({Ma}^2)$, $\rho_s$ is approximated as $\rho_s=\rho_f$. The main idea behind Guo’s scheme is the fact that the distributions are dominated by the equilibrium part since the variations of $f^{neq}$ are one order smaller than $f^{eq}$. Thus it is safe to extrapolate $f^{neq}$ with second order accuracy [@guo2002extrapolation].
Here we combine the idea of interpolated bounce-back and non-equilibrium extrapolation/interpolation together. As shown in Fig. \[fig:ibb\], the unkown $f_{i}(\bm{x}_f,t+\delta{t})$ is determined by bounce-back role: $$f_{i}(\bm{x}_f,t+\delta{t}) = f^{+}_{i'}(\bm{x}_d,t) + 6\omega_{i'}\rho_{0}\frac{\bm{e}_i \cdot \bm{u}_{w}}{C^2},
\label{eq:eqneq}$$ where $f^{+}_{i'}(\bm{x}_d,t)$ is given as: $$f^{+}_{i'}(\bm{x}_d,t) = f^{eq}_{i'}(\rho_d,\bm{u}_d) + f^{neq}_{i'}(\bm{x}_d,t),
\label{eq:eqneq}$$ $\rho_d$ is extrapolated/interpolated as $$\rho_d = 2q\rho_f + (1-2q)\rho_{ff},
\label{eq:rhod}$$ And $f^{neq}_{i'}(\bm{x}_d,t)$ is handled in the same way and rescaled by density ratio: $$f^{neq}_{i'}(\bm{x}_d,t) = 2q(f^{+}_{i'}(\bm{x}_f,t)-f^{eq}_{i'}(\bm{x}_f,t))\frac{\rho_d}{\rho_f} + (1-2q)(f^{+}_{i'}(\bm{x}_{ff},t)-f^{eq}_{i'}(\bm{x}_{ff},t))\frac{\rho_{d}}{\rho_{ff}},
\label{eq:neqd}$$
As shown in Guo’s scheme, velocities play the most important roles in determining unknown distributions. Fortunately, both $\bm{u}_w$, $\bm{u}_f$ and $\bm{u}_{ff}$ are known. $\bm{u}_d$ in Eq. \[eq:eqneq\] can be evaluated by linear interpolation separately: $$\resizebox{0.6\hsize}{!}
{$\bm{u}^{*}_d = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\text{$2q\bm{u}_f + (1-2q)\bm{u}_{ff}$}, & \quad \text{$q \leqslant 0.5$,}\\[3ex]
\text{$\frac{1-q}{q}\bm{u}_f + \frac{2q-1}{q}\bm{u}_w$}, & \quad \text{$q > 0.5$,}\\[0.ex]
\end{array} \right.$}
\label{eq:bouzidi}$$ or linearly interpolated between $\bm{u}_w$ and $\bm{u}_{ff}$ regardless of $\bm{u}_{f}$: $$\bm{u}^{**}_d = \frac{1-q}{1+q}\bm{u}_{ff} + \frac{2q}{1+q}\bm{u}_w,
\label{eq:neqd}$$ $\bm{u}_d$ is calculated by weighted averange as shown in Fig. \[fig:interpolation\]: $$\bm{u}_d = \frac{1}{3}\bm{u}^{*}_d + \frac{2}{3}\bm{u}^{**}_d,
\label{eq:neqd}$$
We choose above interpolation scheme because of the following observation: $\bm{u}_w$ and $\bm{u}_{ff}$ are supposed to be more accurate since they are not affected by the unknown distributions. Thus $\bm{u}^{*}_d$ which including $\bm{u}_{f}$ is assigned with less weight. Notes that above boundary scheme cannot be recovered to the bounce-back scheme when $q=0.5$. However, Peng et al [@peng2016implementation] report that errors of linear interpolated bounce-back increase with $q$, thus recovering to bounce-back scheme do not guarantee a better accuracy. Later, we will show this inconsistency have trivial effects on results.
![Schematic of velocity interpolation schemes.[]{data-label="fig:interpolation"}](interpolation){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Benchmark and discussion {#sec:benchmark}
========================
Poiseuille flow with a moving wall {#sec:poiseuille}
----------------------------------
To evaluate the accuracy of the proposed boundary condition with well-defined geometries, the Poiseuille flow with a moving wall is chosen as the first benchmark case as shown in Fig. \[fig:poiseuille\]. The bottom wall is fixed and halfway bounce-back is applied, while the top wall is moving with $u_{top}$ and different boundary conditions are tested. The fluid is initially rest and driven by a constant body force $g$ along the x-direction. The analytical solution for steady state is given as[@peng2016implementation] $$u_x = -\frac{g}{2\nu}y^2+\bigg(\frac{g}{2\nu}H + \frac{u_{top}}{H}\bigg)y,
\label{eq:exact}$$ where $H$ is the height of the channel and $y$ is the vertical coordinate. A $L \times L$ domain size is used and the top wall is placed above the highest lattices with distance $q$. $q$ varies between 0 and 1. Since $H$ varies with $q$, the Reynolds number is defined as $Re=u_{top}L/\nu$. The parameters are chosen as: $L=60$, $g=1.0\times 10^{-6}$, $u_{top}=0.01$. Two values of viscosity are used $\nu=0.1$ and $\nu=0.01$ which correspond $Re=6$ and $60$.
Simulated velocity profile are compared with the analytical solution in Fig \[fig:vel\_re60\] at $Re=60$ and $q=0.8$. Overall, all boundary schemes provide reasonable results. However, the proposed scheme shows a better accuracy compared with Bouzidi and Yu’s scheme in the zoom-in view (Fig \[fig:vel\_zoom\_re60\]). Previous studies [@peng2016implementation] indicate that errors depend on the value of $q$, Fig. \[fig:error\_re6\] and Fig. \[fig:error\_re60\] show errors vary with $q$ at $Re=6$ and $Re=60$. Here the error is defined as:$\left| (u_s - u_e)/u_e \right|$ where $u_s$ is simulated velocity and $u_e$ is the exact value from Eq. \[eq:exact\]. At low $Re$, all three schemes show identical pattern at small $q$ while the proposed scheme shows slightly less error at large $q$. In practice, the global error mainly depends on the maximum local error, thus a small improvement on maximum local error can still considerably increase the overall accuracy. At high $Re$, it is clear that the proposed scheme performs much better, especially at large $q$. Furthermore, errors decrease with increasing $q$ when $q>0.5$ and almost one order magnitude smaller than other schemes. Peng et al [@peng2016implementation] argue that quadratic interpolation schemes have better consistency than linear schemes since quadratic schemes have converging error at $q=0$ and $q=1$. The proposed scheme also shows significant improvements in terms of consistency at high $Re$. These improvements are mainly due to the usage of $\bm{u}_w$ which eliminate the unphysical slipping on boundaries. To investigate the effect of $\tau$, $q$ is fixed to $0.8$ and $\tau$ varies between $0.5$ and $1$ which is the typical range of $\tau$ in practices. As shown in Fig. \[fig:error\_tau\], the proposed scheme shows less dependence on $\tau$ than others.
![Schematic of Poiseuille flow with a moving wall.[]{data-label="fig:poiseuille"}](poiseuille){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![Simulated velocity profile at $Re=60$ and $q=0.8$.[]{data-label="fig:vel_re60"}](vel_re60){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![A zoom-in view of Fig. \[fig:vel\_re60\].[]{data-label="fig:vel_zoom_re60"}](vel_zoom_re60){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![Errors as a function of $q$ at $Re=6$.[]{data-label="fig:error_re6"}](error_re6){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![Errors as a function of $q$ at $Re=60$.[]{data-label="fig:error_re60"}](error_re60){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![$\tau$ effect on errors at $q=0.8$.[]{data-label="fig:error_tau"}](error_tau){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Cylindrical Couette flow {#sec:couette}
------------------------
Another classic benchmark is the cylindrical Couette flow which involves curved boundaries as shown in Fig. \[fig:couette\]. Two cylinders are placed at the centre of the domain ($L \times L$), where the inner cylinder rotating with a constant angular velocity $\omega_1$ and the outer cylinder is fixed. To evaluate the order of accuracy of the proposed scheme, the radius of cylinders are set as $R_1=L/4.8$ and $R_2=L/2.4$. The analytical solution for steady state is given as $$\frac{u_r}{\omega_1 R_1} = \frac{R_1 R_2}{R_2^2-R_1^2}\bigg(\frac{R_2}{r}-\frac{r}{R_2}\bigg),
\label{eq:exact2}$$ where $u_r$ is the velocity component which perpendicular to the radial direction and $r$ is the radial distance from the centre of cylinders. Four values of $L$ are used in simulations: $20, 40, 80, 160$ and viscosity varies with $\omega_1$ to fix Reynolds number as $Re=6$ and $60$.
The relative errors against resolutions are plotted on a log scale in Fig. \[fig:error\_vs\_l\_re6\] and Fig. \[fig:error\_vs\_l\_re60\] for $Re=6$ and $Re=60$ respectively. The results of Yu’s scheme are also presented as a comparison. The results confirm that interpolated bounce-back schemes are generally second-order accuracy. The proposed scheme shows more accurate at all resolutions. Compared to Fig. \[fig:error\_re6\] in which all schemes have identical errors at low $Re$, it is surprising that the proposed scheme performs better regardless of $Re$. This superiority can be explained by the fact that errors increase with $q$ thus little improvements for large $q$ can significantly increase accuracy. It can be also found in Fig. \[fig:error\_re6\] and \[fig:error\_re60\] that the accuracy of the proposed scheme is slightly better than second-order, especially at high resolution. The errors are found linearly increased with $Re$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:error\_vs\_re\] ($L=160$), but the proposed scheme shows less dependence on $Re$ where errors of Yu’s scheme increases dramatically at high $Re$ in comparison.
![Schematic of cylindrical Couette flow.[]{data-label="fig:couette"}](couette){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![Errors as a function of resolutions at $Re=6$.[]{data-label="fig:error_vs_l_re6"}](error_vs_l_re6){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![Errors as a function of resolutions at $Re=60$.[]{data-label="fig:error_vs_l_re60"}](error_vs_l_re60){width="0.8\linewidth"}
![Errors as a function of Reynolds number.[]{data-label="fig:error_vs_re"}](error_vs_re){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Magnus effect {#sec:magnus}
-------------
To further validate the proposed scheme for more complex flows, simulations of a rotating particle immersed in a Poiseuille flow are also carried out. Non-equilibrium extrapolation scheme is used for the left velocity inlet and zero velocity gradient outlet for the right side. Zero velocity gradient is achieved by simply modify all distributions at the boundary equal to the distributions at closest fluid nodes. The top and bottom boundaries are set as solid walls. The particle spins with a constant angular velocity $\omega$. An additional lift force acts on the particle due to the rotation. This phenomenon is due to the well-known Magnus effect. To speed up the convergence of equilibrium state, the fluid field is initialized to the Poiseuille flow as $u_x= 4U\frac{y}{L}(1-\frac{y}{L})$, where $U$ is the unperturbed mainstream speed (along with the x-direction). A lift coefficient, which indicates the magnitude of the lift force, can be obtained as $C_L = \frac{F_y}{\rho_f U^2 R}$ depending on the lift force $F_y$. Here, the Reynolds number is defined as $Re=\frac{2 U R}{\nu}$. Another dimensionless number is the spin number $S_{pa}=\frac{\omega R}{U}$. The domain size is $L=400$ and radius of the particle $R=10$. Fluid properties are fixed as $U=0.05, \nu=0.02$. Fig. \[fig:spa\_vs\_cl\] shows the lift coefficient varying with the spin number at $Re=20$. It also shows an excellent agreement with the results of Kang et al. [@kang1999laminar] and Ingham and Tang [@ingham1990numerical].
![Lift coefficient $C_L$ as a function of the spin number $S_{pa}$.[]{data-label="fig:spa_vs_cl"}](spa_vs_cl){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Concluding remarks {#sec:conclusion}
==================
A velocity interpolation based Bounce-Back scheme has been developed in this study. We combine the ideas of interpolated bounce-back schemes and non-equilibrium extrapolation scheme. The proposed scheme is validated by numbers of well-defined benchmark cases including Poiseuille flow with a moving wall, cylindrical Couette flow and Magnus effect. It is shown that the proposed scheme provides better accuracy at high Reynolds number and less dependency on solids positions which may crucial in many applications.
Acknowledgement {#sec:Acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'L. Pandolfi[^1]'
title: 'The quadratic regulator problem and the Riccati equation for a process governed by a linear Volterra integrodifferential equations[^2]'
---
[**:**]{} In this paper we study the quadratic regulator problem for a process governed by a Volterra integral equation in ${{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n$. Our main goal is the proof that it is possible to associate a Riccati differential equation to this quadratic control problem, which leads to the feedback form of the optimal control. This is in contrast with previous papers on the subject, which confine themselves to study the Fredholm integral equation which is solved by the optimal control.
[**:**]{}Quadratic regulator problem, Volterra integrodifferential equations, Riccati equation
[**:**]{} 93B22, 45D05, 49N05, 49N35
Introduction
============
The quadratic regulator problem for control processes regulated by linear differential equations both in finite and infinite dimensional spaces has been at the center of control theory at least during the last eighty years, after the proof that the synthesis of dissipative systems amounts to the study of a (singular) quadratic control problem (see [@Brune]). In this period, the theory reached a high level of maturity and the monographs [@Bittanti; @lasieckaTriggENcicl] contain the crucial ideas used in the study of the quadratic regulator problems for lumped and distributed systems (see [@BucciPANDO1; @BucciPANDO2; @PandSing1; @Pandsing2; @Pandsing3] for the singular quadratic regulator problem for distributed systems).
In recent times, the study of controllability of systems described by Voterra integrodifferential equations (in Hilbert spaces) has been stimulated by several applications (see [@Pandlibro]) while the theory of the quadratic regulator problem for these systems is still at a basic level. In essence, we can cite only the paper [@Pritch] and some applications of the results in this paper, see for example [@HUANGliWANG]. In these papers, the authors study a standard regulator problem for a system governed by a Volterra integral equation (in a Hilbert space and with bounded operators. The paper [@HUANGliWANG] and some other applications of the results in [@Pritch] studies a stochastic system) and the synthesis of the optimal control is given by relying on the usual variational approach and Fredholm integral equation for the optimal control. The authors of these papers do not develop a Riccati differential equation and this is our goal here. In order to avoid the technicalities inevitably introduce by the presence of unbounded operators which are introduced by the action of boundary controls, we confine ourselves to study Volterra integral equations in ${{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n$.
The control problem we consider is described by $${\label}{eq:Volte}
x'={\int_0 ^t}N(t-s)x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+ Bu(t)\,,\qquad x(0)=x_0$$ where $x\in {{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n$, $u\in {{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^m$, $B$ is a constant $n\times m$ matrix and $N(t)$ is a continuous $n\times n$ matrix (extension to $B=B(t)$ and $N=N(t,s)$ is simple). Our goal is the study of the minimization of the standard quadratic cost $${\label}{eq:costoAZERO}
{\int_0 ^T}\left [ x^*(t) Qx(t) +|u(t)|^2\right ]{\;\mbox{\rm d}}t+ x^*(T)Q_0x(T)$$ where $Q=Q^*\geq 0$, $Q_0=Q_0^*\geq 0$.
Existence of a unique optimal control in $L^2(0,T;{{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^m)$ for every fixed $x_0\in {{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n$ is obvious.
The plan of the paper is as follows: in order to derive a Riccati differential equation, we need a suitable “state space” in which our system evolves. In fact, a Volterra integral equation is a semigroup system in a suitable infinite dimensional space (see [@Nagel Ch. 6]) and we could relay on this representation of the Volterra equation to derive a theory of the Riccati equation in a standard way but the shortcoming is that the “state space” is $ {{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n\times L^2(0,+{\infty};{{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n)$ and the Riccati differential equation so obtained should be solved in a space with infinite memory, even if the process is considered on a finite time interval $[0,T]$. We wish a “Riccati differential equation” in a space which has a “short memory”, say of duration at most $T$, as required by the optimization problem. So, we need the introduction of a different “state space approach” to Eq. (\[eq:Volte\]). This is done in Sect. \[sec:SateDyn\] where, using dynamic programming, we prove that the minimum of the cost is a quadratic form which satisfy a (suitable version) of the Linear Operator Inequality [**(LOI)**]{}.
Differentiability properties of the cost are studied in section \[sect:DIFFEpropri\] (using a variational approach to the optimal control related to the arguments in [@Pritch]). The regularity properties we obtain finally allows us to write explicitly a system of partial differential equations (with a quadratic nonlinearity) on $[0,T]$, which is the version of the Riccati differential equations for our system.
We believe that the introduction of the state space in Sect. \[sec:SateDyn\] is a novelty of this paper.
[sec:SateDyn]{}The state of the Volterra integral equation, and the [**(LOI)**]{}
=================================================================================
According to the general definition in [@Kalman]), the state at time ${\tau}$ is the information at time ${\tau}$ needed to uniquely solve the equation for $t>{\tau}$ (assuming the control is known for $t>{\tau}$).
It is clear that if ${\tau}=0$ then the sole vector $x_0$ is sufficient to solve equation (\[eq:Volte\]) in the future, and the state space at ${\tau}=0$ is ${{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n$. Things are different if we solve the equation till time ${\tau}$ and we want to solve it in the future. In this case, Eq. (\[eq:Volte\]) for $t>{\tau}$ takes the form $${\label}{eq:volteat0}
x'=\int_{{\tau}}^t N(t-s)x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+B u(t)+ \int_0^{{\tau}} N(t-s)x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,.$$ In order to solve this equation for $t>{\tau}$ we must know the pair[^3] $X_{{\tau}}=\left (x({\tau}),x_{{\tau}}(\cdot) \right )$ where $x_{{\tau}}(s) =x(s)$, $s\in (0,{\tau})$.
Note that in order to uniquely solve (\[eq:volteat0\]), $x_{{\tau}}(\cdot)$ needs not be a segment of previously computed trajectory. It can be an “arbitrary” function. This observation suggests the definition of the following state space at time ${\tau}$: $$M^2_{{\tau}}={{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n\times L^2(0,{\tau};{{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n)$$ (to be compare with the state space of differential equations with a fixed delay $h$ which is ${{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n\times L^2(-h,0;{{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n)$).
Eq. (\[eq:volteat0\]) defines, for every fixed $u$ and ${\tau}_1>{\tau}$, a solution map from $M^2_{{\tau}}$ to $M^2_{{\tau}_1}$ which is affine linear and continuous. An explicit expression of this map can be obtained easily. Let us fix an initial time ${\tau}\geq 0$. Let $t\geq {\tau}$ and let $Z(t,{\tau})$ be the $n\times n$ matrix solution of $${\label}{eq:diZgrande}
\frac{{\;\mbox{\rm d}}}{{\;\mbox{\rm d}}t}Z(t,{\tau})=\int_{{\tau}}^t Z(\xi,{\tau})N(t-\xi) {\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi\,,\quad Z({\tau},{\tau})=I \,.$$ Then,
$${\label}{eq:evoluzione}
x(t)=Z(t,{\tau}) \hat x +\int_0 ^{{\tau}} Y(t,s;{\tau}) \tilde x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+\int _{{\tau}}^t Z(t-r+{\tau},{\tau})B u(r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r$$
where $$Y(t,s;{\tau})=\int_{{\tau}}^t Z(t-\xi+{\tau},{\tau})N(\xi-s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi\,.$$
This way, for every ${\tau}_{1}>{\tau}$ we define two linear continuous transformations: $E({\tau}_1;{\tau})$ from $M^2_{{\tau}}$ to $M^2_{{\tau}_1}$ (when $u=0$) and $\Lambda({\tau}_1;{\tau})$ from $L^2({\tau},{\tau}_1;{{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^m)$ to $M^2_{{\tau}_1}$ (when $X_{{\tau}}=0$), as follows: $$E({\tau}_1;{\tau})(\hat x,\tilde x(\cdot))=(x({\tau}_1),y)\qquad y=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
x(t)\ \mbox{given by~(\ref{eq:evoluzione})}&{\rm if}& {\tau}<t<t_1\\
\tilde x(t) &{\rm if} & t\in (0,{\tau})\,.
\end{array}
\right.$$ The operator $\Lambda({\tau}_1;{\tau})$ is defined by the same formula as $E({\tau}_1;{\tau})$, but when $X_{{\tau}}=0$ and $u\neq 0$.
The evolution of the system is describe by the operator $${\label}{eq:evoluSISTE}
E(t_1;{\tau})X_{{\tau}}+\Lambda(t_1;{\tau})u\,.$$
The evolutionary properties of this operator follow from the unicity of solutions of the Volterra integral equation. Let us consider Eq. (\[eq:volteat0\]) on $[{\tau},T]$ with initial condition $(\hat x,\tilde x(\cdot))$, whose solution is given by (\[eq:evoluzione\]). Let ${\tau}_1\in ({\tau},T)$ and let us consider Eq. (\[eq:volteat0\]) on $[{\tau}_1,T]$ but with initial condition $\left (x({\tau}_1),x_{{\tau}_1}\right )$. Eq. (\[eq:volteat0\]) on $[{\tau}_1,T]$ and this initial condition takes the form $$x'(t)=\int _{{\tau}_1} ^t N(t-s) x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+Bu(t)+\int_0^{{\tau}_1}N(t-s) x_{{\tau}_1}(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,,\qquad x({\tau}_1^+)=x({\tau}_1^-)$$ and so, on $[{\tau}_1,T]$ we have $$x'(t)=Z(t,{\tau}_1)x({\tau}_1^-) +\int_0^{{\tau}_1} Y(t,s;{\tau}_1) x_{{\tau}_1}(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+\int _{{\tau}_1}^t Z(t-s-{\tau}_1,{\tau}_1)Bu(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,.$$ Unicity of the solutions of the Volterra integral equation shows that, for $t\in ({\tau}_1,T]$ the following equality holds $$E(t,{\tau})\left (\hat x,\tilde x\right )+\Lambda(t;{\tau})u=E(t,{\tau}_1)\left [ E({\tau}_1,{\tau})\left (\hat x,\tilde x\right )+\Lambda({\tau}_1;{\tau})u\right ]+ \Lambda(t;t_1)u\,.$$
[rema:DerivZistiniz]{}
The solution $Z(t,{\tau})$ of Eq. (\[eq:diZgrande\]) solves the following Volterra integral equation on $[{\tau},T]$: $$Z(t)=1+\int_{\tau}^t Z(\xi)M(t-\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi\,,\qquad M(t)={\int_0 ^t}N(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,.$$ The usual Picard iteration gives $$\begin{aligned}
Z(t,{\tau})&=1+\int_{\tau}^t M(t-\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi+\int_{\tau}^t \int_{\tau}^\xi M(\xi-\xi_1){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi_1 M(t-\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi+\cdots=\\
&= 1+\int_{\tau}^t M(t-\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi+\int_{\tau}^t \int_0^{t-s} M(t-s-r)M(r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r{\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+\cdots \end{aligned}$$ The properties of these integrals is that, once exchanged, we have $$Z(t,{\tau})=1+\int_{\tau}^t H(t-s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s$$ where $H(t)$ does not depend on ${\tau}$ and it is differentiable. It follows that *the function $({\tau},t)\mapsto Z(t,{\tau})$ is continuously differentiable on $0<{\tau}<t<T$ and the derivative has continuous extension to $0\leq {\tau}\leq t\leq T$.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we begin our study of the quadratic regulator problem and of the Riccati equation.
One of the possible ways to derive an expression of the optimal control and possibly a Riccati differential equation for the quadratic regulator problem is via dynamic programming. We follow this way. For every fixed ${\tau}<T$ we introduce $$J_{{\tau}}\left (X_{{\tau}},u\right )={\int_{\tau}^T}\left [ x^*(t)Qx(t) +|u(t)|^2\right ]{\;\mbox{\rm d}}t +x^*(T)Q_0x(T)$$ where $x(t)$ is the solution of (\[eq:volteat0\]) (given by (\[eq:evoluzione\])) and we define $${\label}{eq:identiLOI}
W({\tau};{X_{{\tau}}})=\min _{u\in L^2({\tau},T;{{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^m)} J_{{\tau}}\left ({X_{{\tau}}},u\right )\,.$$ Existence of the minimum is obvious and we denote $u^+(t)=u^+(t;{\tau},{X_{{\tau}}})$ the optimal control. The corresponding solution is denoted $x^+(t)=x^+(t;{\tau},{X_{{\tau}}})$ while we put $X^+_{t }=\left (x^+(t ),x^+_{t }{(\cdot)}\right )$.
Let us fix any ${{\tau}_1} \in ({\tau},T)$ and let $u(t)=u^1(t)$ if $t\in ({\tau},{{\tau}_1} )$, $u(t)=u^2(t)$ if $t\in ({{\tau}_1} ,T)$, while $$X^1_t=E(t,{\tau}){X_{{\tau}}}+\Lambda(t,{\tau})u^1\quad t\in[{\tau},{{\tau}_1} ]\,,\quad
X^2_t=E(t,{{\tau}_1} )X^1_{{{\tau}_1}} +\Lambda(t,{{\tau}_1} )u^2\quad t\in[{{\tau}_1} ,T]\,.$$ We noted that $X (t;{\tau},X_{{\tau}})$ given by (\[eq:evoluSISTE\]) on $[{\tau},T]$ is equal to $X^1_t$ on $[{\tau},{{\tau}_1} ]$ and to $X^2_t$ on $[{{\tau}_1} ,T]$.
Let $x^i$ be the ${{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n$ component of $X^i$. Then, for every $u$ we have (we use the crochet to denote the inner product instead of the more cumberstome notation $\left (x^1(t)\right )^*Q x_1(t)$) $${\label}{eq:PREloi}
W({\tau},{X_{{\tau}}})\leq \int_{{\tau}}^{{\tau}_1} \left [{\langle}Qx^1(t),x^1(t){\rangle}+|u^1(t)|^2\right ]{\;\mbox{\rm d}}t+J_{{\tau}_1} \left ( X^1_{{\tau}_1} ,u^2\right )\,.$$ This inequality holds for every $u^1$ and $u^2$ and equality holds when $u^1$ and $u^2$ are restrictions of the optimal control $u^+$.
We keep $u^1$ fixed and we compute the minumum of the right hand side respect to $u^2$. We get the Linear Operator Inequality [**(LOI)**]{}: $${\label}{eqDiseqLOI}
W({\tau},X_{{\tau}})\leq \int _{{\tau}}^{{\tau}_1} \left [{\langle}Qx^1(t),x^1(t){\rangle}+|u^1(t)|^2\right ]{\;\mbox{\rm d}}t+W\left ({{\tau}_1} ,X^1_{{\tau}_1} \right )\,.$$ This inequality holds for every control $u\in L^2({\tau},{{\tau}_1} ;{{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n)$. Let in particular $u^1$ be the restriction to $({\tau},{{\tau}_1} )$ of $u^+(\cdot)=u^+(\cdot;{\tau},X_{{\tau}})$. Inequality (\[eq:PREloi\]) shows that the minimum of $J_{{\tau}_1} \left ( X^1_{{\tau}_1} ,u^2\right )$ cannot be strictly less then $J_{{\tau}_1} \left ( X^1_{{\tau}_1} ,u^+\right )$, i.e. the optimal control of the cost $J_{{\tau}_1} \left ( X^1_{{\tau}_1} ,u^2\right )$ is the restriction to $({{\tau}_1} ,T)$ of $u^+(t)$, the optimal control of $J_{{\tau}}\left (X_{{\tau}},u\right )$.
Equality holds in (\[eqDiseqLOI\]) if $u^1=u^+$.
In conclusion, we divide with ${{\tau}_1-{\tau}} $ (which is positive) and we find the following inequality, *which holds with equality if $u=u^+$:* $$\frac{1}{{{\tau}_1-{\tau}} }\left [W\left ({{\tau}_1} ;X^1_{{\tau}_1} \right )-W\left ( {\tau};X_{{\tau}}\right )\right ]\geq -\frac{1}{{{\tau}_1-{\tau}} } \int _{{\tau}}^{{\tau}_1} \left [
{\langle}Qx^1(t),x^1(t){\rangle}+|u(t)|^2
\right ]{\;\mbox{\rm d}}t\,.$$ So, the following inequality holds when ${\tau}$ is a Lebesgue point of $u(t)$ (every ${\tau}$ if $u$ is continuous): $${\label}{eq:PrimaFormINEqEQ}
\lim\inf _{{{\tau}_1} \to {\tau}^+}\frac{1}{{{\tau}_1-{\tau}} }\left [W\left ({{\tau}_1} ;X^1_{{\tau}_1} \right )-W\left ( {\tau};X_{{\tau}}\right )\right ]\geq -\left [ {\langle}Q x({\tau}),x({\tau}){\rangle}+|u({\tau})|^2\right ]\,.$$ Equality holds if $u=u^+$ and ${\tau}$ is a Lebesgue point of $u^+$ and in this case we can even replace $\liminf$ with $\lim$, i.e. $W\left ({{\tau}_1} ;X^+_{{\tau}_1} \right )$ is differentiable if ${\tau}$ is a Lebesgue points of $u^+$.
The previous argument can be repeated for every ${\tau}$ so that the previous inequalities/equalities holds $a.e.$ on $[0,T]$ and we might even replace ${\tau}$ with the generic notation $t$.
If it happens that $\ker N(t)= S$, a subspace of ${{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n$, we might also consider as the second component of the “state” $X_{{\tau}}$ the projection of $\tilde x$ on (any fixed) complement of $S$, similar to the theory developed in [@DelfourMANITIUS; @FABRIZIOPATA]. We dont’t pursue this approach here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[sect:DIFFEpropri]{}The regularity properties of the value function, the synthesis of the optimal control and the Riccati equation
==================================================================================================================================
We prove that $W$ is a continuous quadratic form with smooth coefficients and we prove that $u^+(t)$ is continuous (so that every time $t$ is a Lebesgue point of $u^+(t)$). We arrive at this result via the variational characterization of the optimal pair $(u^+,x^+)$ ($x^+$ is the ${{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n$-component of $X^+$) in the style of [@Pritch]. The standard perturbation approach gives a representation of the optimal control (and a definition of the adjoint state $p(t)$): $${\label}{eq:defiOTTIMcontroVariaz}
u^+(t)=-B^*\left [\int_t^T Z^*(s-t+{\tau},{\tau})Q x^+ (r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r +Z^*(T-t+{\tau},{\tau})Q_0x^+(T) \right ]=-B^* p(t)$$ where $p$, the function in the bracket, solves the adjoint equation $${\label}{eq:aggiunta}
p'(t)=-Qx^+(t)-\int_t^T N^*(s-t)p(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,,\qquad p(T)=Q_0 x^+(T)\,.$$
Note that $p$ depends on ${\tau}$ and that Eq. (\[eq:aggiunta\]) has to be solved (backward) on the interval $[{\tau},T]$.
The simplest way to derive the differential equation (\[eq:aggiunta\]) is to note that the function $q(t)=p(T-t)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
q(t)&=\int_{T-t}^T Z^*(s-T+{\tau}+t,t)Qx^+(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+Z^*(t+{\tau},{\tau})Q_0x^+(T)=\\
&={\int_0 ^t}Z^*(t-r+{\tau},{\tau})Qx^+(T-r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r+Z^*(t+{\tau},{\tau})Q_0x^+(T)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Comparison with (\[eq:evoluzione\]) shows that $q(t)$ solves $$q'(t)={\int_0 ^t}N^*(t-s)q(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+Qx^+(T-t)\,,\qquad q(0)=Q_0x^+(T)$$ from which the equation of $p(t)$ is easily obtained.
We recapitulate: the equations which characterize $(x^+,u^+)$ when the initial time is ${\tau}$ and $X_{{\tau}}=\left (\hat x,\tilde x(\cdot)\right )$ is the following system of equations on the interval $[{\tau},T]$: $$\begin{array}{ll}
{\label}{eq:coppiaottima}
x'={\int_{\tau}^t}N(t-s)x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s-BB^*p(t)+\int_0^{{\tau}}N(t-s) \tilde x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,, & x({\tau})=\hat x\\[2mm]
p'(t)=-Qx(t)-\int_t^T N^*(s-t) p(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,, & p(T)=Q_0 x(T)\\[2mm]
u^+(t)=-B^*p(t)\,.
\end{array}$$
We replace $u^+(t)=u^+(t;{\tau},X_{{\tau}}) $ in (\[eq:evoluzione\]). The solution is $x^+(t)$. Then we replace the resulting expression in (\[eq:defiOTTIMcontroVariaz\]). We get the Fredholm integral equation for $u^+(t)$: $$\begin{aligned}
u^+(t)&+B^* Z^*(T-t+{\tau},{\tau}) Q_0\int _{{\tau}}^T Z(T-r+{\tau},{\tau})B u^+(r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r+\\
&+B^*\int_t^T Z^*(s-t+{\tau},{\tau})Q
\int_{\tau}^s Z(s-r+{\tau},{\tau})Bu^+(r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r{\;\mbox{\rm d}}s=\\
&= -B^*\left [
Z^* (T-t+{\tau},{\tau})Q_0F(T,{\tau})+
\int_t^T Z^* (s-t+{\tau},{\tau})QF(s,{\tau}){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\right ]\end{aligned}$$ where $$F(t,{\tau})=Z(t,{\tau})\hat x+\int_0^{\tau}Y(t,s;{\tau}) \tilde x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,.$$ This Fredholm integral equation has to be solved on $[{\tau},T]$.
By solving the Fredholm integral equation we find an expression for $u^+(t)$, of the following form: $${\label}{eq:opeloopcontrol}
u^+(t)=u^+(t;{\tau},X_{{\tau}}) = \Phi_1(t,{\tau}) \hat x+\int_0 ^{{\tau}} \Phi_2(t,s;{\tau}) \tilde x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,,\quad t\geq {\tau}$$ and so also
$${\label}{eq:openloopSTATE}
x^+(t)=x^+(t;{\tau},X_{{\tau}}) =Z_1(t,{\tau})\hat x+\int_0 ^{{\tau}} Z_2(t,r;{\tau}) \tilde x(r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r\,, \quad t\geq {\tau}\,.$$
The explicit form of the matrices $\Phi_1(t,{\tau})$, $\Phi_2(t,s;{\tau})$, $Z_1(t,{\tau})$, $Z_2(t,r;{\tau})$ (easily derived using the resolvent operator of the Fredholm integral equation) is not needed. The important fact is that *these matrices have continuous partial derivative respect to their arguments $t$, $s$ and ${\tau}$. In particular, $u^+(t)=u^+(t;{\tau},X_{{\tau}})$ is a continuous function of $t$ for $t\geq {\tau}$. The derivative has continuous extensions to $s={\tau}$ and to $t={\tau}$.* Differentiability respect to ${\tau}$ follows from Remark \[rema:DerivZistiniz\].
We replace (\[eq:opeloopcontrol\]) and (\[eq:openloopSTATE\]) in (\[eq:identiLOI\]) and we get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber W({\tau};X_{{\tau}})&=\int_{{\tau}} ^T \left |
Q^{1/2}Z_1(s,{\tau})\hat x +Q^{1/2}\int _0^{{\tau}} Z_2(s,r;{\tau}) \tilde x(r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r
\right |^2{\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+\\
{\label}{eq:FinaPerInfoootimo}&+ \int_{{\tau}}^T \left |
\Phi_1(s;{\tau})x_0+\int_0 ^{{\tau}} \Phi_2(s,r;{\tau})\tilde x(r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r
\right |^2{\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,.\end{aligned}$$ This equality shows that $X_{{\tau}} \mapsto W({\tau},X_{{\tau}})$ is a continuous quadratic form of $X_{{\tau}}\in M_{{\tau}}$.
We use dynamic programming again, in particular the fact that $u^+(\cdot;{{\tau}_1} ,X^+_{{{\tau}_1} })$ is the restriction to $[{{\tau}_1} ,T]$ of $u^+(\cdot;{\tau},X_{{\tau}})$. Hence, for every ${{\tau}_1} \geq {\tau}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber W({{\tau}_1} ;X^+_{{{\tau}_1} })&=\int_{{{\tau}_1} } ^T \left |
Q^{1/2}Z_1(s,{{\tau}_1} ) x^+({{\tau}_1} ) +Q^{1/2}\int _0^{{{\tau}_1} } Z_2(s,r;{{\tau}_1} ) x^+(r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r
\right |^2{\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+\\
{\label}{eq:FinaPerInfoootimo}&+ \int_{{{\tau}_1} }^T \left |
\Phi_1(s;{{\tau}_1} )x^+({{\tau}_1} )+\int_0 ^{{{\tau}_1} } \Phi_2(s,r;t{{\tau}_1} ) x^+(r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r
\right |^2{\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,.\end{aligned}$$
We simplify the notations: from now on we drop the ${}^+$ and we replace ${{\tau}_1} $ with $t$ but we must recall that we are computing for $t\geq {\tau}$ and, when we use equality in (\[eqDiseqLOI\]), on the optimal evolution.
By expanding the squares we see that $W({{\tau}_1} ;X_{{{\tau}_1} })$ has the following general form: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
W(t ;X_{t })&= x^* (t ) P_0( t)x ( t)+ x^*( t ) {\int_0 ^t}P_1( t,s) x (s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+\\
&{\label}{eq:ExprreDELLAformAquaDRATI}
+\left [{\int_0 ^t}P_1(t,s) x (s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\right ]^* x (t)+{\int_0 ^t}{\int_0 ^t}x^* (r) K(t,\xi,r) x (\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi{\;\mbox{\rm d}}r\,.\end{aligned}$$ For example, $$P_0(t)= \int_t^T \left [Z_1^*(s,t)QZ_1(s,t)+\Phi_1^*(s,t)\Phi_1(s,t)\right ]{\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,.$$ Note that $P_0(t)$ is a selfadjoint differentiable matrix.
Now we consider the matrix $ K(t,\xi,r)$. We consider the contribution of the first line in (\[eq:ExprreDELLAformAquaDRATI\]) (the contribution of the second line is similar). Exchanging the order of integration and the names of the variables of integration, we see that $$\begin{aligned}
& {\int_0 ^t}x^*(r) K(t,\xi,r) x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi{\;\mbox{\rm d}}r= {\int_0 ^t}{\int_0 ^t}x^*(r)\left [
\int_t^T Z_2^*(s,r,t)QZ_2(s,\xi,t){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s
\right ]x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r{\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi=\\
&={\int_0 ^t}{\int_0 ^t}x^*(\xi)\left [
\int_t^T Z_2^*(s,\xi,t)QZ_2(s,r,t){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s
\right ]x(r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi{\;\mbox{\rm d}}r=\int_0^t\int_0^t
x^*(\xi) K^*(t,r,\xi) x(r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi{\;\mbox{\rm d}}r\end{aligned}$$ so that we have $$K(t,\xi,r)=K^*(t,r,\xi)$$ and this matrix function is differentiable respect to its arguments $t$, $r$ and $\xi$.
Analogously we see differentiability of $P_1(t,s)$.
We whish a differential equations for the matrix functions $P_0(t)$, $P_1(t,s)$, $K(t,s,r)$. In order to achieve this goal, we compute the right derivative of $W(t;X _t)$ (and any continuous control) for $t>{\tau}$ and we use inequality (\[eq:PrimaFormINEqEQ\]). We use explicitly that equality holds in (\[eq:PrimaFormINEqEQ\]) when the derivative is computed along an optimal evolution.
The Riccati equation
--------------------
In order to derive a set of differential equations for the matrices $P_0(t)$, $P_1(t,s)$, $K(t,\xi,r)$ we proceed as follows: we fix (any) ${\tau}\in [0,T]$ and the initial condition $X_{{\tau}}=(\hat x,\tilde x(\cdot))$. We consider (\[eq:ExprreDELLAformAquaDRATI\]) with any continuous control $u(t)$ on $[{\tau},T]$ (the corresponding solution of the Volterra equation is $x(t)$). We consider the quadratic form $W$ with the control $u(t)$ and the corresponding solution $X_t$ given in in (\[eq:ExprreDELLAformAquaDRATI\]). In this form we separate the contribution of the functions on $(0,{\tau})$ and the contribution on $[{\tau},t]$. For example $x^*(t)P_0(t)x(t)$ remains unchanged while $x^*(t){\int_0 ^t}P_1(t,\xi)x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi$ is written as $$x^*(t){\int_0 ^t}P_1(t,\xi)x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi=x^*(t)\int_0^{\tau}P_1(t,s)\tilde x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+x^*(t)\int_{\tau}^t P_1(t,s) x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\,.$$ The other addenda are treated analogously.
We obtain a function of $t$ which is continuously differentiable. Its derivative at $t={\tau}$ is the left hand side of (\[eq:PrimaFormINEqEQ\]) and so it satisfies the inequality (\[eq:PrimaFormINEqEQ\]), with equality if it happens that we compute with $u=u^+$. So, the function of $u\in{{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^m$ $$u\mapsto \left [\frac{{\;\mbox{\rm d}}}{{\;\mbox{\rm d}}t}W({\tau};X _{{\tau}})+u^*({\tau})u({\tau})\right ]$$ reaches a minimum at $u=u^+_{\tau}$. Note that ${\tau}\in [0,T]$ is arbitrary and so by computing this minimum we get an expression for $u^+({\tau})$, for every ${\tau}\in[0,T]$.
It turns out that $\frac{{\;\mbox{\rm d}}}{{\;\mbox{\rm d}}t}W({\tau};X _{{\tau}})+u^*({\tau})u({\tau})$ is the sum of several terms. Some of them do not depend on $u$ and the minimization concerns solely the terms which depends on $u$. We get (we recall that $P_0({\tau})$ is selfadjoint) $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber u^+({\tau})&={\rm arg\, min} \left \{
u^*B^*P_0({\tau})\hat x +u^*B^* \int_0^{\tau}P_1({\tau},s) \tilde x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+\right.\\
{\label}{FunzioDAMINIMperilCONTROTTIMO}&\left.+\hat x^*P_0({\tau})Bu+\left ( \int_0^{\tau}\tilde x^*(s)P_1^*({\tau},s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\right )Bu+u^*u
\right \}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The minimization gives $${\label}{eq:FeedbackFORMuOTTIMOpre}
u^+({\tau})=-B^*\left [P_0({\tau}) \hat x +\int_0^{\tau}P_1({\tau},s)\tilde x (s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\right ]\,.$$ If the system is solved up to time $t$ along an optimal evolution (so that $x^+(t)$ is equal to $\tilde x(t)$ when $t<{\tau}$ and it is the solution which corresponds to the optimal control for larger times) we have $${\label}{eq:FeedbackFORMuOTTIMO}
u^+(t)=-B^*\left [P_0({\tau}) x^+(t) +\int_0^{\tau}P_1(t,s) x^+ (s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\right ]$$ and this is the feedback form of the optimal control (compare [@Pritch]).
We repalce (\[eq:FeedbackFORMuOTTIMOpre\]) in the brace in (\[FunzioDAMINIMperilCONTROTTIMO\]) and we see that the minimum is $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber&-\hat x^*P_0({\tau})BB^*P_0({\tau})\hat x-\hat x^*P_0({\tau})BB^*\int_0^{\tau}P_1({\tau},\xi)\tilde x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi-\\
{\label}{eq:IlMINIMOallOOTTIMMMO}&-\left (\int_0^{\tau}\tilde x^*(r)P_1^*({\tau},r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r\right )BB^*P_0({\tau})\hat x-\int_0^{\tau}\int_0^{\tau}\tilde x(r)P_1({\tau},r)BB^*P_1({\tau},\xi)\tilde x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi{\;\mbox{\rm d}}r\,.\end{aligned}$$
Now we compute the derivative of the function $ {\tau}\mapsto W({\tau};X _{{\tau}})$ along an optimal evolution and we consider its limit for $t\to {\tau}+$. We insert this quantity in (\[eq:PrimaFormINEqEQ\]), which is an equality since we are computing the limit along an optimal evolution. We take into account that the terms which contains $u$ sum up to the expression (\[eq:IlMINIMOallOOTTIMMMO\]) and we get the following equality. In this equality, a superimposed dot denotes derivative with respect to the variable ${\tau}$: $$\dot P_0({\tau})=\frac{{\;\mbox{\rm d}}}{{\;\mbox{\rm d}}{\tau}} P_0({\tau})\,,\quad
\dot P_1({\tau},\xi)=\frac{\partial}{\partial {\tau}} P_1({\tau},\xi)\,,\qquad \dot K({\tau},\xi,r)=
\frac{\partial}{\partial {\tau}} K({\tau},\xi,r)\,.$$ The equality is: $$\begin{aligned}
&-\hat x^*P_0({\tau})BB^*P_0({\tau})\hat x-\hat x^*P_0({\tau})BB^*\int_0^{\tau}P_1({\tau},\xi)\tilde x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi-\\
&-\left (\int_0^{\tau}\tilde x^*(r)P_1^*({\tau},r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r\right )BB^*P_0({\tau})\hat x-\int_0^{\tau}\int_0^{\tau}\tilde x(r)P_1({\tau},r)BB^*P_1({\tau},\xi)\tilde x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi{\;\mbox{\rm d}}r+\\
&+\left (\int_0^{\tau}\tilde x^*(r)N^*({\tau}-r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s\right )P_0({\tau})\hat x+\hat x^*\dot P_0({\tau})\hat x+\hat x^*\int_0^{\tau}N({\tau}-\xi)\tilde x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi+
\hat x^*P_1({\tau},{\tau})\hat x+\\
&+\hat x^*P_1^*({\tau},{\tau})\hat x+\left ( \int_0^{\tau}\tilde x^*(r)N^*( {\tau}-r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r\right )\int_0^{\tau}P_1({\tau},s)\tilde x(s){\;\mbox{\rm d}}s+\hat x^*\int_0^{\tau}\dot P_1({\tau},\xi)\tilde x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi+\\
&+\left (\int_0^{\tau}\tilde x^*(r)\dot P_1^*({\tau},r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r\right )\hat x +\left ( \int_0^{\tau}\tilde x^*(r)P_1({\tau},r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r\right )\left ( \int_0^{\tau}N({\tau}-\xi)\tilde x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi\right )+\\
& +\left (\int_0^{\tau}\tilde x^*(r)K({\tau},{\tau},r){\;\mbox{\rm d}}r\right )\hat x+\hat x^*\int_0^{\tau}K({\tau},\xi,{\tau})\tilde x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi+\\
&+\int_0^{\tau}\tilde x^*(r)\int_0^{\tau}\dot K({\tau},\xi,r)\tilde x(\xi){\;\mbox{\rm d}}\xi{\;\mbox{\rm d}}r+\hat x^*Q\hat x=0\end{aligned}$$
The vector $\hat x$ and the function $\tilde x(\cdot)$ are arbitrary. So, we first impose $\tilde x(\cdot)=0$ and $\hat x$ arbitrary, then the converse and finally both nonzero arbitrary. We find that the three matrix functions $P_0({\tau})$, $P_1({\tau},r)$, $K({\tau},\xi,r)$ solve the following system of differential equations in the arbitrary variable ${\tau}$. The variables $r$ and $\xi$ belong to $[0,{\tau}]$ for every ${\tau}\in [0,T]$.
$${\label}{Eq:RICCATI}\begin{array}{ll}
&\displaystyle P_0'({\tau})-P_0({\tau})B^*BP_0({\tau})+Q({\tau})+P_1({\tau},{\tau})+P_1^*({\tau},{\tau})=0\\[2mm]
&\displaystyle \frac{\partial}{\partial {\tau}}P_{1}({\tau},\xi) -P_0({\tau})BB^*P_1({\tau},\xi) +P_0({\tau})N({\tau}-\xi)
+K({\tau},\xi,{\tau})=0\\[2mm]
&\displaystyle \frac{\partial}{\partial {\tau}}K({\tau},\xi,r)-P_1^*({\tau},r)BB^*P_1({\tau},\xi)+\\
&\displaystyle{~}\quad +P^*_1({\tau},r)N({\tau}-\xi)
+N^*({\tau}-r)P_1({\tau},\xi) =0\\[2mm]
&\displaystyle P_0(T)=Q_0\,,\qquad P_1(T,\xi)=0\,,\qquad K(T,\xi,r)=0
\end{array}$$
The final conditions are obtained by noting that when ${\tau}=T$ i.e. with $X_T=(\hat x,\tilde x_T(\cdot))$ arbitrary in $M^2_T={{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n\times L^2(0,T;{{\rm I\hskip-2.1pt R}}^n)$, the expression $W(T,X_T)$ in (\[eq:ExprreDELLAformAquaDRATI\]) is equal to $J_T(X_T;u)=\hat x^*Q_0\hat x$ for every $X_T$.
*This is the Riccati differential equation of our optimization problem.*
We note the following facts:
- We take into account the fact that $P_0$ is selfadjoint and $K^*({\tau},\xi,{\tau})=K({\tau},{\tau},\xi)$. We compute the adjoint of the second line in (\[Eq:RICCATI\]) and we find: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial {\tau}}P^*_{1}({\tau},r) -P_1^*({\tau},r)BB^*P_0({\tau}) + N^*({\tau}-r)P_0({\tau}) +K({\tau},{\tau},r) =0 \,.$$
- The form of the Riccati differential equations we derived for the Volterra integral equation (\[eq:Volte\]) has to be compared with the Riccati differential equation “ in decoupled form” which was once fashionable in the study of the quadratic regulator problem for systems with finite delays, see [@Ross].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[99]{} [Bittanti]{} Bittanti, S., Laub, A.J., Willems, J.C. Ed.s, *The Riccati equation,* Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991. [Brune]{} Brune, O., Synthesis of a finite two-terminal network whose driving-point impedance is a prescribed function of frequency, *Journal of Mathematics and Physics,* [**10**]{} 191-236, 1931.
[BucciPANDO1]{} Bucci, F. Pandolfi, L., The value function of the singular quadratic regulator problem with distributed control action. *SIAM J. Control Optim.* [**36**]{} 115-136 (1998). [BucciPANDO2]{} Bucci, F. Pandolfi, L., The regulator problem with indefinite quadratic cost for boundary control systems: the finite horizon case. *Systems Control Lett.* [**39**]{} 79-86 (2000).
[DelfourMANITIUS]{} Delfour, M.C., Manitius, A., The structural operator F and its role in the theory of retarded systems. *J. Math. Analysis Appl.* Part I: [**73**]{} 466-490 (1980); Part II [**74**]{} 359-381 (1980).
[FABRIZIOPATA]{} Fabrizio M., Giorgi C., Pata V., A New Approach to Equations with Memory, *Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.* [**198**]{} 189-232 (2010).
[HUANGliWANG]{} Huang, J., Li, X., Wang, T., Mean-Field Linear-Quadratic-Gaussian (LQG) Games for Stochastic Integral Systems, *IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control* [**61**]{} 2670-2675 (2016).
[lasieckaTriggENcicl]{} Lasiecka, I., Triggiani, R., *Control theory for partial differential equations: continuous and approximation theories.* (Vol. 1 *Abstract parabolic systems* and Vol. 2 *Abstract hyperbolic-like systems over a finite time horizon.*) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000. [Kalman]{} Kalman, R. E., Falb, P. L., Arbib, M. A., *Topics in mathematical system theory.* McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York-Toronto, 1969 [Nagel]{} Engel, K.-J., Nagel, R. *One-parameter semigroups for linear evolution equations.* Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000. [PandSing1]{} Pandolfi, L. Dissipativity and the Lur’ e problem for parabolic boundary control systems. *SIAM J. Control Optim.* [**36**]{} 2061-2081 (1998) [Pandsing2]{} Pandolfi, L. The Kalman-Yakubovich-Popov theorem for stabilizable hyperbolic boundary control systems. *Integral Equations Operator Theory* [**34**]{} 478-493 (1999) [Pandsing3]{} Pandolfi, L. The Kalman-Popov-Yakubovich theorem: an overview and new results for hyperbolic control systems. *Nonlinear Anal.* [**30**]{} 735-745 (1997). [Pandlibro]{} Pandolfi, L., *Distributed systems with persistent memory. Control and moment problems.* Springer Briefs in Electrical and Computer Engineering. Control, Automation and Robotics. Springer, Cham, 2014. [Pritch]{} Pritchard, A.J., You Y., Causal feedback Optimal control for Volterra integral equations. *SIAM J. Control Optim.* [**34**]{} 1874-1890, 1996. [Ross]{} Ross, D. W., Flügge-Lotz, I., An optimal control problem for systems with differential-difference equation dynamics. *SIAM J. Control* [**7**]{} 609-623, 1969.
[^1]: Dipartimento di Scienze Matematiche “Giuseppe Luigi Lagrange”, Politecnico di Torino, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy ([email protected])
[^2]: This papers fits into the research program of the GNAMPA-INDAM and has been written in the framework of the “Groupement de Recherche en Contrôle des EDP entre la France et l’Italie (CONEDP-CNRS)”.
[^3]: Remark on the notation: $x_{{\tau}}=x_{{\tau}}(s)$ is a function on $(0,{\tau})$ while $X_{{\tau}}$ (upper case letter) is the pair $(x({\tau}),x_{{\tau}})$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have studied via in-beam $\gamma$-ray spectroscopy $^{196}$Po and $^{198}$Po, which are the first neutron-deficient Po isotopes to exhibit a collective low-lying structure. The ratios of yrast state energies and the E2 branching ratios of transitions from non-yrast to yrast states are indicative of a low-lying vibrational structure. The onset of collective motion in these isotopes can be attributed to the opening of the neutron i$_{13/2}$ orbital at N$\approx$112 and the resulting large overlap between the two valence protons in the h$_{9/2}$ orbital and the valence neutrons in the i$_{13/2}$ orbital.'
address: |
$^1$ Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903 USA\
$^2$ Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439 USA\
$^3$ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550 USA\
$^4$ Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley CA 94720 USA\
$^5$ Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA\
$^6$ Notre Dame University, Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA\
$^7$ University of California , Davis, CA 95616 USA\
$^8$ Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011 USA
author:
- 'L. A. Bernstein,$^1$ J. A. Cizewski,$^{1}$ H.-Q. Jin,$^1$[@A] W. Younes,$^{1}$ R. G. Henry,$^{1,2}$[@B] L. P. Farris,$^{1,3}$ A. Charos,$^{1}$ M. P. Carpenter,$^2$ R. V. F. Janssens,$^2$ T. L. Khoo,$^2$ T. Lauritsen,$^2$ I. G. Bearden,$^{2,5}$[@C] D. Ye,$^{2,6}$[@D] J. A. Becker,$^3$ E. A. Henry,$^3$ M. J. Brinkman,$^3$[@A] J. R. Hughes,$^3$ A. Kuhnert,$^3$[@E] T. F. Wang,$^3$ M. A. Stoyer,$^{3,4}$ R. M. Diamond,$^4$ F. S. Stephens,$^4$ M. A. Deleplanque,$^4$ A. O. Macchiavelli,$^4$ I. Y. Lee,$^4$ B. Cederwall,$^4$ J. R. B. Oliveira,$^4$[@F] J. Burde,$^4$ P. Fallon,$^4$ C. Duyar,$^7$ J. E. Draper,$^7$ E. Rubel,$^7$ D. T. Vo,$^8$'
title: 'Onset of Collectivity in Neutron Deficient $^{196,198}$Po'
---
Introduction
============
The polonium isotopes, with two valence protons beyond the closed Z=82 core, provide an excellent laboratory in which to study the transition between single-particle and collective behavior in a nuclear system. The low-lying structure and energy spacings in $^{210}$Po with N=126 can be described by two h$_{9/2}$ protons in spherical shell models. As the number of neutrons decreases, the large number of valence particles makes a shell model description of the low-lying structure less meaningful and the onset of a collective structure in the low-lying states is expected.
However, the type of collective motion that occurs is an open question. One possibility, due to the small number of valence protons, is a vibrational spectrum. Vibrational systems are characterized by equal energy spacings, nearly degenerate phonon multiplets, and $\Delta$N$_{ph}$ = $\pm$ 1 E2 selection rules, where N$_{ph}$ is the number of phonons for that state. A second possibility has been suggested in earlier studies [@1; @2] of the Po nuclei. As the middle of the neutron shell is approached, a 4 particle-2 hole (4p-2h) excitation, in particular the ($\pi$h$_{9/2}$)$^4$($\pi$s$_{1/2}$)$^{-2}$ excitation, could play an important role in Po nuclei, just as evidence for 2p-2h proton excitations is observed in the Pb isotones [@2]. The 4p-2h configuration has a larger effective proton valency and is expected to be moderately deformed. One signature of a 4p-2h structure is strong E0 transitions to the “normal” ($\pi$h$_{9/2}$)$^2$ structure, which occurs when there is mixing between “normal” and 4p-2h configurations. The exact form of collectivity and the degree to which it persists as a function of excitation energy and angular momentum will be strongly influenced by the nature of the orbitals located near the Fermi surface, which are displayed in Fig. 1. As we shall show, the unique-parity $\nu$i$_{13/2}$ orbital plays a major role in the collectivity as the more neutron-deficient nuclei near N $\approx$ 112 are considered.
Experiments
===========
We have performed two measurements of $^{196}$Po. Initially, the $^{172}$Yb($^{28}$Si,4n) reaction was studied at the Argonne Tandem - Linear Accelerator System (ATLAS) facility, with beam energies of 141 and 145 MeV, using an enriched $^{172}$Yb target ($\approx$1mg/cm$^2$) on a $\approx$10 mg/cm$^2$ Pb backing. The Argonne-Notre Dame BGO facility was used. This array consists of 12 Compton-suppressed Ge detectors and a 50-element Bismuth-germanate (BGO) inner array. Approximately 35 million $\gamma$-$\gamma$ events, with an inner array multiplicity K$\geq$2 and at least 2 suppressed Ge detectors, were recorded to tape. The data were sorted off-line into several matrices, of which the one with K$\geq$5 was used for the majority of the analysis. This minimized the contributions from Coulomb excitation and particle transfer channels in the data. An example of a coincidence spectrum is presented in Fig. 2, which displays the spectrum gated on the 463-keV $2^+ \rightarrow 0^+$ transition. Spin assignments were determined through the use of Directional Correlations of gamma rays from Oriented nuclei (DCO) ratios. The definition of the DCO ratios for the Argonne $^{196}$Po data is given in Ref. [@4]. Table 1 summarizes the results for the $\gamma$ rays in $^{196}$Po determined from the ANL data set; complete details of the analysis are given in Ref. [@5]. The 5$^-$ spin-parity assignment to the 1802-keV level is based on systematics and the stretched dipole character of the 414-keV line.
In a second experiment at the 88” Cyclotron at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, $^{196}$Po was also produced with the same reaction and a 142 MeV $^{28}$Si beam. The target consisted of two thin ($\approx$500$\mu$g/cm$^2$) $^{172}$Yb foils. The High Energy Resolution Array (HERA), which consisted of 20 Compton-suppressed Ge detectors and a 40 element BGO inner ball, was used for spectroscopy. Approximately 65 million doubly-coincident events were recorded to tape. The results of the initial analysis confirmed the level scheme obtained from the ANL experiment. A “triples matrix” was then constructed from all triple and higher fold events; for each sorted event two $\gamma$ rays assigned to $^{196}$Po from the ANL data set were required. Pairs of coincidence gates were used to place a higher spin, non-yrast band which could not be separated from competing channels in the ANL data. The level spectrum of $^{196}$Po deduced from both of our data sets is displayed in Fig. 3.
Also at the LBL 88” cyclotron $^{198}$Po was studied via the $^{174}$Yb($^{29}$Si,5n) reaction with 141 and 146 MeV beams and the HERA spectrometer. Both thin (three stacked $\approx$500$\mu$g/cm$^2$ foils) and thick ($\approx$1mg/cm$^2$ on $\approx$12 mg/cm$^2$ Au backing) enriched $^{174}$Yb targets were used. The data were sorted into two matrices, with cuts on the inner-ball fold of K$>$6 and K$>$11. A normalized subtraction of these matrices allowed for separation of the 5n ($^{198}$Po) and 4n ($^{199}$Po) channels. An extensive level scheme up to E$_x$ $\approx$ 5.1 MeV and J$\approx$20$\hbar$ was deduced and will be reported on elsewhere [@5]. Concurrent results [@6] by M. Lach [*et al.*]{}, on levels in $^{198}$Po have been recently reported.
Results
=======
$^{196}$Po
----------
Earlier work by Alber [*et al.*]{} [@1], studied the delayed $\gamma$ rays depopulating the 850-ns 11$^-$ isomer in $^{196}$Po. As summarized in Fig. 3, this level scheme has been extended via the first in-beam spectroscopy measurements in this nucleus and spins and probable parities of the levels have been determined using the ATLAS data. Most of the results of the isomer decay study have been confirmed in the present study, with the exception of the proposed direct decay from the isomer to the negative-parity states. The 552- and 198-keV lines proposed in the decay study of Ref. [@1] were not observed. Since both the 237- and 253-keV transitions, and not the 552-keV $11^- \rightarrow 8^+$ transition which directly depopulates the isomer, are clearly evident in Fig. 2, it can be inferred that both the 237- and 253-keV lines must be prompt and neither of them depopulates the isomer directly.
Our prompt spectroscopy has also yielded two new branches which bypass the 11$^-$ isomer. The first cascade consists of 4 transitions up to J=13$\hbar$ and is connected to the yrast 6$^+$ and 8$^+$ states via two $\gamma$ rays, 584 and 652 keV, respectively. The second extension is a sequence of 3 mutually coincident transitions feeding into the 7$^-$, 9$^-$ and (10$^+$) states. This cascade was found in the LBL data in spectra that were double-gated on known low-lying transitions in $^{196}$Po. Since this band could only be identified using a sum of doubly-coincident gates on the 237, 253, 414, and 529 keV lines, no multipolarity information for this cascade could be determined. The new lines did not have sufficient intensity to extract DCO ratios from the ANL DCO data. We have also added two new levels above the 9$^-$ state at 2292 keV.
The $2_2^+$ and $4_2^+$ states are of particular interest in the low-lying level scheme. They feed into the yrast cascade via the 396- and 497-keV $\Delta$J=0 transitions, respectively. We summarize in Table 2 the relative intensities for transitions in the $4_2 \rightarrow 4_1 \rightarrow
2_1$ and the $2_2 \rightarrow 2_1 \rightarrow 0$ cascades. These values were determined from ANL spectra gated on the 414- and 529- keV lines which directly feed the $4_2^+$ and $2_2^+$ levels, respectively. Within the statistical uncertainties the intensities of the transitions in these cascades are identical and there is no indication in either of our data sets of any missing $\gamma$-ray intensity in the $\Delta$J=0 transitions, and hence no measureable evidence for E0 components. This is in contrast to the analysis of Ref. [@1], which claimed to see intensity imbalances, although no supporting data were presented.
$^{198}$Po
----------
The nucleus $^{198}$Po was previously investigated in Refs. \[1,6\]; the level scheme we have deduced for the low-lying levels agrees with the earlier work. The low-lying level spectrum is very similar to that of $^{196}$Po in that there is an yrast cascade of similarly spaced $\gamma$ rays, as well as non-yrast $2_2^+$ and $4_2^+$ levels which feed into the yrast branch via $\Delta$J=0 transitions. We summarize in Table 2 the relative intensities for transitions in the $4_2 \rightarrow 4_1 \rightarrow 2_1$ and the $2_2 \rightarrow 2_1
\rightarrow 0$ cascades in $^{198}$Po. These values were determined from spectra gated on the 391- and 444-keV lines which directly feed the $4_2^+$ and $2_2^+$ levels, respectively. As with $^{196}$Po, no clear evidence was found for missing intensity in the $\Delta$J=0 transitions, and hence no evidence for measureable E0 components. This result is in contrast to previous [@1] measurements of $^{198}$Po. The analysis reported in Ref. [@1] indicated $\alpha_{\rm tot}$ ($2_2 \rightarrow 2_1$ transition) $\geq$2 and most likely $\alpha_{\rm tot} \approx$ 5. Our data show no statistically significant intensity imbalance; given our error bars we extract $\alpha_{\rm tot} <$2. The $\alpha_{\rm
tot}$ = 0.52(23) for the $2_2 \rightarrow 2_1$ line deduced in Ref. [@1] is small and not that different from the expected value for an M1 transition. Again our data show no statistically significant intensity imblance and within our error bars $\alpha_{\rm tot} <$0.6.
Discussion
==========
The systematics of the even-even Po nuclei is displayed in Fig. 4. The heavier isotopes (A$>$200) have remarkably similar yrast 2$^+$, 4$^+$, 6$^+$ and 8$^+$ energy spacings, with low-lying 2$^+$ states and closely spaced 6$^+$ and 8$^+$ levels. However, a change is evident in the vicinity of A$\approx$198. A simple way of examining the low-lying structure of a nucleus is to consider the ratio of the yrast state energies. $^{210}$Po, which is semi-magic with N=126, has a ratio of the yrast 4$^+$ and 2$^+$ energies, R(4/2) = 1.21. This is precisely what is predicted for a two-particle system with a residual surface-delta interaction [@9]. In a vibrational system, the expected value for R(4/2) is 2.0. All of the Po nuclei from $^{206}$Po$_{122}$ to $^{196}$Po$_{112}$ exhibit R(4/2) values close to 2. This is a strong indication that the states up to J=4 have dominant vibrational character almost as soon as the neutron shell is opened. On the other hand, the close spacing between the 6$^+$ and 8$^+$ states suggest dominant ($\pi$h$_{9/2}$)$^2$ components.
The transition to collectivity for the higher spin states (J $>$ 4) occurs deeper in the neutron shell, near N=112. Two features are distinctive in the low spin level schemes of $^{196}$Po and $^{198}$Po, as seen in Fig. 4. The first is the almost equal spacing between the yrast 0$^+$, 2$^+$, 4$^+$ and 6$^+$ levels. The second is the non-yrast $4_2^+$ and $2_2^+$ states, which in $^{196}$Po are nearly degenerate with the yrast 6$^+$ and 4$^+$ states, and form structures which are reminiscent of 3- and 2-phonon multiplets, respectively. In addition, $^{198}$Po is the first nucleus in the isotopic chain to show a decrease in the yrast 6$^+$ energy. In $^{196}$Po the 6$^+$ energy has dropped an additional 327 keV to a point located almost exactly half-way between the yrast 4$^+$ and 8$^+$ states. These features combine to form a low-lying level scheme in $^{196}$Po that is a classic example of a vibrational structure.
The yrast energy ratios for $^{196,198,200}$Po are summarized in Table 3. In Po the valence protons are in the h$_{9/2}$ orbital, with a maximum coupled angular momentum of 8. Therefore, to examine the limits of low-lying collective motion in Po, the ratios of the higher spin yrast levels, such as R(6/4) and R(8/6) should be considered. The predictions of energy ratios for ($\pi$h$_{9/2}$)$^2$, harmonic vibrational, and rotational models are also listed in Table 3. The data for both $^{196}$Po and $^{198}$Po are clearly best reproduced by the vibrational expectations, even up to the R(8/6) ratio in $^{196}$Po. In contrast, in $^{200}$Po the energy ratios for the higher spin states favor a two-proton configuration. The difference in the collectivity of the 6$^+$ states in $^{198}$Po and $^{200}$Po is also supported by the absolute B(E2) values. The B(E2; 8$^+ \rightarrow$ 6$^+$) value [@6] in $^{198}$Po is significantly smaller than in the heavier isotopes, which indicates a structural difference between these 8$^+$ and 6$^+$ states, and probably a more collective nature for the 6$^+$ level in $^{198}$Po.
The branching ratios of transitions depopulating the low-lying states also probe the nature of the excitation. If the low-lying structure in $^{198,196}$Po is vibrational, then the selection rule $\Delta$N$_{ph}$ = $\pm$1 for E2 transitions between phonon multiplets should be valid. Although no absolute B(E2) values were obtained in the present measurements, the ratio of B(E2) values can be calculated from the ratio of the $\gamma$-ray intensities of the two depopulating transitions as seen in a coincidence gate placed on a $\gamma$-ray feeding the level of interest. The assumption is made that the observed $\Delta$J=0 transitions are of pure E2 character. This is a reasonable assumption because in the Pb isotones the analogous transitions have small M1 components [@2]. The comparisons between experimental values and the theoretical predictions for a vibrational, rotational, and a 4p-2h configuration are given in Table 4 for both $^{198}$Po and $^{196}$Po. For the vibrational limit, the branching ratios are based on the coefficients of fractional parentage, which govern the wave functions of the members of the phonon multiplets. For the rotational limit, transitions out of the band are forbidden. Typically, these “forbidden” transitions are 20-50 times weaker than the allowed branches. If the non-yrast states are members of a 4p-2h configuration, then, to first-order, they will not interact with the normal two-proton configurations via the one-body E2 or M1 operators. However, E0 transitions are expected if there is any mixing between the spherical 2p, and more deformed 4p-2h, configurations, due to the difference in their radii. In the present data, E0 components in the transitions between the “normal” and 4p-2h states would be signaled by missing gamma-ray intensity in the $\Delta$J=0 transitions. Large E0 components ($\rho^2{\rm (E0)} \leq {\rm 7 x 10}^2$) are seen in the decay of the $2_2^+$ states in the Pb isotones [@2]. In contrast, our data, summarized in Table 2, show no clear evidence for missing intensity in any of the $\Delta$J=0 transitions depopulating the non-yrast $4_2^+$ and $2_2^+$ states in either $^{198}$Po or $^{196}$Po. As displayed in Tables 3 and 4, the relative B(E2) ratios of the non-yrast transitions, together with the energy spacings, are only consistent with a vibrational collective structure for these low-spin excitations in $^{196,198}$Po.
To summarize, the energy level and branching ratio data support the existence of vibrational collectivity in the Po isotopes which persists to moderate angular momentum in $^{196,198}$Po. To obtain a more microscopic understanding of the onset of collective vibrational structure at $^{198,196}$Po, we shall consider next the underlying single particle structure.
Single-particle interpretation
==============================
Collectivity is a result of interactions between valence protons and neutrons which occur when there is significant overlap between their respective wavefunctions. When this overlap is large, mixing occurs which results in the lowering in energy of a coherent, collective state. The yrast, low-lying levels in the semi-magic $^{210}$Po nucleus are known to consist predominantly of a simple ($\pi$h$_{9/2}$)$^2$ structure. The neutrons are the hole orbitals given in Fig. 1 below the N=126 gap: p$_{1/2}$, p$_{3/2}$, f$_{5/2}$, and i$_{13/2}$. A necessary condition for good overlap between the valence protons and neutrons is that the angular behavior of the wavefunctions is similar.
Schiffer [@9; @10] developed a simple way to quantify semi-classically the amount of angular overlap between single-particle wave functions. When two angular momentum vectors, j$_1$ and j$_2$, are added to form a resultant, J, the three vectors obey the law of cosines, which can be written as
$$\theta_{j_{1},j_{2}, J} ~=~ \cos^{-1} \left\{ \frac{J^2 -
j_{1}^{2} - j_{2}^{2}}{2 |j_1 | ~ |j_2| } \right\}$$
If the vectors are replaced with operators and the expectation value of the operators are extracted then, for ${\rm j = j_1 = j_2}$
$$\theta_{j,J} ~=~ \cos^{-1} \left\{ \frac{J (J+1) - 2 j
(j+1)}{2 j (j + 1) } \right\}$$
This “semi-classical” angle can be viewed as the angle two particles in the same orbital, j, make with respect to one another in order to form the total angular momentum, J, of a given state. It gives a quantitative measure of the distribution in angles of the nucleons in a state with a particular J.
Table 5 presents the semi-classical angles of several $\mid$(j)$^2$,J$>$ configurations located near the Fermi surface in $^{196,198}$Po. The angles for the neutron (i$_{13/2}$)$^{-2}$ and proton (h$_{9/2}$)$^2$ configurations up to moderate angular momentum are similar. This is consistent with our assumption of collective motion that persists up to at least J$\approx$6 when the $\nu$i$_{13/2}$ orbital is near the Fermi surface.
The following then summarizes our understanding of the onset of collectivity in Po nuclei as a function of neutron number and angular momentum. The $2_1^+$ level becomes collective as soon as there are valence neutrons. By N$\approx$122 with the opening of the 2f$_{5/2}$ orbital, the $4_1^+$ state also has a predominantly 2-phonon collective character. As N=112 is approached, vacancies in the i$_{13/2}$ orbital occur, which allow two-neutron configurations with J$>$4. Given the sizable angular overlap in the ($\nu$i$_{13/2}$)$^{-2}$ and ($\pi$h$_{9/2}$)$^2$ wavefunctions, collectivity persists beyond J=4, with a predominantly collective $6_1^+$ state and, possibly less collective, $8_1^+$ state. Vibrational collectivity also characterizes the low-spin non-yrast states in $^{196,198}$Po.
Conclusion
==========
Evidence of collective vibrational motion that persists to moderate angular momentum has been observed in the low-lying structure of $^{196}$Po. The energy spacings of the yrast 2$^+$, 4$^+$, 6$^+$ and, possibly, 8$^+$ states, as well as of the $2_2^+$ and the $4_2^+$ levels, are consistent with the spacings of one, two, three, and possibly four, phonon multiplets. The ratios of the B(E2) values for decays from the $4_2^+$ and $2_2^+$ states are also consistent with those of a vibrational structure. The branching ratios, together with the lack of a measureable intensity imbalance for the $\Delta$J=0 transitions, indicate that it is unlikely that a 4p-2h proton configuration plays a significant role in the non-yrast states. The transition at J $>$ 4 from single-particle behavior in $^{200}$Po to collective behavior in $^{196}$Po can be attributed to the opening of the i$_{13/2}$ neutron orbital, which allows neutron configurations of higher spin to interact with the h$_{9/2}$ protons to form collective states. A more quantitative interpretation of these nuclei could come from a more detailed analysis of the interaction between vibrational phonons and the two valence protons, for example, within the particle-core coupling model [@11]. Such calculations are in progress [@12] and preliminary results confirm our naive interpretation that $^{200}$Po has little collectivity for J$>$4, $^{196}$Po is an excellent multi-phonon vibrator, and that $^{198}$Po is intermediate, with wave functions which reflect a complicated interplay between collective and two-proton configurations for J$>$4 excitations.
The present analysis has focused on relatively limited measures of collectivity, i.e., energy levels and relative B(E2) values. A definitive measure of the collectivity as a function of neutron number and angular momentum can come from absolute B(E2) values. However, these values are difficult to obtain from Doppler effects because of the plethora of isomers in the level schemes of these polonium isotopes with only a few valence particles.
We would like to thank Professor K. H. Maier for providing results on $^{198}$Po prior to publication. This work has been funded in part by the National Science Foundation (Rutgers) and the U.S. Department of Energy, under contracts no. W-31-109-ENG-38 (ANL), W-7405-ENG-48 (LLNL), and AC03-76SF00098 (LBL).
Present address: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 USA. Present address: University of California - San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, CA USA. Present address: Niels Bohr Institute, Riso, Denmark. Present address: University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 USA. Present address: LIGO Project, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125 USA. Present address: Universidade de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. D. Alber, [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. [**A339**]{}, 225 (1991). J.L. Wood, K. Heyde, W. Nazarewicz, M. Huyse, and P. van Duppen, Physics Reports [**215**]{}, 101 (1992), and references therein. T. T. S. Kuo and G. H. Herling, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory Report No. 2258, 1971 (unpublished). M. W. Drigert, [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A515**]{}, 466 (1990). L.A. Bernstein, Ph.D. thesis Rutgers University, 1994 and L.A.Bernstein, et al., to be published. A. Maj, H. Grawe, H. Kluge, A. Kuhnert, K. H. Maier, J. Recht, N. Roy, H. Hübel, and M. Guttormsen, Nucl. Phys. [**A509**]{}, 413 (1990); M. Waring, [*et al.*]{}, HMI Annual Report, 1991, p.II.1.6; M. Lach et al., Z. Phys. [**A350**]{}, 3 (1994). Evaluated Nuclear Structure Data Files, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY. J. Wauters, P. Dendooven, M. Huyse, G. Reusen, and P. Van Duppen, Phys. Rev. [**C47**]{}, 1447 (1993); M. Huyse, private communication. R. F. Casten, [*Nuclear Structure from a Simple Perspective*]{} (Oxford University Press, New York NY, 1990). J. P. Schiffer, Ann. of Phys. (NY) [**66**]{}, 798 (1971). K. Heyde and P.J. Brussaard, Nucl. Phys. [**A104**]{}, 81 (1967). W. Younes, J. A. Cizewski, L. A. Bernstein, H.Q. Jin, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. [**39**]{}, 1185 (1994) and to be published.
[dddc]{} Energy (keV) &Intensity & DCO ratio & Multipolarity\
237.28(9) & 29.0(4) & 1.26(35) & E2\
253.45(10)& 30.8(4) & 1.16(39) & E2\
387.64(12)& 46.8(6) & 0.75(25) & (E1)\
395.82(12)& 13.1(4) & 1.44(31)&\
414.24(8)& 44.8(8) & 0.88(33) & E1\
427.89(9)& 94.7(10)& 1.24(15) & E2\
463.09(9)& $\equiv$100 & 1.41(14) & E2\
485.79(10)& 18.9(4) &0.82(60)& (E1)\
496.74(10)& 18.5(4)& &\
499.11(10)& 69.7(7) & 1.48(26) & E2\
528.61(11)& 15.2(6)& 1.44(36) & E2\
550.29(11)& 20.9(21) & 1.39(51) & E2\
565.3(2)& 8.17(24) & 1.34(41)& E2\
583.9(2)& 51.7(7) & 1.96(54) & E2\
616.9(2)& 43.7(8) & 1.68(24) & E2\
651.3(2)& 6.9(8)&\
667.7(2)& 41.6(10) & 1.70(41) & E2\
859.2(2)& 20.5(7) & 1.33(60)& E2\
911.5(3)& 20.1(6)&\
------------ --------- ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
Nucleus Gate I$_{\gamma}$($2_2^+ \rightarrow 2_1^+$) I$_{\gamma}(2_1^+ \rightarrow 0_1^+$)
$^{196}$Po 529 keV 91(21) 73(21)
$^{198}$Po 444 keV 89(31) 100(31)
Nucleus Gate I$_{\gamma}(4_2^+ \rightarrow 4_1^+$) I$_{\gamma}(4_1^+ \rightarrow 2_1^+$)
$^{196}$Po 414 keV 59(22) 44(24)
$^{198}$Po 391 keV 51(26) 100(23)
------------ --------- ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
: Intensities of transitions in the $4_2^+ \rightarrow 4_1^+
\rightarrow 2_1^+$ and $2_2^+ \rightarrow 2_1^+ \rightarrow 0$ cascades in $^{196,198}$Po. In $^{196}$Po the intensities were determined in coincidence spectra gated on the 414 keV 5$^-$ $\rightarrow 4_2^+$ and 529 keV $4_2^+ \rightarrow 2_2^+$ transitions, respectively. In $^{198}$Po the intensities were determined in similar spectra gated on the 391 keV $6_2^+ \rightarrow 4_2^+$ and 444 keV $4_2^+ \rightarrow 2_2^+$ transitions, respectively.
---------------------- -------- -------- --------
R(4/2) R(6/4) R(8/6)
$^{200}$Po 1.92 1.38 1.01
$^{198}$Po 1.91 1.48 1.08
$^{196}$Po 1.92 1.56 1.39
($\pi$h$_{9/2}$)$^2$ 1.17 1.07 1.03
Vibrational 2.00 1.50 1.33
Rotational 3.33 2.10 1.71
---------------------- -------- -------- --------
: Energy ratios of yrast states in $^{196,198,200}$Po compared to the theoretical predictions for (h$_{9/2}$)$^2$, vibrational, and rotational models. The (h$_{9/2}$)$^2$ predictions are for a surface delta interaction.
------------ -------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ----------
Nucles Transition Experiment Vibrator Rotor 4p-2h
$^{196}$Po $4_2^+ \rightarrow 2_2^+$ / $4_2^+ \rightarrow 4_1^+$ 1.0(5) 1.10 $>$ 20 $>$ 20
$^{196}$Po $2_2^+ \rightarrow 2_1^+$ / $2_2^+ \rightarrow 0_1^+$ 64(14) $\infty$ 2.04 (K=0) Large E0
$^{198}$Po $4_2^+ \rightarrow 2_2^+$ / $4_2^+ \rightarrow 4_1^+$ 2.0(5) 1.10 $>$ 20 $>$ 20
$^{198}$Po $2_2^+ \rightarrow 2_1^+$ / $2_2^+ \rightarrow 0_1^+$ 158(6) $\infty$ 2.04 (K=0) Large E0
------------ -------------------------------------------------------- ------------ ---------- ------------ ----------
: Comparison between experimentally deduced E2 branching ratios depopulating the non-yrast $2_2^+$ and $4_2^+$ states and theoretical predictions for rotational, vibrational and 4p-2h models. The experimental transitions are assumed to be of pure E2 character; the experimental errors given in parentheses are on the last digit(s). The rotational predictions assume K=0 for both quasibands.
--------------------- ----- ----- ----- -----
j (single particle) J=2 J=4 J=6 J=8
i$_{13/2}$ 160 144 127 108
h$_{9/2}$ 152 127 99 63
f$_{5/2}$ 131 82 $-$ $-$
p$_{3/2}$ 90 $-$ $-$ $-$
--------------------- ----- ----- ----- -----
: Values of semi-classical angles (in degree) of $\mid$(j)$^2$J$>$ configurations for valence orbitals in polonium nuclei. See text for details.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**Compact pluricanonical manifolds are Vaisman**]{}\
[Liviu Ornea[^1], and Misha Verbitsky[^2]\
]{}
[**Abstract**]{}\
A locally conformally Kähler manifold is a Hermitian manifold $(M,I,\omega)$ satisfying $d\omega=\theta\wedge\omega$, where $\theta$ is a closed 1-form, called [**the Lee form**]{} of $M$. It is called [**pluricanonical**]{} if $\nabla\theta$ is of Hodge type $(2,0)+(0,2)$, where $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection, and [**Vaisman**]{} if $\nabla\theta=0$. We show that a compact LCK manifold is pluricanonical if and only if the Lee form has constant length and the Kähler form of its covering admits an automorphic potential. Using a degenerate Monge-Ampère equation and the classification of surfaces of Kähler rank one, due to Brunella, Chiose and Toma, we show that any pluricanonical metric on a compact manifold is Vaisman. Several [*errata*]{} to our previous work are given in the last Section.
Introduction
============
LCK manifolds
-------------
Let $(M,I)$ be a complex manifold, $\dim_{{\mathbb C}}M{\geqslant}2$. It is called [**locally conformally Kähler**]{} (LCK) if it admits a Hermitian metric $g$ whose fundamental 2-form $\omega(\cdot,\cdot):=g(\cdot, I\cdot)$ satisfies $$\label{deflck}
d\omega=\theta\wedge\omega,\quad d\theta=0,$$ for a certain closed 1-form $\theta$ called [**the Lee form**]{}.
Definition is equivalent to the existence of a covering $\tilde M$ endowed with a Kähler metric $\Omega$ which is acted on by the deck group ${\operatorname{Aut}}_M(\tilde M)$ by homotheties. Let $$\label{chi}
\chi:{\operatorname{Aut}}_M(\tilde M)\longrightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^{>0},\quad \chi(\gamma)=\frac{\tau^*\Omega}{\Omega},$$ be the group homomorphism which associates to a homothety its scale factor.
For definitions and examples, see [@DO] and our more recent papers.
Three subclasses of LCK manifolds will be of interest to us.
An LCK manifold $(M,\omega, \theta)$ is called [ **Vaisman**]{} if $\nabla\theta=0$, where $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection of $g$. Note that, unlike the LCK condition, which is conformally invariant (if $g$ is LCK, then any $e^f\cdot g$ is still LCK), the Vaisman condition is not. The main example of Vaisman manifold is the diagonal Hopf manifold ([@_OV:Shells_]). The Vaisman compact complex surfaces are classified in [@be].
An LCK manifold is called [**with potential**]{} if it admits a Kähler covering on which the Kähler metric has global, positive and proper potential function which is acted on by homotheties by the deck group. Among the examples: Vaisman manifolds, but also non-Vaisman ones, such as the non-diagonal Hopf manifolds, [@ov01].
The notion of pluricanonical LCK manifold, motivated by the theory of harmonic maps, was introduced by G. Kokarev in [@ko]. An LCK manifold $(M,\omega, \theta)$ is called [**pluricanonical**]{} if the symmetric form $\nabla\theta$ is of type (2,0) plus (0,2), that is, $(\nabla\theta)^{1,1}=0$. Obviously, all Vaisman manifolds are pluricanonical. In [@ov_imrn_10] we mentioned (without a proof) that compact pluricanonical manifolds are the same as LCK with potential. This claim is false: all compact pluricanonical manifolds are LCK with potential, but not all LCK manifolds with potential admit a pluricanonical metric.
This paper grew out from our effort to correct the above error (see Section \[err\]) and to clarify the definitions and relations among these three subclasses of LCK manifolds.
In fact, as our main result here, we show that on compact complex manifolds, pluricanonical metrics are Vaisman. To this end, we prove (1) that compact pluricanonical manifolds admit LCK metrics with potential (generally different from the pluricanonical one), then we prove (2) that all compact LCK manifolds with potential do contain a finite quotient of a linear Hopf surface which, if the ambient manifold is not Vaisman, admits no Vaisman metric, and finally, we prove that (3) compact pluricanonical surfaces should be Vaisman, yielding a contradiction.
So, technically, what we proved is that on a [*compact*]{} Hermitian manifold, the equations $d\omega=\theta\wedge
\omega$, $d\theta=0$ and $(\nabla\theta)^{1,1}=0$ imply $\nabla\theta=0$. We don’t know whether this could be proven directly, locally, using tensor computations. Our approach passed through LCK manifolds with potential and, [*a posteriori*]{}, clarified further their geometry.
LCK manifolds with potential
----------------------------
“LCK manifolds with potential” can be defined as LCK manifolds $(M, \omega, \theta)$ equipped with a smooth function $\psi\in \mathcal{C}^\infty (M)$, $$\label{_pote_impro_Equation_}
\omega= d_\theta d^c_\theta \psi,$$ where $d_\theta(x)=dx-\theta\wedge x$, $d_\theta^c= I d_\theta I^{-1}$, and the following properties are satisfied: $$\label{_pote_pro_restrictions_Equation_}
\begin{minipage}[m]{0.92\linewidth}
\begin{description}
\item[(i)] $\psi >0$;
\item[(ii)] the class $[\theta]\in H^1(M, {{\mathbb R}})$ is proportional to a rational one.
\end{description}
\end{minipage}$$ For more details and historical context of this definition, please see Subsection \[\_LCK-Pot-Subsection\_\]. The differential $d_\theta$ is identified with the de Rham differential with coefficients in a flat line bundle $L$ called [**the weight bundle**]{}. In this context, $\psi$ should be considered as a section of $L$. After passing to the smallest covering $\tilde M\stackrel \pi {{\:\longrightarrow\:}}M$ where $\theta$ becomes exact, the pull-back bundle $\pi^* L$ can be trivialized by a parallel section. Then the equation becomes $\tilde \omega= dd^c\tilde \psi$, where $\tilde \omega$ is a Kähler form on $\tilde M$, and $\tilde \psi$ the Kähler potential.
Since $\tilde M\stackrel \pi {{\:\longrightarrow\:}}M$ is the smallest covering where $\theta$ becomes exact, its monodromy is equal to ${{\mathbb Z}}^k$, where $k$ is the rank of the smallest rational subspace $V\subset H^1(M, {{\mathbb R}})$ such that $V\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{{\mathbb R}}$ contain $[\theta]$. In particular, the condition (ii) means precisely that $\tilde M\stackrel \pi {{\:\longrightarrow\:}}M$ is a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-covering. This implies that the definition - is equivalent to the historical one (\[\_LCK\_w\_p\_orig\_Definition\_\]).
In \[\_LCK\_relax\_Theorem\_\], we prove that the condition (i) is in fact unnecessary: it automatically follows from .
However, the condition (ii) is more complicated: there are examples of LCK manifolds satisfying and not (ii) (Subsection \[\_impro\_pote\_Subsection\_\]). Still, any complex manifold admitting an LCK metric $(M,\omega, \theta)$ with potential $\psi$ satisfying , admits an LCK metric satisfying - in any $\mathcal{C}^\infty$-neighbourhood of $(\omega, \theta)$. Therefore the conditions are not restrictive, and for most applications, unnecessary.
It makes sense to modify the notion of LCK manifold with potential to include the following notion (Subsection \[\_impro\_pote\_Subsection\_\]):
[ ]{}\[\_lck\_proper\_improper\_Definition\_\] Let $(M, \omega, \theta)$ be an LCK manifold, and $\psi\in
\mathcal{C}^\infty (M)$ a function satisfying $d_\theta d^c_\theta \psi=\omega$. Denote by $k$ the rank of the smallest rational subspace $V\subset H^1(M, {{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $V\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{{\mathbb R}}$ contain $[\theta]$. Then $\psi$ is called [**proper potential**]{} if $k=1$ and [**improper potential**]{} if $k >1$.
[ ]{}By \[\_proper\_virt\_cy\_Claim\_\], the condition $k=1$ is equal to the Kähler potential $\tilde \psi\in \mathcal{C}^\infty(\tilde M)$ being proper in the usual sense (that is, having compact level sets). This explains the term.
Pluricanonical versus Vaisman: scheme of the proof
--------------------------------------------------
The main result of this paper is the following theorem.
[ ]{}\[\_pluri\_pote\_main\_intro\_Theorem\_\] Let $(M,\omega, \theta)$ be a compact pluricanonical LCK manifold. Then it is Vaisman.
[**Proof:**]{} \[main\].
Here we survey its proof and explain its key points.
We start from an observation which can be obtained by a straightforward tensorial calculation. Any pluricanonical manifold $(M, \omega, \theta)$ satisfies $$d\theta^c = \theta \wedge \theta^c - |\theta|^2\omega,$$ and, moreover, $|\theta|={\operatorname{\text{\sf const}}}$, (see ). We then rescale the metric such that $|\theta|=1$. Then the eigenvalues[^3] of the (1,1)-form $d\theta^c$ are constant, all equal to $1$ [*but one which is $0$*]{}, and hence $\omega_0 :=-d\theta^c$ is a semipositive $(1,1)$-form of constant rank $n-1$.
From now on, we assume that $M$ is a compact pluricanonical LCK manifold.
Let $\Sigma$ be the zero eigenbundle of $d\theta^c$. Then $\Sigma$ is independent from the choice of the pluricanonical metric on $M$. Indeed, suppose that two different pluricanonical metrics give exact semipositive forms $\omega_0$ and $\omega_0'$. Unless the corresponding zero eigenbundles coincide, the semi-Hermitian form $\omega_0 +\omega_0'$ would be strictly positive, which is impossible, because it is exact.
Now consider two pluricanonical LCK metrics $(\omega, \theta)$ and $(\omega', \theta')$ on $M$, with $\theta-\theta' = d\psi$. Then $\psi$ is a solution of the degenerate Monge-Ampère equation $$\label{_Monge_Ampere_dege_intro_Equation_}
(\omega_0 + dd^c \psi)^n =0,\ \ \omega_0 + dd^c \psi{\geqslant}0.$$ The standard argument from the theory of Monge-Ampère equations is used to show that the function $\psi$ is constant on the leaves of $\Sigma$ (\[psi\_const\]).
If, in addition, $(M, \omega, \theta)$ admits a Vaisman structure, one has a holomorphic vector field $X \in \mathcal{X}(M)$ tangent to $\Sigma$ and acting by homotheties on its Kähler covering. Then \[psi\_const\] implies that $X$ acts on $(M, \omega, \theta)$ by isometries lifting to non-trivial homotheties on its Kähler covering. A theorem of Kamishima-Ornea ([@kor]) then implies that $(M,\omega, \theta)$ is Vaisman (see \[pluri-vai\]). This result can be stated as follows:
[ ]{}\[\_pluri\_admitting\_vaisman\_Proposition\_\] (\[pluri-vai\])\
Let $(M, \omega, \theta)$ be a compact pluricanonical LCK manifold admitting a Vaisman structure. Then $(M, \omega, \theta)$ is also Vaisman.
This proposition is used to deduce our main result (\[\_pluri\_pote\_main\_intro\_Theorem\_\]) as follows. First, we prove \[\_pluri\_pote\_main\_intro\_Theorem\_\] for surfaces. In this case, it follows from the classification theorem due to Chiose, Toma and Brunella.
[ ]{}\[\_rank\_one\_surfaces\_intro\_Theorem\_\] Let $M$ be a compact complex surface admitting an exact semipositive form of rank 1. Then $M$ admits a Vaisman metric.
[**Proof:**]{} Section \[\_Surfaces\_Section\_\]. .
Comparing \[\_rank\_one\_surfaces\_intro\_Theorem\_\] and \[\_pluri\_admitting\_vaisman\_Proposition\_\], we obtain \[\_pluri\_pote\_main\_intro\_Theorem\_\] for surfaces. To prove it in general situation, a version of a theorem of Ma. Kato is used. In [@_Kato:subvarieties_], Kato studied subvarieties in a general Hopf manifold $H$, which is defined as a quotient of ${{\mathbb C}}^n \backslash 0$ by a holomorphic contraction $A$. Note that elsewhere in this paper, we consider only [**linear Hopf manifolds**]{}, for which $A$ is a linear endomorphism. The (more general) manifolds considered by Kato are also embeddable into linear Hopf manifolds ([@ov01]), hence admit an LCK metric with potential ([@_OV:Shells_]).
Kato proves that $H$ admits a sequence of Hopf submanifolds $H \supset H_1 \supset H_2 \supset \cdots \supset H_n=\emptyset$ with $\dim H_i = \dim H -i$.
For LCK manifolds with potential, a similar flag exists. Moreover, the following useful result can be proven.
[ ]{}\[\_non\_Vaisman\_contains\_surface\_intro\_Theorem\_\] Let $M$ be an LCK manifold with potential. Then $M$ contains a finite quotient of a linear Hopf surface $H$. Moreover, if $M$ admits no Vaisman metric, then $H$ can be chosen to admit no Vaisman metric.
[**Proof:**]{} \[surface\].
\[\_non\_Vaisman\_contains\_surface\_intro\_Theorem\_\] and \[\_rank\_one\_surfaces\_intro\_Theorem\_\] imply our main theorem easily. Indeed, any complex submanifold of a pluricanonical manifold is again pluricanonical (\[plurisub\]). Pluricanonical surfaces are Vaisman. \[\_non\_Vaisman\_contains\_surface\_intro\_Theorem\_\] implies that any non-Vaisman pluricanonical manifold contains a surface which is not Vaisman, hence not pluricanonical: contradiction!
Some errors found
-----------------
This paper is much influenced by Paul Gauduchon, who discovered an error in our result mentioned as obvious in [@ov_imrn_10]. In [@ov_imrn_10], we claimed erroneously that an LCK metric is pluricanonical if and only if it admits an LCK potential. This was obvious because (as we claimed) the equations for LCK with potential and for pluricanonical metric are the same. Unfortunately, a scalar multiplier was missing in our equation for the pluricanonical (see Subsection \[\_pluricano\_nabla\_Subsection\_\]).
From an attempt to understand what is brought by the missing multiplier, this paper grew, and we found an even stronger result: any compact pluricanonical manifold is Vaisman.
However, during our work trying to plug a seemingly harmless mistake, we discovered a much more offensive error, which has proliferated in a number of our papers.
In [@_OV:_Structure_], we claimed that any Vaisman manifold admits a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-covering which is Kähler. This is true for locally conformally hyperkähler manifolds, as shown in [@_Verbitsky:LCHK_]. However, this result is false for more general Vaisman manifolds, such as a Kodaira surface (\[\_Lee\_open\_Theorem\_\]).
It is easiest to state this problem and its solution using the notion of “LCK rank” (\[\_LCK\_rank\_Definition\_\]), defined in [@gopp] and studied in [@PV]. Briefly, LCK rank is the smallest $r$ such that there exists a ${{\mathbb Z}}^r$-covering $\tilde M$ of $M$ such that the pullback of the LCK metric is conformally equivalent to a Kähler metric on $\tilde M$.
It turns on that the Kähler rank of a Vaisman manifold can be any number between 1 and $b_1(M)$ (\[\_Lee\_open\_Theorem\_\]). Moreover, for each $r$, the set of all Vaisman metrics of Kähler rank $r$ is dense in the space of all Vaisman metrics (say, with $\mathcal{C}^\infty$-topology).
It is disappointing to us (and even somewhat alarming) that nobody has discovered this important error earlier.
However, not much is lost, because the metrics which satisfy the Structure Theorem of [@_OV:_Structure_] are dense in the space of all LCK metrics, hence all results of complex analytic nature remain true. To make the remaining ones correct, we need to add “Vaisman manifold of LCK rank 1” or “Vaisman manifold with proper potential” (Subsection \[\_impro\_pote\_Subsection\_\]) to the set of assumptions whenever [@_OV:_Structure_] is used.
Still, we want to offer our apologies to the mathematical community for managing to mislead our colleagues for such a long time.
For more details about our error and an explanation where the arguments of [@_OV:_Structure_] failed please see Subsection \[\_LCK\_rank\_errata\_Subsection\_\].
LCK manifolds: properness and positivity of the potential {#_LCK-Pot-proper_Section_}
=========================================================
LCK manifolds with potential: historical definition {#_LCK-Pot-Subsection_}
---------------------------------------------------
When the notion of LCK manifold with potential was introduced in [@ov01], we assumed properness of the potential. Later, it was “proven” that the potential is always proper ([@_OV_Automorphisms_]). Unfortunately, the proof was false (see the [*Errata*]{} to this paper, Section \[err\]). In view of this error and other results in Section \[err\], it makes sense to generalize the notion of LCK manifold with potential to include the manifolds with LCK rank $>1$. For the old notion of LCK with potential we should attach “proper” to signify that the potential is a proper function on the minimal Kähler covering.
[ ]{}\[\_LCK\_w\_p\_orig\_Definition\_\] ([@ov01]) An [**LCK manifold with proper potential**]{} is a manifold which admits a Kähler covering $(\tilde M, \tilde \omega)$ and a smooth function ${\varphi}:\,\tilde M \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{>0}$ (the [**LCK potential**]{}) satisfying the following conditions:
(i)
: ${\varphi}$ is proper, *i.e.* its level sets are compact;
(ii)
: The deck transform group acts on ${\varphi}$ by multiplication with the character $\chi$ (see ): $\tau^* ({\varphi})=\chi(\tau) {\varphi}$, where $\tau\in {\operatorname{Aut}}_M(\tilde M)$ is any deck transform map[^4].
(iii)
: ${\varphi}$ is a Kähler potential, *i.e.* $dd^c{\varphi}= \tilde \omega$.
We are now able to show that an automorphic global potential is always positive, and that once an automorphic global potential exists on a Kähler covering, then another one, which is proper, exists too. The precise statement is the following:
[ ]{}\[\_LCK\_relax\_Theorem\_\] Let $M$ be an LCK manifold admitting a Kähler covering $(\tilde M, \tilde \omega)$ and an automorphic function ${\varphi}:\,\tilde M \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying $dd^c {\varphi}=\tilde\omega$. Then ${\varphi}$ is strictly positive.
Moreover, $M$ admits a covering, possibly different from $\tilde M$, and an automorphic potential on it which is positive and proper, hence satisfies all conditions of \[\_LCK\_w\_p\_orig\_Definition\_\].
We prove \[\_LCK\_relax\_Theorem\_\] in the next two subsections.
Properness of the LCK potential
-------------------------------
In [@ov01], it was also shown that the properness condition is equivalent to the following condition on the deck transform group of $\tilde M$. Recall that a group is [**virtually cyclic**]{} if it contains ${{\mathbb Z}}$ as a finite index subgroup. The following claim is clear.
[ ]{}\[\_proper\_virt\_cy\_Claim\_\] Let $M$ be a compact manifold, $\tilde M$ a covering, and ${\varphi}:\,\tilde M \rightarrow {{\mathbb R}}^{>0}$ an automorphic function, that is, a function which satisfies $\gamma^* {\varphi}= c_\gamma {\varphi}$ for any deck transform map $\gamma$, where $c_\gamma$ is constant. Then ${\varphi}$ is proper if and only if the deck transform group of $\tilde M$ is virtually cyclic.
[ ]{}\[\_LCK\_rank\_Definition\_\] Let $(M,\omega,\theta)$ be an LCK manifold. Define the [**LCK rank**]{} as the dimension of the smallest rational subspace $V\subset H^1(M,{{\mathbb Q}})$ such that the Lee class $[\theta]$ lies in $V\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{{\mathbb R}}$.
[ ]{}The character $\chi:\; {\operatorname{Aut}}_M(\tilde M){{\:\longrightarrow\:}}{{\mathbb R}}^{>0}$ can be defined on any LCK manifold, because the Kähler form $\tilde \omega$ is automorphic by definition: $\tau^* (\tilde \omega)=\chi(\tau) \tilde \omega$. Then one can see that the LCK rank as defined above coincides with the rank of the image of $\chi:\; {\operatorname{Aut}}_M(\tilde M){{\:\longrightarrow\:}}{{\mathbb R}}^{>0}$ which is also called [**the weight monodromy group**]{} of the LCK manifold. See also [@gopp] for another interpretation of the LCK rank and see [@PV] for examples on non-Vaisman compact LCK manifolds with Kähler rank greater than 1. Clearly, LCK rank 0 corresponds to globally conformally Kähler structures.
From \[\_proper\_virt\_cy\_Claim\_\] below it follows that condition (i) is equivalent to $M$ being of LCK rank 1.
In [@_OV:MN_], we managed to get rid of the need to take the covering in \[\_LCK\_w\_p\_orig\_Definition\_\], by using the Morse-Novikov (twisted) differential $d_\theta:=d-\theta\wedge\cdot$, where $\theta\wedge\cdot(x)=\theta\wedge x$, and $\theta$ is the Lee form. In [@_OV:MN_] the definition of LCK manifold with potential was restated equivalently as follows.
[ ]{}\[\_LCK\_pot\_MN\_Definition\_\] Let $(M,\omega,\theta)$ be an LCK manifold of LCK rank 1. Then $M$ is called [**LCK manifold with potential**]{} if there exists a positive function ${\varphi}_0\in \mathcal{C}^\infty (M)$ satisfying $d_\theta d^c_\theta({\varphi}_0)=\omega$, where $d^c_\theta =
I d_\theta I^{-1}$.
[ ]{}\[\_MN\_def\_equi\_Claim\_\] \[\_LCK\_w\_p\_orig\_Definition\_\] is equivalent to \[\_LCK\_pot\_MN\_Definition\_\].
[**Proof:**]{} To see that \[\_LCK\_w\_p\_orig\_Definition\_\] and \[\_LCK\_pot\_MN\_Definition\_\] are equivalent, consider the smallest covering $\pi:\; \tilde M {{\:\longrightarrow\:}}M$ such that $\pi^*\theta$ is exact, and take a function $\psi$ satisfying $d\psi=\pi^*\theta$. Since $\pi^*\theta$ is invariant under the deck transform group $\Gamma$, for each $\gamma\in \Gamma$ one has $\gamma^*\psi=\psi +
c(\gamma)$, where $c(\gamma) $ is a constant. Consider the multiplicative character $\chi:\; \Gamma{{\:\longrightarrow\:}}{{\mathbb R}}^{>0}$ given by $\chi(\gamma)= e^{c(\gamma)}$. Let $\Lambda_\chi^*(M)$ denote the space of automorphic forms on $\tilde M$ which satisfy $\gamma^*\eta= \chi(\gamma)\eta$. The map $\Lambda^*(M) \stackrel \Psi {{\:\longrightarrow\:}}\Lambda_\chi^*(M)$ mapping $\eta$ to $e^{-\psi}\pi^*\eta$ makes the following diagram commutative: $$\begin{CD}
\Lambda^*(M) @>\Psi>> \Lambda_\chi^*(M)\\
@V {d_\theta} VV @V {d} VV\\
\Lambda^*(M) @>\Psi>> \Lambda_\chi^*(M)
\end{CD}$$ Then $\Psi$ maps a “potential” ${\varphi}_0$ in the sense of \[\_LCK\_pot\_MN\_Definition\_\] to a potential $\psi$ in the sense of \[\_LCK\_w\_p\_orig\_Definition\_\] and vice versa. Properness of $\Psi({\varphi}_0)$ is equivalent to $\Gamma$ being virtually cyclic, as \[\_proper\_virt\_cy\_Claim\_\] implies. The existence of a Kähler covering with virtually cyclic deck transform group is clearly equivalent to $M$ having LCK rank 1.
We now show that automorphic potentials can be approximated by proper ones. The following argument is taken from [@_OV:MN_].
[ ]{}\[\_LCK\_appro\_Claim\_\] Let $(M,\omega, \theta)$ be an LCK manifold, and ${\varphi}\in \mathcal{C}^\infty (M)$ a function satisfying $d_\theta d^c_\theta({\varphi})=\omega$. Then $M$ admits an LCK structure $(\omega', \theta')$ of LCK rank 1, approximating $(\omega, \theta)$ in $\mathcal{C}^\infty$-topology.
[**Proof:**]{} Replace $\theta$ by a form $\theta'$ with rational cohomology class $[\theta']$ in a sufficiently small $\mathcal{C}^\infty$-neighbourhood of $\theta$, and let $\omega':=d_{\theta'} d_{\theta'}^c({\varphi})$. Then $\omega'$ approximates $\omega$ in $\mathcal{C}^\infty$-topology, hence for $\theta'$ sufficiently close to $\theta$, the form $\omega'$ is positive. It is $d_{\theta'}$-closed, because $d_{\theta'}^2=0$, hence $0=d_{\theta'}\omega'=d\omega'-\theta'\wedge\omega'$. This implies that $(\omega', \theta')$ is an LCK structure. The Kähler rank of an LCK manifold is the dimension of the smallest rational subspace $W\subset H^1(M, {{\mathbb Q}})$ such that $W\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{{\mathbb R}}$ contains the cohomology class of the Lee form. Since $[\theta']$ is rational, $(M,\omega', \theta')$ has LCK rank 1.
Positivity of automorphic potentials
------------------------------------
Finally, we prove that automorphic potentials are necessarily positive:
[ ]{}\[\_pote\_posi\_Theorem\_\] Let $(M,\omega, \theta)$ be a compact LCK manifold, $\dim_{{\mathbb C}}M > 2$, and ${\varphi}\in \mathcal{C}^\infty (M)$ a function satisfying $d_\theta d^c_\theta({\varphi})=\omega$. Then ${\varphi}$ is strictly positive.
[**Proof:**]{} From \[\_LCK\_appro\_Claim\_\] it is clear that it suffices to prove \[\_pote\_posi\_Theorem\_\] assuming that $(M,\omega, \theta)$ has LCK rank 1.
In this situation, the deck transform group of the smallest Kähler covering $(\tilde M, \tilde \omega)$ is ${{\mathbb Z}}$ and, therefore, the fundamental domains of the covering are compact. Denote by $\psi$ the automorphic Kähler potential of $(\tilde M, \tilde \omega)$ (\[\_MN\_def\_equi\_Claim\_\]).
Assume that the generator of $\Gamma$ acts on $\psi$ by multiplication with a constant $c>1$. Then the covering $\tilde M$ can be written as $$\tilde M=\bigcup_{x>0} \psi^{-1}([x,cx])\cup \psi^{-1}(0)\cup
\bigcup_{x<0} \psi^{-1}([cx,x]).$$ Since $M$ has LCK rank 1, $\psi$ descends to a continuous map from $M$ to a circle, and therefore it is proper. Therefore, $\psi^{-1}(0)$ is a compact set on which ${{\mathbb Z}}$ cannot act freely. We conclude that $\psi^{-1}(0)=\emptyset$. But then $\tilde M$ would be disconnected unless $\bigcup_{x>0}\psi^{-1}([x,cx])$ or $\bigcup_{x<0}
\psi^{-1}([cx,x])$ is empty, and hence $\psi$ is strictly positive or strictly negative.
To show that the potential $\psi$ cannot be strictly negative, we argue by contradiction.
[**Step 1.**]{} Consider the level set $S_t:=\psi^{-1}(t)$, $t< 0$. Since $\psi$ is plurisubharmonic, $S_t$ is strictly pseudoconvex. Applying the Rossi-Andreotti-Siu theorem (cf. [@rossi Theorem 3, p. 245] and [@andreotti_siu Proposition 3.2]) we find that $S_t$ is the boundary of a compact Stein domain $V_t$ with boundary, uniquely determined by the CR-structure on $S_t$.
[**Step 2.**]{} Let $\tilde M_{[t,t']}$ be $V_t$ glued together with $\psi^{-1}([t,t'])$ over $S_t$. Since the boundary of a compact complex manifold $\tilde M_{[t,t']}$ is strictly pseudoconvex, this space is holomorphically convex. On the other hand, it contains no non-trivial compact complex subvarieties without boundary. Indeed, for such a subvariety $Z$, the restriction of $\psi$ to $Z\cap \psi^{-1}([t,t'])$ must achieve a maximum, unless $Z\cap \psi^{-1}([t,t'])$ is empty. However, a plurisubharmonic function cannot achieve a maximum on a complex subvariety. Therefore, $Z\cap \psi^{-1}([t,t'])=\emptyset$, and $Z$ is contained in $V_t$. This is impossible, because $V_t$ is Stein. By Remmert’s theorem, a holomorphically convex manifold without compact complex subvarieties is Stein. Then the union $\tilde M_t:=\bigcup_{t'}\tilde M_{[t,t']}$ is Stein too, as a union of an increasing family of Stein varieties.
Since $S_t$ is contained in $\psi^{-1}([t,0[)$ for all $t'\in [t, 0[$, it is the boundary of a Stein subvariety within $\tilde M_t$. Therefore, $\tilde M_t$ can be obtained as $V_{t'}$ glued together with $\psi^{-1}([t',0[)$. We have identified $\tilde M_t$ and $\tilde M_{t'}$. This implies, in particular, that $\tilde M_t$ contains $\bigcup_t \psi^{-1}([t,0[)=\tilde M$, and the mapping class group of $\tilde M$ acts on $\tilde M_t$ holomorphically.
We extend $\psi$ to $\tilde M_t$ by setting it to $-\infty$ on $\tilde M_t \backslash \tilde M$. This gives an automorphic plurisubharmonic function $\psi$ on $\tilde M_t$.
We have included $\tilde M$ into a Stein manifold $\tilde M_t$, with the same monodromy action, and extended $\psi$ to an automorphic plurisubharmonic function on $\tilde M_t$.
[**Step 3.**]{} Since $\tilde M_t$ is Stein, there exists a positive, smooth, plurisubharmonic function ${\varphi}$ on $\tilde M_t$ Since $\tilde M_t$ is properly embedded to a bigger Stein domain, this function can be assumed to be bounded. We apply the standard technique for constructing regularized maxima of plurisubharmonic functions ([@_Demailly:ecole_]; see also [@ov_sas Proposition 4.2]): for a very large $C>\!\!>0$, define $$\xi:=\max{}_{{\varepsilon}} (\psi, \tilde{\varphi}- C-\sup\tilde{\varphi})$$ thus obtaining a smooth plurisubharmonic function on $\tilde M_t$. Moreover, $\xi=\psi$ on an arbitrary big neighbourhood of the boundary including the level sets $S_t=\psi^{-1}(t)$ and $S_{ct}=\psi^{-1}(ct)$.
Now, $V_t$ can be written as $V_t= \psi^{-1}(]-\infty, t[)$. Then $V_t$ is a Stein subset of $\tilde M_t$ with boundary $S_t$. By Stokes theorem, we obtain: $$\label{_volume_through_psi_Equation_}
{\operatorname{Vol}}_\xi(V_t):=\int_{V_t}(dd^c\xi)^n=\int_{{\partial}V_t}d^c\xi\wedge(dd^c\xi)^{n-1}= \int_{{\partial}V_t}d^c\psi\wedge(dd^c\psi)^{n-1}$$ Since the monodromy map $\tau$ maps $V_t$ to $V_{ct}$ multiplying $\psi$ by $\lambda$, gives ${\operatorname{Vol}}_\xi(V_t)= \lambda^n {\operatorname{Vol}}_\xi(V_{ct})$, with $\lambda, c >1$. This is impossible, because $t<0$ and $V_{ct}$ is strictly included in $V_t$.
LCK manifolds with proper and improper potential {#_impro_pote_Subsection_}
------------------------------------------------
It seems now that the equation $d_\theta d^c_\theta \psi=\omega$ is more fundamental than the notion of LCK manifold with (proper) potential. For most applications, this (more general) condition is already sufficient.
The relation between manifolds with $d_\theta d^c_\theta \psi=\omega$ and LCK with potential is similar to the relation between general Vaisman manifolds and quasiregular ones[^5]. One could always deform an irregular Vaisman manifold to a quasiregular one, and quasiregular Vaisman manifolds are dense in the space of all Vaisman manifolds.
The notion of “LCK manifold with improper potential” is similar, in this regard, to the notion of irregular Vaisman or irregular Sasakian manifold[^6], [@bg].
[ ]{}Let $(M, \theta, \omega)$ be an LCK manifold, and $\psi$ a function (positive by \[\_pote\_posi\_Theorem\_\]) which satisfies $d_\theta d^c_\theta\psi=\omega$. Then $(M, \theta, \omega)$ is called [**a manifold with improper LCK potential**]{} if its LCK rank is ${\geqslant}2$, and [**a manifold with proper LCK potential**]{} if it has LCK rank 1.
[ ]{}The expressions “proper potential” and “improper potential”, when used for solutions of the equation $d_\theta d^c_\theta\psi=\omega$, as in the above Definition, do not refer to the properness of $\psi:M\longrightarrow {{\mathbb R}}$, which is always proper if $M$ is compact.
Note that “LCK with potential” was previously used instead of “manifold with proper LCK potential”; now (in light of the discovery of Vaisman manifolds having improper potential, see Section \[err\]) it makes sense to change the terminology by including improper potentials in the definition of LCK with potential.
\[\_LCK\_appro\_Claim\_\] can be rephrased as follows.
[ ]{}Let $(M, \omega, \theta, \psi)$ be a compact LCK manifold with improper LCK potential. Then $(\omega, \theta, \psi)$ can be approximated in the $\mathcal{C}^\infty$-topology by an LCK structure with proper LCK potential.
[ ]{}We have just proven that existence of an LCK metric with improper LCK potential implies existence of a metric with proper LCK potential on the same manifold. The converse is clearly false: when $H^1(M, {{\mathbb R}})$ is 1-dimensional, any Lee class is proportional to an integral cohomology class, and any LCK structure has LCK rank 1, hence $M$ admits no metrics with improper LCK potentials.
However, in all other situations improper potentials do exist.
[ ]{}\[\_impro\_pote\_exists\_Proposition\_\] Let $(M, \omega, \theta, \psi)$ be an LCK manifold with potential, and suppose $b_1(M)>1$. Then $M$ admits an LCK metric $(M, \omega', \theta', \psi)$ with improper potential and arbitrary LCK rank between 2 and $b_1(M)$. Moreover, $(\omega', \theta')$ can be chosen in arbitrary $\mathcal{C}^\infty$-neighbourhood of $(\omega, \theta)$.
[**Proof:**]{} Choose a closed $\theta'$ in a sufficiently small neighbourhood of $\theta$, and let $V_\theta$ be the smallest rational subspace of $H^1(M, {{\mathbb R}})$ such that $V_\theta\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{{\mathbb R}}$ contains $\theta$. Since the choice of the cohomology class $[\theta']$ is arbitrary in a neighbourhood of $[\theta]$, the dimension of $V_\theta$ can be chosen in arbitrary way. Choosing $\theta'$ sufficiently close to $\theta$, we can assume that the (1,1)-form $\omega':=d_{\theta'}
d^c_{\theta'}(\psi)$ is positive definite. Then $(M, \omega', \theta', \psi)$ is an LCK manifold with improper potential and arbitrary LCK rank.
Pluricanonical condition [*versus*]{} LCK with potential {#_pluri_vs_pot_Section_}
========================================================
Exterior derivative of the Lee form: preliminary computations
-------------------------------------------------------------
For a one-form $\eta$, we set $\eta^c:=I\eta$ and $I\eta(\cdot)=\eta(I\cdot)$. On an LCK manifold, we then have $\theta^\sharp{\hspace{2pt}\raisebox{1pt}{\text{$\lrcorner$}}\hspace{2pt}}\omega=\theta^c$, where $\theta^\sharp$ is the dual vector field of $\theta$.
[ ]{}Note the difference of sign with respect to other authors’ conventions who put $\omega(\cdot,\cdot)=g(I\cdot, \cdot)$ and not $\omega(\cdot,\cdot)=g(\cdot, I\cdot)$, and define $I\eta(\cdot)=-\eta(I\cdot)$.
As $\omega$ is nondegenerate, similarly to the Kähler case, one has:
[ ]{}\[inj\] On an LCK manifold $(M,I,g)$ with $\dim_{\mathbb{C}}M{\geqslant}2$, exterior multiplication with $\omega$ is injective.
It is known that the Levi-Civita connections of the local Kähler metrics glue to a global connection, here denoted $D$, which is almost complex ($DI=0$) and satisfies $Dg=\theta\otimes g$ – and hence it is the Weyl connection of the couple $(g,\theta)$.
Using the well-known relation between the Levi-Civita connections of two conformal metrics, the LCK condition is equivalent ([@DO]) with: $$\label{DJ}
(\nabla_XI)Y=\frac 12 \left(\theta(IY)X-\theta(Y)IX+g(X,Y)I\theta^\sharp-\omega(X,Y)\theta^\sharp\right)$$ where $\sharp$ refers to the $g$-raising of indices.
From this we can derive:
[ ]{}On an LCK manifold, the exterior derivative of $\theta^c$ is: $$\label{dthetac}
d\theta^c(X,Y)=\left(-|\theta|^2\omega+\theta\wedge\theta^c\right)(X,Y)+\frac 12\left((\nabla_Y)(IX)-(\nabla_X\theta(IY)\right)$$ [**Proof:**]{} Using we have $$\begin{split}
(\nabla_X\theta^c)Y &=\nabla_X\theta(IY)-\theta(I\nabla_XY)=(\nabla_X\theta)(IY)+\theta(\nabla_X(IY))-\theta(I\nabla_XY)\\
&=(\nabla_X\theta)(IY)+\theta((\nabla_XI)Y)\\
&=(\nabla_X\theta)(IY)+\frac 12 \left(\theta(IY)\theta(X)-\theta(Y)\theta(IX)-\omega(X,Y)|\theta|^2\right)
\end{split}$$ Now follows from $d\theta^c$ being the antisymmetrization of $\nabla\theta^c$.
Pluricanonical manifolds and $(\nabla\theta)^{1,1}=0$ {#_pluricano_nabla_Subsection_}
-----------------------------------------------------
Recall that a pluricanonical LCK manifold, as defined in [@ko], [@kk], is an LCK manifold $(M,\omega, \theta)$ satisfying $(\nabla\theta)^{1,1}=0$, where $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection. This is equivalent with $$(\nabla_{IX}\theta)(IY)+(\nabla_X\theta)(Y)=0$$ which, changing $Y$ into $IY$ and using the symmetry of $\nabla\theta$ (recall that $d\theta=0$) gives: $$(\nabla_Y\theta)(IX)-(\nabla_X\theta)(IY)=0$$ Together with this gives (see [@ov_imrn_10] for a different proof) that the pluricanonical condition is equivalent to $$\label{pluri_1}
d\theta^c=\theta\wedge\theta^c-|\theta|^2\omega$$ We now take the exterior derivative of the above (modulo itself and using $d\omega=\theta\wedge\omega$): $$0=-\theta\wedge d\theta^c-d|\theta|^2\wedge\omega-|\theta|^2\theta\wedge\omega+=
-d|\theta|^2\wedge\omega$$ which, by \[inj\], implies $|\theta|={\operatorname{\text{\sf const}}}.$
We may now rescale the pluricanonical metric such that, [*from now on we assume $|\theta|=1$*]{}.
[ ]{}\[\_theta\_length\_1\_Corollary\_\] Let $(M,\omega, \theta)$ be a LCK manifold. Then it is pluricanonical if and only if $$\label{pluri_2}
d\theta^c=\theta\wedge\theta^c-\omega.$$ and $|\theta|=1$
[ ]{}Condition is equivalent to $(M,\omega, \theta)$ being “LCK with proper or improper potential” in the sense of \[\_lck\_proper\_improper\_Definition\_\].
[ ]{}One can prove that the pluricanonical condition is also equivalent with ${\operatorname{Lie}}_{\theta^\sharp}\omega=0$ ([@paul]). See also similar computations in the recent [@ad Section 3].
In general, on an LCK manifold with potential $\psi$, the norm of the Lee form $d\psi$ is not constant. This, however, holds if the LCK metric is Gauduchon (see \[\_Gauduchon\_Lee\_length\_Proposition\_\] below).
[ ]{}On a complex manifold of complex dimension $n$, a Hermitian metric whose Hermitian 2-form $\omega$ satisfies the equation $\partial{\overline}\partial\omega^{n-1}=0$ is called [**Gauduchon**]{}.
[ ]{} On a compact Hermitian manifold, a Gauduchon metric exists in each conformal class and it is unique up to homothety. Moreover, it is characterized by the coclosedness of its Lee form. A Vaisman metric [*is*]{} a Gauduchon metric in its conformal class, [@gau].
On the other hand, it was shown in [@ko] that a pluricanonical metric has coclosed Lee form and hence, if the manifold is compact, it is a Gauduchon metric in the given conformal class.
[ ]{}\[\_Gauduchon\_Lee\_length\_Proposition\_\] Let $(M, \omega, \theta)$ be a compact LCK manifold with a potential $\psi$ (proper or improper; see \[\_lck\_proper\_improper\_Definition\_\]). Then the LCK form $\omega=\psi^{-1}dd^c\psi$ is Gauduchon if and only if $|\theta|={\operatorname{\text{\sf const}}}$.
[**Proof:**]{} The Hermitian form $\omega$ is Gauduchon if and only if $dd^c\omega^{n-1}=0$.
On the other hand, we compute $dd^c\omega^{n-1}$ using the equation which is satisfied on an LCK manifold with automorphic potential. We obtain $$dd^c\omega^{n-1}=(n-1)^2\omega^{n-1}\wedge\theta\wedge\theta^c+(n-1)\omega^{n-1}\wedge d\theta^c.$$ On the other hand, $$\omega^{n-1}\wedge\theta\wedge\theta^c=\frac 1n |\theta|^2\omega^n$$ and $$d\theta^c\wedge\omega^{n-1}=-\omega\wedge\omega^{n-1}+
\theta\wedge\theta^c\wedge\omega^{n-1}=\left(\frac 1n |\theta|^2-1\right)\omega^n.$$ All in all we get: $$dd^c\omega^{n-1}=\frac{(n-1)^2}{n}|\theta|^2\omega^n+(n-1)\left(\frac
1n|\theta|^2-1\right)\omega^n=(n-1)\big(|\theta|^2-1\big)\omega^n.$$ Then $dd^c\omega^{n-1}=0$ if and only if $|\theta|=1$. This finishes the proof.
We obtained the following corollary.
[ ]{}\[pot\_gau\] Let $M$ be a compact LCK manifold. Then the following are equivalent.
(i)
: $M$ is pluricanonical.
(ii)
: $M$ is LCK manifold with potential, and its LCK metric is Gauduchon.
[ ]{}\[\_semipo\_plurica\_Claim\_\] Let $(M,\omega, \theta)$ be a compact LCK manifold with potential. Consider the 2-form $\omega_0:=d\theta^c= \theta\wedge \theta^c-\omega$. Then $\omega_0$ is semipositive if and only if $(M, \omega, \theta)$ is pluricanonical.
[**Proof:**]{} On a pluricanonical manifold, the form $\omega_0$ has one $0$ eigenvalue and all other strictly positive. This can be seen by writing it in a diagonal basis which includes ${\theta^\sharp}$ and $I{\theta^\sharp}$ and taking into account that $|\theta|=1$. In particular, $\omega_0^{\dim_{{\mathbb C}}M}=0$. Note that $\omega_0$ has the same eigenvalues on Vaisman manifolds, see [@_Verbitsky:LCHK_]. Conversely, if $\omega_0^n=0$, then $\omega_0$ has at least one $0$ eigenvalue.
This simple observation has strong consequences and leads to a degenerate Monge-Ampère equation that we now discuss (compare also with [@_OV:EW_], where a similar equation is considered).
Let $\theta$ be a closed 1-form such that $\omega_0:=d^c\theta$ is a semipositive (1,1)-form, satisfying $\omega_0^n=0$. Assume that $\theta'=\theta+d\psi$ is another 1-form such that $d^c\theta'$ is semipositive. Then $(d^c\theta- dd^c\psi )^n=0$ is a degenerate Monge-Ampère equation which can be studied in the usual way.
We write $$(d\theta^c)^n-(d\theta'^c)^n=(d\theta^c-d\theta'^c)\wedge
P,$$ where $P:=\sum_k d^c\theta^k\wedge
(d^c\theta')^{n-k-1}$ is a semipositive $(n-1, n-1)$-form. This equation gives $$dd^c\psi\wedge P=0,\,\, \text{and hence}\,\, (dd^c\psi)\psi\wedge P=0.$$ Using Stokes’ theorem and integrating by parts, we obtain $$\label{_product_psi_semipos_Equation_}
0=\int_M (dd^c\psi)\psi\wedge P=-\int_M d\psi\wedge
d^c\psi\wedge P.$$ Now recall that the exterior product of semipositive forms is semipositive. By assumption, $d^c\theta$ and $d^c\theta'$ (and hence their powers) are semipositive. Then $P$ is semipositive, as a sum of semipositive forms. As $d\psi\wedge d^c\psi$ is semipositive too, $\int_M
d\psi\wedge d^c\psi\wedge P=0$ implies $d\psi\wedge
d^c\psi\wedge P=0$.
On the other hand, $d^c\theta$ and $d^c\theta'$ have the same kernel $\Sigma$ of (complex) dimension $1$: otherwise, their sum would be strictly positive. But $d^c\theta+d^c\theta'$ is exact and hence, by Stokes theorem, its top power must be zero, contradiction. As $P$ is a transversal volume form on $TM/\Sigma$, it follows that $P$ has the same kernel $\Sigma$ too. This implies:
[ ]{}\[psi\_const\] Let $(M,\omega, \theta)$ and $(M,\omega', \theta')$ be two pluricanonical LCK structures on $M$, and $\omega_0$ and $\omega'_0$ the corresponding semipositive forms (see \[\_semipo\_plurica\_Claim\_\]). Then $\ker \omega_0 = \ker\omega_o'$. Moreover, if $\theta$ is cohomologuous to $\theta'$, one has $\theta-\theta'=d\psi$, where $\psi$ is a function which is constant on the leaves of $\Sigma= \ker \omega_0=\ker\omega_0'$.
[**Proof:**]{} The forms $\omega_0$ and $\omega'_0$ are semipositive, with one-dimensional kernel, hence unless $\ker \omega_0 = \ker\omega_o'$, their sum is strictly positive. In the latter case, one has $\int_M (\omega_0+\omega'_0)^n>0$, which is impossible by Stokes’ formula, since $\omega_0$ and $\omega'_0$ are exact.
Finally, implies that $d\psi$ vanishes on $\Sigma$, otherwise the semipositive, exact form $d\psi\wedge d^c\psi\wedge P$ would have been strictly positive somewhere on $M$.
Compact pluricanonical surfaces are Vaisman {#_Surfaces_Section_}
===========================================
Complex surfaces of Kähler rank 1
---------------------------------
Recall that a compact complex surface is [**of Kähler rank 1**]{} if and only if it is not Kähler but it admits a closed semipositive (1,1)-form whose zero locus is contained in a curve ([@hl]).
[ ]{}A compact pluricanonical LCK surface $M$ has Kähler rank 1.
[**Proof:**]{} The manifold $M$ is non-Kähler, because it admits a positive, exact form. This form, multiplied by the Kähler one, would have given us an exact volume form, which is impossible by Stokes’ theorem. On the other hand, $M$ admits a semipositive form by \[\_semipo\_plurica\_Claim\_\].
Recall that a [**Hopf surface**]{} is a finite quotient of $H$, where $H$ is a quotient of ${{\mathbb C}}^2 \backslash 0$ by a polynomial contraction. A Hopf surface is [**diagonal**]{} if this polynomial contraction is expressed by a diagonal matrix.
Compact surfaces of Kähler rank 1 have been classified in [@ct] and [@b]. They can be:
1. Non-Kähler elliptic fibrations,
2. Diagonal Hopf surfaces and their blow-ups,
3. Inoue surfaces and their blow-ups.
Inoue surfaces have $b_1=1$ and hence, if they admit an automorphic potential, this has to be proper. But all compact LCK manifolds with proper potential can be deformed to Vaisman ones, and Inoue surfaces are not diffeomorphic to Vaisman manifolds (this result follows from a classification of Vaisman surfaces by F. Belgun, [@be]). Thus Inoue surfaces cannot have automorphic potential.
A cover of a blow-up of any complex manifold cannot admit plurisubharmonic functions because, by the lifting criterion, the projective spaces contained in the blow-up lift to the cover. Thus blow-ups cannot have global potential.
We are left with non-Kähler elliptic fibrations and diagonal Hopf surfaces which are known to admit Vaisman metrics, see [*e.g.*]{} [@be]. And hence:
[ ]{}\[surfvai\] All compact pluricanonical LCK surfaces admit Vaisman metrics.
For further use it is convenient to list all criteria used to distinguish Vaisman Hopf surfaces from non-Vaisman ones.
[ ]{}\[\_Hopf\_surface\_Vaisman\_Theorem\_\] Let $M$ be a Hopf surface. Then the following are equivalent.
(i)
: $M$ is Vaisman.
(ii)
: $M$ is diagonalizable.
(iii)
: $M$ has Kähler rank 1.
(iv)
: $M$ contains at least two distinct elliptic curves.
[**Proof:**]{} Equivalence of the first three conditions is proven above. The equivalence of (iv) and (ii) is shown by Iku Nakamura and Masahide Kato ([@_Nakamura:curves_ Theorem 5.2]). Note that the cited result refers to primary Hopf surfaces, but we can always pass to a finite covering and the number of elliptic curves will not change because the eigenvectors for rationally independent eigenvalues cannot be mutually exchanged, and if they were dependent, they would produce infinitely many elliptic curves.
Algebraic groups and the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition
-------------------------------------------------------
In this section we let $V:={{\mathbb C}}^n$.
[ ]{} Let $A\in GL(V)$ be a linear operator, and $\langle A \rangle$ the group generated by $A$. Denote by $G$ the Zariski closure of $\langle A \rangle$ in $GL(V)$. Then, for any $v\in V$, the Zariski closure $Z_v$ of the orbit $\langle A\rangle\cdot v$ is equal to the usual closure of $G\cdot v$.
[**Proof:**]{} Clearly, $Z_v$ is $G$-invariant. Indeed, its normalizer $N(Z_v)$ in $GL(V)$ is an algebraic group containing $\langle A
\rangle$, hence $N(Z_v)$ contains $G$. The converse is also true: since $\langle A\rangle$ normalizes $\langle A\rangle\cdot v$, its Zariski closure $G$ normalizes the Zariski closure $Z_v$ of the orbit. Therefore, the orbit $G\cdot v$ is contained in $Z_v$. Since $G\cdot v$ is a constructible set, its Zariski closure coincides with its usual closure, [@hum], [@kol]. This gives $\overline{G\cdot v}\subset Z_v$. As $\overline{G\cdot v}$ is algebraic and contains $\langle A\rangle\cdot v$, the inclusion $Z_v\subset \overline{G\cdot v}$ is also true.
Let $G\subset GL(V)$ be an algebraic group over ${{\mathbb C}}$. Recall that an element $g\in G$ is called [**semisimple**]{} if it is diagonalizable, and [**unipotent**]{} if $g = e^n$, where $n$ is a nilpotent element of its Lie algebra.
[ ]{}(Jordan-Chevalley decomposition, [@hum Section 15]) For any algebraic group $G\subset GL(V)$, any $g\in G$ can be represented as a product of two commuting elements $g=g_sg_u$, where $g_s$ is semisimple, and $g_u$ unipotent. Moreover, this decomposition is unique and functorial under homomorphisms of algebraic groups.
[ ]{}\[\_algebraic\_action\_on\_LCK\_with\_pot\_Corollary\_\] Let $M$ be a submanifold of a linear Hopf manifold $H=(V\backslash 0)/A$, $\tilde M \subset V\backslash 0$ its ${{\mathbb Z}}$-covering, and $G$ the Zariski closure of $\langle A \rangle$ in $GL(V)$. Then $\tilde M$ contains the $G$-orbit of each point $v\in \tilde M$. Moreover, $G$ is a product of $G_s:=({{\mathbb C}}^*)^k$ and a unipotent group $G_u$ commuting with $G_s$, and bothe of these groups preserve $\tilde M$.
[**Proof:**]{} Let $X$ be the closure of $\tilde M$ in ${{\mathbb C}}^N$. The ideal $I_X$ of $X$ is generated by polynomials, as shown in [@ov01 Proof of Theorem 3.3]. As the polynomial ring is Noetherian, $I_X$ is finitely generated, [@am]. Therefore, $X$ is a cone of a projective variety.
This allows us to consider the smallest algebraic group $G$ containing $A$. Then $G$ acts naturally on $X$ and preserves it. The last assertion of \[\_algebraic\_action\_on\_LCK\_with\_pot\_Corollary\_\] is implied by the Jordan-Chevalley decomposition.
Finding surfaces in LCK manifolds with potential
------------------------------------------------
[ ]{}\[\_surface\_exists\_Lemma\_\] Let $M$ be a submanifold of a linear Hopf manifold $H=(V\backslash 0)/A$, $\dim M {\geqslant}3$, and $G=G_sG_u$ the Zariski closure of $\langle A \rangle$ with its Jordan-Chevalley decomposition. Then $M$ contains a surface $M_0$, with $G_u$ acting non-trivially on its ${{\mathbb Z}}$-covering $\tilde M_0\subset V$.
[**Proof:**]{} Another form of this statement is proven by Masahide Kato ([@_Kato:subvarieties_]).
We shall use induction on dimension of $M$. To prove \[\_surface\_exists\_Lemma\_\] it would suffice to find a subvariety $M_1 \subset M$ of codimension 1 such that $G_u$ acts non-trivially on its ${{\mathbb Z}}$-covering $\tilde M_1\subset {{\mathbb C}}^n \backslash 0$. Replacing $V$ by the smallest $A$-invariant subspace containing $\tilde M$, we may assume that the intersection $\tilde M \cap V_1\neq V_1$ for each proper subspace $V_1\subset V$. Now take a codimension 1 subspace $V_1\subsetneq V$ which is $A$-invariant and such that $G_u$ acts on $V_1$ non-trivially (equivalently, such that $A$ acts on $V_1$ non-diagonally). Using the Jordan decomposition of $A$, such $V_1$ is easy to construct. Then $\tilde M_1':= V_1 \cap \tilde M$ gives a subvariety of $M$ of codimension 1 and with non-trivial action of $G_u$.
[ ]{}\[\_surface\_non-diagonal\_Lemma\_\] Let $M\subset H=(V\backslash 0)/\langle A\rangle$ be a surface in a Hopf manifold, and $G=G_sG_u$ the Zariski closure of $\langle A \rangle$ with its Jordan-Chevalley decomposition. Assume that $G_u$ acts on the ${{\mathbb Z}}$-covering $\tilde M$ non-trivially. Then $M$ is non-diagonal.
[**Proof:**]{} Replacing $G$ by its quotient by the subgroup acting trivially on $\tilde M$ if necessary, we may assume that $G$ acts properly on a general orbit in $\tilde M$. Then $G$ is at most 2-dimensional. However, it cannot be 1-dimensional because $G_s$ contains contractions (hence cannot be 0-dimensional) and $G_u$ acts non-trivially. Therefore, $G_s\simeq{{\mathbb C}}^*$ and $G_u\simeq{{\mathbb C}}$.
Since $G_s$ acts by contractions, the quotient $S:= \tilde M/G_s$ is a compact curve, equipped with $G_u$-action which has a dense orbit. The group $G_u$ can act non-trivially only on a genus 0 curve, and there is a unique open orbit $O$ of $G_u$, with $S \backslash O$ being one point. All complex subvarieties of $M$ are by construction $G$-invariant, and the complement of an open orbit is an elliptic curve, hence $M$ has only one elliptic curve, and is non-diagonalizable by \[\_Hopf\_surface\_Vaisman\_Theorem\_\].
[ ]{}\[surface\] A compact LCK manifold $M$ with potential which is not Vaisman contains an embedded non-diagonal Hopf surface.
[**Proof:**]{} Let $M$ be a compact LCK manifold with potential, $\dim_{{\mathbb C}}M{\geqslant}3$. Then $M$ is holomorphically embedded into a Hopf manifold ${{\mathbb C}}^n\backslash 0 /\langle A\rangle$, where $A\in \mathrm{GL}(N,{{\mathbb C}})$ is a linear operator, see [@ov01 Theorem 3.4]. Applying \[\_surface\_exists\_Lemma\_\] and \[\_surface\_non-diagonal\_Lemma\_\], we find a non-diagonal Hopf surface in $M$.
Pluricanonical condition [*versus*]{} Vaisman {#_pluri_are_Vaisman_proof_Section_}
=============================================
Bott-Chern cohomology for Vaisman manifolds
-------------------------------------------
[ ]{}The [**Bott-Chern cohomology**]{} groups $H^*_{BC}(M)$ of a complex manifold $M$ are $\frac{\ker d \cap \ker d^c}{{\operatorname{im}}dd^c}$. Since these groups are manifestly invariant with respect to the $U(1)$-action inducing the Hodge decomposition, one has $H^*_{BC}(M)=\bigoplus_{p,q}H^{p,q}_{BC}(M)$, where $$H^{p,q}_{BC}(M) =
\frac{\ker d \cap \ker d^c\cap
\Lambda^{p,q}(M)}{dd^c(\Lambda^{p-1,q-1}(M))}.$$
The Bott-Chern cohomology is relevant for complex manifolds which do not satisfy a global $dd^c$ lemma, in particular for LCK manifolds (see, [*e.g.*]{}, the recent [@au]).
[ ]{}\[\_BC\_kernel\_Proposition\_\] Let $(M, I, \omega, \theta)$ be a compact Vaisman manifold, and let $\psi:\; H^{1,1}_{BC}(M){{\:\longrightarrow\:}}H^2(M)$ be the tautological map. Then $\ker \psi$ is 1-dimensional and it is generated by $d^c\theta$.
The proof of \[\_BC\_kernel\_Proposition\_\] will occupy the remaining part of this subsection. Let $n=\dim_{{\mathbb C}}M$. Since $d^* \theta=0$ (that is $\theta$ is coclosed), one has $d(*\theta)= d(\omega^{n-1}\wedge I(\theta))=0$ (where $*$ is the Hodge operator). Therefore, $dd^c(\omega^{n-1})=0$: the Vaisman metric is Gauduchon. This is well known.
Then for any differentiable function $f$, integration by parts and Stokes’ formula give $$\label{_omega_Gaud_integra_Equation_}
\int_M dd^cf\wedge \omega^{n-1}=0.$$ Define the [**degree map**]{} $$\deg:\; H^{1,1}_{BC}(M){{\:\longrightarrow\:}}{{\mathbb C}}\,\,\,
\text{by}\,\,\, [\alpha] \mapsto \int_M \alpha \wedge \omega^{n-1}.$$ From it follows that the degree map is well defined.
We now define a second order elliptic operator on functions by the formula $$D(f):= \frac{dd^c f\wedge \omega^{n-1}}{\omega^n}.$$ Its index is zero, because its symbol is the same as for the Laplacian on functions, and the index of the Laplacian is zero, because it is self-dual.
Note that $\ker D$ only contains constants by the Hopf maximum principle. Therefore, ${\operatorname{coker}}D$ is 1-dimensional. By , ${\operatorname{im}}D$ is the space of functions $g$ such that $\int_M g\omega^n=0$. This gives the following useful lemma:
[ ]{}\[\_primitive\_represe\_degree0\_Lemma\_\] Let $[\alpha]\in H^{1,1}_{BC}(M)$ be a degree 0 Bott-Chern cohomology class. Then $[\alpha]$ can be represented by a closed (1,1)-form $\alpha$ such that $\alpha\wedge \omega^{n-1}=0$ (such (1,1)-forms are called [**primitive**]{}).
[**Proof:**]{} Let $\alpha_1$ be a (1,1)-form representing $[\alpha]$. Then $\int_M \alpha_1 \wedge \omega^{n-1}=0$, and hence $\alpha_1 \wedge \omega^{n-1}= dd^c f \wedge
\omega^{n-1}$ for some $f\in \mathcal{C}^\infty (M)$. Then $\alpha:= \alpha_1 - dd^c f$ is primitive.
[ ]{}Let $M$ be a Vaisman manifold, $\theta^\sharp$ its Lee field, and $\Sigma\subset TM$ the subbundle generated by $\theta^\sharp$ and $I(\theta^\sharp)$. The subbundle $\Sigma\subset TM$ is a holomorphic foliation, called [**the canonical, or fundamental foliation of the Vaisman manifold $M$**]{} (see [@vai], [@DO]).
A form $\eta$ on $M$ is called [**transversal**]{} or [**basic**]{} (with respect to $\Sigma$) if $v {\hspace{2pt}\raisebox{1pt}{\text{$\lrcorner$}}\hspace{2pt}}\eta=v{\hspace{2pt}\raisebox{1pt}{\text{$\lrcorner$}}\hspace{2pt}}(d\eta)=0$ for any vector field $v\in \Sigma$. Locally in a neighbourhood where the leaf space of $\Sigma$ exists, transversal forms are forms on this leaf space. See [@ton] and [@vai] for the definitions of basic forms and basic cohomology with respect to $\Sigma$.
In [@vai], transversal geometry of a Vaisman manifold is explored in depth. It is shown that the form $\omega_0:= - d^c \theta$ is transversal and defines a Kähler structure on the leaf space in any neighbourhood where the leaf space of $\Sigma$ exists. Such a form is called [**transversally Kähler**]{}. It is straightforward to define the transversal de Rham cohomology, the Hodge decomposition, Lefschetz $SL(2)$-action and so forth on the space of transversal forms. It turns out that the same properties of the Hodge decomposition (including the Lefschetz $SL(2)$-action on cohomology) are true for the transversal cohomology of the Vaisman manifold.
For the relation between de Rham cohomology and basic cohomology of Vaisman manifolds, we recall the following result of T. Kashiwada ([@kas], [@vai Theorem 4.1]):
[ ]{}\[\_Kashiwada\_decompo\_Theorem\_\] On a compact Vaisman manifold of complex dimension $n$, any (real) harmonic $p$-form $\eta$, $0{\leqslant}p{\leqslant}n-1$, has a unique decomposition $$\label{desc}
\eta={\alpha}+\theta\wedge\beta,$$ with ${\alpha}$ and ${\beta}$ basic, transversally primitive, harmonic and transversally harmonic forms.
This easily implies the following:
[ ]{}\[\_kernel\_gene\_by\_omega\_0+Lemma\_\] The kernel $K$ of the natural map $H^*_\Sigma(M){{\:\longrightarrow\:}}H^*(M)$ from the basic cohomology to the de Rham cohomology is generated (multiplicatively) by $\omega_0$.
[**Proof:**]{} Any class in $K$ can be represented by a form $\alpha$ which is transversally harmonic and exact. Then the primitive part of $\alpha$ vanishes by \[\_Kashiwada\_decompo\_Theorem\_\].
[ ]{}\[\_primitive\_transversal\_Lemma\_\] Let $\eta\in \Lambda^{1,1}(M)$ be a primitive, closed (1,1)-form on a compact Vaisman manifold. Then $\eta$ is transversal.
[**Proof:**]{} The lemma is essentially [@_Verbitsky:Sta_Elli_ Proposition 4.2], and its proof is entirely similar to [@_Verbitsky:Sta_Elli_ Proposition 4.2]. Choose an orthonormal basis $z_i$ in $\Lambda^{1,0}(M)$ in such a way that: $$\omega = -\1 \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} z_i
\wedge {\overline}z_i,\quad \text{ and}\quad \omega_0 = -\1 \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} z_i
\wedge {\overline}z_i.$$ Clearly $z_0=\theta$. It suffices to prove \[\_primitive\_transversal\_Lemma\_\] for real (1,1)-forms, hence we may write $$\1\eta = \sum_i a_i z_i \wedge {\overline}z_i +
\sum_{i\neq j} b_{ij} z_i \wedge {\overline}z_j,\quad
\text{where}\,\,\, a_i\in {{\mathbb R}},\,\,\, b_{ij}= {\overline}b_{ji}.$$
Since $\eta$ is exact, one has $\int_M \eta\wedge \eta\wedge \omega_0^{n-2}=0$. However, at each point $$\label{_square_primitive_explicit_Equation_}
\frac{\eta\wedge \eta\wedge \omega_0^{n-2}}{\omega^n}=
a_0\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} a_i - \sum b_{0i} b_{i0} =
a_0\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} a_i - \sum |b_{0i}|^2$$ Since $\eta$ is primitive, $\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} a_i =0$, and hence $a_0\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} a_i=-a_0^2$. Then becomes $$\frac{\eta\wedge \eta\wedge \omega_0^{n-2}}{\omega^n}
=-a_0^2- \sum |b_{0i}|^2 {\leqslant}0,$$ with equality reached only when $a_0=0$ and $b_{0i}=0$ for all $i$. However, the form $\eta\wedge \eta\wedge \omega_0^{n-2}$ is exact, hence the integral $\eta\wedge \eta\wedge
\omega_0^{n-2}$ cannot be positive, giving $\eta\wedge \eta\wedge \omega_0^{n-2}=0$ and $a_0=b_{0i}=0$. The latter equality is precisely the transversality of $\eta$.
Comparing \[\_primitive\_represe\_degree0\_Lemma\_\] and \[\_primitive\_transversal\_Lemma\_\], we obtain the following:
[ ]{}\[\_BC\_primitive\_Corollary\_\] Let $[\alpha]\in H^{1,1}_{BC}(M)$ be a Bott-Chern class on a compact Vaisman manifold. Then $[\alpha]$ can be represented by a transversal form.
[**Proof:**]{} Since the form $\omega_0$ is positive, it has positive degree. Then $[\alpha_1]:=[\alpha]-c[\omega_0]$ has degree 0, for appropriate $c$. \[\_primitive\_represe\_degree0\_Lemma\_\] and \[\_primitive\_transversal\_Lemma\_\] then imply that any degree 0 Bott-Chern (1,1)-class $[\alpha_1]$ can be represented by a primitive, transversal form $\alpha_1$. As $\omega_0$ is closed and $\theta^\sharp{\hspace{2pt}\raisebox{1pt}{\text{$\lrcorner$}}\hspace{2pt}}\omega_0=I(\theta^\sharp){\hspace{2pt}\raisebox{1pt}{\text{$\lrcorner$}}\hspace{2pt}}\omega_0=0$, the form $\omega_0$ is also transversal. Then $\alpha_1 +c \omega_0$ is a transversal form representing $[\alpha]$.
[ ]{}For another proof of this result, see [@tsu Theorem 2.1].
Finally we can give:
[**Proof of \[\_BC\_kernel\_Proposition\_\]:**]{} Let $\eta\in H^{1,1}_{BC}(M)$ be a Bott-Chern cohomology class vanishing in de Rham cohomology. By \[\_BC\_primitive\_Corollary\_\], we can represent $\eta$ by a transversal, closed (1,1)-form. By \[\_kernel\_gene\_by\_omega\_0+Lemma\_\], the kernel of the tautological map $H^{1,1}_\Sigma(M) {{\:\longrightarrow\:}}H^{1,1}_{BC}(M)$ is generated by $\omega_0= d^c\theta$.
Pluricanonical submanifolds
---------------------------
To prove the main result, we still need several preliminary facts.
It is known ([@va]), that if a compact complex manifold admits Kähler metrics, then any LCK metric on it is globally conformally Kähler. The next result is an analogue for pluricanonical [*versus*]{} Vaisman metrics:
[ ]{}\[pluri-vai\] Let $M$ be a compact complex manifold which admits a Vaisman metric. Then any pluricanonical metric on it is Vaisman.
[**Proof:**]{} Let $\omega=\theta\wedge\theta^c-d\theta^c$ be a pluricanonical form on $M$ and let $\omega'$ be a Vaisman one, with $\theta'$ its Lee form. Denote by $\omega_0$, $\omega'_0$ the corresponding exact semipositive forms, $\omega_0= - d^c \theta$, $\omega_0'= - d^c \theta'$. Since both $\omega_0$ and $\omega'_0$ are exact, their Bott-Chern classes are proportional (\[\_BC\_kernel\_Proposition\_\]). Rescaling one of these forms if necessary, we may assume that $\omega_0-\omega'_0=dd^c{\varphi}$, where ${\varphi}$ is a function which is transversal, that is, constant on the leaves of $\Sigma$. Then $\alpha:=\theta-\theta'+d{\varphi}$ is $d$- and $d^c$-closed, hence holomorphic, and therefore transversal by [@tsuk Theorem 3.3]).
According to [@kor Theorem A], an LCK metric on $M$ is Vaisman if and only it admits a holomorphic flow which leaves it invariant, but acts non-isometrically on the Kähler covering. We then show that the holomorphic Lee flow $F$ generated by ${\theta'}^\sharp-\1I({\theta'}^\sharp)$ (which is tangent to the leaves of $\Sigma$) preserves the pluricanonical metric. As $F$ is holomorphic, it is enough to show that $\omega$ is $F$-invariant.
Indeed, the form $\theta=\alpha+\theta'-d{\varphi}$ is the sum of the transversal (and hence, $F$-invariant) form $\alpha -d {\varphi}$ and the $F$-invariant form $\theta'$. Therefore, it is also $F$-invariant. As $F$ is holomorphic, $I(\theta)$ is $F$-invariant too and also $\omega_0=-d^c\theta$, and hence $\omega$ is $F$-invariant and Vaisman.
The case of compact pluricanonical surfaces was treated in \[surfvai\]. From the classification of surfaces of Kähler rank 1 it follows that any pluricanonical surface admits a Vaisman metric.
Obviously, complex submanifolds of LCK manifolds are LCK. As we already recalled, the Vaisman condition is inherited on compact complex submanifolds, [@_Verbitsky:LCHK_]. A similar result occurs for pluricanonical manifolds:
\[plurisub\] A compact complex submanifold of a pluricanonical LCK manifold is pluricanonical.
[**Proof:**]{} Let $M$ be a pluricanonical LCK manifold and let $i:N\hookrightarrow M$ be a compact submanifold. By \[\_semipo\_plurica\_Claim\_\] the two-form $\omega_0:=d\theta^c$ is degenerate on $M$. Then its restriction $i^*\omega_0$ to $N$ is degenerate too, otherwise $\int_N\big(i^*\omega_0\big)^{\dim_{{\mathbb C}}N}\neq 0$, contradiction with $i^*\omega_0$ being exact. This means that the induced LCK structure on $N$ satisfies and hence is pluricanonical.
The main result: all compact pluricanonical manifolds are Vaisman
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[ ]{}\[main\] Let $(M, I)$ be a compact complex manifold and let $g$ be an LCK pluricanonical metric on it. Then $g$ is Vaisman.
[**Proof:**]{} Let $M$ be a compact pluricanonical locally conformally Kähler manifold. As is satisfied, the universal covering of $M$ carries an automorphic potential which by \[\_LCK\_relax\_Theorem\_\] is strictly positive. Moreover, by the same result, $M$ admits a locally conformally Kähler metric with potential (possibly different from the pluricanonical metric), call it $g'$. This LCK metric has Lee form of length 1, by \[\_theta\_length\_1\_Corollary\_\].
Now we argue by contradiction. Suppose the metric $g'$ is not Vaisman. Then, by \[surface\], $M$ contains an embedded non-diagonal Hopf surface $H^2$ which, by \[plurisub\] (applied for the initial metric on $M$), is pluricanonical and, by \[surfvai\], admits Vaisman metrics. But non-diagonal Hopf surfaces cannot admit Vaisman metrics, [@be], contradiction.
As $M$ admits a Vaisman metric, $g'$, then by \[pluri-vai\], the pluricanonical metric $g$ itself is Vaisman.
In view of this result, \[\_semipo\_plurica\_Claim\_\] now gives:
[ ]{}Let $(M,\omega, \theta)$ be a compact LCK manifold with potential. Consider the 2-form $\omega_0:=d\theta^c= \theta\wedge
\theta^c-\omega$. Then $\omega_0$ is semipositive if and only if $(M, \omega, \theta)$ is Vaisman.
*Errata* {#err}
========
Pluricanonical condition revisited
----------------------------------
In Section 3 of [@ov_imrn_10] the following erroneous claim was made: “We now prove that the pluricanonical condition is equivalent with the existence of an automorphic potential on a Kähler covering.”
Then we proceeded to make calculations purporting to show that pluricanonical condition is equivalent to the LCK with potential condition $d(I\theta) = \omega - \theta\wedge I\theta.$ Here, the scalar term is lost: the correct equation (in the notation of [@ov_imrn_10]) is $d(I\theta) = |\theta|^2\omega - \theta\wedge I\theta.$
In \[\_theta\_length\_1\_Corollary\_\], we prove that this equation, indeed, implies $d(I\theta) = \omega - \theta\wedge I\theta$.
However, the converse statement is false: as shown in \[main\], not all LCK manifolds with potential admit a pluricanonical LCK structure, but only Vaisman ones.
LCK rank of Vaisman manifolds {#_LCK_rank_errata_Subsection_}
-----------------------------
Recall that the [**LCK rank**]{} of an LCK manifold $(M, \omega,\theta)$ is the rank of the smallest rational subspace $V$ in $H^1(M,{{\mathbb R}})$ such that $V\otimes_{{\mathbb Q}}{{\mathbb R}}$ contains the cohomology class $[\theta]$. When the LCK rank is 1, the manifold admits a ${{\mathbb Z}}$-covering which is Kähler (Section \[\_LCK-Pot-proper\_Section\_\]).
In several papers published previously ([@_OV:_Structure_], [@_OV:MN_], [@_OV_Automorphisms_]) we claimed that a Vaisman manifold and an LCK manifold with potential always have LCK rank 1. This is in fact false. In this section we produce a counterexample to these claims, and explain the error.
Notice, however, that, as we prove below, any complex manifold which admits a structure of a Vaisman manifold (or LCK manifold with potential) [*also*]{} admits a structure of a Vaisman manifold (or LCK manifold with potential) with LCK rank one, so the problems arising because of this error are all differential-geometrical in nature; all results of complex geometry remain valid. This is probably the reason why the error was not noticed for so many years. Moreover, [*the set of Vaisman (or LCK with potential) structures with LCK rank 1 on a given manifold is dense in the set of all Vaisman (or LCK with potential) structures.*]{}
To construct a Vaisman (or LCK) manifold with an LCK rank bigger than 1 we use the same construction as used in \[pluri-vai\]. Consider a Vaisman manifold $(M, \omega, \theta)$, with $\omega=d_{\theta}d^c_{\theta}(1)$ (see \[\_LCK\_pot\_MN\_Definition\_\] and the following Claim) which admits a transversal holomorphic 1-form $\alpha^{1,0}$. Examples of such Vaisman manifolds include the Kodaira surface, which is an isotrivial elliptic fibration over an elliptic curve. In this case, $\alpha^{1,0}$ is the pullback of a holomorphic differential of the elliptic curve.
Now, let $\alpha:= {\operatorname{Re}}\alpha^{1,0}$, let $\theta':= \theta+\alpha$, and consider the 2-form $\omega':=d_{\theta'}d^c_{\theta'}(1)$. By construction, this is a (1,1)-form, which is $d_{\theta'}$-closed and (for small values of $\alpha$ in the $\mathcal{C}^\infty$ norm) positive, hence it is an LCK form. This form is in fact conformally equivalent to a Vaisman one by Ornea-Kamishima criterion (see the proof of \[\_pluri\_pote\_main\_intro\_Theorem\_\]). By [@vai], $H^1(M, {{\mathbb R}})$ is generated by the cohomology class of $[\theta]$ and cohomology classes of the real parts of holomorphic 1-forms. This implies the following unexpected result (already used in \[pluri-vai\]).
[ ]{}\[\_Lee\_open\_Theorem\_\] Let $M$ be a Vaisman manifold or LCK manifold with potential and let $L\subset H^1(M, {{\mathbb R}})$ be the set of cohomology classes of all Lee forms for the Vaisman (LCK with potential) structures on $M$. Then $L$ is open in $H^1(M,{{\mathbb R}})$.
[**Proof:**]{} The Vaisman case was considered above. The general LCK with potential case is elementary: given an LCK with potential structure $(M, \omega,\theta)$, such that $\omega=d_{\theta}d^c_{\theta}(1)$, we can always replace $\theta$ by a closed form $\theta'=\theta+\alpha$, with $\alpha$ sufficiently small. Then $\omega'=d_{\theta'}d^c_{\theta'}(1)$ is a positive $(1,1)$-form, giving an LCK structure with potential.
Now, for a general Vaisman structure $(M, \omega, \theta)$, its LCK rank is equal to $b_1(M)$, and any number between 1 and $b_1(M)$ can be obtained as an LCK rank for an appropriate choice of $\theta$.
\[\_Lee\_open\_Theorem\_\] has the following consequences.
[ ]{}Let $M$ be a complex manifold which admits a structure of a Vaisman manifold (or LCK manifold with potential) $(M, \omega, \theta)$. Then $M$ admits a structure of a Vaisman manifold (or LCK manifold with potential) $(M, \omega', \theta')$ with proper potential, that is, of LCK rank one. Moreover, such $\omega'$ and $\theta'$ can be chosen in any neighbourhood of $(M, \omega, \theta)$.
Now, let us explain where the proof of [@_OV:_Structure_] (later refined in [@_OV_Automorphisms_]) failed.
Let $M$ be a compact Vaisman manifold, and $\theta^\sharp$ its Lee field. Then $\theta^\sharp$ acts on $M$ by holomorphic isometries, and on its smallest Kähler covering $(\tilde M, \tilde \omega)$ by holomorphic homotheties. Denote by $G$ the closure of the group generated by $e^{t\theta^\sharp}$. This group is a compact Lie group, because isometries form a compact Lie group on a compact Riemannian manifold, and a closed subgroup of a Lie group is a Lie group by Cartan’s theorem. Moreover, it is commutative, because $\langle e^{t\theta^\sharp}\rangle$ is commutative, and this gives $G=(S^1)^{k}$.
Let $\tilde G$ be the group of pairs $(\tilde f\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(\tilde M), \ f\in G)$, making the following diagram commutative: $$\begin{CD}
\tilde M@>{\tilde f}>> \tilde M \\
@V{\pi}VV @VV{\pi}V \\
M@>{f}>> M
\end{CD}$$ Then $\tilde G$ is a covering of $G$, and the kernel of this projection is $\tilde G\cap {\operatorname{Aut}}_{M}(\tilde M)$, where ${\operatorname{Aut}}_{\tilde M}(M)$ is the deck transform group of the covering $\tilde M {{\:\longrightarrow\:}}M$.
Consider the homomorphism $\chi:\; \pi_1(M){{\:\longrightarrow\:}}{{\mathbb R}}^{>0}$ mapping an element of $\pi_1(M)$ considered as an automorphism of $\tilde M$, to the Kähler homothety constant, $\gamma \mapsto \frac{\gamma^*\tilde \omega}{\tilde \omega}$. Since $\tilde M$ is the smallest Kähler covering, we identify ${\operatorname{Aut}}_{M}(\tilde M)$ with $\chi(\pi_1(M))\subset {{\mathbb R}}^{>0}$.
Now, let $\tilde G_0\subset \tilde G$ be the subgroup acting on $\tilde M$ by isometries. Since the group $\tilde G\cap {\operatorname{Aut}}_{M}(\tilde M)$ is a subgroup of ${\operatorname{Aut}}_{\tilde M}(M)$, $\tilde G_0$ maps to its image in $G$ bijectively.
We assumed that $G_0$ (being the subgroup of elements of $\tilde G$ acting by isometries on both $\tilde M$ and $M$) is closed in $G$. Then, if $\tilde G_0\cong S^{k-1}$, this would imply that $\tilde G\cong (S^1)^{k-1} \times {{\mathbb R}}$, proving that $M$ is a quotient of $\tilde M$ by ${{\mathbb Z}}$-action.
However, this is false, because $G_0$ is closed in $\tilde G$, but not closed in $G$. This is where the argument fails.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} L.O. thanks the Laboratory for Algebraic Geometry at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow for hospitality and excellent research environment during February and April 2014, and April 2015.
Both authors are indebted to Paul Gauduchon and Andrei Moroianu, for drawing their attention on the insufficient motivation of their arguments in [@ov_imrn_10] and for illuminating discussions, and to Victor Vuletescu for a careful reading of a first draft of this paper.
[XXX]{}
K. Abe, [*On a class of Hermitian manifolds*]{}, Invent. Math. [**51**]{} (1979), 103–121.
D. Angella, L. Ugarte, [*Locally conformal Hermitian metrics on complex non-Kähler manifolds*]{}, arXiv:1505.08007.
V. Apostolov, G. Dloussky, [*Locally conformally symplectic structures on compact non-Kähler complex surfaces*]{}, arXiv:1501.02687.
A. Andreotti, Y.T. Siu, [*Projective embeddings of pseudoconcave spaces*]{}, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa [**24**]{}, 231–278 (1970).
M.F. Atyiah, I.G. Macdonald, Introduction to commutative algebra, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass.-London-Don Mills, Ont. 1969.
F.A. Belgun, [*On the metric structure of non-Kähler complex surfaces*]{}, Math. Ann. [**317**]{} (2000), no. 1, 1–40.
C. Boyer, K. Galicki, Sasakian geometry, Oxford Univ. Press, 2008.
M. Brunella, [*A characterization of Inoue surfaces*]{} Comment. Math. Helv. [**88**]{} (2013), no. 4, 859–874.
I. Chiose, M. Toma, [*On compact complex surfaces of Kähler rank one*]{}, Amer. J. Math. [**135**]{} (2013), no. 3, 851–860.
J.-P. Demailly, Complex analytic and differential geometry, [www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/\~demailly/manuscripts/agbook.pdf](www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~demailly/manuscripts/agbook.pdf).
J.-P. Demailly, [*Analytic methods in algebraic geometry,*]{} Lecture Notes, École d’été de Mathématiques de Grenoble “Géométrie des variétés projectives complexes : programme du modèle minimal” (June–July 2007).
S. Dragomir, L. Ornea, Locally conformally Kähler geometry, Progress in Math. [**155**]{}, Birkhäuser, 1998.
P. Gauduchon, [*La $1$-forme de torsion d’une variété Hermitienne compacte*]{}, Math. Ann. [**267**]{} (1984), 495–518.
P. Gauduchon, *Private communication*.
R. Gini, L. Ornea, M. Parton, P. Piccinni, *Reduction of Vaisman structures in complex and quaternionic geometry*, J. Geom. Physics, [**56**]{} (2006), 2501-2522.
R. Harvey and H. B. Lawson Jr., [*An intrinsic characterization of Kähler manifolds*]{}, Invent. Math. [**74**]{} (1983), no. 2, 169–198.
J.E. Humphreys, Linear algebraic groups, GTM [**21**]{}, 4th ed., Springer, 1998.
Y. Kamishima, L. Ornea, [*Geometric flow on compact locally conformally Kähler manifolds*]{}, Tohoku Math. J., [**57**]{} (2) (2005), 201–221.
T. Kashiwada, [*On V-harmonic forms in compact locally conformal Kähler manifolds with the parallel Lee form*]{}, Kodai Math. J. [**3**]{} (1980), 70–82.
Ma. Kato, [*Some Remarks on Subvarieties of Hopf Manifolds,*]{} Tokyo J. Math. [**2**]{}, Nr. 1 (1979), 47-61.
G. Kokarev, [*On pseudo-harmonic maps in conformal geometry*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc., [**99**]{} (2009), 168–94.
G. Kokarev, D. Kotschick, [*Fibrations and fundamental groups of Kähler-Weyl manifolds*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**138**]{} (2010), no. 3, 997–1010.
J. Kollár, Exercises in the birational geometry of algebraic varieties. Analytic and algebraic geometry, 495–524, IAS/Park City Math. Ser., [**17**]{}, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2010.
I. Nakamura, [*On Surfaces of Class VII${}_0$ with Curves*]{}, Invent. Math. 78, 393-443 (1984).
L. Ornea and M. Verbitsky, *Structure theorem for compact Vaisman manifolds*, Math. Res. Lett. [**10**]{} (2003), 799–805. arxiv:math/0305259
L. Ornea, M. Verbitsky, [*Embedding of compact Sasakian manifolds*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. [**14**]{} (2007) no. 4, 703–710.
L. Ornea, M. Verbitsky, [*Einstein-Weyl structures on complex manifolds and conformal version of Monge-Ampère equation*]{}, Bull. Math. Soc. Sci. Math. Roumanie (N.S.) [**51(99)**]{} (2008), no. 4, 339–353.
L. Ornea, M. Verbitsky, [*Morse-Novikov cohomology of locally conformally Kähler manifolds*]{}, J. Geom. Phys. [**59**]{}, No. 3 (2009), 295–305.
L. Ornea, M. Verbitsky, [*Locally conformal Kähler manifolds with potential.*]{} Math. Ann. [**348**]{} (2010), 25–33.
L. Ornea, M. Verbitsky, [*Topology of Locally Conformally Kähler Manifolds with Potential*]{}, IMRN, Vol. 2010, pp. 717–726.
L. Ornea, M. Verbitsky, [*Automorphisms of locally conformally Kähler manifolds with potential*]{}, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2012, no. 4, 894-903, arXiv:0906.2836.
L. Ornea and M. Verbitsky, [*Locally conformally Kahler metrics obtained from pseudoconvex shells*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**144**]{} (2016), 325–335, arXiv:1210.2080.
M. Parton, V. Vuletescu, [*Examples of non–trivial rank in locally conformal Kähler geometry*]{}, Math. Z. [**270**]{} (2012), no. 1–2, 179–187.
H. Rossi, [*Attaching analytic spaces to an analytic space along a pseudo–convex boundary*]{}, Proceedings of the Conference Complex Manifolds (Minneapolis), pp. 242–256. Springer, Berlin (1965).
P. Tondeur, Geometry of foliations, Monographs in Mathematics, [**90**]{}, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1997.
K. Tsukada, [*The canonical foliation of a compact generalized Hopf manifold*]{}, Differential Geom. Appl. [**11**]{} (1999), no. 1, 13–28.
K. Tsukada, [*Holomorphic forms and holomorphic vector fields on compact generalized Hopf manifolds*]{}, Compositio Math. [**93**]{} (1994), no. 1, 1–22.
I. Vaisman, [On locally and globally conformal [Kähler]{} manifolds]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., [**262**]{} (1980), 439–447.
I. Vaisman, [Generalized Hopf manifolds]{}, Geom. Dedicata [**13**]{} (1982), no. 3, 231–255.
M. Verbitsky, [*Theorems on the vanishing of cohomology for locally conformally hyper-Kähler manifolds*]{}, Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. [**246**]{} no. 3 (2004), 54–78.
M. Verbitsky, [*Stable bundles on positive principal elliptic fibrations*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. 12 (2005), no. 2-3, 251–264.
[Liviu Ornea\
[University of Bucharest, Faculty of Mathematics,\
14 Academiei str., 70109 Bucharest, Romania, *and*\
Institute of Mathematics “Simion Stoilow" of the Romanian Academy,\
21, Calea Grivitei Street 010702-Bucharest, Romania ]{}\
[email protected], [email protected] ]{}
[Misha Verbitsky\
[Laboratory of Algebraic Geometry, Faculty of Mathematics,\
NRU HSE, 7 Vavilova Str. Moscow, Russia, ]{} *and*\
[Université Libre de Bruxelles, Département de Mathématique\
Campus de la Plaine, C.P. 218/01, Boulevard du Triomphe\
B-1050 Brussels, Belgium\
[email protected] ]{}]{}
[^1]: Partially supported by CNCS UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0118.
[^2]: Partially supported by RSCF grant 14-21-00053 within AG Laboratory NRU-HSE.\
[**Keywords:**]{} locally conformally Kähler, pluricanonical, potential, Hopf manifold, Vaisman manifold, Monge-Ampère, Bott-Chern
[**2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:**]{} [ 53C55.]{}
[^3]: The eigenvalues of a Hermitian form $\eta$ are the eigenvalues of the symmetric operator $L_\eta$ defined by the equation $\eta(x,Iy)=g(Lx,y)$.
[^4]: In general, differential forms $\eta\in \Lambda^\bullet \tilde M$ which satisfy $\tau^* \eta=\chi(\tau) \eta$ are called [**automorphic**]{}. In particular, so is the Kähler form on $\tilde M$.
[^5]: (Quasi-)Regularity and irregularity of a Vaisman manifold refers to the (quasi-)regularity and irregularity of the 2-dimensional canonical foliation generated by $\theta^\sharp$ and $I\theta^\sharp$.
[^6]: Here (ir)regularity refers to the 1-dimensional foliation generated by the Reeb field.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A modification of the Skellam and Poisson distributions is proposed for subsystems when the constraints imposed by the charge conservation law in the complete system are taken into account. Such distributions can be applied, for example, for an analysis of the fluctuations of baryon and net baryon numbers in certain pseudo-rapidity interval in $A+A$ and $p+p$ collisions with high multiplicities. The presented modified Skellam, Poisson and Gaussian distributions can be utilized also in various branches of science, when one studies the fluctuations of the two variables related to a subsystem, as well as the distribution of the difference of these variables, while the mentioned difference in the total system is fixed.'
author:
- 'Yu. M. Sinyukov'
title: 'Modified Skellam, Poisson and Gaussian distributions in semi-open systems at charge-like conservation law'
---
Introduction
============
The famous Poisson distribution in statistics appears in 1837 [@Po]. More than one century later J. G. Skellam published the paper “The frequency distribution of the difference between two Poisson variates belonging to different populations” [@Sk]. Both the Poisson and Skellam distributions are widely utilized for an analysis of very different phenomena, in various branches of sciences. Despite our approach is quite general, to be concrete, this note we address to the actual and relatively new field of science - relativistic nucleus-nucleus and proton-proton collisions with high multiplicity at, particularly, CERN LHC and BNL RHIC. In these experiments an extremely high energy of colliding nucleons converts into multiparticle and multicomponent systems. The successful analysis of the particle production for different species within the statistical models [@pbm1; @Becat; @Clemans], where a minimal number of parameters, such as the temperature and chemical potentials are almost enough to describe and predict the data, indicates a thermal nature of the final state formed in multiple elementary processes accompanied the collisions. Therefore the methods of statistical physics, that utilized micro-canonical, canonical and grand canonical ensembles to described the formed systems are widely used.
Typically, only a part of the system is acceptable for the direct data analysis at current LHC or RHIC detectors. It is clear, that in the case of full acceptance, the so-called 4$\pi$ geometry, the [*net*]{} baryon number in the final state that is equal to initial one - number of nucleons in the two colliding nuclei or just value 2 in $p+p$ collisions – is fixed and not fluctuated. In small subsystems of the total final system, the distributions of baryons and anti-baryons can be both approximated by the Poissonian ones, then difference between the corresponding particle numbers (the net baryon number) are distributed according to related Skellam function [@Sk]. It was checked by the ALICE Collaboration [@Anar] that such a situation really takes place in relatively small pseudo-rapidity interval in $Pb+Pb$ collisions. In the case, when subsystem of baryons + anti-baryons, that is available for analysis, is not small and comparable to the total system - such a situation takes place in nucleus-nucleus collisions with relatively low energies (BES at RHIC, FAIR and NICA planning experiments) - the baryon charge conservation law will certainly deform both the Poisson and Skellam distributions for baryon/anti-baryon numbers and net baryon charge in the subsystem.
Despite the fact that in some publications [@goren; @pbm; @koch; @asak], the baryon number conservation law in such [*semi-open*]{} systems is discussed to some extend, the problem as whole is not solved up to now. In this note we start from generalization of the Skellam distribution; the corresponding modification of the Poisson one will follow from the former in straightforward way.
The statement of the problem
=============================
Suppose that independent discrete values $n_i$ are distributed according to Poisson, $P(N_i,n_i)$, with the mean values $N_i$: $$\begin{aligned}
P(N_i,n_i)= \frac{N_i^{n_i}}{n_i!}\exp(-N_i) \label{Poisson}\end{aligned}$$ If there are several uncorrelated subsystems, then the sum of discrete values, $\sum{ n_i}$, can be presented again as the Poisson distribution $P(\sum{N_i},\sum {n_i})$. Let us consider a system, consisting of particles of two species: say, baryons $(N,n)$ and anti-barions (${\overline N},{\overline n}$). Since the distributions are of the Poissonian type and mutually independent, one can calculate distribution $p(k)$ of difference $k$ between particle numbers in both components, in our case, baryon minus antibaryon numbers $k=n-{\overline n}$: $p(k;N,{\overline N})= \sum_{{\overline n}}^{\infty}P(N,{\overline n}+k)P({\overline N},{\overline n})$. The latter is expressed by the Skellam distribution [@Sk]: $$\begin{aligned}
p(k; N,{\overline N}) = \exp(-N-{\overline N})\left(\frac{N}{{\overline N}}\right)^{k/2} I_k(2\sqrt{N{\overline N}}) \label{Skellam}\end{aligned}$$ Here $I_k$ is the modified Bessel function of the first kind. The distribution is normalized: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} p(k; N,{\overline N}) =1 \label{norm}\end{aligned}$$ The mean value $m$ is $$\begin{aligned}
m=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} kp(k; N,{\overline N}) =N-{\overline N}. \label{m}\end{aligned}$$
Let us input constraint for this baryon-antibaryon system and associate it with the baryon number conservation in the isolated complete system. Namely, we consider the ensemble of the systems under the constraint that all the systems in the ensemble have exactly the same net baryon number $B$, for other observables the averaged values are fixed only. Such an ensemble can be realized, for instance, in very central nucleus-nucleus collisions. Then the total final multiplicity can fluctuate, but fluctuations of the net baryon number in the total system are completely suppressed. Let us divide the total system into the two $i$-subsystems, $i=1,2$, with the mean numbers {$N_1,{\overline N}_1$} and {$N_2,{\overline N}_2$}, Fig. \[fig:ill1\].
![The total system. Any selected sybsystem $i$, say “1”,\
is complemented by system “2” (and wise-verse) to a complete\
closed system.[]{data-label="fig:ill1"}](ill1.png){width="\linewidth"}
The fluctuations of particle numbers, baryon $n_i$ and anti-baryon $\bar{n}_i$, in the two subsystems are not independent anymore because the conservation law constraint, $n-{\overline n}=N-{\overline N} = B = const$ ($n=\sum_i n_i,~{\overline n}=\sum_i {\overline n}_i$), brings the condition for the two components {$n_1,{\overline n}_1$} and {$n_2,{\overline n}_2$}, as well as for the differences $k_1=n_1-{\overline n}_1$ and $k_2=n_2-{\overline n}_2$, in both subsystems: $$B=n_1+n_2-{\overline n}_1-{\overline n}_2 = k_1+k_2 = N_1 + N_2 - {\overline N}_1 - {\overline N}_2
\label{B}$$
Our aim is to generalize the Skellam distribution (\[Skellam\]) for the semi-open $i$-systems, $i=1$ or 2. One of the possiblities to do this, is just to construct some function ${\cal F}$ by multiplying the product of independent distributions by the Kronecker $\delta$-function, e.g., ${\cal F}= P(N_1,n_1)P(N_2,n_2)P(\bar{N}_1,\bar{n}_1)P(\bar{N}_2,\bar{n}_2)\delta_{n-{\overline n}}^B$, or ${\cal F}=P(\sum{N_i},\sum {n_i})P(\bar{N}_1,\bar{n}_1)P(\bar{N}_2,\bar{n}_2)\delta_{n-{\overline n}}^B$, or ${\cal F}=P(N_1,n_1)P(N_2,n_2)P(\sum \bar{N}_i,\sum \bar{n}_i)\delta_{n-{\overline n}}^B$, or half-sum of the last two expressions, etc. [^1]. After that a Skellam-like distrubution is presented for subsystem $i$ as $$p(k_i; N_i,{\overline N}_i)=\sum_{n_j,{\overline n}_l }{\cal F}(\{n_j, \bar{n}_l\})\delta_{n_i-{\overline n}_i}^{k_i}
\label{F}$$ The resulting distribution will depend on the choice of the initial form ${\cal F}$. It cannot be derived unambiguously without a microscopic model/theory that includes mechanisms ensuring the charge conservation law in the total system.
Our goal is to find the simplest analytic approximation to this problem which is based on general constraints required for such semi-open systems. We will compare our results with the model based on the binomial distribution (see [@pbm], [@koch]) with probabilities $q$ and ${\overline q}$ for baryon and anti-baryon to belong to certain subsystem, say “1”, when the total numbers $n$ and ${\overline n}$ in complete system are given. Let now these numbers $n$ and ${\overline n}$ fluctuate with the Poisson distributions having the mean values $D$ and ${\overline D}$ correspondingly. In such a model ${\cal F}$ in Eq. (\[F\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal F}(\{n_j, \bar{n}_l\})=C\sum_{n,{\overline n}}\delta_{n-{\overline n}}^B \delta_{n_1+n_2}^n\delta_{{\overline n}_1+{\overline n}_2}^{{\overline n}} P(D,n)P({\overline D},{\overline n}) \nonumber \\ \times ~ q^{n_1}(1-q)^{n_2}{\overline q}^{{\overline n_1}}(1-{\overline q})^{{\overline n_2}}\frac{n!}{n_1!~n_2!}\frac{{\overline n}!}{{\overline n_1}!~{\overline n_2}!}
\label{bin}\end{aligned}$$ where $C$ is the normalization constant and $$q=\left\langle n_1 \right\rangle/\left\langle n \right\rangle =N_1/N,~{\overline q}=\left\langle {\overline n_1} \right\rangle/\left\langle {\overline n} \right\rangle ={\overline N_1}/{\overline N}.
\label{q}$$ Only the numerical calculations are possible to provide summation of infinite series of hypergeometric functions in order to find from (\[bin\]) the distribution over $k_1=n_1-{\overline n}_1$ according to Eq. (\[F\]). Suddenly imposed constraint $\delta_{n-{\overline n}}^B$ dramatically changes the initial Poissonian-based “bare” distributions for $n_j$ or $\bar{n}_l$. Correspondingly, the mean values $N =\left\langle n\right\rangle$, ${\overline N} =\left\langle{\overline n}
\right\rangle$ are differ from the “bare” mean values ($D, {\overline D}$ in Eq. (\[bin\])), and their connection is expressed through the sum of hypergeometric functions. Nevertheless, to compare our results with results based, for certainty, on the binomial-Poissonian distribution (\[bin\]) we provide such calculations.
Generalization of the Skellam distribution
==========================================
In this note we propose the natural generalization of the Skellam and Poisson distributions that not deal with the “bare” distributions and corresponding “bare” mean values but are expressed analytically directly through experimentally observed particle numbers and its mean values for the system and subsystems. Pursuing this aim let us present the modified Skellam distribution for subsystem $i$ in the following generalized form: $$\widetilde{p}(k_i; N_i,{\overline N}_i) = e^{-(M_i+{\overline M_i})}\left(\frac{M_i}{{\overline M_i}}\right)^{(k_i-k_i^0)/2}
I_{k_i-k_i^0}(2\sqrt{M_i{\overline M}_i}~)
\label{modSkellam}$$ To fix the expressions for $M_i, {\overline M}_i, k_i^0$ in the ansatz (\[modSkellam\]) let us list the conditions for the modified Skellam distribution:
1. The normalization condition (\[norm\]) with substitutions $p\rightarrow {\tilde p}$, $k \rightarrow k_i$, and $\{N,{\overline N}\} \rightarrow \{N_i,{\overline N}_i\}$ must be satisfied for $\widetilde{p}(k_i; N_i,{\overline N}_i)$.
2. The equality (\[m\]) for the mean value must be satisfied under the above substitutions.
3. Because of the symmetry of the conservation law constraint (\[B\]) with respect to the mutual permutations $N_1 \leftrightarrow N_2$, ${\overline N}_1 \leftrightarrow {\overline N}_2$ and $k_1 \leftrightarrow k_2$, the analytical expressions for modified Skellam distributions for the two subsystems should transform to each other $\widetilde{p}(k_1; N_1,{\overline N}_1) \leftrightarrow \widetilde{p}(k_2; N_2,{\overline N}_2)$ under these permutations.
4. If one of the subsystems (say, “1”) is much smaller than the other one, $N_1 + {\overline N}_1 \ll N_2,{\overline N}_2$, then fluctuations of the two components, baryon and anti-baryon, in the subsystem “1” are uncorrelated Poissonian ones (the second subsystem just plays the role of a “thermal bath”). So the distribution (\[modSkellam\]) tends to the Skellam one (\[Skellam\]), $$\widetilde{p}(k_1; N_1,{\overline N}_1) \rightarrow p (k_1; N_1,{\overline N}_1),~ N_1 + {\overline N}_1 \ll N_2,{\overline N}_2,
\label{Skellam limit}$$ see Fig. \[fig:ill2\]. The situation is wise-verse as for the permutation $``1'' \leftrightarrow ``2''$.
![Illustration to items (C4), (C5) and Eqs.(\[Skellam limit\]), (\[delta\]).[]{data-label="fig:ill2"}](ill2.png){width="\linewidth"}
5. When one of the subsystems (say, “1”) vanishes, $N_1,{\overline N}_1 \rightarrow 0$, the subsystem “2” occupies, in fact, the total system, $N_2-{\overline N}_2 = B$, and then, according to the net baryon charge conservation law, $$\widetilde{p}(k_2; N_2,{\overline N}_2) \rightarrow \delta^B_{k_2},~ N_2\rightarrow N,~{\overline N}_2 \rightarrow {\overline N}.
\label{delta}$$ The situation must be, of course, wise-verse when one permutes the systems, $``1'' \leftrightarrow ``2''$.
6. One more restricting condition appears if the total system has only one-component, e.g. when ${\overline N}_i\rightarrow 0$ for both $i=1,2$, see Fig. \[fig:ill3\].
![Illustration to items (C6).[]{data-label="fig:ill3"}](ill3.png){width="\linewidth"}
Then the fluctuations in $k_i=n_i-{\overline n}_i=n_i$ inside the selected $i$-subsystem arise only because of the fluctuations of the [*baryons*]{} between the subsystems “1” and “2”. It is obviously, that when $N_1=N_2=N/2$, the relative fluctuations, $\sigma_i/N_i$, in any single subsystem will be twice suppressed as compare to the Skellam $\stackrel{{\overline N}_i=0}{\rightarrow}$ Poisson one in an independent subsystems. The fluctuation in the single $i-$subsystem is extended to the entire system $N$: it enforces the same fluctuation (with opposite sign) in the other subsystem because of the charge conservation law. The dispersion of fluctuations related to (\[modSkellam\]) is defined, similar as in the Skellam case, by $\sigma=\sqrt{M_1+M_2}$ (see below, Eq. ([\[sigma\]]{})) and in [*independent*]{} Poisson subsystems, when $M_i= N/2$, is $\sigma_{{ind}}=\sqrt{N}$. So, to get $\sigma= \sigma_{ind}/2$ when the conservation law constraint is imposed, one should put $M_i=N/8$. On the other hand, if $N_i \rightarrow N$, it must be: ${\widetilde p} \rightarrow \delta_{k_i=n_i}^B$.
As we will find, these six obvious conditions are enough to define a simplest expression for the modified Skellam distribution (\[modSkellam\]). In what follows we will refer to these conditions as (C1), (C2), (C3), (C4), (C5), (C6).
For the compactness of the subsequent presentation in an analysis of the items (C1)-(C5), we temporary rename the notations: $M_i,{\overline M}_i \rightarrow G_i,{\overline G}_i$. The normalization condition (C1) are satisfied when $G_i,{\overline G}_i\geq 0$ and $k^0_i$ is integer. This can be seen immediately when one changes the summation variable: $k_i\rightarrow q_i= k_i-k_i^0$. In what follows, using the concrete expressions for $k^0_i$, we always imply the nearest integer numbers to the corresponding values. With the same changing of the summation variable, one can find that condition (C2) brings us the expression for $k_i^0$: $$k_i^0=N_i + {\overline G}_i -{\overline N_i}-G_i
\label{k0}$$
To guarantee condition (C3) – the invariant form of the modified distribution under permutation $``1''\leftrightarrow ``2''$ – let us transform $\widetilde{p}(k_1; N_1,{\overline N}_1)$ into $\widetilde{p}(k_2; N_2,{\overline N}_2)$ by means of Eqs. (\[B\]) and (\[k0\]). Then one has $k_1-k_1^0 = -(k_2-k_2^0)+G_1-{\overline G}_1+G_2-{\overline G}_2$. Putting $G_1+G_2={\overline G}_1+{\overline G}_2$ one gets $k_1-k_1^0 = -(k_2-k_2^0)$ and also transforms the exponent $e^{-G_1-{\overline G}_1}$ into $e^{-G_2-{\overline G}_2}$ in (\[modSkellam\]). Then, accounting for Bessel function property $I_n(z)=I_{-n}(z)$ and negative sign before the expression $(k_2-k_2^0)$ after transformation of $k_1-k_1^0$, one gets the final result to fulfill the condition (C3): $$G_1={\overline G}_2, ~ G_2={\overline G}_1
\label{symM}$$
Now let us present $G_i,~{\overline G}_i$ in the form $G_i=\alpha_i N_i$ and ${\overline G}_i={\overline \alpha}_i {\overline N}_i$. The limits described by the condition (C4) in the situation when, say subsystem $''N_1+{\overline N}_1~''$ is much smaller than both of components, $N_2$ and ${\overline N}_2$, of the subsystem $``2''$, require that $\alpha_1\rightarrow 1$ and ${\overline \alpha}_1\rightarrow 1$ in this case. Then the modified Skellam distribution tends to standard one according to Eq. (\[Skellam limit\]). Similarly for the second system. To satisfy the condition (C5) when system “2” tends to be the total system, and so $N_1\rightarrow 0$ and ${\overline N}_1 \rightarrow 0$, one must to put $G_2\rightarrow 0$ and ${\overline G}_2 \rightarrow 0$. Then $k_2=k_2^0=N_2-{\overline N}_2$ and the Bessel function in Eq. (\[modSkellam\]) is zero at all orders except zero, when it is unity. So the equation (\[delta\]) and condition (C5) are satisfied.
To guaranty the symmetries (\[symM\]) and above discussed limiting values, one has to put $\alpha_1 = {\overline N}_2/(N_1+{\overline N}_2)$, ${\overline \alpha}_2 = N_1/(N_1+{\overline N}_2)$ and $\alpha_2={\overline N}_1/(N_2+{\overline N}_1)$, ${\overline \alpha}_1= N_2/(N_2+{\overline N}_1)$. Finally $$G_1={\overline G}_2=\frac{N_1{\overline N}_2}{N_1+{\overline N}_2},~G_2={\overline G}_1=\frac{N_2{\overline N}_1}{N_2+{\overline N}_1}
\label{G}$$
Note, a common function $Q(N_i, {\overline N}_i)$, which is symmetric under permutation $``1'' \leftrightarrow ``2''$ and vanish in the limits discussed in (C4),(C5), can be add to $G_i$, ${\overline G}_i$ without violation of all the properties discussed in (C1)-(C5) and values for $k_i^0$ (\[k0\]). To fix it let us take into account the condition (C6). Then the simplest function $Q$ that guaranties all the requirements is: $$Q= \left|k_1^0k_2^0\right|/2(N+{\overline N}).
\label{Q}$$ So, finally $$M_i=G_i+Q, ~{\overline M}_i={\overline G}_i+Q.
\label{M}$$
The modified Skellam distribution (\[modSkellam\]) with the expressions (\[M\]) for $M_i, {\overline M}_i$ and (\[k0\]) for $k_i^0$ generalizes the original distribution (\[Skellam\]) for semi-open (sub)systems ${N_i,\bar{N}_i}$ with the constraint for the total system $N-\bar{N}=B=const$. The generalization is satisfied the obvious and necessary physical conditions (C1)-(C6).
In Fig. \[fig:Fig1\] we present, just for illustration, the comparison between modified Skellam distribution (\[Skellam\]), Skellam-like binomial-based distribution (\[bin\]), (\[F\]) and just Skellam distributions (\[Skellam\]) at the same average values $N_i,{\overline N}_i$. The probabilities (\[q\]) are $q=0.6$, ${\overline q}=0.5$, and $B=80$. One can see that the uncorrected for charge conservation law Skellam distribution is much wider than the ones accounting for this restriction.
![A comparision of the modified Skellam distri-\
bution (\[modSkellam\]) with the Skellam-like one based on the\
Poissonian-binomial distribution (\[bin\]), (\[F\]), and also\
with the original Skellam distribution.[]{data-label="fig:Fig1"}](Fig1.png){width="\linewidth"}
Let us find for the semi-open $i$-subsystem the variance $\sigma^2$, skewness $S$ – the measure of lack of symmetry of the probability distribution, and excess kurtosis $K$ – the measure of the “tailedness”. The calculations with modified Skellam distribution (\[modSkellam\]), (\[k0\]), (\[M\]) accounting for the corresponding mean values $m_i=N_i-{\overline N}_i$, see (C2), give the results $$\sigma_i^2=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} (k-m_i)^2 {\widetilde p}(k; N_i,{\overline N}_i) =(M_i+{\overline M}_i)\label{sigma}$$
$$S_i=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\left(\frac{k-m_i}{\sigma}\right)^3\widetilde{p}(k; N_i,{\overline N}_i)=\frac{M_i-{\overline M}_i}{\left(M_i+{\overline M}_i\right)^{3/2}}
\label{S}$$
$$K_i=\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty}\left(\frac{k-m_i}{\sigma}\right)^4\widetilde{p}(k; N_i,{\overline N}_i)-3=\frac{1}{M_i+{\overline M}_i}
\label{K}$$
Note, that the above equalities are exact, strictly speaking, when $k_i^0$ are integer numbers. Nevertheless, one can utilize the above expressions as the corresponding analytical continuations. Note, if $i$-system is a fairly small part of the total system (each of its components), then $M_i\rightarrow N_i$, ${\overline M}_i\rightarrow {\overline N}_i$ and all the moments of the modified Skellam distribution are coincided with the known ones. If the subsystem, say “2”, tends to the total system: $N_2\rightarrow N,~{\overline N}_2 \rightarrow {\overline N}$, then $M_1$ and $M_2$ go to zero, so the dispersion $\sigma$ and all the other central moments, describing the fluctuations of the net baryon number, tends to zero.
In the special case $q={\overline q}$ in (\[q\]) the ratio of $\sigma^2_i/\sigma^2_{i,Skellam}$ coincides (deviations not exceed 0.5%) with the result [@Anar] for this ratio, $1-q$, obtained in the binomial-based model (\[bin\]), (\[F\]). In Fig. \[fig:Fig2\] we demonstrate the ratios of variances $\sigma^2_{{\tt bin}}$, obtained from Eqs. (\[F\]), (\[bin\]) for the binomial-Poissonian distribution, and our result (\[sigma\]) for $\sigma^2$, in the cases when $q={\overline q}$ and also when $q={\overline q}+\frac{1}{2}$.
![The ratios of the variance in the binomial-Poissonisan distribution (\[bin\]), (\[F\]) to the one (\[sigma\]) in the modified Skellam distribution (\[modSkellam\]). The red and black lines are related to the total net charge $B=1$ and $B=150$ correspondingly at $q={\overline q}$; blue and green lines - to $B=150$ and $B=1$ correspondingly at $q={\overline q}+1/2$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig2"}](Fig2a.png){width="\linewidth"}
Both situations are considered in the two limits: when the total net baryon numbers in the total system are $B=1$ and $B=150$. The maximal deviation between the models is reached 7$\%$ and achieved at small $B$ when $q={\overline q}+\frac{1}{2}$.
The modified Poisson and Gaussian distribution
==============================================
The analogy of the Poisson distribution ${\widetilde P}_{1+2}$ for semi-open, say, “$1$”-subsystem containing only single component, say, baryons $N_1$, is described by Eq. (\[modSkellam\]) with ${\overline N}_1=0$. See Fig. \[fig:ill4\]. So that ${\widetilde P}_{1+2}(n)={\widetilde p}(k_1=n_1-{\overline n}_1=n_1\equiv n; N_1,N_2,{\overline N}_2,{\overline N}_1=0)$.
![The cartoon for the situation when the only one component\
in the selected subsystem “1” exists: ${\overline N}_1 = {\overline n}_1 =0$. Then one has\
$k_1=n_1-{\overline n}_1=n_1\equiv n$, and the Poisson-like distribution ${\widetilde P}_{1+2}(n)$ at the\
total charge conservation law takes place.[]{data-label="fig:ill4"}](ill4.png){width="\linewidth"}
Let us consider the case when the subsystem “2” has also only one component, namely, ${\overline N}_2\neq 0$, so the only subsystems $N_1, {\overline N}_2\neq 0$ compose the total system, see Fig. \[fig:ill5\]. Then the modified Poisson distribution is ${\widetilde P}(n)={\widetilde p}(k_1=n_1-{\overline n}_1=n_1\equiv n; N_1,{\overline N}_2,{\overline N}_1=0, N_2=0)$.
![The cartoon for the situation when in the selected subsystem\
“1” the component ${\overline N}_1 = {\overline n}_1 =0$, as well as the component $N_2 = n_2 =0$\
in the subsystem “2” . Then one has $k_1=n_1-{\overline n}_1=n_1\equiv n$, and the\
modified Poisson distribution ${\widetilde P}(n)$ takes place.[]{data-label="fig:ill5"}](ill5.png){width="\linewidth"}
A significant analytical simplification in this case can be achieved if one neglects the term $Q$ (\[Q\]) (it is, at least, one order of the value $(1/8)$ less than $M_1$) in Eq.(\[M\]) for such a reduced system. Later we shall check such an approximation, see Figs. \[fig:Fig3\], \[fig:Fig5\]. Then $M_i=G_i$. Denoting the mean numbers of baryons $N_1 =N$ and antibaryons $\overline{N}_2 = \overline{N}$, one has $M_2\approx G_2=0$, $M_1\approx G_1 \equiv M = \frac{N\overline{N}}{N+\overline{N}}$, $k_1^0 \equiv k_0 = N - M$, and using the passage to the zeroth argument in Bessel function in Eq. (\[modSkellam\]), one can write the modified Poisson distribution, $\widetilde{P}$, accounting for the charge number conservation law in the system such as in Fig. \[fig:ill5\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{P}(n;N)=\frac{e^{-M}M^{(n-k_0)}}{(n-k_0)!}, {\tt where}~ M = \frac{N\overline{N}}{N+\overline{N}}, k_0 = N - M.
\label{MP}\end{aligned}$$ As this was marked earlier, $k_0$ is a nearest integer number of the corresponding value. At $\alpha\equiv\frac{\overline{N}}{N+\overline{N}}\rightarrow 1$ the Eq. (\[MP\]) coincides with the Poisson distribution (\[Poisson\]), ${\widetilde P}(n;N)=P(n;N)$, at $\alpha \ll 1$ , ${\widetilde P}\rightarrow \delta^{N=B}_{n}$. In Fig. \[fig:Fig3\] we demonstrate comparison of modified Poisson distribution $\widetilde{P}(n;N)$ (\[MP\]) with some other distributions at the same mean values $N, {\overline N}$ and $B=1$. One can see that the results in our simple approximation (\[MP\]) and the binomial-Poissonian model (\[bin\]), (\[F\]) are fairly close, and at the same time the standard Poisson distribution (\[Poisson\]) is much wider because does not take into account the charge conservation law.
![A comparision of the modified\
Poisson distribution (\[MP\]) with the Pois-\
son-like one based on binomial-Poissonian\
distribution (\[bin\]), (\[F\]), and also with the\
standard Poisson distribution. The net\
baryon number $B=1$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig3"}](Fig3.png){width="\linewidth"}
The modified Poisson distribution is normalized as easy to check. The mean value $m=\left\langle n\right\rangle = N$. In the approximation (\[MP\]) the variance $\sigma^2$, skewness $S$ and kurtosis $K$ are defined by the formulas (\[sigma\])-(\[K\]) with $M_1 = M$ and $M_2 =0 $. In Fig. \[fig:Fig5\] we present the ratio of variances obtained in the modified Poisson function ${\widetilde P}$ (\[MP\]) and in the corresponding binomial-Poissonian distribution (\[bin\]) with probabilities $q=1$ and ${\overline q}=0$, for a wide interval of net baryon charge $B$. We see a good agreement within 1% between these two models. As for the Poisson-like distribution, ${\widetilde P}_{1+2}$, the deviation for the corresponding results can reach 14% at relatively small $B$.
![The ratios of variance of the binomial-based distribution (\[bin\]), (\[F\]) to the one obtained with the modified Poisson distribution (\[MP\]) - blue points, and to the Poisson-like one ${\widetilde P}_{1+2}$ (see Fig. \[fig:ill4\]) - red points, as the function of net baryon number $B$.[]{data-label="fig:Fig5"}](Fig5.png){width="\linewidth"}
The transition to the correspondent Gaussian distribution is straightforward by means of the Stirling approximation and standard procedure: $x=n=M(1+\delta); ~ N,M \gg 1,~ \delta \ll 1 $. Then one get from (\[MP\]): $$\widetilde{P}(n;N)\rightarrow \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi M}}e^{\frac{(x-N)^2}{2M}}
\label{gauss}$$ The limits are obvious: if $N \ll {\overline N}$, then $M\rightarrow N$ in (\[gauss\]), if $N\gg {\overline N}$ ($N \rightarrow B$), then $\widetilde{P}(n;N)\rightarrow \delta (x-N)$.
Summary
=======
A simple analytical generalization of the Skellam distribution for an arbitrary two-component subsystem accounting for a charge-like conservation law in the total system is proposed. It is compared with the numerically evaluated binomial-Poissonian model, a very good agreement with previously found in such a model [^2] [@pbm] the variation of the net baryon charge is observed. The results coinside within less than 0.5%. The same concerns the case when the number of baryons is much more than anti-baryons, and wise-verse. Being consider in full region of baryon and antibaryon probabilities to belong the subsystem, the deviation in results of these two models do not exceed 15%. The extremely simple approximations for the Poisson and the corresponding Gaussian distribution for considered type of systems are obtained based on the modified Skellam distribution. The presented formulas for the modified Poisson distribution are in a good agreement with numerical calculations in the binomial-Poissonian model, and so can be considered as a good analytic approximations for the later.
It is worthy noting that despite the closeness of the results, the analytic approach proposed in the note is fully independent and the simplest among the possible models generalizing the Skellam and Poisson distributions for semi-open subsystems under the total charge-like conservation constraint. The analytic expressions for variation, skewness and kurtosis generated by the modified distributions are presented. The work is planning to apply for an analysis of different baryon & anti-baryon observables in $pp$ and $AA$ collisions at high and intermediate energies.
Author is grateful to P. Braun-Munzinger and A. Rustamov for initializing discussions. The research was carried out within the scope of the EUREA: European Ultra Relativistic Energies Agreement (European Research Network “Heavy ions at ultrarelativistic energies”) and support by NASU, Agreement F-2018. The work is partially supported by NAS of Ukraine Targeted research program “Fundamental research on high-energy physics and nuclear physics (international cooperation)”.
[99]{} S.-D. Poisson, Poisson’s Sorbonne lectures on probability and decision theory, Paris, 1837. J. G. Skellam, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A **109** (1946) 296. P. Braun-Munzinger, J. Stachel, J. P. Wessels and N. Xu, Phys. Lett. B **344** (1995) 43; P. Braun-Munzinger, V. Koch, T. Schafer, J. Stachel, Physics Reports **621** (2016) 76. F. Becattini, M. Gazdzicki and J. Sollfrank, Eur. J. Phys. C **5** (1998) 143. J. Cleymans and K. Redlich, Phys. Rev. C **60** (1999) 054908. A. Rustamov (for the ALICE Collaboration), arXiv:1704.05329 \[nucl-ex\], 2017. V.V. Begun, M. Gazdzicki, M.I. Gorenstein, O.S. Zozulya, Phys.Rev. C70 (2004) 034901. J. Steinheimer, V. Koch, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2017) 034907. P. Braun-Munzinger, A. Rustamov, and J. Stachel Nucl. Phys. A 960 (2017) 114. M. Asakawa, M. Kitazawa, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 90 (2016) 299.
[^1]: e.g., in Ref. [@goren] the Kronecker-delta constraint is imposed for the product of the partition functions of initially independent subsystems.
[^2]: for the particular case of equal probabilities to find baryon and anti-baryon in the selected sybsystem.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By using exact Path Integral Monte Carlo methods we calculate the equation of state of an interacting Bose gas as a function of temperature both below and above the superfluid transition. The universal character of the equation of state for dilute systems and low temperatures is investigated by modeling the interatomic interactions using different repulsive potentials corresponding to the same $s$-wave scattering length. The results obtained for the energy and the pressure are compared to the virial expansion for temperatures larger than the critical temperature. At very low temperatures we find agreement with the ground-state energy calculated using the diffusion Monte Carlo method.'
author:
- 'S. Pilati$^{(1)}$, K. Sakkos$^{(2)}$, J. Boronat$^{(2)}$, J. Casulleras$^{(2)}$, and S. Giorgini$^{(1)}$'
title: |
Equation of state of an interacting Bose gas at finite temperature:\
a Path Integral Monte Carlo study
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
In the last decade, after the first realization of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) in dilute systems of alkali atoms [@BEC], the experimental and theoretical investigation of quantum degenerate gases has become one of the most active and fast developing fields in atomic, molecular and condensed matter physics [@book]. The effect of interatomic interactions on the properties of ultracold Bose gases has been the subject of a deep and extensive research activity. As for the theoretical side, the problem has been addressed from many different perspectives, both at zero and finite temperature, focusing on dynamical or equilibrium properties, in various dimensionalities and geometrical configurations both homogeneous and inhomogeneous. Many different methods have also been used, from simple mean-field approaches to more advanced and essentially exact quantum Monte Carlo techniques [@book; @review]. In particular, the Path Integral Monte Carlo (PIMC) method allows one to calculate, for a given interatomic potential, the equilibrium properties of a bosonic system at finite temperature essentially without any approximation.
The PIMC technique has been applied in the context of ultracold Bose gases to investigate various thermodynamic properties in harmonically confined systems both in three [@3dharm] and lower dimensions [@ldharm], and for a detailed study of the critical behavior and of the superfluid transition temperature in three- [@3dhomo1; @3dhomo2] and two-dimensional [@2dhomo] homogeneous systems.
In the present paper, we report on the results of a PIMC calculation of the equation of state of a three-dimensional homogeneous Bose gas as a function of temperature and for different values of the interaction strength. The main focus is on the universal character exhibited by the equation of state in terms of the reduced temperature $T/T_c^0$, where $T_c^0=(2\pi\hbar^2/m k_B)[n/\zeta(3/2)]^{2/3}$ is the BEC transition temperature of an ideal gas of particles of mass $m$ and number density $n$, and of the gas parameter $na^3$, incorporating the effects of interatomic interactions at low temperatures through the $s$-wave scattering length $a$. We consider different repulsive model potentials (hard sphere, soft sphere and negative-power potential) and we explicitly show the universal behavior of the energy per particle and pressure, both below and above the transition temperature, if the gas parameter is small enough. At low temperatures, we compare the calculated energy per particle with the results of a Diffusion Monte Carlo (DMC) study carried out at $T=0$[@US], and at high temperatures with the virial expansion of an interacting gas. We believe that the present microscopic calculation could serve as a reference study for investigations of the thermodynamic properties of interacting Bose gases.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Sec. \[Section2\] we give a brief overview of the PIMC method of which we use two different implementations: a fourth-order extension of the Trotter primitive approximation (for the negative-power potential) and the pair-product approximation (for the hard- and soft-sphere potential). In Sec. \[Section3\] we discuss the results for the energy per particle and gas pressure as a function of temperature and interaction strength. Finally in Sec. \[Conclusions\] we draw our conclusions.
Method {#Section2}
======
We consider a system of $N$ particles described by the following Hamiltonian $$\hat{H}=- \frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\sum_{i=1}^N\nabla_i^2+\sum_{i<j}V(|{\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j|) \;,
\label{hamiltonian}$$ with different models for the spherical two-body interatomic potential $V(r)$:
1\) Hard-sphere (HS) potential, defined by $$V^{HS}(r)=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc} +\infty & (r<a)\;, \\
0 & (r>a)\;, \end{array} \right.
\label{HS}$$ for which the hard-sphere diameter $a$ corresponds to the $s$-wave scattering length.
2\) Soft-sphere (SS) potential, defined by $$V^{SS}(r)=\left\{ \begin{array}{cc} V_0 & (r<R_0)\;, \\
0 & (r>R_0)\;, \end{array} \right.
\label{SS}$$ with $V_0>0$. In this case the scattering length is given by $$a=R_0 \left[1-\frac {\tanh(K_0 R_0)} {K_0 R_0} \right] \; ,
\label{aSS}$$ with $K_0^2=V_0m/\hbar^2$. For finite $V_0$ one has always $R_0>a$, while for $V_0\to+\infty$ the SS potential coincides with the HS one with $R_0=a$. In the present calculation the range of the SS potential is kept fixed to the value $R_0=5a$ and the height $V_0$ is determined to give the desired value of $a$.
3\) Negative-power (NP) potential, defined by $$V^{NP} (r)= \alpha/r^{p} \;,
\label{NP}$$ with $\alpha>0$ and the integer $p>3$. For this potential the scattering length is given by [@Landau] $$a=\left( \frac{2m\alpha/\hbar^2}{(p-2)^2} \right)^{1/(p-2)}
\frac{\Gamma[(p-3)/(p-2)]}{\Gamma[(p-1)/(p-2)]} \;,
\label{aNP}$$ where $\Gamma(x)$ is the Gamma function. In the present calculation we use $p=9$, which yields $a=(2m\alpha/49\hbar^2)^{1/7}\Gamma(6/7)/\Gamma(8/7)$.
The universal regime in the plane $na^3$-$T/T_c^0$ is analyzed by performing PIMC simulations using the above three potentials with the same value for the gas parameter $na^3$.
The partition function $Z$ of a bosonic system with inverse temperature $\beta=(k_BT)^{-1}$ is defined as the trace over all states of the density matrix $\hat{\rho}=e^{-\beta \hat{H}}$ properly symmetrized. The partition function satisfies the convolution equation $$\begin{aligned}
Z &=& \frac{1}{N!}\sum_P \int d{\bf R} \rho({\bf R},P{\bf R},\beta) =
\frac{1}{N!}\sum_P \int d{\bf R}
\label{PIMC1}\\ \nonumber
&\times& \int d{\bf R}_2 ... \int d{\bf R}_M \rho({\bf R},{\bf R}_2,\tau)...
\rho({\bf R}_M,P{\bf R},\tau) \;,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau=\beta/M$, ${\bf R}$ collectively denotes the position vectors ${\bf R}=({\bf r}_1,{\bf r}_2,...,{\bf r}_N)$, $P{\bf R}$ denotes the position vectors with permuted labels $P{\bf R}=({\bf r}_{P(1)},{\bf
r}_{P(2)},...,{\bf r}_{P(N)})$ and the sum extends over the $N!$ permutations of $N$ particles. In a PIMC calculation, one makes use of suitable approximations for the density matrix $\rho({\bf R},{\bf
R}^\prime,\tau)$ at the higher temperature $1/\tau$ in Eq. (\[PIMC1\]) and performs the multidimensional integration over ${\bf R}$, ${\bf
R}_2$,...,${\bf R}_M$ as well as the sum over permutations $P$ by Monte Carlo sampling [@Ceperley]. The statistical expectation value of a given operator $O({\bf R})$, $$\langle O\rangle = \frac{1}{Z}\frac{1}{N!}\sum_P
\int d{\bf R} O({\bf R}) \rho({\bf R},P{\bf R},\beta) \;,
\label{PIMC2}$$ is calculated by generating stochastically a set of configurations $\{{\bf
R}_i\}$, sampled from a probability density proportional to the symmetrized density matrix, and then by averaging over the set of values $\{O({\bf R}_i)\}$.
Various approximations have been used for the density matrix at the high effective temperature $M/\beta$. In a first approach, one relies on the exact operator formula $$e^{- \tau (\hat{T} + \hat{V}) + \frac{\tau^2}{2} [\hat{T},\hat{V}]} =
e^{-\tau \hat{T}} e^{-\tau \hat{V}} \; ,
\label{rhoexact}$$ and approximates it in the limit $\tau \to 0$. The lowest order is known as primitive approximation (PA) $$e^{-\tau(\hat{T}+\hat{V})}= e^{-\tau \hat{V}/2}e^{-\tau \hat{T}}e^{-\tau
\hat{V}/2} + O(\tau^3) \;,
\label{PIMC3}$$ and generate results for the energy with a quadratic dependence on $\tau$. The convergence to the exact result is guaranteed by the Trotter formula [@Trotter], $$e^{-\tau(\hat{T}+\hat{V})}= \lim_{M \to \infty} \left( e^{-\tau \hat{T}}
e^{-\tau \hat{V}} \right)^M \; ,
\label{trotter}$$ but, from a practical point of view, PA is not accurate enough for studying systems at temperatures below the superfluid transition [@Brualla]. In order to improve the accuracy of this approach, we have calculated the properties of the gas with the NP potential by means of a higher-order scheme based on the operatorial decompositions proposed by Chin [@chin]. Chin’s action (CA) is accurate to fourth-order in $\tau$ but allows for a practical sixth-order dependence by adjusting some free parameters of the decomposition [@sakkos_future].
An alternative approximation for the high temperature density matrix is based on the pair-product ansatz (PPA) [@Ceperley] $$\rho({\bf R},{\bf R}^\prime,\tau)=\prod_{i=1}^N\rho_1({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_
i^\prime,\tau)\prod_{i<j}
\frac{\rho_{rel}({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf r}_{ij}^\prime,\tau)}
{\rho_{rel}^0({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf r}_{ij}^\prime,\tau)} \;.
\label{PIMC4}$$ In the above equation $\rho_1$ is the single-particle ideal-gas density matrix $$\rho_1({\bf r}_i,{\bf r}_i^\prime,\tau)=\left(\frac{m}{2\pi\hbar^2\tau}
\right)^{3/2}
e^{-({\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_i^\prime)^2m/(2\hbar^2\tau)} \;,
\label{PIMC5}$$ and $\rho_{rel}$ is the two-body density matrix of the interacting system, which depends on the relative coordinates ${\bf r}_{ij}={\bf r}_i-{\bf r}_j$ and ${\bf
r}_{ij}^\prime={\bf r}_i^\prime-{\bf r}_j^\prime$, divided by the corresponding ideal-gas term $$\rho_{rel}^0({\bf r}_{ij},{\bf r}_{ij}^\prime,\tau)=
\left(\frac{m}{4\pi\hbar^2\tau}\right)^{3/2}
e^{-({\bf r}_{ij}-{\bf r}_{ij}^\prime)^2 m/(4\hbar^2\tau)} \;.
\label{PIMC6}$$ It can be shown [@Ceperley] that PPA, Eq. (\[PIMC4\]), is more accurate than the simple PA, Eq. (\[PIMC3\]), especially when the temperature of the system is very low and the interactions are of hard-core type. We have used the PPA approach for the simulations with the HS and SS potentials which, in fact, can not be strictly used in the first approach due to their discontinuous character.
The two-body density matrix at the inverse temperature $\tau$, $\rho_{rel}({\bf r},{\bf r}^\prime,\tau)$, can be calculated for a given spherical potential $V(r)$ using the partial-wave decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{rel}({\bf r},{\bf r}^\prime,\tau)&=&\frac{1}{4\pi}
\sum_{\ell=0}^\infty (2\ell +1)P_\ell(\cos\theta)
\label{PIMC7} \\ \nonumber
&\times&\int_0^\infty dk e^{-\tau\hbar^2k^2/m} R_{k,\ell}(r)R_{k,\ell}(r^\prime) \;,\end{aligned}$$ where $P_\ell(x)$ is the Legendre polynomial of order $\ell$ and $\theta$ is the angle between ${\bf r}$ and ${\bf r}^\prime$. The functions $R_{k,\ell}(r)$ are solutions of the radial Schrödinger equation $$\begin{aligned}
&-&\frac{\hbar^2}{m}\left( \frac{d^2R_{k,\ell}}{dr^2} +\frac{2}{r} \frac{dR_{k,\ell}}{dr}
-\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{r^2}R_{k,\ell}\right) \nonumber\\
&+& V(r)R_{k,\ell} = \frac{\hbar^2k^2}{m}R_{k,\ell} \;,
\label{PIMC8}\end{aligned}$$ with the asymptotic behavior $$R_{k,\ell}(r)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{\sin(kr-\ell\pi/2+\delta_\ell)}{r} \;,
\label{PIMC9}$$ holding for distances $r\gg R_0$, where $R_0$ is the range of the potential. The phase shift $\delta_\ell$ of the partial wave of order $\ell$ is determined from the solution of Eq. (\[PIMC8\]) for the given interatomic potential $V(r)$.
For the HS potential a simple analytical approximation of the high-temperature two-body density matrix due to Cao and Berne [@Cao] has been proven to be highly accurate. The Cao-Berne density matrix $\rho_{rel}^{CB}({\bf r},{\bf r}^\prime,\tau)$ is obtained using the large momentum expansion of the HS phase shift $\delta_\ell\simeq-ka+\ell\pi/2$ and the large momentum expansion of the solutions of the Schödinger equation (\[PIMC8\]) $R_{k,\ell}(r)\simeq\sqrt{2/\pi}\sin[k(r-a)]/r$. This yields the result $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\rho_{rel}^{CB}({\bf r},{\bf r}^\prime,\tau)}
{\rho_{rel}^0({\bf r},{\bf r}^\prime,\tau)}&=&
1 -\frac{a(r+r^\prime)-a^2}{rr^\prime} \\ \nonumber
&\times& e^{-[rr^\prime +a^2-a(r+r^\prime)](1+\cos\theta)m/(2\hbar^2\tau)} \;.
\label{CaoBerne}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of the SS potential, we calculate numerically $\rho_{rel}({\bf
r},{\bf r}^\prime,\tau)$ from Eqs. (\[PIMC7\])-(\[PIMC9\]). In the case of the HS potential, we use both the density matrix determined numerically and the Cao-Berne approximation \[Eq. (\[CaoBerne\])\]. We have verified that in all cases the two procedures give indistinguishable results for the HS interaction within the present statistical uncertainty.
Results {#Section3}
=======
PIMC simulations have been carried out for a Bose gas with periodic boundary conditions and with $N$ ranging from 64 to 1024. In all the calculations finite size effects have been checked to be smaller than the reported statistical uncertainty.
Normal phase
------------
![(color online). Energy per particle and pressure of a Bose gas in the normal phase as a function of temperature. The gas parameter is $na^3=10^{-6}$. Solid symbols (blue online) refer to $E/N-3k_BT/2$: HS potential (circles), SS potential (diamonds). Open symbols (red online) refer to $P/n-k_BT$: HS potential (circles), SS potential (diamonds). Statistical error bars are smaller than the size of the symbols. The virial expansion (\[virial2\]) is represented by lines (blue online): HS potential (solid line), SS potential (long-dashed line). The virial expansion (\[virial1\]) is represented by lines (red online): HS potential (short-dashed line), SS potential (dotted line).[]{data-label="fig1"}](BTfig1.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![(color online). Energy per particle and pressure of a Bose gas in the normal phase as a function of the temperature for $na^3=10^{-4}$. Same notation as in Fig. \[fig1\], except for the results of the energy for the NP potential, shown here as squares (blue online).[]{data-label="fig2"}](BTfig2.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![(color online). Energy per particle and pressure of a Bose gas in the normal phase as a function of the temperature for $na^3=10^{-2}$. Same notation as in Figs. \[fig1\] and \[fig2\].[]{data-label="fig3"}](BTfig3.eps){width="8.5cm"}
At high temperatures $n\lambda_T^3\ll 1$, where $\lambda_T=\sqrt{2\pi\hbar^2/mk_BT}$ is the thermal wave length, the equation of state of the gas can be calculated from the virial expansion $$\frac{PV}{Nk_BT}=1+a_2(T)n\lambda_T^3+... \;,
\label{virial1}$$ where we considered only the contribution arising from the second virial coefficient $a_2(T)$. The corresponding virial expansion of the energy per particle can be calculated using standard thermodynamic relations and one finds [@Landau1] $$\frac{E}{N}=\frac{3}{2}k_BT \left( 1+a_2(T)n\lambda_T^3+...\right) \;.
\label{virial2}$$ For a non-interacting Bose gas the second virial coefficient can be promptly calculated with the result $a_2^0=-1/\sqrt{2^5}$, determined by statistical effects. For a gas of particles interacting through a repulsive interatomic potential $a_2(T)$ can be calculated through a summation over partial waves [@Pathria] $$\begin{aligned}
a_2(T) = a_2^0 &-& \frac{\sqrt{8}}{\pi} \sum_{\ell=0,2,4,...} (2\ell+1)
\nonumber\\
&\times& \int_0^\infty dk e^{-\hbar^2k^2/mk_BT}
\frac{\partial\delta_\ell(k)}{\partial k} \;.
\label{virial3}\end{aligned}$$ For bosons, the sum in Eq. (\[virial3\]) only includes even partial waves. The $\ell$-th partial-wave phase shift $\delta_\ell(k)$ in the above equation is obtained from the solution of the Schrödinger equation (\[PIMC8\]) for the given potential $V(r)$ with the boundary condition (\[PIMC9\]). If the thermal wave length is much larger than the range of the potential, $\lambda_T\gg R_0$, one obtains, to lowest order, the following result $$a_2(T)-a_2^0=2\frac{a}{\lambda_T}+... \;,
\label{virial4}$$ which only depends on the scattering length $a$.
In Figs. \[fig1\]-\[fig3\], we present the PIMC results for the energy per particle $E/N$ and pressure $P$ in the normal phase ($T>T_c$) for three different values of the gas parameter: $na^3=10^{-6}$ (Fig. \[fig1\]), $na^3=10^{-4}$ (Fig. \[fig2\]) and $na^3=10^{-2}$ (Fig. \[fig3\]). In order to emphasize the deviations from the classical results we plot the quantities $E/N-3k_BT/2$ and $P/n-k_BT$. We also plot the corresponding virial expansions from Eqs. (\[virial1\]),(\[virial2\]) with the second virial coefficient $a_2(T)$ calculated using Eq. (\[virial3\]) for the HS and SS potentials. For the smallest value of the interaction strength, $na^3=10^{-6}$, we find very good agreement between the HS and SS results and with the virial expansions down to temperatures close to the transition temperature. At $na^3=10^{-4}$, the virial expansion still provides a good approximation in the whole temperature regime and deviations are found only at the lowest temperatures $T\sim T_c^0$. On the other hand, universality is maintained only for low $T$ since differences between the HS and SS potentials start to become visible for temperatures $T/T_c^0\gtrsim 4$. Finally, for the largest interaction strength $na^3=10^{-2}$, the universal behavior fixed by the scattering length $a$ is lost in the whole temperature range. For the HS potential, agreement with the virial expansion is found only at the largest temperature. Concerning the results for the NP potential obtained with the CA approximation, notice that already for $na^3=10^{-4}$ the statistical uncertainty is significantly larger than the one corresponding to results for the HS and SS potentials obtained using the PPA. This fact is due to the large separation in scale between the range of interactions and the mean interparticle distance which occurs in dilute systems. For very small values of the gas parameter $na^3$ the algorithm based on the PPA, which is constructed from the exact solution of the two-body problem, converges much faster than the one based on the CA. For example, at $T=2T_c^0$ and $na^3=10^{-4}$, the calculation for the NP potential has been performed using up to $M=200$ beads in contrast to only $M=12$ in the case of the HS and SS potentials. For the smallest value of the interaction strength, $na^3=10^{-6}$, and especially for temperatures below the transition temperature, the calculation using the CA approach becomes much more computationally demanding due to the large number of beads required.
Superfluid phase
----------------
![(color online). Energy per particle and pressure of a Bose gas in the superfluid phase as a function of temperature. The gas parameter is $na^3=10^{-6}$. Solid symbols (blue online) refer to $E/N$: HS potential (circles), SS potential (diamonds). Open symbols (red online) refer to $P/n$: HS potential (circles), SS potential (diamonds). Statistical error bars are smaller than the size of the symbols. The horizontal bar (green online) corresponds to the ground-state energy per particle $E_0/N$ of a HS gas calculated using DMC. The lines correspond to a non-interacting gas: the solid line (blue online) refers to the energy per particle and the dashed line (red online) to the pressure.[]{data-label="fig4"}](BTfig4.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![(color online). Energy per particle and pressure of a Bose gas in the superfluid phase as a function of the temperature for $na^3=10^{-4}$. Same notation as in Fig. \[fig4\], except for the results of the energy for the NP potential, shown here as squares (blue online).[]{data-label="fig5"}](BTfig5.eps){width="8.5cm"}
![(color online). Energy per particle and pressure of a Bose gas in the superfluid phase as a function of the temperature for $na^3=10^{-2}$. Same notation as in Figs. \[fig4\] and \[fig5\].[]{data-label="fig6"}](BTfig6.eps){width="8.5cm"}
The determination of the transition temperature from the equation of state is very delicate as it involves a slight change of the energy vs. $T$ dependence at $T_c$. Its precise determination would require the calculation of the specific heat. Other observables, like the superfluid density and the condensate fraction, give a direct signature of the transition [@3dhomo1; @3dhomo2]. The most reliable results so far give the following shift of the transition temperature $T_c$ [@3dhomo2] $$\frac{T_c-T_c^0}{T_c^0}=(1.29\pm 0.05) (na^3)^{1/3} \;,
\label{deltaTc}$$ holding for very small values of the gas parameter. For the values of $na^3$ used in the present study, the above equation yields estimates of $T_c$ ranging from 1% to 30% above $T_c^0$. We are not interested here in the calculation of $T_c$ and the focus is only on the precise determination of the equation of state.
In Figs. \[fig4\]-\[fig6\], we show results for $E/N$ and $P/n$ in the superfluid phase ($T<T_c$) for the three values of the gas parameter: $na^3=10^{-6}$ (Fig. \[fig4\]), $na^3=10^{-4}$ (Fig. \[fig5\]) and $na^3=10^{-2}$ (Fig. \[fig6\]). To emphasize the effects of interactions in Figs. \[fig4\] and \[fig5\] we also plot the energy per particle and the pressure of an ideal Bose gas. For $na^3=10^{-6}$ and $na^3=10^{-4}$ we see very small differences between the results of the HS and SS potentials (notice the large statistical uncertainty in the results of the NP potential at $na^3=10^{-4}$). For the largest value of $na^3$ we still find good agreement between the results of the HS and NP potential, while significant differences are found between the HS and SS potential. At very low temperatures, the PIMC results agree with the ground-state energy per particle $E_0/N$ obtained for the HS potential using the DMC method [@US]. For the three values of the gas parameter used in the present study the results are (in units of $k_BT_c^0$): $E_0/N=0.01905(2)$ at $na^3=10^{-6}$, $E_0/N=0.09185(8)$ at $na^3=10^{-4}$, and $E_0/N=0.5840(4)$ at $na^3=10^{-2}$.
The PIMC results for $E/N$ and $P/n$ obtained using the HS and SS potential at the various temperatures and for the three values of $na^3$ are reported in Tables \[tab1\], \[tab2\]. Finite size effects are relevant only in the simulations performed at $T=T_c^0$ because of the vicinity to the critical point. For example, in the case of the HS potential at $na^3=10^{-4}$ we find for this temperature the result: $E/(Nk_BT_c^0)=0.935(7)$ with $N=64$ and $E/(Nk_BT_c^0)=0.891(13)$ with $N=1024$.
Conclusions {#Conclusions}
===========
In conclusion, we have carried out using exact PIMC methods a precision calculation of the equation of state of an interacting Bose gas as a function of temperature and interaction strength. The universal character of the equation of state at low temperatures and small values of the gas parameter is pointed out by performing simulations with different interatomic model potentials. Above the transition temperature we compare our results for energy and pressure with the high-temperature expansion based on the second virial coefficient. The inclusion of tables for both energy and pressure is intended as a reference for future studies of the thermodynamic properties of interacting Bose gases.
SP and SG acknowledge support by the Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (MIUR). KS, JB and JC acknowledge support from DGI (Spain) Grant No. FIS2005-04181 and Generalitat de Catalunya Grant No. 2005SGR-00779.
----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ -----------
$T/T_c^0$ $HS$ $SS$ $HS$ $SS$ $HS$ $SS$
0.10 0.022(1) 0.021(1) 0.093(1) 0.093(1) 0.577(5) 0.499(1)
0.25 0.043(2) 0.042(1) 0.111(2) 0.110(1) 0.586(4) 0.506(1)
0.50 0.160(4) 0.158(3) 0.214(4) 0.218(4) 0.639(5) 0.606(4)
0.75 0.402(5) 0.409(7) 0.475(14) 0.464(13) 0.856(13) 0.885(13)
1.00 0.816(10) 0.819(6) 0.891(13) 0.902(15) 1.398(10) 1.431(18)
2.00 2.540(6) 2.541(5) 2.665(13) 2.675(8) 3.328(4) 3.090(3)
4.00 5.694(5) 5.692(5) 5.818(7) 5.821(5) 6.458(3) 6.196(3)
10.0 14.817(5) 14.821(5) 14.956(4) 14.943(3) 15.527(6) 15.312(4)
20.0 29.885(5) 29.880(5) 30.023(4) 29.989(2) 30.615(11) 30.374(4)
\[tab1\]
----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ -----------
----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ -----------
$T/T_c^0$ $HS$ $SS$ $HS$ $SS$ $HS$ $SS$
0.10 0.021(1) 0.021(1) 0.095(1) 0.094(1) 0.676(6) 0.514(1)
0.25 0.037(2) 0.035(1) 0.107(2) 0.106(1) 0.680(4) 0.520(2)
0.50 0.116(3) 0.114(2) 0.183(4) 0.180(4) 0.724(4) 0.582(3)
0.75 0.285(5) 0.283(5) 0.362(9) 0.353(9) 0.890(8) 0.761(8)
1.00 0.556(7) 0.558(4) 0.648(10) 0.651(10) 1.276(8) 1.113(12)
2.00 1.708(4) 1.706(3) 1.835(9) 1.832(5) 2.572(3) 2.223(3)
4.00 3.808(4) 3.807(3) 3.937(5) 3.924(4) 4.716(4) 4.308(3)
10.0 9.891(4) 9.893(3) 10.028(3) 9.995(2) 10.954(8) 10.378(3)
20.0 19.936(3) 19.932(3) 20.075(4) 20.024(2) 21.335(10) 20.416(3)
\[tab2\]
----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ -----------
[20]{}
M.H. Anderson [*et al.*]{}, Science [**269**]{}, 198 (1995); K.B. Davis [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 3969 (1995); C.C. Bradley [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1687 (1995).
L.P. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, [*Bose-Einstein Condensation*]{}, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2003).
F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L.P. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**71**]{}, 463 (1999).
W. Krauth, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3695 (1996); M. Holzmann, W. Krauth and M. Naraschewski, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 2956 (1999); M. Holzmann and Y. Castin, Eur. Phys. J. D [**7**]{}, 425 (1999).
S. Heinrichs, W.J. Mullin, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**113**]{}, 231 (1998); K. Nho and D. Blume, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 193601 (2005).
P. Grüter, D.M. Ceperley and F. Laloë, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 3549 (1997); M. Holzmann and W. Krauth, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2687 (1999).
V. A. Kashurnikov, N.V. Prokof’ev and B.V. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 120402 (2001); N. Prokof’ev, O. Ruebenacker and B. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 053625 (2004); K. Nho and D.P. Landau, Phys. Rev. A [**70**]{}, 053614 (2004).
N. Prokof’ev, O. Ruebenacker and B. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 270402 (2001).
S. Giorgini, J. Boronat and J. Casulleras, Phys. Rev. A [**60**]{}, 5129 (1999).
L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, [*Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Non-relativistic Theory) (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1977), pag. 550.
E.L. Pollock and D.M. Ceperley, Phys. Rev. B [**30**]{}, 2555 (1984); [*ibid.*]{} [**36**]{}, 8343 (1987); D.M. Ceperley, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**67**]{}, 1601 (1995).
H.F. Trotter, Proc. Am. Math. Soc. [**10**]{}, 545 (1959).
L. Brualla, K. Sakkos, J. Boronat and J. Casulleras, J. Chem. Phys. [**121**]{}, 636 (2004).
S. A. Chin and C. R. Chen, J. Chem. Phys. **117**, 1409 (2002).
K. Sakkos, J. Casulleras, and J. Boronat, to be published.
J. Cao and B.J. Berne, J. Chem. Phys. [**97**]{}, 2382 (1992).
L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, [*Statistical Physics*]{} Part 1 (3rd edition) (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980), Ch. 7.
R.K. Pathria, [*Statistical Mechanics*]{} 2nd edition (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1996), pag. 252-253.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Neural machine translation - using neural networks to translate human language - is an area of active research exploring new neuron types and network topologies with the goal of dramatically improving machine translation performance. Current state-of-the-art approaches, such as the multi-head attention-based transformer, require very large translation corpuses and many epochs to produce models of reasonable quality. Recent attempts to parallelize the official TensorFlow “Transformer” model across multiple nodes have hit roadblocks due to excessive memory use and resulting out of memory errors when performing MPI collectives.
This paper describes modifications made to the Horovod MPI-based distributed training framework to reduce memory usage for transformer models by converting assumed-sparse tensors to dense tensors, and subsequently replacing sparse gradient gather with dense gradient reduction. The result is a dramatic increase in scale-out capability, with CPU-only scaling tests achieving 91% weak scaling efficiency up to 1200 MPI processes (300 nodes), and up to 65% strong scaling efficiency up to 400 MPI processes (200 nodes) using the Stampede2 supercomputer.
author:
- Derya Cavdar
- Valeriu Codreanu
- Can Karakus
- 'John A. Lockman III'
- Damian Podareanu
- Vikram Saletore
- Alexander Sergeev
- 'Don D. Smith II'
- Victor Suthichai
- Quy Ta
- Srinivas Varadharajan
- 'Lucas A. Wilson'
- Rengan Xu
- Pei Yang
bibliography:
- '00\_dondsmith2.bib'
- 'supplemental\_refs.bib'
subtitle: Improving Memory Efficiency and MPI Collective Performance during Tensor Accumulation for Parallelized Training of Neural Machine Translation Models
title: 'Densifying Assumed-sparse Tensors[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Neural Machine Translation (NMT) [@2014.Bahdanau; @2014.Cho; @2014.Sutskever] offers numerous improvements and advantages in translation quality compared to traditional machine translation systems, such as statistical phrase-based systems [@2003.Koehn]. NMT also paved the way to translate multiple languages using a single model [@2017.Johnson]. Continued active research interest in the field of NMT has created many interesting architectures which produce models of high translation quality [@2017.Vaswani]. Recent research also shows how reduced precision and large batch training could speed-up the training while maintaining translation quality[@2018.Ott].
There are several challenges when scaling out Deep Neural Network (DNN)-based models, such as efficiently exchanging gradients across multiple nodes, scaling up the batch size while maintaining generalized performance, and selecting appropriate hyper-parameters which efficiently train the model while preventing divergence and over-fitting. NMT approaches such as the transformer model [@2017.Vaswani], which shares the weight matrix between the embedding layer and linear transformation before the *softmax* layer, must ensure that the gradients from these two layers are updated appropriately without causing performance degradation or out-of-memory (OOM) errors.
In this paper, we begin by understanding the basics of a NMT model, and try to explore the reasons that restrict it’s scalability. We then show how our current solution of forcibly densifying assumed-sparse tensors achieves high scaling efficiency – both weak and strong – when trained with up to 300 nodes on both the Zenith supercomputer at Dell EMC and the Stampede2 supercomputer at TACC. We also illustrate that even when trained with very large batch sizes (402k, 630k and 1 Million tokens), we are still able to achieve comparable or slightly better translation quality when compared to the official TensorFlow benchmark results.
The software changes which we discuss in this paper have been incorporated into Horovod 0.15.2 and later, providing other researchers the opportunity to apply this approach on any models that may benefit.
Background
==========
NMT models work much like source-to-source compilers, taking input from a source language (e.g., Fortran) and converting it to a target language (e.g., binary machine code). An NMT model first reads a sentence in a source language and passes it to an encoder, which builds an intermediate representation. This intermediate representation is then passed to the decoder, which processes the intermediate representation to produce the translated sentence in the target language.
![Encoder-decoder architecture[]{data-label="fig:enc-dec"}](encoder-decoder.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:enc-dec\] shows an encoder-decoder architecture. The English source sentence, “Hello! How are you?” is read and processed by the architecture to produce a translated German sentence “Hallo! Wie sind Sie?”. Traditionally, Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) were used in encoders and decoders [@2014.Cho], but other neural network architectures such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) [@2017.Gehring] and attention mechanism-based models [@2015.Rush] are also used.
The transformer model [@2017.Vaswani] is one of the interesting architectures in the field of NMT, which is built with variants of attention mechanism in the encoder-decoder part, eliminating the need for traditional RNNs in the architecture [@2016.Collobert]. This model was able to achieve state of the art results in English-German and English-French translation tasks.
![Multi-head attention block [@2017.Vaswani][]{data-label="fig:attention"}](attention.png){width=".8\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig:attention\] illustrates the multi-head attention block used in the transformer model. At a high-level, the scaled dot-product attention can be imagined as finding the relevant information, values (V) based on Query (Q) and Keys (K) and multi-head attention could be thought as several attention layers in parallel to get distinct aspects of the input.
Issues with Scaling the Transformer Model
=========================================
Encoder-decoder models for NMT make use of an attention mechanism to help the decoders obtain the vital information from the source tokens while discarding irrelevant information. The main structure of the transformer model is the multi-head attention, which provides a way to get different linear transformations of all the inputs. These components allow an NMT model to learn more robustly. But a particular design consideration that needs to be looked at for improving the scaling capabilities is the weight matrix that is shared between the embedding layer and the projection matrix. This type of similar design is also seen in other NMT models such as [@2017.Gehring]. Hence, understanding the cause and effect of these specific design considerations is vital for the NMT research community.
This particular design would cause performance degradation or OOM errors if the gradients from these layers are not accumulated correctly. Specifically, gradients from the embedding layer are sparse whereas the gradients from the projection matrix are dense. In TensorFlow both gradients are updated together as a sparse `IndexedSlices` objects. This has a dramatic effect on TensorFlow’s determination of a gradient accumulation strategy, and subsequently on the total size of the accumulated gradient tensor.
$GRAD_{out}\gets GRAD_{in}$ Pass-through $GRAD_{out}\gets \sum GRAD_{in}$ Output is a dense Tensor (reduce) $GRAD_{out}\gets \overset{\frown}{GRAD_{in}}$ Output is a sparse IndexedSlice (gather)
Algorithm \[alg:accumulate\] describes the algorithm used in TensorFlow to accumulate gradients, based on the assumed type and shape of the gradients being accumulated (see [@TFAccumulate]). At present, TensorFlow will either: (1) do nothing if there are less than 2 output gradients, (2) accumulate gradients by reduction if all gradients are expressed as dense tensors with defined shapes, or (3) convert everything to indexed slices and accumulate by concatenation (performing a gather operation).
In this particular use case, the embedding lookup is performed using\
`tf.gather`, which returns an `IndexedSlice` object. This forces TensorFlow (based on the accumulation algorithm - Algorithm \[alg:accumulate\]) to convert the remaining dense tensors to indexed slices, even though all the gradients being accumulated are dense.
\
The result of this decision to convert and assume that the gradient tensors are sparse is to accumulate by gathering, rather than reduction. This applies not only to single-node tensor accumulation, but to multi-node accumulation through Horovod due to the use of the main TensorFlow graph in determining which collective operations Horovod will perform using MPI. The result is extremely large message buffers (exceeding 11GB - see Fig. \[fig:oom\]), which cause segmentation faults or out-of-memory (OOM) errors.
Because of the message buffer sizes, we were unable to scale beyond 32 MPI processes, and saw quickly diminishing scaling efficiency, or fraction of ideal scaled speedup. Fig. \[fig:scaling\_zenith\_before\] shows the scaled speedup of the training process up to the maximum achievable 32 MPI processes (8 nodes with 4 processes per node). Scaling efficiency – which is visually expressed as distance from the ideal line – declines rapidly, going from 84% with 4 nodes to 75% for 8 nodes. Eventually scaled speedup would (if the training could be parallelized further) reach an asymptotic limit where additional resources do not further accelerate the algorithm.
![Scaled speedup with sparse tensor accumulation strategy (gather)[]{data-label="fig:scaling_zenith_before"}](nmt-zenith-scaled-4ppn-before.pdf){width=".7\columnwidth"}
Densifying Assumed-sparse Tensors
=================================
In order to correct for the issue of assumed-sparse tensors in TensorFlow, we have implemented a forced-conversion of all gradient tensors to dense representation inside of Horovod’s `DistributedOptimizer` method. This will then force TensorFlow to accumulate those tensors via reduction, rather than aggregation (see Listing \[lst:hvd\]).
for grad, var in gradients:
if grad is not None:
if self._sparse_as_dense and
isinstance(grad, tf.IndexedSlices):
grad = tf.convert_to_tensor(grad)
The result is an 82x reduction in the amount of memory required (from 11.4GB to 139MB - see Fig. \[fig:oom\] and Fig. \[fig:after\], respectively) when using 64 nodes (1 MPI process per node, batch size 5000 tokens). Additionally, the time needed to perform the accumulate operation drops from 4320 ms to 169 ms, which is a 25x reduction (see Fig. \[fig:accumulate\] for a comparison of accumulate size and time).
These small changes reduce the memory footprint per process to a degree that we can both scale up the batch size per MPI process and increase the number of MPI processes per run. They also reduce the tensor exchange time significantly enough to maintain near-linear scaling when running in a multi-node environment.
This algorithmic change can be made in Horovod 0.15.2 or later by setting the `sparse_as_dense` option when initializing `DistributedOptimizer`:
opt = hvd.DistributedOptimizer(opt, sparse_as_dense=True)
Experimental Results
====================
The models were trained using the WMT-17 English-German parallel corpus with 4.5M sentence pairs. The newstest2014 dataset was used as unseen test data to capture the translation quality. All the pre-processing and BLEU [@papineni2002bleu] calculations were in accordance with TensorFlow’s official benchmarks in order to compare performance and translation quality. We also used hyper parameter settings based on best practices in [@2018.Popel; @2018.Ott]. Model training experiments were run on the Zenith cluster in the Dell EMC HPC & AI Innovation Lab, as well as the Stampede2 cluster at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) in Austin, Texas.
Each Zenith node contains dual Intel^^Xeon^^Scalable Gold 6148/F processors, 192GB of memory, and an M.2 boot drive to house the operating system that does not provide user-accessible local storage. Nodes are interconnected by a 100Gbps Intel^^Omni-path fabric, and shared storage is provided by a combination of NFS (for `HOME` directories) and Lustre [@schwan2003lustre] filesystems.
For our Zenith tests, we used Python 2.7, with Intel’s MKL-optimized version of TensorFlow (1.12). The version of Horovod used for these experiments was a private branch for testing purposes, but all of these optimizations have now been made a part of Horovod 0.15.2. Table \[tab:zenith\_sw\] gives a complete breakdown of the software environment used for the Zenith experiments, while Listing \[lst:zenith\_runtime\] provides the runtime settings for the experiments.
---------------------------------------------------------- --
**Package & **Version\
Python & 2.7.13\
TensorFlow & Anaconda TensorFlow 1.12.0 with Intel^^MKL\
Horovod & 0.15.2\
MPI & MVAPICH2 2.1\
****
---------------------------------------------------------- --
: Software Environment for Zenith Experiments[]{data-label="tab:zenith_sw"}
OMP_NUM_THREADS=10
KMP_BLOCKTIME=0
KMP_AFFINITY=granularity=fine,verbose,compact,1,0
HOROVOD_FUSION_THRESHOLD=134217728
We also ran scaling tests on the Stampede2 cluster at the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at The University of Texas at Austin [@Stanzione:2017:3093338.3093385]. Stampede2 has two partitions, each with a different set of processors. Our tests were performed on the SKX partition, which consists of 1,736 nodes, each with dual Intel^^Xeon^^Scalable Platinum 8160 processors, 192GB of memory, and 200GB internal SSD drive for the operating system and local `/tmp`. The second KNL partition consists of 4,200 nodes, each with a single Intel^^Xeon Phi^TM^ 7250 processor with 16GB of on-package MCDRAM, 94GB of main memory, and a 200GB SSD for the operating system and local `/tmp`. All nodes are interconnected with 100Gbps Intel^^Omni-path fabric and connected to Lustre-based shared filesystems.
For our Stampede2 tests, we used Python 2.7, with Intel’s MKL-optimized version of TensorFlow (1.12). The version of Horovod used for these experiments was a private branch for testing purposes, but all of these optimizations have now been made a part of Horovod 0.15.2. Table \[tab:stampede2\_sw\] gives a complete breakdown of the software environment used for the Zenith experiments.
---------------------------------------------------------- --
**Package & **Version\
Python & 2.7.13\
TensorFlow & Anaconda TensorFlow 1.12.0 with Intel^^MKL\
Horovod & 0.15.2\
MPI & MVAPICH2 2.3\
****
---------------------------------------------------------- --
: Software Environment for Stampede2 Experiments[]{data-label="tab:stampede2_sw"}
Weak Scaling Performance
------------------------
The difference in reducing the output gradient size can be seen when comparing the scaling efficiency – the ratio between observed scaled speedup and ideal – between the default sparse tensor accumulation strategy (gather) and the dense tensor accumulation strategy (reduce). Dense tensor accumulations show significantly better scaling efficiency out to 32 MPI processes (95%) than the default sparse tensor accumulation (75%) (see Fig. \[fig:zenith\_compare\]).
![Comparison of weak scaling on Zenith up to 8 nodes (4PPN) between sparse and dense tensor accumulation strategies[]{data-label="fig:zenith_compare"}](nmt-zenith-scaled-4ppn-comparison.pdf){width=".7\columnwidth"}
The reduced output gradient size and improved scaling efficiency mean that we can scale to larger process counts than was previously possible. Additional weak scaling experiments on Zenith using 4 processes per node (PPN) on up to 300 compute nodes (1200 MPI processes) show near-linear scaling, with efficiency dropping from 95% for 8 nodes to 91.5% for 300 (see Fig. \[fig:weak\_zenith\] and Fig. \[fig:weak\_efficiency\_zenith\]). For these particular experiments on Zenith, batch size per process was held constant at 5000 tokens, or 20000 tokens per node. This means in the largest case (1200 MPI processes) we are training with a global batch size of 6M tokens.
![Weak scaling efficiency on Zenith up to 300 nodes (1200 processes)[]{data-label="fig:weak_efficiency_zenith"}](nmt-zenith-weak-4ppn.pdf){width=".7\columnwidth"}
The ability to maintain very high weak scaling efficiency above 90% suggests that continued scale-out is worthwhile. We will seek to perform additional experiments on systems larger than Zenith.
Strong Scaling
--------------
Besides good weak scaling efficiency, the reduced output gradient size also gives us the possibility to perform strong scaling experiments. For this purpose, we have selected a global batch size of 819,200 that allows us to produce a near-state-of-the-art model in terms of translation quality (as measured by BLEU score [@papineni2002bleu]), and as discussed in the following section. Obtaining good strong scaling efficiency is significantly more challenging compared to the weak scaling case, as the effective batch size per worker decreases when increasing the node count.
We have performed strong scaling experiments on both on the Zenith cluster and on the Stampede2 supercomputer from TACC. We have used up to 200 nodes on Zenith, and up to 512 nodes on Stampede2, both systems showing significant reductions in terms of time to solution.
Fig. \[fig:strong\_efficiency\_zenith\] and Fig. \[fig:throughput\_cmp\] illustrate the strong scaling behavior that can be expected on the Zenith system. When going from 16 nodes up to 200 nodes, we can improve the throughput by a factor exceeding 8 (out of a maximum of around 12). In all these strong scaling cases, we only use 2 processes per node, each being scheduled to run on one socket and exploiting the NUMA affinity. This setting is more appropriate in this scenario, as the batch size that can be used per worker is double compared to the case when using 4 processes per node.
![Strong scaling throughput on up to 200 nodes of Zenith (Dell EMC) and 256 nodes of Stampede2 (TACC) with global batch size of 819,200 tokens[]{data-label="fig:throughput_cmp"}](nmt-throughput-zenith-stampede.pdf){width=".7\columnwidth"}
![Scaled speedup (strong scaling) up to 200 nodes on Zenith (Dell EMC) and 256 nodes on Stampede2 (TACC) with a global batch size of 819,200 tokens[]{data-label="fig:strong_efficiency_zenith"}](nmt-zenith-stron-scaled.pdf){width=".7\columnwidth"}
The impact of having good strong scaling efficiency is that training times can be dramatically reduced. This can be best visualized in Fig. \[fig:strong\_zenith\_tts\], where the time to solution drops from around one month when using a single node, down to slightly over 6 hours when using 200 nodes (121 times faster), therefore significantly increasing the productivity for NMT researchers when using CPU-based HPC infrastructures. The results observed were based on the models achieving a baseline BLEU score (case-sensitive) of 27.5.
![Time to solution (strong scaling) on up to 200 Zenith nodes[]{data-label="fig:strong_zenith_tts"}](nmt-zenith-strong-2ppn.pdf){width=".7\columnwidth"}
For the single node case, we have used the largest batch size that could fit in a node’s memory, 25,600 tokens per worker. For all other cases we use a global batch size of 819,200, leading to per-worker batch sizes of 25,600 in the 16-node case, down to only 2,048 in the 200-node case. The number of training iterations is similar for all experiments in the 16-200 node range, and is increased by a factor of 16 for the single-node case (to compensate for the larger batch).
On Stampede2, the behavior is similar to zenith up to 200 nodes. Since Stampede2 is a larger system, we performed larger strong scaling experiments. However, we noticed that using a 819,200 batch size would limit the scaling efficiency when using over 256 nodes. The 200 to 256 node range show improvements in time-to-solution, but when using 400 nodes we have reached the limits of strong scaling, and begin to observe performance degradation. This is due to the fact that a small (1,024) per-worker batch size is used in the 400 nodes experiment. To test that this is the case, we performed a larger experiment using a per-worker batch size of 1,536, and a total of 1,024 workers divided across 512 nodes. This leads to a global batch size of 1,572,864, and requires further attention to in order to reach the translation accuracy performance targets. However, from a throughput perspective, this run is 56% faster compared to a similar 256-node run. This shows that there will be performance improvements as we increase the per-worker batch size to a reasonably large size ($> 1536$).
Model Accuracy
--------------
Scaling out transformer model training using MPI and Horovod improves throughput performance, while producing models of similar translation quality (see Fig. \[fig:zenith\_accuracy\]). Models of comparable quality can be trained in a reduced amount of time by scaling computation over many more nodes, and with larger global batch sizes (GBZ). Our experiments on Zenith demonstrate ability to train models of comparable or higher translation quality (as measured by BLEU score [@papineni2002bleu]) than the reported best for TensorFlow’s official model [@TFTransformer], even when training with batches of a million or more tokens.
![Translation quality (BLEU) when trained with varying batch size on Zenith[]{data-label="fig:zenith_accuracy"}](nmt-zenith-bleu.pdf){width=".7\columnwidth"}
Discussion
==========
Our experiments have demonstrated that converting assumed-sparse tensors to dense tensors improves memory utilization as well as time to accumulate, thanks to a switch from gathering to reduction (see Fig. \[fig:accumulate\]). Unlike similar solutions implemented directly within optimized NMT models, such as NVIDIA’s OpenSeq2Seq package [@2018.Kuchaiev], our approach *does not limit usability strictly to one specific package repository or model implementation*. Instead, our approach provides greater generalized use and potential applicability to other models.
#### Applicability to other Models.
We believe the solution that is now implemented in Horovod will prove useful to most neural network model classes, including various language translation models, image segmentation models, voice/text translation models across multiple voice datasets, time-series models, etc. Future work will quantify the impact of the current solution to these use cases. We also foresee this as a potential workaround for issues in custom architectures, such as multi-branch neural networks [@xie2017aggregated; @yamashita2005application; @yamashita2002multi; @hu2018squeeze]. These architectures are typically recollecting gradient data from multiple “separated” neural network branches, which would be likely to encounter similar sparse tensor encoding issues.
#### Specificity to TensorFlow.
While we have identified a specific edge case within the TensorFlow code base, we do not believe that this particular edge case is common to other deep learning frameworks, such as Caffé2 [@2014.Jia] and PyTorch [@2017.Paszke]. However, TensorFlow’s current and continuing popularity and the abundance of pre-built models in TensorFlow mean that any performance benefits we can communicate back to that community are important.
#### Incorporating Changes into TensorFlow.
Long-term, we believe that the ideal solution is to add additional logic into TensorFlow’s gradient accumulation algorithm to convert and reduce tensors when ***any*** of the tensors is dense (see Algorithm \[alg:new\_accumulate\]), rather than only when ***all*** of the tensors are dense (as is the case in Algorithm \[alg:accumulate\]).
$GRAD_{out}\gets GRAD_{in}$ Pass-through $GRAD_{out}\gets \sum GRAD_{in}$ Output is a dense Tensor (reduce) $GRAD_{conv} \gets \{conv\_to\_tensor(g),~\forall g\in GRAD_{in}\}$ Convert all to Tensor $GRAD_{out}\gets\sum GRAD_{conv}$ Output is a dense Tensor (reduce) $GRAD_{out}\gets \overset{\frown}{GRAD_{in}}$ Output is a sparse IndexedSlice (gather)
In the case of Algorithm \[alg:new\_accumulate\], we propose the addition of an extra conditional block (lines 5–7), which would handle the case that there exists at least 1 tensor which is dense, in which case all of the tensors to be accumulated would be converted to dense and accumulated by reduction. More research has to be done in order to ensure that incorporating this conditional block into the TensorFlow accumulation strategy would not adversely effect other well-behaved tensor accumulations, and we will be testing this inclusion and proposing back to TensorFlow in the future.
Future Work & Conclusion
========================
Scaling Neural Machine Translation (NMT) models to multiple nodes can be difficult due to the large corpuses needed for reasonable translation, and the all-to-all mapping nature of the intermediate representation encodings. If tensor accumulation is not performed in a memory and compute-optimized fashion, excessively large tensors can cause buffer overruns which prevent scaling beyond a few MPI processes. These models can take weeks or months to train at low node counts, making it all the more critical that they can be efficiently scaled to hundreds or thousands of MPI processes.
We have identified an edge case in TensorFlow’s tensor accumulation strategy which leads to sub-optimal memory and compute utilization, which prevents scaling of multi-head attention-based transformer models beyond a relatively small number of processes without very large memory buffers. We have proposed and implemented a fix via the Horovod MPI-based framework for distributed memory scaling of TensorFlow models by forcibly converting – through the use of an option to `DistributedOptimizer` – all tensors to be accumulated to dense and subsequently reducing tensors rather than aggregating them. The result is a more than 82x reduction in memory needed and 25x reduction in time to complete the accumulation step at 64 MPI processes, and the enabled ability to scale the translation model to a thousand MPI processes or more with batches of millions of word part tokens.
These modifications have been incorporated into Horovod, and are available as of version 0.15.2 [@HvdTag], so that other teams can scale neural machine translation tasks or any other tasks which use similar topologies. We have proposed a potential fix within TensorFlow as a more long-term solution to this issue, and we will be pursuing this going forward once we have determined that there are no additional side-effects from the addition of the new tensor accumulation strategy.
Going forward, we intend to investigate whether other neural network architectures besides multi-head attention can benefit from being able to expressly densify sparse tensor encodings, as well as whether custom architectures could potentially benefit from this solution.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The authors acknowledge the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at The University of Texas at Austin for providing HPC resources that have contributed to the research results reported within this paper. <http://www.tacc.utexas.edu>
[^1]: Accepted to the 2019 International Supercomputing Conference (ISC)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A graph-based classification method is proposed for semi-supervised learning in the case of Euclidean data and for classification in the case of graph data. Our manifold learning technique is based on a convex optimization problem involving a convex quadratic regularization term and a concave quadratic loss function with a trade-off parameter carefully chosen so that the objective function remains convex. As shown empirically, the advantage of considering a concave loss function is that the learning problem becomes more robust in the presence of noisy labels. Furthermore, the loss function considered here is then more similar to a classification loss while several other methods treat graph-based classification problems as regression problems.'
author:
- 'Carlos M. Alaíz'
- Michaël Fanuel
- ' Johan A.K. Suykens'
bibliography:
- 'RefIJCNN.bib'
title: 'Robust Classification of Graph-Based Data'
---
=1
@chapter
\[\[\]\]
Introduction {#SecIntroduction}
============
Nowadays there is an increasing interest in the study of graph-based data, either because the information is directly available as a network or a graph, or because the data points are assumed to be sampled on a low dimensional manifold whose structure is estimated by constructing a weighted graph with the data points as vertices. Moreover, fitting a function of the nodes of a graph, as a regression or a classification problem, can be a useful tool for example to cluster the nodes by using some partial knowledge about the partition and the structure of the graph itself.
In this paper, given some labelled data points and several other unlabelled ones, we consider the problem of predicting the label class of the latter. Following the manifold learning framework, the data are supposed to be positioned on a manifold that is embedded in a high dimensional space, or to constitute a graph by themselves. In the first case, the usual assumption is that the classes are separated by low density regions, whereas in the second case is that the connectivity is weaker between classes than inside each of them [@ChapelleBook]. On the other side, the robustness of semi-supervised learning methods and their behaviour in the presence of noise, in this case just wrongly labelled data, has been recently discussed in [@Gleich-2015-robustifying], where a robustification method was introduced.
We propose here a different optimization problem, based on a concave error function, which is specially well-suited when the number of available labels is small and which can deal with flipped labels naturally. The major contributions of our work are as follows:
(i) We propose a manifold learning method phrased as an optimization problem which is robust to label noise. While many other graph-based methods involve a regression-like loss function, our loss function intuitively corresponds to a classification loss akin to the well-known hinge loss used in Support Vector Machines.
(ii) We prove that, although the loss function is concave, the optimization problem remains convex provided that the positive trade-off parameter is smaller than the second least eigenvalue of the normalized combinatorial Laplacian of the graph.
(iii) Computationally, the solution of the classification problem is simply given by solving a linear system, whose conditioning is described.
(iv) In the case of Euclidean data, we present an out-of-sample extension of this method, which allows to extend the prediction to unseen data points.
(v) We present a heuristic method to automatically fix the unique hyper-parameter in order to get a parameter-free approach.
Let us also emphasize that the method proposed in this paper can be naturally phrased in the framework of kernel methods, as a function estimation in a Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space. Indeed, the corresponding kernel is then given by the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse of the normalized Laplacian. In this sense, this work can be seen as a continuation of [@alaiz2016convex].
The paper is structured as follows. introduces the context of the classification task and it reviews two state-of-the-art methods for solving it. In \[SecRobust\] we introduce our proposed robust approach, which is numerically compared with the others in \[SecExperiments\]. The paper ends with some conclusions in \[SecConclusions\].
Classification of Graph-Based Data {#SecSemiClassification}
==================================
Preliminaries
-------------
The datasets analysed in this paper constitute the nodes $\vers$ of a connected graph $\graph = \prn{\vers,\edgs}$, where the undirected edges $\edgs$ are given as a symmetric weight matrix $W$ with non-negative entries. This graph can be obtained in different settings, e.g.:
- Given a set of data points $\set{x_i}_{i = 1}^N$, with $x_i \in \R^d$ and a positive kernel $k\prn{x, y} \ge 0$, the graph weights can be defined as $w_{ij} = k\prn{x_i,x_j}$.
- Given a set of data points $\set{x_i}_{i = 1}^N$, with $x_i \in \R^d$, the weights are constructed as follows: $w_{ij} = 1$ if $j$ is among the $k$ nearest neighbours of $i$ for the $\lt$-norm, and $w_{ij} = 0$ otherwise. Then, the weight matrix $W$ is symmetrized as $\prn{W + W^\tr} / 2$.
- The dataset is already given as a weighted undirected graph.
Some nodes are labelled by $\pm 1$ and we denote by $\versl \subset \vers$ the set of labelled nodes. For simplicity, we identify $\versl$ with $\set{1,\dotsc, s}$ and $\vers$ with $\set{1,\dotsc, N}$, with $s < N$ the number of available labels. Any labelled node $i \in \versl$ has a class label $c_i = \pm 1$. We denote by $y$ the label vector defined as follows $$y_i = \begin{cases}
c_i & \text{ if } i \in \versl , \\
0 & \text{ if } i \in \vers \setminus \versl .
\end{cases}$$
The methods discussed in this paper are formulated in the framework of manifold learning. Indeed, the classification of unlabelled data points relies on the definition of a Laplacian matrix, which can be seen as a discrete Laplace-Beltrami operator on a manifold [@DiffusionMaps].
Let $L = D - W$ be the matrix of the combinatorial Laplacian, where $D = \diag{d}$, $d$ is the degree vector $d = W 1$, and $1$ is the vector of ones, i.e., $d_i = \sum_{j = 1}^N w_{ij}$. We will write $i \sim j$ iff $w_{ij} \neq 0$. The normalized Laplacian, defined by $\Ln = \Doh L \Doh = \iden - \Doh W \Doh$ (where $\iden \in \R^{N \times N}$ is the identity matrix), accounts for a non-trivial sampling distribution of the data points on the manifold. The normalized Laplacian has an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors $\set{\evec\ell}_{\ell = 0}^{N - 1}$, with $\evec{k}^\tr \evec\ell = \delta_{k \ell}$, associated to non-negative eigenvalues $0 = \eval0 \leq \eval1 \leq \dots \leq \eval{N-1} \leq 2$. Noticeably, the zero eigenvector of $\Ln$ is simply specified by the node degrees, i.e., we have $\evec{0,i} \propto \sqrt{d_i}$ for all $i = 1, \dotsc, N$. Notice that the Laplacian can be expressed in this basis according to the lemma below.
\[Lem:spectral\] The normalized Laplacian admits the following spectral decomposition, which also gives a resolution of the identity matrix $\iden \in \R^{N \times N}$: $$\Ln = \sum_{\ell = 1}^{N-1} \eval\ell \evec\ell \evec\ell^\tr \sepeq \iden = \sum_{\ell = 0}^{N-1} \evec\ell \evec\ell^\tr .$$
See [@ChungBook].
For simplicity, we assume here that each eigenvalue is associated to a one-dimensional eigenspace. The general case can be phrased in a straightforward manner.
Following Belkin and Niyogi [@Belkin2004], we introduce the smoothing functional associated to the normalized Laplacian: $$\label{eq:Smoothness}
S_\graph\prn{f} = \frac{1}{2} f^\tr \Ln f = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i ,j | i \sim j} w_{ij} \prn{\frac{f_i}{\sqrt{d_i}} - \frac{f_j}{\sqrt{d_j}}}^2 ,$$ where $f_i$ denotes the $i$-th component of $f$.
The smoothest vector according to the smoothness functional \[eq:Smoothness\] is the eigenvector $\evec0$, which corresponds to a $0$ value, $S_\graph\prn{\evec0} = 0$.
The following sections contain a brief review of the state of the art for semi-supervised graph-based classification methods.
Belkin–Niyogi Approach {#SecBelkin}
----------------------
In [@Belkin2004], a semi-supervised classification problem is phrased as the estimation of a (discrete) function written as a sum of the first $p$ smoothest functions, that is, the first $p$ eigenvectors of the combinatorial Laplacian. The classification problem is defined by $$\label[myprob]{eq:Belkin}
\minp{a \in \R^p}{\sum_{i=1}^s \norm{c_i - \sum_{\ell = 0}^{p - 1} a_\ell \evec{\ell,i}}^2} ,$$ where $a_0, \dotsc, a_{p - 1}$ are real coefficients. The solution of \[eq:Belkin\], $a\opt$, is obtained by solving a linear system. The predicted vector is then $$f\opt = \sum_{\ell = 1}^{p} a\opt_\ell \evec{\ell} .$$ Finally, the classification of an unlabelled node $i \in \vers \setminus \versl$ is given by $\sign{f\opt_i}$. Indeed, \[eq:Belkin\] is minimizing a sum of errors of a regression-like problem involving only the labelled data points. The information known about the position of the unlabelled data points is included in the eigenvectors $\evec\ell$ of the Laplacian (Fourier modes), which is the Laplacian of the full graph, including the unlabelled nodes. Only a small number $p$ of eigenvectors is used in order to approximate the label function. This number $p$ is a tuning parameter of the model.
We will denote this model as Belkin–Niyogi Graph Classification ().
Zhou *et al.* Approach {#SecZhou}
----------------------
In [@Zhou], the following regularized semi-supervised classification problem is proposed: $$\label[myprob]{eq:Zhou}
\minp{f \in \R^N}{\frac{1}{2} f^\tr \Ln f + \frac{\gamma}{2} \norm{f - y}^2} ,$$ where $\gamma > 0$ is a regularization parameter which has to be selected. We notice that the second term in the objective function of \[eq:Zhou\], involving the $\lt$-norm of the label vector, can be interpreted as the error term of a least-squares regression problem. Intuitively, \[eq:Zhou\] will have a solution $f\opt \in \R^N$ such that $f\opt_i \approx 0$ if $i \in \vers \setminus \versl$ (unlabelled nodes), that is, it will try to fit zeroes. Naturally, we will have $f\opt_i \approx c_i$ for all the labelled nodes $i \in \versl$. Finally, the prediction of the unlabelled node class is given by calculating $\sign{f\opt_i}$ for $i \in \vers \setminus \versl$. The key ingredient is the regularization term which will make the solution smoother by increasing the bias.
Notice that the original algorithm solves \[eq:Zhou\] once per each class, using as target the indicator vector of the nodes labelled as that class, and then classifying the unlabelled nodes according to the maximum prediction between all the classes. Nevertheless, in this work we consider only binary problems, in which both formulations (using two binary target vectors and predicting with the maximum, or using a single target vector with $\pm 1$ and zero values and predicting with the sign) are equivalent. We will denote this model as Zhou *et al.* Graph Classification ().
In the recent work [@Gleich-2015-robustifying], it is emphasized that this method is implicitly robust in the presence of graph noise, since the prediction decays towards zero preventing the errors in far regions of the network from propagating to other areas. Moreover, a modification of this algorithm is proposed to add an additional $\lo$ penalization, so that the prediction decays faster according to an additional regularization parameter. However, the resultant method is still qualitatively similar to since the loss term is still the one of a regression problem, with the additional disadvantage of having an extra tuning parameter.
Related Methods
---------------
Other semi-supervised learning methods impose the label values as constraints [@Zhu03semi-supervisedlearning; @Joachims]. The main drawback is that, as discussed in [@Gleich-2015-robustifying], the rigid way of including the labelled information makes them more sensible to noise, specially in the case of mislabelled nodes.
On the other side, there are techniques with completely different approaches as Laplacian SVM [@LapSVM], a manifold learning model for semi-supervised learning based on an ordinary Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier supplemented with an additional manifold regularization term. This method was originally designed for Euclidian data, hence its scope is different from the previous models. The straightforward approach to apply this method to graph data, is by embedding the graph, what in principle requires the computation of the inverse of a dense Gram matrix entering in the definition of an SVM problem. Hence, the training involves both a matrix inversion of the size of the labelled and unlabelled training data set and a quadratic problem of the same size. In order to reduce the computational cost, a training procedure in the primal was proposed in [@LapSVMPrimal] where the use of a preconditioned conjugate gradient algorithm with an early stopping criterion is suggested. However, these methods still require the choice of two regularization parameters besides the kernel bandwidth. This selection requires a cross-validation procedure which is especially difficult if the number of known labels is small.
Robust Method {#SecRobust}
=============
The two methods presented in \[SecBelkin,SecZhou\] can be interpreted as regression problems, which intuitively estimate a smooth function $f\opt$ such that its value is approximately the class label, i.e., $f\opt_i \approx c_i$ for all the labelled nodes $i\in \versl$. We will propose in this section a new method based on a concave loss function and a convex regularization term, which is best suited for classification tasks. Moreover, with the proper constraints, the resulting problem is convex and can be solved using a dual formulation.
We keep as a main ingredient the first term of \[eq:Zhou\], $\frac{1}{2} f^\tr \Ln f$, which is a well-known regularization term requiring a maximal smoothness of the solution on the (sampled) manifold. However, if the smooth solution is $f\opt$, we emphasize that we have to favour $\sign{f\opt_i} = c_i$ instead of imposing $f\opt_i \approx c_i$ for all $i \in \versl$. Hence, for $\gamma > 0$, we propose the minimization problem $$\label[myprob]{eq:Robust1}
\minpcl{f \in \R^N}{\frac{1}{2} f^\tr \Ln f - \frac{\gamma}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{N}{\prn{y_i + f_i}^2}}{f^\tr \evec0 = 0 ,}$$ where $\gamma$ has to be bounded from above as stated in \[Thm:Main\]. The constraint means that we do not want the solution to have a component directed along the vector $\evec0$, since its components all have the same sign (an additional justification is given in \[Rem:RKHS\]). We will denote our model as Robust Graph Classification ().
Notice that \[eq:Robust1\], corresponding to , can be written as \[eq:Zhou\], corresponding to , by doing the following changes: $\gamma \to -\gamma$, $y \to -y$, and by supplementing the problem with the constraint $f^T v_0 = 0$. Both problems can be compared by analysing the error term in both formulations. In this term simply corresponds to the Squared Error (SE), namely $\prn{f_i - y_i}^2$. In , a Concave Error (CE) is used instead, $- \prn{f_i + y_i}^2$. As illustrated in \[FigLossFuncions\], this means that tries to fit the target, both if it is a known label $\pm 1$, or if it is zero. On the other side, tries to have predictions far from $0$, biased towards the direction marked by the label for labelled points. Nevertheless, as shown in \[FigLossFuncionsP\], the model is also able to minimize the CE in the opposite direction to the one indicated by the label, what provides robustness with respect to label noise. Finally, if the label is unknown, the CE only favours large predictions in absolute value. As an additional remark, let us stress that the interplay of the Laplacian-based regularization and the error term, which are both quadratic functions, is yet of fundamental importance. As a matter of fact, in the absence of the regularization term, the minimization of the unbounded error term is meaningless.
[\[FigLossFuncions\] Comparison of the Squared Error and the proposed Concave Error, both for a labelled node with $c_i = 1$ (the case $c_i = -1$ is just a reflection of this one) and for an unlabelled point.\
Legend: [\[\]]{} SE; [\[\]]{} CE.]{}
can be further studied by splitting the error term to get the following equivalent problem: $$\label[myprob]{eq:Robust2}
\minpcl{f \in \R^N}{\frac{1}{2} f^\tr \Ln f + \gamma \sum_{i=1}^{N}{\prn{-y_i f_i}} + \gamma \sum_{i=1}^{N}{\prn{- \frac{f_i^2}{2}}}}{f^\tr \evec0 = 0 ,}$$ where the two error terms have the following meaning:
- The first error term is a penalization term involving a sum of loss functions $\loss{f_i} = - y_i f_i$. This unbounded loss function term is reminiscent of the hinge loss in Support Vector Machines: $\maxp{0, 1 - y_i f_i}$. Indeed, for each labelled node $i \in \versl$, this terms favours values of $f_i$ which have the sign of $y_i$. However, for each unlabelled node $i \in \vers \setminus\versl$, the corresponding term $\loss{f_i} = 0$ vanishes. This motivates the presence of the other error term.
- The second error term is a penalization term forcing the value $f_i$ to take a non-zero value in order to minimize $- f_i^2 / 2$. In particular, if $i$ is unlabelled, this terms favours $f_i$ to take a non-zero value which will be dictated by the neighbours of $i$ in the graph.
The connection between our method and kernel methods based on a function estimation problem in a Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS) is explained in the following remark.
\[Rem:RKHS\] The additional condition $f^\tr \evec0 = 0$ in \[eq:Robust1\] can also be justified as follows. The Hilbert space $H_K = \set{f \in \R^N \text{ s.t. } f^\tr \evec0 = 0}$ is an RKHS endowed with the inner product $\inp{f}{f'}_K = f^\tr \Ln f'$ and with the reproducing kernel given by the Moore–Penrose pseudo-inverse $K = \prn{\Ln}^\dagger$. More explicitly, we can define $K_i = \prn{\Ln}^\dagger e_i \in \R^N$, where $e_i$ is the canonical basis element given by a vector of zeros with a $1$ at the $i$-th component. Furthermore, the kernel evaluated at any nodes $i$ and $j$ is given by $K\prn{i,j} = e_i^\tr \prn{\Ln}^\dagger e_j$. As a consequence, the reproducing property is merely [@zhou2011iterated] $$\inp{K_i}{f}_K = \prn{\prn{\Ln}^\dagger e_i}^\tr \Ln f = f_i ,$$ for any $f\in H_K$. As a result, the first term of \[eq:Robust1\] is equal to $\normp{f}{K}^2 / 2$ and the problem becomes a function estimation problem in an RKHS.
Notice that the objective function involves the difference of two convex functions and, therefore, it is not always bounded from below. The following theorem states the values of the regularization parameter such that the objective is bounded from below on the feasible set and so that the optimization problem is convex.
\[Thm:Main\] Let $\gamma > 0$ be a regularization parameter. The optimization problem $$\minpc{f \in \R^N}{\frac{1}{2} f^\tr \Ln f - \frac{\gamma}{2} \norm{f+y}^2}{f^\tr \evec0 = 0} ,$$ has a strongly convex objective function on the feasible space if and only if $\gamma < \eval1$, where $\eval1$ is the second smallest eigenvalue of $\Ln$. In that case, the unique solution is given by the vector: $$f\opt = \prn{\frac{\Ln}{\gamma} - \iden}^{-1} \pz{y} ,$$ with $\pz{} = \iden - \evec0 \evec0^\tr$.
Using \[Lem:spectral\], any vector $f \in \evec0^\perp$, i.e., satisfying the constraint $f^\tr \evec0 = 0$, can be written as $f = \sum_{\ell = 1}^{N-1} \tilde{f}_\ell \evec\ell$, where $\tilde{f}_\ell = \evec\ell^\tr f \in \R$ is the projection of $f$ over $\evec\ell$. Furthermore, we also expand the label vector in the basis of eigenvectors $y = \sum_{\ell = 0}^{N-1} \tilde{y}_\ell \evec\ell$, with $\tilde{y}_\ell = \evec\ell^\tr y$. Then, the objective function is the finite sum $$F\prn{\tilde{f}_1, \dotsc, \tilde{f}_{N-1}} = \sum_{\ell = 1}^{N-1}\prn{\frac{\eval\ell - \gamma}{2} \tilde{f}^2_\ell - \gamma \tilde{y}_\ell \tilde{f}_\ell} - \frac{\gamma}{2} \norm{y}^2 ,$$ where we emphasize that the term $\ell = 0$ is missing. As a result, $F$ is clearly a strongly convex function of $\prn{\tilde{f}_1, \dotsc, \tilde{f}_{N-1}}$ if and only if $\gamma < \eval\ell$ for all $\ell = 1, \dotsc, N-1$, that is, iff $\gamma < \eval1$. Since the objective $F$ is quadratic, its minimum is merely given by $\prn{\tilde{f}\opt_1, \dotsc, \tilde{f}\opt_{N-1}}$, with $$\label{eq:Proof}
\tilde{f}\opt_\ell = \frac{\tilde{y}_\ell}{\frac{\eval\ell}{\gamma} - 1} ,$$ for $\ell = 1, \dotsc, N-1$. Then, the solution of the minimization problem is given by $$\begin{aligned}
f\opt = \sum_{\ell = 1}^{N-1} \tilde{f}\opt_\ell \evec\ell &= \sum_{\ell = 1}^{N-1} \frac{\tilde{y}_\ell}{\frac{\eval\ell}{\gamma} - 1} \evec\ell \\
&= \prn{\frac{\Ln}{\gamma} - \iden}^{-1} \prn{y - \evec0 \prn{\evec0^\tr y}} ,
\end{aligned}$$ which is obtained by using the identity $y - \evec0 \prn{\evec0^\tr y} = \sum_{\ell = 1}^{N-1} \tilde{y}_\ell \evec\ell$. This completes the proof.
By examining the form of the solution of \[eq:Robust1\] given in \[eq:Proof\] as a function of the regularization constant $0 < \gamma < \eval1$, we see that taking $\gamma$ close to the second eigenvalue $\eval1$ will give more weight to the first eigenvector, while the importance of the next eigenvectors decreases as $1 / \eval\ell$. Regarding the selection of $\gamma$ in practice, as shown experimentally just fixing a value of $\gamma = \num{0.9} \eval1$ leads to a parameter-free version of (denoted ) that keeps a considerable accuracy.
The complete procedure to apply this robust approach is summarized in \[AlgRobust\], where $\gamma$ is set as a percentage $\eta$ of $\eval1$ to make it problem independent. Notice that, apart from building the needed matrices and vectors, the algorithm only requires to compute the largest eigenvalue of a matrix and to solve a well-posed linear system.
[\[AlgRobust\] Algorithm of .]{}
\
Graph $\graph$ given by the weight matrix $W$\
Regularization parameter $0 < \eta < 1$\
\
Predicted labels $\hat{y}$ $d_{ii} \gets \sum_j {W_{ij}}$ $S \gets \Doh W \Doh$ $\Ln \gets \iden - S$ $(\evec0)_i \gets \sqrt{d_{ii}}$ $\evec0 \gets \evec0 / \|\evec0\|$ Compute $\eval1$, second smallest eigenvalue of $\Ln$, or, alternatively, largest eigenvalue of $S - \evec0 \evec0^\tr$ $\gamma \gets \eta \eval1$ $f \gets \prn{\Ln / \gamma -\iden}^{-1} \prn{y - \evec0 \prn{\evec0^\tr y}}$ $\hat{y} \gets \sign{f}$
Illustrative Example
--------------------
A comparison of , and is shown in \[FigIllustrative\], where the three methods are applied over a very simple graph: a chain with strong links between the first ten nodes, strong links between the last ten nodes, and a weak link connecting the tenth and the eleventh nodes (with a weight ten times smaller). This structure clearly suggests to split the graph in two halves.
\[FigIllustrative\] Comparison of the different methods over a chain with two clearly separable clusters, where the link between the two middle nodes is ten times smaller than the other links.\
Legend:
\[
coordinates [ (0,1) (1,1)]{} ;
\]
;
\[
coordinates [ (0,1) (1,1)]{} ;
\]
;
\[
coordinates [ (0,1) (1,1)]{} ;
\]
.
\
In \[FigIllustrativeA\] one node of each cluster receives a label, whereas in \[FigIllustrativeB\] one node of the positive class and four of the negative are labelled, with a flipped label in the negative class. The predicted values of $f\opt$ show that (with $\gamma = \num{1}$) is truly a regression model, fitting the known labels (even the flipped one) and pushing towards zero the unknown ones. (with two eigenvectors, $p = \num{2}$) fits much better the unknown labels for nodes far from the labelled ones, although the flipped label push the prediction towards zero in the second example for the negative class. Finally, (with $\eta = \num{0.5}$) clearly splits the graph in two for the first example, where the prediction is almost a step function, and it is only slightly affected by the flipped label of the second example. Of course, this experiment is only illustrative, since tuning the parameters of the different models could affect significantly the results.
Conditioning of the Linear System
---------------------------------
As shown in \[Thm:Main\], the model is trained by solving the following linear system: $$\prn{\frac{\Ln}{\gamma} - \iden} f\opt = \pz{y} .$$ It is therefore interesting to describe the condition number of this system in order to estimate the stability of its numerical solution. In particular, we will use the following lemma characterizing the maximum eigenvalue of $\Ln$.
If the weight matrix is positive semi-definite, $W \succeq 0$, then $\evmax{\Ln} \leq 1$. If $W$ is indefinite, then $\evmax{\Ln} \leq 2$.
The argument is classic. Let us write $\Ln = \iden - S$, with $S = \Doh W \Doh$. Clearly, $S$ is related by the conjugation to a stochastic matrix $\Sigma = D^{-1} W = \Doh S D^{1/2}$. Hence, $\Sigma$ and $S$ have the same spectrum $\set{\eval\ell}_{\ell = 0}^{N-1}$. Therefore, since $\Sigma$ is stochastic, it holds that $\abs{\eval\ell} \leq 1$ for all $\ell = 0, \dotsc, N-1$. Then, in general, $\evmax{\Ln} = 1 - \evmin{S} \le 2$, which proves the second part of the Lemma. Furthermore, if $W \succeq 0$, then $S \succeq 0$, which means that $\evmin{S} \geq 0$ and we have $\evmax{\Ln} = 1 - \evmin{S} \leq 1$, which shows the first part of the statement.
Furthermore, in the feasible space (i.e., for all $f \in \R^N$ such that $f^\tr \evec0 = 0$), we have $\evmin{\Ln} = \eval1$. Then, we can deduce the condition number of the system: $$\kappa = \frac{\abs{\evmax{\Ln / \gamma - \iden}}}{\abs{\evmin{\Ln / \gamma - \iden}}} \leq \frac{c - \gamma}{\eval1 - \gamma} ,$$ where $c = 1$ if the weight matrix is positive semi-definite and $c = 2$ if the weight matrix is indefinite.
The upshot is that the problem is better conditioned if the weight matrix is positive semi-definite. Furthermore, in order to have a reasonable condition number, $\gamma$ should not be too close to $\eval1$.
Out-of-Sample Extension
-----------------------
In the particular case of a graph obtained using a Mercer kernel over a set of data points $\set{x_i}_{i = 1}^N$, with $x_i \in \R^d$, an out-of-sample extension allows to make predictions over unseen points.
In order to pose an out-of-sample problem, let $f\opt = \prn{\Ln / \gamma - \iden}^{-1} \pz{y}$ be the solution of the problem. Then, if we are given an additional point $x \in \R^d$, we want to obtain the value of the classifier $f_x$ such that $\sign{f_x}$ predicts the label of $x$. In particular, recall that the normalized Laplacian $\Ln = \iden - S$ is built from the kernel matrix $$S_{ij} = \frac{k\prn{x_i, x_j}}{\sqrt{d_i d_j}} , \text{ with } d_i = \sum_{j=1}^N k\prn{x_i, x_j} .$$ This kernel can be extended to the new point $x$ as follows: $$S_{xj} = \frac{k\prn{x, x_j}}{\sqrt{d_x d_j}} , \text{ with } d_x = \sum_{j=1}^N k\prn{x, x_j} ,$$ and $S_{xx} = k\prn{x, x} / d_x$ (notice than in many of the most common kernels, such as the Gaussian kernel, $k\prn{x, x} = 1$). We consider $$\tilde{f} = \begin{pmatrix}
f\opt \\
f_x
\end{pmatrix}
\text{ and }
\tilde{y} = \begin{pmatrix}
y \\
0
\end{pmatrix} ,$$ with $\tilde{f}, \tilde{y} \in \R^{N+1}$ and $f, y \in \R^N$. The extension of the Laplacian is defined as follows: $$\Lnt = \begin{pmatrix}
\Ln & l \\
l^\tr & \Lnt_{xx}
\end{pmatrix},$$ with $l_i = - S_{xi}$ and $\Lnt_{xx} = 1 - k\prn{x, x} / d_x$. Notice that $\Lnt$ is not necessarily positive semi-definite.
In order to obtain $f_x$, we propose the minimization problem $$\minpc{\tilde{f} \in \R^{N+1}}{\frac{1}{2} \tilde{f}^\tr \Lnt \tilde{f} -\frac{\gamma}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{N}{\prn{\tilde{y}_i + \tilde{f}_i}^2}}{\tilde{f} = \begin{pmatrix}
f\opt \\
f_x
\end{pmatrix}} ,$$ which is equivalent to solving $$\minp{f_x \in \R}{\frac{\Lnt_{xx} - \gamma}{2} f_x^2 + \prn{l^\tr f\opt} f_x} ,$$ where $l^\tr f\opt = - \sum_{i=1}^N S_{xi} f\opt_i$. This quadratic problem has a solution provided that $\Lnt_{xx} - \gamma > 0$, that is, only if the degree of this new point $x$ is large enough: $$d_x > \frac{k\prn{x, x}}{1 - \gamma} .$$ This means that $x$ has to be close enough from the initial set $\set{x_i}_{i = 1}^N$ in order to be able to extend the classifier given by $f\opt$ (notice that, in this case, $\gamma < \eval1 < 1$, and hence the inequality involving $d_x$ is well defined). Under this assumption, the solution reads $$\label{eq:oosextension}
f_x = \frac{1}{1 - \gamma - k\prn{x, x} d_x^{-1}} \sum_{i=1}^N S_{xi} f\opt_i ,$$ namely, it is a Nyström-like extension of the solution $f\opt$ with respect to the Mercer kernel $S\prn{x, y} = k\prn{x, y} / \sqrt{d_x d_y}$.
### Example of the Out-of-Sample Extension {#example-of-the-out-of-sample-extension .unnumbered}
includes an example of the out-of-sample extension over the `moons` dataset, with patterns ( of them labelled) for each class. The model built is then extended over a $\num{100} \times \num{100}$ regular grid using \[eq:oosextension\]. As the bandwidth of the kernel is extended, the prediction can be extended to a broader area, but the classification becomes less precise at the border between the two classes.
\[FigOOSExtension\] Out-of-sample extension over the `moons` dataset using different bandwidths.\
Legend: [\[\]]{}/[\[\]]{} unlabelled point of class $-1$/$+1$; [\[\]]{}/[\[\]]{} labelled point of class $-1$/$+1$;
\[
table \[meta index=2,row sep=crcr\][ 0 0 -1\
0 1 0\
0 2 1\
\
1 0 -1\
1 1 -1\
1 2 -1\
]{};
\]
/
\[
table \[meta index=2,row sep=crcr\][ 0 0 -1\
0 1 0\
0 2 1\
\
1 0 1\
1 1 1\
1 2 1\
]{};
\]
area predicted as class $-1$/$+1$;
\[
table \[meta index=2,row sep=crcr\][ 0 0 -1\
0 1 0\
0 2 1\
\
1 0 0\
1 1 0\
1 2 0\
]{};
\]
area out of prediction range.
[\
]{}
Experiments {#SecExperiments}
===========
In this section we will illustrate the robustness of the proposed method with respect to labelling noise, we will show empirically how it can be successfully applied to the problem of classifying nodes over different graphs, and we will also include an example of its out-of-sample extension.
For the first two set of experiments, the following four models will be compared:
: It corresponds to \[eq:Zhou\], where the parameter $\gamma$ is selected from a grid of points in logarithmic scale in the interval $\brq{\num{e-5}, \num{e5}}$.
: It corresponds to \[eq:Belkin\]. The number $p$ of eigenvectors used is chosen between and .
: It corresponds to \[eq:Robust1\], where the parameter $\gamma$ is selected from a grid of points in linear scale between $0$ and $\eval1$.
: It corresponds to \[eq:Robust1\], where $\gamma$ is fixed as $\gamma = \num{0.9} \eval1$, so it is a parameter-free method. As shown in \[FigTuning\], the stability of the prediction with respect to $\gamma$ suggests to use such a fixed value.
Regarding the selection of the tuning parameters, these models are divided in two groups:
- For , and , a perfect validation criterion is assumed, so that the best parameter is selected according to the test error. Although this approach prevents from estimating the true generalization error, it is applied to the three models so that the comparison between them should still be fair, and this way we avoid the crucial selection of the parameter, which can be particularly difficult for the small sizes of labelled set considered here. Obviously, any validation procedure will give results at best as good as these ones.
- does not require to set any tuning parameter, hence its results are more realistic than those of the previous group, and it is in disadvantage with respect to them. This means that, if this model outperforms the others in the experiments, it is expected to do it in a real context, where the parameters of the previous methods have to be set without using test information.
Robustness of the Classification with respect to Label Noise
------------------------------------------------------------
The first set of experiments aims to test the robustness of the classification of the different models with respect to label noise. In particular, we propose to generate a Stochastic Block Model as follows: a very simple graph of nodes with two clusters is generated with an intra-cluster connectivity of %, whereas the connectivity between clusters is either % (a well-separated problem) or % (a more difficult problem); the resulting weight matrices is shown in \[FigConnectivity\]. For each of these two datasets, the performance of the models is compared for different numbers of labels and different levels of noise, which correspond to the percentage of flipped labels. Each configuration is repeated times by varying the labelled nodes to average the accuracies.
[\[FigConnectivity\] Binary weight matrices for the Stochastic Block Model with low and high inter-cluster connectivity (the connections are marked in yellow).]{}
The results are included in \[FigRobust\], where the solid lines represent the average accuracy, and the striped regions the areas between the minimum and maximum accuracies. In the case of the low inter-cluster connectivity dataset (left column of \[FigRobust\]), is able to perfectly classify all the points independently of the noise level. Moreover, is almost as good as , and only slightly worse when the noise is the highest and the number of labels is small. These two models outperform , and also , which is clearly the worse of the four approaches. Regarding the high inter-cluster connectivity dataset (right column of \[FigRobust\]), for this more difficult problem still gets a perfect classification except when the noise level is very high, where the accuracy drops a little when the number of labels is small. is again worse than , and the difference is more noticeable when the noise increases. On the other side, the heuristic is in this case worse than (the selection of $\gamma$ is clearly not optimal) but it still outperforms .
[\[FigRobust\] Robust comparison for the low inter-cluster connectivity graph (left column) and the high inter-cluster connectivity graph (right column).\
Legend: [$\left [ \begin{minipage}{12pt}\centering { \tikzset{external/export next=false} \begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[hide axis, scale only axis,width=10pt, height=5pt, ymin=0, ymax=2, cycle list name=mycolorlist, cycle list shift=0]
\addplot+[pattern=none]
coordinates {
(0,1)
(1,1)};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}} \\ { \tikzset{external/export next=false} \begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[hide axis, scale only axis,width=10pt, height=5pt, ymin=0, ymax=1, cycle list name=mycolorlist, cycle list shift=0]
\addplot+[mark=none,line width=0.25pt,opacity=0.25]
coordinates {
(0,1)
(1,1)} \closedcycle;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}} \end{minipage} \right ]$]{} ; [$\left [ \begin{minipage}{12pt}\centering { \tikzset{external/export next=false} \begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[hide axis, scale only axis,width=10pt, height=5pt, ymin=0, ymax=2, cycle list name=mycolorlist, cycle list shift=1]
\addplot+[pattern=none]
coordinates {
(0,1)
(1,1)};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}} \\ { \tikzset{external/export next=false} \begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[hide axis, scale only axis,width=10pt, height=5pt, ymin=0, ymax=1, cycle list name=mycolorlist, cycle list shift=1]
\addplot+[mark=none,line width=0.25pt,opacity=0.25]
coordinates {
(0,1)
(1,1)} \closedcycle;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}} \end{minipage} \right ]$]{} ; [$\left [ \begin{minipage}{12pt}\centering { \tikzset{external/export next=false} \begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[hide axis, scale only axis,width=10pt, height=5pt, ymin=0, ymax=2, cycle list name=mycolorlist, cycle list shift=2]
\addplot+[pattern=none]
coordinates {
(0,1)
(1,1)};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}} \\ { \tikzset{external/export next=false} \begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[hide axis, scale only axis,width=10pt, height=5pt, ymin=0, ymax=1, cycle list name=mycolorlist, cycle list shift=2]
\addplot+[mark=none,line width=0.25pt,opacity=0.25]
coordinates {
(0,1)
(1,1)} \closedcycle;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}} \end{minipage} \right ]$]{} ; [$\left [ \begin{minipage}{12pt}\centering { \tikzset{external/export next=false} \begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[hide axis, scale only axis,width=10pt, height=5pt, ymin=0, ymax=2, cycle list name=mycolorlist, cycle list shift=3]
\addplot+[pattern=none]
coordinates {
(0,1)
(1,1)};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}} \\ { \tikzset{external/export next=false} \begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[hide axis, scale only axis,width=10pt, height=5pt, ymin=0, ymax=1, cycle list name=mycolorlist, cycle list shift=3]
\addplot+[mark=none,line width=0.25pt,opacity=0.25]
coordinates {
(0,1)
(1,1)} \closedcycle;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}} \end{minipage} \right ]$]{} .]{}\
[\
\
\
]{}\
Accuracy of the Classification
------------------------------
The second set of experiments consist in predicting the label of the nodes over the following six supervised datasets:
`digits49-s` [and]{.nodecor} `digits49-w`
: The task is to distinguish between the handwritten digits $4$ and $9$ from the USPS dataset [@hull1994database]; the suffix `-s` denotes that the weight matrix is binary and sparse corresponding to the symmetrized -Nearest Neighbours graph, whereas the suffix `-w` corresponds to a non-sparse weight matrix built upon a Gaussian kernel with $\sigma = \num{1.25}$. The total number of nodes is ( of each class).
`karate`
: This dataset corresponds to a social network of people of a karate club, with two communities of sizes and [@zachary1977information].
`polblogs`
: A symmetrized network of hyperlinks between weblogs on US politics from [@adamic2005political]; there are nodes, with two clusters of and elements.
`polbooks`
: A network of books about US politics around presidential election, with nodes and two classes of and elements.
`synth`
: This dataset is generated by a Stochastic Block Model composed by three clusters of $100$ points with a connectivity of $30\%$ inside each cluster and $5\%$ between clusters; the positive class is composed by one cluster and the negative by the other two.
For each dataset, different training sizes (or number of labelled nodes) are considered, corresponding to %, %, %, %, % and % the total number of nodes, provided that this number is larger than two, since at least one sample of each class is randomly selected. Moreover, each experiment is repeated times by varying the labelled nodes in order to average the result and check if the differences between them are significant. In order to compare the models we use the accuracy over the unlabelled samples.
The results are included in \[TabResults\], where the significant differences[^1] are given by the colours (the darker, the better; the same colour is repeated when the difference is not significant). We can see that the proposed method outperforms both and at least for the smallest training sizes, and for all the sizes in the cases of `karate`, `polblogs` (the largest one) and `polbooks`. In the case of `digits49-s` and `digits49-w` beats the other methods for the three first sizes, being then beaten by in the former and in the latter. Finally, for `synth` the robust is the best model for the smallest training size, but it is then outperformed by until the largest training size, where both of them solve the problem perfectly. Notice that this dataset is fairly simple, and a spectral clustering approach over the graph (without any labels) could be near a correct partition; can benefit for this partition just regressing over the first eigenvectors to get a perfect classification with a very small number of labels. Turning our attention to the parameter-free heuristic approach , it is comparable to the approach with perfect parameter selection in out of the datasets. In `digits49-s`, `digits49-w` and `synth`, is comparable to for the experiments with a small number of labels, although it works slightly worse when the number of labels is increased. Nevertheless, the results show that the proposed heuristic performs quite well in practice.
[\[TabResults\]Accuracy of the classification.]{}
[c@c@\*4[c@]{}]{} & & & & &\
& 2 & & & &\
& 5 & & & &\
& 12 & & & &\
& 25 & & & &\
& 50 & & & &\
& 125 & & & &\
& 2 & & & &\
& 5 & & & &\
& 12 & & & &\
& 25 & & & &\
& 50 & & & &\
& 125 & & & &\
& & & 2 & & & &\
& 3 & & & &\
& 6 & & & &\
& 17 & & & &\
& 12 & & & &\
& 24 & & & &\
& 61 & & & &\
& 122 & & & &\
& 244 & & & &\
& 611 & & & &\
& & 2 & & & &\
& 4 & & & &\
& 9 & & & &\
& 18 & & & &\
& 46 & & & &\
& 3 & & & &\
& 6 & & & &\
& 15 & & & &\
& 30 & & & &\
& 60 & & & &\
& 150 & & & &\
### Dependence on the Tuning Parameter {#dependence-on-the-tuning-parameter .unnumbered}
As mentioned before, for the smallest training sets used here, some of them composed by only two labelled nodes, it is impossible to perform a validation procedure. To analyse the dependence of , and on their tuning parameters, \[FigTuning\] shows the evolution of the average test accuracy, both for the smallest and largest training sizes. The proposed has the most stable behaviour, although as expected it sometimes drops near the critical value $\gamma = \eval1$. Nevertheless, this should be the easiest model to tune. shows also a quite smooth dependence, but with a sigmoid shape, where the maximum tends to be located in a narrow region at the middle. Finally, (the model comparable to in terms of accuracy) presents the sharpest plot with large changes in the first steps, and hence it is expected to be more difficult to tune.
[\[FigTuning\] Comparison of the accuracy with respect to the different tuning parameters, for the smallest and largest training sets, and for the six datasets.\
Legend: [\[\]]{} ; [\[\]]{} ; [\[\]]{} .]{} [\
\
\
\
\
\
]{}\
Out-of-Sample Extension
-----------------------
This experiment illustrates the out-of-sample extension, by comparing the accuracy of a model built using all the available graph and a model which is built with a smaller subgraph and then extended to the remaining nodes.
In particular, the dataset used is based on `digits49-w`, that is, a weighted graph representing the handwritten digits $4$ and $9$, but in this case the Gaussian kernel has a broader bandwidth of $\sigma = \num{5}$, so that the resulting model can be extended to all the patterns. Moreover, the total number of nodes is increased to ( of each class). The number of labelled nodes is fixed to ( of each class), whereas the size of the subgraph used to build the model is varied from ( labelled and unlabelled nodes) to (all the graph, labelled and unlabelled nodes). Once the model is built, the prediction is extended to the unlabelled nodes (both those used to build the model and those out of the initial subgraph, thanks to the out-of-sample extension), and the accuracy is measured. The experiment is repeated times to average the results, where the patterns are shuffled so that both the labelled nodes and the subgraph change.
The results are depicted in \[FigOOSEvo\], where the accuracy of the is shown as a function of the size of the subgraph used to built the model. As a baseline, an model using all the graph is also plotted. The solid lines represent the average accuracy, and the striped regions the areas between the minimum and maximum. We can see that with a relatively small subgraph (of around nodes) the subgraph model is comparable to the complete model (indeed, there is no statistically significant difference[^2] from iteration on, so we can conclude that, in this particular case, the out-of-sample extension is working quite well.
[\[FigOOSEvo\] Comparison of the accuracy with respect to the size of the subgraph of an out-of-sample extended model and a model built using the complete graph.\
Legend: [$\left [ \begin{minipage}{12pt}\centering { \tikzset{external/export next=false} \begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[hide axis, scale only axis,width=10pt, height=5pt, ymin=0, ymax=2, cycle list name=mycolorlist, cycle list shift=0]
\addplot+[pattern=none]
coordinates {
(0,1)
(1,1)};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}} \\ { \tikzset{external/export next=false} \begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[hide axis, scale only axis,width=10pt, height=5pt, ymin=0, ymax=1, cycle list name=mycolorlist, cycle list shift=0]
\addplot+[mark=none,line width=0.25pt,opacity=0.25]
coordinates {
(0,1)
(1,1)} \closedcycle;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}} \end{minipage} \right ]$]{} model (complete); [$\left [ \begin{minipage}{12pt}\centering { \tikzset{external/export next=false} \begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[hide axis, scale only axis,width=10pt, height=5pt, ymin=0, ymax=2, cycle list name=mycolorlist, cycle list shift=1]
\addplot+[pattern=none]
coordinates {
(0,1)
(1,1)};
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}} \\ { \tikzset{external/export next=false} \begin{tikzpicture}
\begin{axis}[hide axis, scale only axis,width=10pt, height=5pt, ymin=0, ymax=1, cycle list name=mycolorlist, cycle list shift=1]
\addplot+[mark=none,line width=0.25pt,opacity=0.25]
coordinates {
(0,1)
(1,1)} \closedcycle;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}} \end{minipage} \right ]$]{} model (out-of-sample).]{}
Conclusions {#SecConclusions}
===========
Starting from basic spectral graph theory, a novel classification method applicable to both semi-supervised classification and graph data classification has been derived in the framework of manifold learning, namely Robust Graph Classification (). The method has a clear interpretation in terms of loss functions and regularization. Noticeably, even though the loss function is concave, we have stated the conditions so that the optimization problem is convex. A simple algorithm to solve this problem has been proposed, which only requires to solve a linear system. The results of the method on artificial and real data show that is indeed more robust to the presence of wrongly labelled data points, and it is also particularly well-suited when the number of available labels is small. Moreover, an out-of-sample extension for this model is proposed, which allows to extend the initial model to points out of the graph.
As further work, we intend to study with more detail the possibilities of the concave loss functions in supervised problems, bounding the solutions using either regularization terms or other alternative mechanisms. Regarding the selection of $\gamma$, according to our results the predictions of are quite stable with respect to changes in $\gamma$ in an interval containing the best parameter value. Hence, it seems that a stability criterion could be useful to tune $\gamma$.
The authors would like to thank the following organizations.
EU: The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC AdG A-DATADRIVE-B (290923). This paper reflects only the authors’ views, the Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the contained information.
Research Council KUL: GOA/10/09 MaNet, CoE PFV/10/002 (OPTEC), BIL12/11T; PhD/Postdoc grants.
Flemish Government:
FWO: G.0377.12 (Structured systems), G.088114N (Tensor based data similarity); PhD/Postdoc grants.
IWT: SBO POM (100031); PhD/Postdoc grants.
iMinds Medical Information Technologies SBO 2014.
Belgian Federal Science Policy Office: IUAP P7/19 (DYSCO, Dynamical systems, control and optimization, 2012-2017).
Fundación BBVA: project FACIL–Ayudas Fundación BBVA a Equipos de Investigación Científica 2016.
UAM–ADIC Chair for Data Science and Machine Learning.
Concerted Research Action (ARC) programme supported by the Federation Wallonia-Brussels (contract ARC 14/19-060 on Mining and Optimization of Big Data Models).
[^1]: Using a Wilcoxon signed rank test for zero median, with a significance level of %.
[^2]: Using a Wilcoxon signed rank test for zero median, with a significance level of %.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Randomly crumpled sheets have shape memory. In order to understand the basis of this form of memory, we simulate triangular lattices of springs whose lengths are altered to create a topography with multiple potential energy minima. We then deform these lattices into different shapes and investigate their ability to retain the imposed shape when the energy is relaxed. The lattices are able to retain a range of curvatures. Under moderate forcing from a state of local equilibrium, the lattices deform by several percent but return to their retained shape when the forces are removed. By increasing the forcing until an irreversible motion occurs, we find that the transitions between remembered shapes show co-operativity among several springs. For fixed lattice structures, the shape memory tends to decrease as the lattice is enlarged; we propose ways to counter this decrease by modifying the lattice geometry. We survey the energy landscape by displacing individual nodes. An extensive fraction of these nodes proves to be bistable; they retain their displaced position when the energy is relaxed. Bending the lattice to a stable curved state alters the pattern of bistable nodes. We discuss this shapeability in the context of other forms of material memory and contrast it with the shapeability of plastic deformation. We outline the prospects for making real materials based on these principles.'
author:
- Naomi Oppenheimer
- 'Thomas A. Witten'
title: A shapeable material without plastic deformation
---
introduction {#sec_intro}
============
If we take a piece of paper and pressure it from both sides, it will form one large buckle. Once the pressure is released, the paper will go back to being flat. We now repeat the experiment, but first crumple the piece of paper to a little ball, open, and flatten it then apply pressure again. When we now release the pressure, the paper will retain some curvature. Not only that, but it can be shaped in various forms which are somewhat stable to an applied force.
One evident source of this shapeability is the local plasticity[@Bedia2011] of paper. Each fold produced by the crumpling process has undergone a permanent structural change in the paper’s fiber matrix. Moreover, the resulting ridges and vertices store memory and create an intricate landscape that has many metastable configurations [@Lobkovsky1995]. Thus reshaping it into a different crumpled form causes a crackling sound [@Kramer1996], [@Houle1996], as the sheet snaps from one metastable minimum to another.
In this work we generalize this effect to an [*elastic*]{} sheet. The purpose is twofold, first to create a material that is reshapeable and stable. Second to understand the origin of shapeability in a simple realization, one in which there are only Hookean springs and thus no plastic deformation. Our approach is to use an array of springs of varying rest lengths in a geometry that creates many locally stable, interacting configurations. We use two different models — the [*random lattice*]{}, having randomness in the springs’ rest length, and the [*puckered lattice*]{} which is a regular structure, and has the same repeating unit throughout the lattice. We study properties of the zero-temperature ground states of our lattice. This is separate from the well-studied co-operativity of thermally fluctuating “tethered" lattices of Kantor, Kardar and Nelson [@Kantor1986],[@Kantor1987].
Before we go on to explain each model, we define the quality of shapeability that we intend to explore. A shapeable material is one that deforms under external forces, and which retains its deformed shape when these forces are removed. Moreover this retained shape is stable: when further deformed by sufficiently mild forces, the object returns to the retained shape.
The basic feature that enables shapeability in a crumpled sheet is metastability — the object has many discrete, stable configurations, separated by energy barriers. Metastability in materials and its connection to memory storage is a well-explored field [@Mullin2007]–[@Cohen2014]. Here we survey various forms of shape memory, to distinguish these from the shape memory of a crumpled sheet. One form of shape memory is that of a plastically deforming material such as modeling clay. As noted above, a simple fold in a sheet of paper is an example of plastic memory. Setting a shape requires irreversible changes in the microscopic structure within the material. Our aim is to identify a further form of shapeability in [*crumpled*]{} paper that goes beyond this simple plasticity.
A second type of shape memory is seen in elastic systems that can switch between two possible states. A simple example is found in a children’s toy called the “slap bracelet", a straight metal strip that wraps itself around a wrist when bending is initiated [@SlapBraceletCatalogue]. This piece of metal has positive curvature along one direction and negative along the perpendicular direction. If the strip is sufficiently thin, it will have two cylindrical configurations. It is possible to snap from one to the other using external force [@Chen2012]. Another example is seen in shape-memory alloys [@Purnawali2010]. These are pseudoelastic materials, able to deform elastically in response to an external stress, and yet return to their initial shape after heating.
A third category is seen in materials with elastic deformations that result in not two but many configurations. An example is the flexible drinking straw [@FlexibleStraw], a plastic tube with a corrugated region. When the straw is bent, these corrugations collapse so that the bend is retained. The total curvature is thus determined by the metastability of the corrugations. The difference between a system like the flexible straw and the shapeable sheet is that the former does not require any cooperativity between bistable points. Instead, the global shape is a simple superposition of the effects of each corrugation.
The models that we treat below appear distinct from the categories sketched above. On the one hand, they do not require plasticity (like a simple fold in paper). On the other hand, the global shape is not a simple superposition of the shape of the building blocks (such as in the flexible straw). Instead, many bistable points seem to work in concert to make a changeable shape. The system described by Waitukaitis and von Hecke [[*et al.* ]{}]{}[@Hecke2014] is similar to ours in those aspects; the difference is that the shapeable sheet doesn’t require pre-programing an array of possible shapes.
Metastability has been studied in the context of designing and controlling the properties of metamaterials. Silverberg and Cohen [[*et al.* ]{}]{}[@Cohen2014] showed that flipping bistable corners in a Miura Ori sheet can change the bulk properties of the material. Waitukaitis and von Hecke [[*et al.* ]{}]{}[@Hecke2014] studied the energy landscape of 4-degree vertices and discovered they have a surprisingly large number of stable configurations (up to six), and that tiling a space with them preserves the metastability. Periodic elastomeric structures could also be tuned to control many material properties (see for example [@Mullin2007], [@Bertoldi2014], [@Hecke2014b]) such as auxeticity, and elastic and acoustic band propagation.
In what follows we will introduce the two models to be studied, examine what conditions are required for them to be shapeable, explore the possible shapes and investigate where the memory resides in the structure.
Model {#sec_Model}
=====
The system is a network of nodes connected by springs in the topology of a regular triangular two-dimensional lattice. However, we use springs of different rest lengths so that planar configurations are unstable. We embed this system in three-dimensional space and then seek the positions of the nodes that minimize the spring energy. If the system is well constrained ([[*i.e.,* ]{}]{}has bending energy or extra springs, see discussion in the next section) and the springs are all of equal rest length, there is just one stable configuration — the nodes lie in a plane. Once one introduces a variety of lengths, it is possible to get more than one minimum. The models explored below are not unique; many variations are possible. The random lattice was chosen because it resembles a crumpled sheet; the puckered lattice was chosen because it is simpler to understand; it also demonstrates shapeability in an ordered material.
Before going into detail about each model let us describe properties which apply to both of them and to every triangular lattice of springs. Specifically, let us determine when the springs provide enough constraints to dictate specific configurations of nodes. When they do not, what characterizes the modes of deformation that cost no energy, known as the floppy modes?
Floppy modes {#sec_floppy}
------------
Our interest is in systems that hold their shape, [[*i.e.,* ]{}]{}rigid objects. In this section we explain why our lattice requires modification in order to hold its shape. Neglecting edge effects, a lattice of $N$ nodes contains $3N$ springs. Each spring imposes a scalar constraint on the $3N$ node co-ordinates. Thus the springs are just sufficient to constrain the node positions[@Maxwell1864; @MaxwellNote].
However, in a finite lattice of $N$ nodes cut from an infinite lattice, there are fewer than $3N$ springs; the springs that connected the lattice to the infinite lattice have been removed. This number is proportional to the perimeter. Thus any finite lattice has a number of unconstrained internal motions that increases with its size.
In order to gauge how these floppy modes might compromise shapeability of our lattices, we calculated the modes explicitly. Given an equilibrium state ${\bf r}_{\rm min}$, with energy $E({\bf r}_{\rm min})$ we calculate the dynamical matrix ${\mathbb M}$ given by, ${\mathbb M}_{ij} = \partial_i\partial_j E({\bf{r_{\rm min}}})$, where $\partial_i$ is the derivative with respect to the $i$th of the $3N$ node co-ordinates. This matrix is symmetric and has either zero or positive eigenvalues. Any eigenfunctions $\{{\bf u}\}$ corresponding to the zero eigenvalues other than those corresponding to pure translations and rotations are the floppy modes[@MaxwellNote]. These $\{{\bf u_0}\}$ are also the null space vectors of ${\mathbb M}$, [[*i.e.,* ]{}]{}the solutions to the equation ${\mathbb M} \cdot {\bf u_0} = {\bf 0}$. Here the $\{{\bf u_0\}}$ are the directions on the energy landscape that have no energetic cost. Any set of displacements can be uniquely expressed in terms of a null vector and a non-null vector normal to all the $\{{\bf u_0\}}$’s. This decomposition may be used to measure the contribution of the floppy modes to any given node co-ordinate $u_i$. In particular, the norm of the null part relative to the total norm gives an unambiguous measure of the relative amount of null-space content in that displacement. We denote this quantity, which lies between 0 and 1, by $F_i$. The resulting amplitudes are plotted in Fig. \[fig\_Floppy\].
![Visualization of the floppy modes in a $7\times7$ puckered lattice of Fig. \[fig\_Model\]C. Each box shows the three values of floppiness corresponding to the three Cartesian displacements of one node. Thus, the height of the left, rear box (which is $0.98$) shows the floppiness $F_i$ corresponding to the free vertical displacement of that corner node. Likewise, the width and depth of this box are proportional to the floppiness $F_i$ for $x$ and $y$ horizontal displacements. Evidently displacements normal to the lattice have relatively large floppy content.[]{data-label="fig_Floppy"}](Fig1.eps){height="1.5in"}
As can be seen, the floppiness lives mostly in the perimeter; the middle is hardly affected. One might think that taking larger lattices makes floppiness irrelevant, as it mostly affects the edges. However, increasing the size of the lattice decreases the energy cost of vertical displacements, so that they become indistinguishable from floppy modes. We address this issue in Sec. \[Sec\_Shapes\].
We may eliminate floppy modes and thereby attain the rigid structure we seek by the addition of constraints. We do so either in the form of extra springs at the edges (next-nearest neighbors) or in the form of bending energy, penalizing deviations from flatness, as detailed in Sec. \[Sec\_numerics\]. In the work that follows we will specify which extra constraints are used. It is of course possible to think of other constraints. Those we used have the advantage of being plausible in actual realizations of the sheet.
Random lattice {#sec_random}
--------------
Starting from an equilateral triangular lattice (with no extra springs or bending energy), we increment each spring’s resting length by a random increment ranging uniformly over ten percent interval. The equilateral lattice had a zero energy when flat; in the random lattice the flat realization of the system is frustrated and energy is positive. However it can be completely relaxed by letting the springs move into the third dimension. For this moderate randomness, unless violating some geometrical constraint (such as a spring in a triangle being longer than the sum of the other two), it is always possible to relax the energy entirely. Like crumpled paper, the relaxed random lattice forms a surface with a highly irregular pattern suggesting shapeability (see Fig. \[fig\_Model\]A). We investigate this shapeability below.
{width="5in"} \[fig\_Model\]
Puckered lattice {#sec_puckered}
----------------
To exhibit shapeability, metastability is required; however the randomness described above is not obligatory. A lattice can have many metastable states with a periodic structure composed of one or more repeating hexagons. One example is a triangular lattice with two different spring rest-lengths as in Fig. \[fig\_Model\]B(bottom). To form it with a simple triangular lattice we lengthen the springs extending from one node to its six neighbors, thus forming a hexagonal pyramid. We then lengthen the six springs at the adjacent hexagons. By extending this process to all the hexagons in the lattice, we may form the lattice of pyramids shown in Fig. \[fig\_Model\]B(top).
As in the random lattice, a flat configuration is very frustrated. Relieving the frustration results in puckered, hexagonal pyramids. The node in the middle of each pyramid is bistable; it is equally stable above and below the plane of its hexagon. By exerting a sufficient vertical force on such a node, we may “flip" it through the horizontal plane to the other stable minimum. For a lattice of $N$ nodes there are about $N/3$ bistable nodes, which means $2^{N/3}$ metastable configurations. However, these flips alter the shape only locally. The resulting metastable configurations remain globally flat. The missing ingredient is an energetic coupling between one hexagon and its environment. To create the energetic interaction we use springs of three different lengths. The construction is similar to the one just described, except that we add a small mismatch between the lengths of the springs in the middle of each hexagon (see Fig. \[fig\_Model\]B). In addition, in each column, the spring orientation is rotated by $60^0$, this adds extra frustration. The spring mismatch dictates a shape in which each hexagon is slightly skewed such that it is out of the plane. When flipped, the preferred orientation of the neighbors is modified.
Shapes {#Sec_Shapes}
======
Below are a few examples both of equilibrium shapes created with the random lattice and with the puckered lattice. As seen below, when deformed to match a given “goal surface", these objects tend to retain the deformed shape when relaxed. That is, the surface defined by the lattice lies close to the goal surface. In order to fit the lattice optimally to the goal surface we first relax the lattice and determine the area per node $A_r$ of its projection onto its mid-plane (this projection allows the nodes to be closer to their relaxed density). Then we position the nodes onto a regular triangular lattice with the same area per node in a desired form such as a cylinder. Finally, we move the nodes to find a local energy minimum using standard numerical algorithms, as described in Sec. \[Sec\_numerics\]. We then compare the resulting shape to the desired form.
Fig. \[fig\_shapes\_random\] presents a few examples for the random lattice with either bending energy or with extra springs at the edges.
{height="3.5in"}
Fig. \[fig\_shapes\_puckered\] is the result of cylindrically shaping the puckered lattice with extra springs. As a comparison we also plot the result of shaping a sheet that has only two different spring rest-lengths, and a sheet with all springs of equal length. Notice how the last two cases completely flatten out, losing their memory of the goal shape.
{height="1.5in"}
All the goal surfaces have zero curvature along the $x$ direction (they thus do not possess Gaussian curvature). To characterize the deviation from the prescribed shape we average all nodes along the $x$ direction, and look at the resulting curve in two dimensions. We then measure $Z_i$, the distance from node $i$ to the corresponding point on the initial surface, allowing rigid body translations and rotations such that the total sum $\sum_i Z_i$ is minimal. We define the error, $\eta$, by $$\eta=\sum_i Z_i^2/\sum_i Z_{i0}^2,
\label{fit}$$ where $Z_{i0}$, is the same measure but using the distance between the initial relaxed “flat" sheet that had zero global curvature and the goal surface.
Table \[Table\_Fit\] presents error values for different lattice sizes. For a given lattice size the more curvature the desired shape has, the worse the fit is (data not shown). One might expect that in order to get a better fit, all that is needed is to take a larger lattice, but the fit is, in fact, worse (see discussion section for more detail). There is a competition between the number of metastable states available, and the energetic barriers between them. For a small system there are not enough metastable states to imitate the desired shape; for a large lattice, there are many metastable states but the energetic barrier between them is so small that they are not stable. Table \[fit\] indicates that between the measured sheets, for a random lattice the preferred lattice is $8\times8$ and for the puckered lattice it is $7\times 7$.
[ | c | c | c | c | c | c |]{}\
Lattice size & 4 & 6 & 8 & 10 & 12\
$\eta$ & 0.56 & 0.36 & 0.10 & 0.13 & 0.30\
[ | c | c | c | c | c |]{}\
Lattice size & 4 & 7 & 10 & 13\
$\eta$ & 1.00 & 0.08 & 0.45 & 0.30\
To check how reproducible is the result in the random case we took fifteen different random sheets of size $8\times 8$ and shaped them as half a cylinder. The average error value is $\langle \eta\rangle = 0.065$ with a variance of 0.002. The results averaged over the $x$ axis are presented in Fig. \[fig\_variance\].
![Fifteen random sheets of size $8\times 8$ shaped as half a cylinder. The result presented here is averaged over the $x$ direction. The error measured by Eq.\[fit\] gives $\eta=0.06 \pm 0.002$.[]{data-label="fig_variance"}](Fig5.eps){height="1.5in"}
Hysteresis and effective global properties {#sec_Hysteresis}
==========================================
Like plastic materials, our system exhibits hysteresis — the current shape depends on the history of the applied forces. In magnetic materials hysteresis is demonstrated by changing the outer magnetic field in a cyclic fashion and tracking the resulting magnetization. In a similar fashion we changed the applied force cyclically and looked at the average height of the resulting sheet, if there was no memory, the increasing and decreasing forces would trace out the same line. Since there is memory, we get a loop. We demonstrate hysteresis by the following procedure: (a) We force the midpoint, $Z_{\rm mid}$, upward while pinning three nodes at the edges to define a horizontal plane (pinning one node completely, forcing one to be in a plane, and the third to be on a line). This results in a curved surface. See Fig. \[fig\_HystCartoon\] for clarification. (b) We then release the forced midpoint and minimize the energy. Next, we measure the average height of all nodes in the lattice, $Z_{\rm avg}$. (c) Next, we again take the mid point from its current position and force it upwards. We repeat steps b and c until $Z_{\rm mid}$ reaches a few lattice spacings. (The resulting remembered shapes clearly do have Gaussian curvature, unlike the target cylinders of Figs.\[fig\_shapes\_random\]A and \[fig\_shapes\_puckered\]A). (d) Now we force the mid point [*downward*]{} and repeat up to a few lattice spacings. (e) We then repeat points (a)-(d) four times. After the second round, variations were small. For a puckered lattice with stiff edges we get the loop in Fig. \[fig\_Hysteresis\]. Notice that there are plateaus in several locations. These imply that for a small increment of force there is no change in the resulting shape, [[*i.e.,* ]{}]{}the sheet resists forcing. Each plateau is followed by a jump to a new value. The jump indicates the crossing of the energetic barrier, resulting in a new configuration.
In order to test the robustness of the remembered shapes of Fig. \[fig\_shapes\_puckered\], we applied an external potential forcing it to curve even more inwards. Up to fifteen percent deformation the sheet will go back to the original curved configuration after relaxing the force as can be seen in Fig. \[fig\_Forced\] (the strain between the initial and final configuration is only 0.008%).
![Effect of global forcing on a shaped sheet. A puckered 7x7 sheet with stiff edges was shaped as an almost closed cylinder (represented by red dots in both figures). We applied an outer potential forcing it more inwards (left figure), resulting in six percent deformation. After removing the force, the sheet returns to the original shape (right figure).[]{data-label="fig_Forced"}](Fig8.eps){width="2.5in"}
In order to have a crosscheck on the numerics we computed the basic properties of one of our networks. The effective global properties of the sheet can be predicted semi-analytically. The lateral bulk modulus $K$ gives the change of lateral pressure $\Delta P$ required to produce a given small change $\Delta A$ in the area of the lattice: $$K= -A \frac{d P}{d A}
\label{bulk_modulus}$$ We calculate $K$ numerically by taking a simpler version of the puckered lattice, a lattice that has just one hexagonal pyramid as a repeating unit. (This sheet is less frustrated and therefore somewhat less shapeable than the lattice defined in Sec. \[sec\_Model\] and used in Figs. \[fig\_Model\]B and \[fig\_shapes\_puckered\]. It has the advantage of having just nine degrees of freedom and not eighteen). We then uniformly stretch all edges by a small amount (strain of up to 0.3%) using periodic boundary conditions. By measuring the gain in spring energy $E_s$ under this stretching, we find $K = A (d^2E_s/dA^2) = 0.26$ (where the spring lengths are as in Fig. \[fig\_shapes\_puckered\], and $k=1$).
To find an analytic expression in the infinite lattice we proceed as follows — first we find the ground state of the system. Each unit cell is completely defined with nine degrees of freedom $l_i$, (three nodes in each unit cell, each of which has three translations), associated with these are nine springs constraining the cell. Since the springs are all relaxed in the ground state, we can find the position of the nodes by solving the nine equations for the springs. The result is shown in Fig. \[fig\_1unit\] and is similar to the one obtained by numerically minimizing the energy of the periodic sheet. We may then express the energy cost $E_s$ of small deformations of these co-ordinates $\Delta l_i$ in the form $E_s \simeq 1/2~\Delta l_i ~{\bf \hat M}_{ij}~ \Delta l_j $, where the matrix, ${\bf \hat M}$ is given by ${\bf \hat M}\equiv \partial^2 E/\partial l_i \partial l_j |_{l_0}$. We then compute ${\bf \hat M}$ around that ground state and express the energy due to spring stretching in terms of $E_s$.
Applying a small amount of pressure $P$ requires a work $\Delta E_P = P \Delta A$, where $\Delta A$ is the change in area, expressible in terms of $\Delta {\bf l}$. The change of shape induced by $P$ also changes the spring energy $E_s$, also expressible in terms of $\Delta {\bf l}$. Defining the primitive vectors ${\bf a_1}$ and ${\bf a_2}$ of the unit cell as shown in Fig 9, the area of the cell is evidently $|{\bf a_1 \times a_2 }|$. Thus, the work done by the pressure is given by, $\Delta E_P= P ~\Delta|{\bf a_1}\times {\bf a_2}|= P~ \Delta(l_1 l_3)$. Minimizing the total energy, due to spring stretching and the work done by the pressure, $\partial_{l_j} E_{\rm tot} =\partial_i (E_s + E_P) = 0$ we find, $${\bf l}_j = {\bf l^0}_j -[{\bf \hat M}^{-1}]_{ji} (\partial_i E_P|_{\bf l=l^0}),
\label{DOF}$$ where, ${\bf l}^0$ are the values of the unperturbed lattice. Given the periodic structure, ${\bf \hat M}$ and ${\bf l_0}$ can readily be found numerically. We now use Eq. \[DOF\] to find the area of a unit cell and its derivative with respect to $P$. From this using Eq. \[bulk\_modulus\], we can calculate the compressibility, $1/K = -\frac{1}{A} ~dA/dP$ to obtain $$K = - 1/\left(\frac{1}{l_1}\frac{\partial l_1}{\partial P}+\frac{1}{l_3}\frac{\partial l_3}{\partial P}\right).
\label{compressibility}$$ For $a=1, a_m = 1.05 a$, $a_l = 1.15 a$ and $k=1$, we find $K=0.26$ in agreement with the numerical energy minimization calculation.
For an equilateral lattice the bulk modulus can be found exactly to be $\sqrt{3}/2\,k$ which fits both the semi-analytic calculation and the energy minimization one. The bulk modulus of the puckered lattice is lower than the equilateral one because the middle springs are only slightly strained when a small amount of pressure is applied. The main effect is that the height of the pyramid decreases. Similarly, the bulk modulus of a symmetric puckered lattice (upper drawing of Fig. \[fig\_Model\]B) could also be calculated analytically. In this case, the middle springs of each hexagon play no role at all for the bulk modulus. It is thus similar to the bulk modulus of a honeycomb lattice, which is just one third the bulk modulus of an equilateral lattice [[*i.e.,* ]{}]{}$\sqrt{3}/6\,k$. This, again, fits both the semi-analytic calculation and the energy minimization one. As a side comment, notice that this value is slightly higher than the bulk modulus we obtain for the non-symmetric puckered lattice. The reason is that the basis of the hexagonal pyramids in the non-symmetric puckered lattice are slightly out of the plane.
![Perspective view of the simplified lattice used for the calculation of bulk modulus in Sec. \[sec\_Hysteresis\]. Lattice vectors ${\bf a_1}=(l_1,l_2,0),{\bf a_2}=(l_3,0,0),{\bf b}=l_4~{\bf a_1}+ l_5~{\bf a_2} + (0,0,l_6), {\bf c}=l_7~{\bf a_1}+ l_8~{\bf a_2} + (0,0,l_9)$.[]{data-label="fig_1unit"}](Fig9.eps){width="2.5in"}
Bistability {#Sec_Bistability}
===========
Where does the shape memory come from? In the examples noted in the introduction, one source of shape memory is simple bistability: the system has two macroscopically different states that are local energy minima. By exerting macroscopic forces on the system one can cause the configuration to flip to the other minimum. Our lattices also contain such bistable states, which are thus a potential source of the shapeability we seek. In this section we characterize the bistable states accessed by displacing single nodes such as the pyramid apex of the previous section. We find that bistability of a node is associated with a geometric feature called angular deficit. We then investigate the role of these states in the observed shape memory of our sheets.
Any bistable node has two stable configurations with opposite local mean curvature. These may in principle induce global curvature in the sheet. What nodes are bistable? There is a correspondence between nodes of positive angular deficit and bistability. Looking at a node and summing the angles around it, the angular deficit is defined as the deviation of that sum from $2\pi$. It is a discrete analogue of Gaussian curvature. The angles at the apex of a hexagonal pyramid sum to less than $2\pi$. Thus, this node has positive angular deficit. The angles at a saddle point sum to more than $2\pi$ and therefore such a node has negative angular deficit. So positive angular deficit corresponds to a node which is a local extremum, if it is a maximum it potentially could be flipped to be a local minimum and vice versa.
For a lattice of triangles such as ours the angular deficits are subject to a global constraint. The sum of angular deficits for all nodes of triangular network is unchanged when the nodes are displaced (since the sum of angles over nodes is the same as the sum of angles over their triangles). This means that changing the angular deficit at one node must change the deficits elsewhere in the network to compensate.
Are all the nodes of positive angular deficit bistable? No. We checked each node for bistability by the following procedure, explained more fully in Sec. \[Sec\_numerics\]. Starting from a given stable state, we flip each node as follows. We determine the plane that best corresponds to the positions of the neighbors. Then we displace the node to its mirror image configuration relative to that plane. We call this the initial trial state. We then search for a nearby stable state distinct from the starting state. This search proceeds in two steps. We first fix all the nodes except the one examined, and determine a nearby energy extremum. If the node remains separated from its unflipped starting position, we then proceed to vary all node positions and determine a fully stable configuration. If this stable configuration still remains distinct from the starting unflipped state, we deem this node to be bistable. If on the other hand, the relaxed state reverts to the initial state, we seek other nearby positions of the node that might converge to distinct states. We return to the initial trial state defined above and displace it by a random amount up to $0.3 a$. We then test this displaced state for stability as we did for the initial trial state. If the displaced converges to a distinct state, the node is deemed bistable. If not, we perform another random displacement and test it as before. If no bistable state is found after 30 such trials, we deem the examined node to be monostable.
This procedure is adequate for surveying bistable states, but it is not exhaustive. Since our algorithm to find minima proceeds in discrete jumps, it can fail to find the local minimum corresponding to a given initial state. Further, this method probes only configurations that can be driven to another stable configuration by displacing a single node. It need not probe all transitions from a given stable state to an adjacent one.
By this procedure we find that in the puckered lattice in the globally flat state all nodes of positive angular deficit (middle of the hexagonal pyramids) are bistable. Most of them stay bistable when cylindrically shaped but not all. In the random lattice there was usually a correspondence between angular deficit and bistability but not always.
These findings imply that bistability is determined partly by the sign of the angular deficit but also by its magnitude and by the position of the neighbors. Fig. \[fig\_bistable\] is a result for one random lattice with stiff edges of size $8\times 8$. A horizontal bar at a node indicates positive angular deficit; a vertical bar indicates bistability. The histogram in Fig. \[fig\_bistable\] is a distribution of angular deficit for 252 nodes, bistable nodes are dark colored and monostable light colored. One can see that most nodes of positive angular deficit are bistable. In cases where it is not so, the angular deficit is close to zero. Nodes of negative angular deficit were almost always monostable (out of 252 cases just one instance of negative angular deficit turned out bistable, and the deficit in this case was very close to zero).
$
\begin{array}{ccc}
\includegraphics[width=5in]{Fig10.eps}
\end{array}$
Shaping a sheet changes some of the nodes from bistable to monostable and vice versa. Fig. \[fig\_bistable\_change\] shows an example of a sheet that started flat with bistable nodes marked by a light circle. We then shaped it cylindrically, as in Fig. \[fig\_shapes\_random\]. The resulting bistable nodes for the cylinder are marked by a dark dot.
![Shaping the sheet changes some of the bistable nodes. An example for an $8\times 8$ random lattice with stiff edges. Bistable nodes are marked with a blue circle for the flat sheet and with a red dot for the cylindrically curved one.[]{data-label="fig_bistable_change"}](Fig11.eps){width="2.5in"}
Let us see how bistability influences the global shape. We take the puckered lattice with extra springs at the edges and flip one of the bistable nodes. Fig. \[fig\_Flipped\] shows the original flat sheet (light gray) and how it is curved after one node is flipped (black). Taking longer springs in the middle of the hexagons results in larger curvature (right figure).
$
\begin{array}{ccc}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=5in]{Fig12.eps}}
\end{array}$
The local curvature of the bistable nodes dictates possible global curvatures for the entire sheet. Fig. \[fig\_UpDown\]A demonstrates how a flat puckered sheet with all hexagons pointing down (all having local mean downward curvature) can be forced to curve such that it has global mean downward curvature. After removing the force, it will stay curved. On the other hand, Fig. \[fig\_UpDown\]B indicates that forcing it in the opposite direction, [[*i.e.,* ]{}]{}trying to impose upward curvature, does not work — the sheet flattens once the force is removed.
![Puckered lattice used in Fig. \[fig\_Flipped\]A. It is either forced to curve up (A) or down (B) as described in the text. If the force is removed, the shape retains some curvature when bistable nodes point outward on the curved surface (C), but not when they point inwards (D).[]{data-label="fig_UpDown"}](Fig13.eps){width="3.5in"}
Bistability is important, but it is not the only factor that determines the shape. There are multiple stable shapes for the same configuration of bistable nodes, as shown in Fig. \[fig\_UpDown\]. Here an initially flat state was forced to bend by constraining the middle line and forcing the two edges up. The resulting configuration (A) did not undergo any flips in the bistable nodes, nor did any nodes flip when the force was removed (C). The set of bistable nodes remained unchanged in both (A) and (C). Further, (C) was robust to perturbations. It returned to the configuration shown when fifteen percent random displacements in the node positions were imposed.
To characterize the non-locality, we look at a cylindrically shaped puckered sheet and force it even more inwards, same as was done in Fig. \[fig\_Forced\]. This time we push it just above the limit of elasticity, so it does not recover. We would like to define the change between this state and the previous one. Is the change very local? Did just one node flip? Or did all of them move? A good way to measure locality is to look at the Inverse Participation Ratio (IPR), defined by: $${\rm IPR} = \frac{1}{\sum_i \psi_i^4},
\label{IPR}$$ where $\psi_i$ is the change in dihedral angle between every pair of adjacent triangles, normalized such that $\sum_i \psi_i^2 = 1$. The IPR gives 1 if the change is localized in one spring, and $N$ if it is spread equally over all springs. In the above deformation for a $7\times 7$ lattice we get IPR=12. [[*i.e.,* ]{}]{}about 12 sites accounted for most of the displacement after the removal of the force. None of the bistable nodes have flipped, and checking to see where the largest change occurred, we find that it happened at a saddle point. Fig. \[fig\_IPR\] presents the initial cylinder and the relaxed one after forcing beyond elasticity in (A) and (B) respectively. Fig. \[fig\_IPR\]C shows the amount of displacement (dot size) of each node and the change in dihedral angles (line width) between A and B displayed on the “flat" initial sheet. Observe that the biggest change in angles is not around just one node, but also not spread on the entire shape, but rather localized around a few nodes.
![(A) Puckered lattice used in Fig. \[fig\_Forced\]. It is then forced beyond its elastic limit and, when relaxed, finds a new configuration (B). The normalized change in dihedral angles between each pair of triangles (controlling bending energy) is represented by the width of the lines in (C), the displacement of a node is given by the size of the dots .[]{data-label="fig_IPR"}](Fig14.eps){width="3.5in"}
Numerics {#Sec_numerics}
========
The lattice definition above specifies the spring basic energy $E_0({\bf x}_1, ... {\bf x}_n)$ as a function of node positions, $E_0=\frac12 k \sum_{[\alpha,\beta]} (|{\bf x}_\alpha-{\bf x}_\beta|-l_{\alpha\beta})^2$, where ${\bf x}_\alpha$ is the position of the $\alpha$ node, and the sum goes over all springs (see Fig. \[fig\_Numerics\]). The rest length, $l_{\alpha\beta}$, depends on the model, as explained in Sec.\[sec\_Model\]. Given a numerical formula for $E_0$ we must determine the node positions that minimize this energy. Standard numerical methods give an iterative prescriptions for approaching this minimum, as discussed below.
To eliminate floppy modes we add bending energy or extra springs. Extra springs are added to nodes at the edges that have less than six neighbors. We connect them to their next to nearest neighbors using a spring constant that is smaller by a factor of 10, [[*i.e.,* ]{}]{}$k/10$. The rest length of these springs is chosen such that they are relaxed in the original configuration. Bending energy is given by $E_b=C~ \sum_{[\mu, \nu]}1/(1.1+\hat{\bf n}_\mu \cdot \hat{\bf n}_\nu)$, where $\hat{\bf n}_\mu$ is the normal to the surface of the $\mu$th triangle, and the sum goes over neighboring triangles. This particular form guarantees that the energy increases sharply as the angle between triangles gets closer to $\pi$. This discourages triangles from simply folding onto their neighbors. The constant $C$ was chosen to be $C =k a^2/3000 $ such that $C \ll k a^2$.
If our sheets were physical objects in the real world they would find the closest minimum to the initial configurations. In this qualitative study we used the standard, nonlocal minimization methods, since these were faster and captured the qualitative features. Specifically, we used the FindMinimum command in Mathematica [@Mathematica]. We tested a few methods under FindMinumum — conjugate gradient, Newton and quasi-Newton. The results didn’t differ qualitatively, producing the same average error values. However, convergence times were longer than the general procedure. We thus used the FindMinimum without specifying any method. These minimization schemes do not necessarily scan the energy landscape in a continuous fashion. The “springback test" of Fig. \[fig\_Forced\] above confirms that the shaped configuration is a robust minimum. The numerical calculation of the bulk modulus provided additional validation of the numerics and the input energy formulas used in the numerics.
![An example of a random triangular lattice with nodes $x_\alpha$ and $x_\beta$ connected by springs of rest length $l_{\alpha\beta}$. Red lines represent extra springs at the edges.[]{data-label="fig_Numerics"}](Fig15.eps){width="2.5in"}
For the calculation of bistable nodes we went over each node in the lattice, each time fixing all nodes but one. We used the function FindRoot in [*Mathematica*]{}[@Mathematica] which implements Newton’s method to find the root of a set of equations. In this instance we used it to find an extremum. It requires an initial guess for which we take the mirror image of the free node plus a small random number taken from the interval $[-0.3,0.3]a$ . The mirror plane was calculated by finding a plane which is the closest to the six neighbors of the free node. If the extremum point is in the vicinity of the original node (within $\pm 0.05a$) we say it is the same position and go on to look at another initial guess. We do this for up to 30 times. If in all of those tries we didn’t find a second stable configuration we conclude that the point is monostable. We then take the list of nodes that are suspected as bistable and for each one relax the sheet globally using [*Mathematica’s*]{} FindMinimum. If the position of the flipped node is different from the original one by more than $\pm0.05 a$ we say that it is truly bistable.
Discussion {#sec_Discussion}
==========
This study was based on the notion that the shape memory seen in crumpled paper is distinctive and robust because of its two-dimensional connectivity. We aimed to capture this form of shape memory by a minimal system embodying this two-dimensional connectivity along with the local bistability of a crumpled sheet, using a simple lattice of springs. Remarkably, this lattice showed significant shape memory in empirical numerical studies. Indeed, the resulting shapes resembled shapes seen when one physically shapes crumpled paper. The remembered shapes were robust: even when they were deformed significantly by external forces, they returned to their remembered shape when these forces were removed. In this section we examine the origin and potential significance of this intriguing behavior. We focus on the puckered lattice configuration, since it is the simplest system that shows the shapeability.
Plastic vs recoverable shapeability {#plastic-vs-recoverable-shapeability .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------
Macroscopically, the shapeability of our sheet is no different from that of a malleable piece of metal, such as a coat-hanger wire. When either of these materials is forced into a given shape, it retains that shape. If it is forced moderately from the retained shape, it deforms elastically, returning to that shape when the force is released. In this sense it is as shapeable as our system. The distinctive aspect of our sheet lies in the nature of the microscopic changes that allow retention of a shape. In the malleable metal the new shape arises because of plastic deformation. Planes of atoms making up the metal crystal slide past each other, to reach another stable state in which there has been a net relative motion of the atoms. In making a macroscopic deformation, this process is repeated so that the material displacement between two given atoms may grow to indefinite size. The microscopic variables that describe plastic deformation must thus cover an indefinite range. Such deformations are not recoverable. That is, the original arrangement of the atoms cannot be recovered by the type of external forcing that led to plastic deformation. In our sheet, by contrast, the microscopic variables may be taken to be the spring lengths. All the retained shapes of the sheet are defined by limited changes of these lengths of the order of a fraction of a lattice length. Because of this, the deformations are recoverable. One can return to the initial microscopic state by applying a suitable force. For example, one may force the nodes into a plane to create a unique flat reference state. By contrast, one cannot restore a bent wire to its initial straight shape with all the atoms in their initial positions.
Shapeability and local bistability {#shapeability-and-local-bistability .unnumbered}
----------------------------------
Any locally stable configuration of a mechanical system implies a local minimum of its potential energy. Since our system has multiple stable states —[[e.g., ]{}]{}flat [*vs*]{} curved— it must have multiple local energy minima. Moreover, these minima are coupled to macroscopic curvature and are selectable by imposing macroscopic curvature profiles.
Our system was designed to have many local energy minima. First, it is constructed to be hyperstatic, so that there are no free motions degenerate in energy. Second, it was constructed to have an extensive set of bistable states associated with individual nodes of the lattice. We found empirically that simply having such bistable states was not sufficient for shape memory. Instead, it was necessary that the state of one bistable node affect the stable positions of the other bistable nodes. Thus deforming the network causes bistable nodes to become stable and vice versa (Fig. \[fig\_bistable\_change\]). Likewise, a given external force may collectively destabilize a family of bistable states due to their interaction.
We expect any two-dimensional sheet to have such cooperativity. In a smooth, unstretchable sheet, the Gaussian curvature must vanish everywhere: one principal curvature must vanish at every point, and the two uncurved directions extending from any point must form a straight line to the boundary [@Parker1977]. Real sheets differ from this ideal case. They can stretch and fold, thus weakening these constraints. Still, the requirement of remaining as a continuous sheet imposes strong constraints on the energy landscape. Thus the minima of interest in our sheet are expected to be co-operative, involving multiple nodes. For example, the remembered states of cylindrical curvature observed in our study involve such cooperativity (Fig. \[fig\_IPR\]). The curvature at a given point is shared by several nodes.
The above picture leads us to expect a strong connection between the deformation into a remembered shape and an associated flipping pattern of the bistable states. We did observe some relationship between the direction of imposed curvature and the flipping of bistable states, as described in Fig. \[fig\_Flipped\]. However, the relationship was far too weak to explain the robust retention of shapes that we observed. Our system was able to retain strongly curved states without [*any*]{} change of the bistable states we monitored.
By deforming a shaped sheet beyond the threshold of irreversibility, we got some indication of the nature of the minima. When the imposed deformation force was pushed just past the threshold, we observed a small discontinuous displacement. Some of this displacement remains after the force is removed. This displacement has moved the system from one energy minimum to another nearby minimum. The shift was accomplished with no flipping of our bistable nodes, as noted above. Instead, the shift was a pattern of spring deformations concentrated along one row of nodes. This motion confirms our expectation that the energy minima responsible for shape memory are not local but co-operatively stored by multiple nodes and springs. Characterizing these moves further will be important for understanding these shapeable lattices.
Scalability {#scalability .unnumbered}
-----------
Our study gives information about how the shape memory depends on the number of nodes in the lattice. When we simply created a larger lattice with the same local structure, the shape memory decreased. A larger sheet bent through a given angle relaxes nearly completely while a smaller sheet remains bent. This behavior is natural in the continuum limit. Any mechanical sheet when bent with a curvature sufficiently smaller than its inverse thickness, must respond elastically, and thus reversibly. Conversely, shaping behavior of a sheet on the scale $L$ requires a non-elastic, irreversible response for curvatures of order $1/L$. This suggests that the effective thickness should be of order $L$ to retain shapeability. The 8 x 8 sheets of our main study satisfied this criterion. They had a root-mean-square thickness of roughly five percent of their width. To expand the thickness in proportion to $L$ as $L\rightarrow \infty$ cannot be achieved with simple lattices like those studied here. Instead, one would need to introduce structure on increasingly large wavelength scales, with the long wavelengths supplying the needed thickness on the largest scales. We note that crumpled sheets have bendable elements on many length scales [@Blair2005] so that their effective thickness grows with their size.
Another potential way to modify the lattice so that it remembers weak curvature is to reduce the distance between the bistable node positions [[e.g., ]{}]{}by reducing the height of the pyramids in Fig. \[fig\_Model\]. Reducing this distance must tend to reduce the amount of deformation ([[*i.e.,* ]{}]{}curvature) needed to produce a flip.
In view of these ways to enhance shapeability, our observed reduction in shapeability with $L$ using our constant lattice geometry does not appear insurmountable.
Compound curvature {#compound-curvature .unnumbered}
------------------
Notably lacking from our study was compound curvature. Our main studies were confined to cylinder-like shapes with curvature in only one direction. This simple curvature was sufficient to demonstrate shapeability. Still, such shapes are very limited. In particular they are far more limited than the general three-dimensional shapes formable using crumpled sheets or origami shapes such as the “water bomb" [@Greenberg2011]. The hysteretic shapes of Fig. \[fig\_Hysteresis\] showed some compound curvature as well as those of Fig. \[fig\_Flipped\]. We did not systematically attempt such shapes, for the reason noted above. Any smooth sheet with compound curvature must undergo large variations in the spatial distance between material points, [[*i.e.,* ]{}]{} large and inhomogeneous strain. Crumpled sheets satisfy this constraint by folding. Folding allows large distances in the material sheet to span only small distances in space. Our lattices were not amenable to folding; thus, we did not expect them to remember shapes with compound curvature. However, generalizing our lattices to allow folding should permit the lattices to adopt shapes with substantial compound curvature.
Connection to other material memories {#connection-to-other-material-memories .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------
Shapeability is a form of memory, as emphasized above. Several other forms of material memory have received wide attention in recent times, in addition to those mentioned in the Introduction. Examples are the classic spin-glass associative memory of Hopfield [@Hopfield1982], the sheared colloidal dispersions of Pine and Chaikin[@Pine2008], and the selectable crystallization of a “magic soup" of components of Murugan et al [@Arvind2014]. The question naturally arises how the shapeable sheets studied above are related to other forms of memory.
Any physical system that functions as a memory associates a (large) set of configurations $\{c\}$ with a (small) set of target configurations $\{g\} \subset \{c\}$. The association means that for each target configuration $g_i$ there exists a set of other configurations $\{c\}_i \subset \{c\}$ such that any initial configuration $C \in \{c\}_i$ evolves into $g_i$ and remains at $g_i$. The number of target configurations $g_i$ can range from one to a large number. The number of initial configurations $\{c\}_i$ leading to a given $g_i$ may also range widely, from a single configuration—$g_i$ itself— to a large fraction of the possible configurations. For example, an array of $N$ decoupled magnetic bits, has a capacity of $2^N$ target states, but the set of initial bit patterns $\{c\}_i$ corresponding to a given target bit pattern $g_i$ consists of only the single configuration $\{c\}_i = g_i$. Conversely, a single ideal ferromagnet whose atomic spins are forced into a given pattern relaxes to one of only two states: the “up" and the “down" ground states. Here there are only two $g_i$ and virtually all the configurations $c$ belong to either $\{c\}_1$ or $\{c\}_2$.
In several of these systems, [[e.g., ]{}]{}the spin glass memory and the magic soup, the memories are pre-determined or [*instilled*]{} by a separate process. This instillment does not play a role in the shapeability explored in this work. The shapeability arises from generic features of the structure; the desired shapes were not explicitly programmed into the lattice.
An ideal shapeable material can assume a wide range of coarse-grained geometric forms. Thus an ideal shapeable sheet would be able to approximate any smooth profile of compound curvature, such as a U-channel, a bowl or a saddle shape. The process of selecting a target state consists of forcing the sheet into a shape similar to that of the target state. The memory consists of the retention of this form under perturbations. The set of deformations that return to the target state are the $\{c\}_i$ for this shape $g_i$. The material can retain a large range of possible shapes; thus the range of $\{c\}_i$ selecting a given $g_i$ is a small fraction of this total range. Since any given region may in principle be shaped independently, the number of possible memories is potentially proportional to the number of configurations of the system and exponential in the number of degrees of freedom. The capacity of the spin-glass memory, by contrast, is simply proportional to the number of degrees of freedom[@Hopfield1982]
Physical realizations {#physical-realizations .unnumbered}
---------------------
The utility of the sheets studied here depends on physical realizations. The simulations presented above provide encouragement that networks of real nodes and springs will show shape memory, though these simulations give only a qualitative representation of a real network. In a real network bending elasticity is needed in order to prevent unconstrained modes of motion, but our simulated bending elasticity was not especially realistic. A wide range of physical implementations would be consistent with the qualitative properties of our simulation. In particular, the network could be molded or cast as a single piece of plastic or metal. Our simulations made little attempt to optimize the geometry of the structure. Thus there is great scope for improved shapeability.
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
Deforming two-dimensional elastic manifolds into three dimensions typically induces a reinforcing network of ridges and vertices [@Witten:2007fk]. In this study we have investigated how this co-operative response might influence a manifold containing local energy minima. We speculated that the induced network might couple the local energy minima so as to create remembered shapes. Our exploratory lattice models made to test this mechanism indeed showed a modest but unambiguous shapeability. Thus they demonstrate that extensive shapeability is achievable without plastic deformation and without designing the material to create specific shapes. They thus suggest a new strategy for creating deformable, reconfigurable objects. Further, this mechanism may account for the extensive shapeability seen in everyday crumpled sheets of paper or plastic.
To understand how the shape memories are stored, one must understand the constraints that define a given energy minimum and that dictate the transitions between minima. We have only begun to explore these minima. It appears feasible that lattices like those studied here can be developed into a generic form of shapeable material. Our work towards both of these goals is in progress.
We are grateful to Jin Wang, Efraim Efrati, Arvind Murugan, Matan Ben-Zion, Sidney Nagel and Martin Van Hecke for fruitful discussions. Matthew Pinson provided a valuable critique of the manuscript. N. O. was supported by a Kadanoff-Rice fellowship from the University of Chicago’s Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, funded by the National Science Foundation under award number DMR-0820054.
[99]{}
B. Thiria, and M. Adda-Bedia, [*Phys. Rev. lett.*]{} [**107**]{}, 025506 (2011).
A. Lobkovsky, S. Gentges, H. Li, D. Morse and T. A. Witten, [*Science*]{} [**270**]{}, 1482 (1995).
E. M. Kramer, and A. E. Lobkovsky, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**53**]{}, 1465 (1996).
P. A. Houle, and J. P. Sethna, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**54**]{}, 278 (1996).
Y. Kantor, M. Kardar, and D. R. Nelson, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**57**]{}, 791 (1986).
Y. Kantor, and D. R. Nelson, [*Phys. Rev. A.*]{} [**36**]{}, 4020 (1987).
T. Mullin, S. Deschanel, K. Bertoldi, and M. C. Boyce, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{} [**99**]{}, 084301 (2007).
S. Shan, S. H. Kang, P. Wang, C. Qu, S. Shian, E. R. Chen, and K. Bertoldi, [*Adv. Funct. Mater.*]{} [**24**]{}, 4935 (2014).
S. Waitukaitis, R. Menaut, B. G. Chen, and M. van Hecke, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**114**]{}, 055503 (2015).
B. Florijn, C. Coulais, and M. van Hecke, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**113**]{}, 175503 (2014).
J. L. Silverberg, A. A. Evans, L. McLeod, R. C. Hayward, T. Hull, C. D. Santangelo, and I. Cohen, [*Science*]{} [**345**]{}, 647 (2014).
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slap_bracelet>
Z. Chen, Q. Guo, C. Majidi, W. Chen, D. J. Srolovitz, and M. P. Haataja, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**109**]{}, 114302 (2012).
W. M. Huang, Z. Ding, C. C. Wang, J. Wei, Y. Zhao, and H. Purnawali, [*Mater. Today*]{} [**13**]{}, 54 (2010).
H. J. Harp, W. T. Leible, and W. M. Mccort [*Flexible drinking tube*]{}. U. S. Patent 3,409,224, Nov. 5, 1968.
J. C. Maxwell, [*Philos. Mag. Series 4* ]{} [**27**]{}, 294 (1864).
We view these constraints in the sense of Maxwell[@Maxwell1864]. In general each spring imposes a linear constraint equation on the $3N$ Cartesian node co-ordinates. If the equations for all the springs are independent, then the $3N$ constraint equations have a unique solution. Then any displacement creates a proportional restoring force from the springs. Dependent equations occur for exceptional geometries, such as parallel springs. In addition, six such exceptional modes occur for any rigid body: these are the three independent rigid translations and the three rotations that leave any set of connecting springs unchanged. Only $3N -6$ springs are needed to constrain the remaining internal deformations. However, if there are fewer than $3N-6$ springs, then there are internal node displacements that create no linear restoring force. There is one independent mode of displacement for each spring less than the $3N -6$ required.
A. P. Sutton, [*Electronic Structure of Materials*]{}, Oxford University Press, NY. (1993).
Millman, R. S., and G. D. Parker, [*Elements of Differential Geometry*]{}, (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1977).
D. L. Blair, and A. Kudrolli, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**94**]{}, 166107 (2005).
H. Greenberg, M. Gong, S. Magleby, and L. Howell, [*Mech. Sci*]{} [**2**]{}, 217 (2011).
J. Hertz, A. Krogh, and R. G. Palmer, [*Introduction to the theory of neural computation*]{}, Boston, MA (1991).
J. J. Hopfield, [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. *]{} [**79**]{}, 2554 (1982).
L. Corte, P. M. Chaikin, J. P. Gollub, and D. J. Pine, [*Nature Phys. *]{} [**4**]{}, 420 (2008).
A. Murugan, Z. Zeravcic, M. P. Brenner, and S. Leibler, [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.*]{} [**112**]{}, 54 (2015).
T. A. Witten. , 643 (2007).
Wolfram Research, Inc., [*Mathematica, Version 9.0*]{}, Champaign, IL (2012)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Two coupled channel effects connected with kaon pair production in proton-proton collisions are discussed. (1) Although there is ample evidence that the antikaon is strongly attracted to the recoil protons in $pp\to K^+p\,\{K^-p\}$, residual effects of the $K^+K^-$ interaction are seen, including a possible cusp at the $K^0\bar{K}^0$ threshold. This is investigated within a simple $K$-matrix approach. (2) The production rates and invariant mass distributions for $pp\to
K^+p\,\{K^-p\}$ and $pp\to K^+p\,\{\pi^0\Sigma^0\}$ are related using a separable potential description of the coupled $K^-p/\pi^0\Sigma^0$ channels. It can be plausibly argued that this pair of reactions is driven through the production of the $\Lambda(1405)$.
address: 'Physics and Astronomy Dept., UCL, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK '
author:
- Colin Wilkin
title: 'Coupled-channel effects in kaon pair production[^1]'
---
=by -1
The bulk of the observed distributions in $pp\to ppK^+K^-$ above and below the $\phi$ threshold can be understood in terms of $pp$ and $K^-p$ final state interactions [@Winter; @Maeda08], as can be seen from Fig. \[KKmass\]. It is shown there that the $K^-p$ *fsi* distorts particularly the ratio of the differential cross sections $$\label{ratio_def}R_{Kp}=\frac{{\mbox{\rm d}}\sigma/{\mbox{\rm d}}M_{K^-p}}{{\mbox{\rm d}}\sigma/{\mbox{\rm d}}M_{K^+p}}\,, $$ which has a very strong preference for low $Kp$ invariant masses, $M_{Kp}$.
![Left: Differential cross section for $pp\to ppK^+K^-$ at 2.65 GeV (crosses) as a function of the $K^+K^-$ invariant mass compared to simulations of the $\phi$ (dotted) and non-$\phi$ (dashed) contributions and their sum (solid histogram). The $K^0\bar{K}^0$ threshold is indicated by the dashed vertical line. Right: The ratio of differential cross sections with respect to $Q_{Kp}=m_{Kp}-m_K-m_p$; see Eq. (\[ratio\_def\]). The curve results from the amplitude analysis of Ref. [@Alexey2], which includes a $\bar{K}^0d$ *fsi*. []{data-label="KKmass"}](hig1a.eps "fig:"){width="6cm"} ![Left: Differential cross section for $pp\to ppK^+K^-$ at 2.65 GeV (crosses) as a function of the $K^+K^-$ invariant mass compared to simulations of the $\phi$ (dotted) and non-$\phi$ (dashed) contributions and their sum (solid histogram). The $K^0\bar{K}^0$ threshold is indicated by the dashed vertical line. Right: The ratio of differential cross sections with respect to $Q_{Kp}=m_{Kp}-m_K-m_p$; see Eq. (\[ratio\_def\]). The curve results from the amplitude analysis of Ref. [@Alexey2], which includes a $\bar{K}^0d$ *fsi*. []{data-label="KKmass"}](hig1b.eps "fig:"){width="6.2cm"}
Since a full treatment of the dynamics of the four-body $ppK^+K^-$ channel is currently impractical, the final state interactions were introduced in an *ad hoc* way, as the product of the enhancements in the $pp$ and the two $K^-p$ combinations, all evaluated at the appropriate relative momenta $q$ [@Maeda08]: $$\label{assumption} F = F_{pp}(q_{pp})\times F_{Kp}(q_{Kp_1}) \times
F_{Kp}(q_{Kp_2})\,.$$ This was used to generate the simulations shown in Fig. \[KKmass\]. The $K^-p$ *fsi* was taken in the scattering length approximation, $F_{Kp}(q)\approx 1/(1-iqa)$, where $|a|\approx
1.5$ fm. With this value of $a$, the approach reproduces the $K^-p/K^+p$ ratio also at other energies [@Maeda08], as well as the COSY-11 results [@Winter]. Moreover, the simulation suggests that the $K^-pp$ system should be enhanced at low masses and this feature is also seen in the ANKE data [@Maeda08]. Further evidence that the antikaon is attracted to nucleons is to be found in the $pp\to dK^+\bar{K}^0$ reaction, where low $\bar{K}^0d$ masses are favoured compared to $K^+d$ [@Alexey2].
However, this approach underestimates the data at low $K^+K^-$ masses in Fig. \[KKmass\] and so the *ansatz* of Eq. (\[assumption\]) has to be generalised to include an *fsi* in this channel. The effects are smaller here and, to illustrate them, the experimental data at all three ANKE energies have been divided by the simulations generated by Eq. (\[assumption\]), and their average is plotted in Fig. \[Fit\].
![Ratio of the $K^+K^-$ invariant mass spectra from the $pp\to
ppK^+K^-$ reaction to the simulation presented in Ref. [@Maeda08]. The experimental points correspond to the weighted average of data taken at 2.65, 2.70, and 2.83 GeV. The solid curve is the result of a best fit of Eq. (\[amps\]) to these data. The dot-dashed curve is the best fit when the elastic rescattering is *arbitrarily* neglected and the dashed when the charge-exchange term is omitted. \[Fit\]](hig2.eps){width="6cm"}
The enhancement seems to be most prominent between the $K^+K^-$ and $K^0\bar{K}^0$ thresholds at 987.4 and 995.3 MeV/c$^2$, respectively. It is therefore natural to speculate that it is also influenced by virtual $K^0\bar{K}^0$ production and its subsequent conversion into $K^+K^-$ through a charge-exchange *fsi*. If the $s$-wave $K^+K^-\rightleftharpoons K^0\bar{K}^0$ coupling is strong, this would generate an observable cusp at the $K^0\bar{K}^0$ threshold. These possibilities were examined in Ref. [@Alexey3], where it was shown that the enhancement factor has a momentum dependence of the form $$\mathcal{F}=\left|\frac{B_1/(B_1+B_0)}{\left(1-i\frac{1}{2}q[A_1-A_0]\right)(1-ikA_1)}
+\frac{B_0/(B_1+B_0)}{\left(1-i\frac{1}{2}q[A_0-A_1]\right)(1-ikA_0)}\right|^{\,2}\!.
\label{amps}$$
Here $B_0$ and $B_1$ are the *bare* $pp\to ppK\bar{K}$ amplitudes for producing $s$-wave $K\bar{K}$ pairs in isospin-0 and 1 states, respectively. These amplitudes, which already include the *fsi* in the $K^-p$ and $pp$ channels [@Maeda08], are then distorted through a *fsi* corresponding to elastic $K^+K^-$ scattering. This leads to enhancement factors of the form $1/(1-ikA_I)$, where $k$ is the momentum in the $K^+K^-$ system and $A_I$ is the $s$-wave scattering length in each of the two isospin channels. The charge-exchange *fsi* depends upon the $K^0\bar{K}^0\to K^+K^-$ scattering length, which is proportional to the difference between $A_0$ and $A_1$, and on the momentum $q$ in the $K^0\bar{K}^0$ system.
A cusp structure might arise because $q$ changes from being purely real above the $K^0\bar{K}^0$ threshold to purely imaginary below this point. The strength of the effect depends upon $A_0-A_1$, but its shape also depends upon the interference with the direct $K^+K^-$ production amplitude.
There is great uncertainty in the values of the scattering lengths and the choices made in Ref. [@Alexey3], $A_1=(0.1\pm0.1)+i(0.7\pm0.1)$ fm and $A_0=(-0.45\pm0.2)+i(1.63\pm0.2)$ fm, imply a significant charge-exchange contribution. The subsequent fitting of the data on the basis of Eq. (\[amps\]) is best achieved with $|B_1/B_0|^2 =
0.38_{-0.14}^{+0.24}$, *i.e.*, the kaon pairs are produced dominantly in the isospin-zero combination.
The resulting fit shown in Fig. \[Fit\] manifests a cusp at the $K^0\bar{K}^0$ threshold, though the data themselves are not sufficiently precise to see this unambiguously. The other fits shown there are non-allowed solutions, where one neglects either the elastic or charge-exchange *fsi*.
The energy dependence of the total cross section shown in Fig. \[sigt\] is definitely improved when the $K\bar{K}$ *fsi* is included but these, and especially the differential data, have to be improved in order to be compelling.
![Experimental total cross sections for $pp\to ppK^+K^-$ as a function of the excess energy. The dot-dashed curve is that of four-body phase space normalised on the 108 MeV point. The dashed curve includes final state interactions between the $K^-$ and the protons and between the two protons themselves [@Maeda08]. The further consideration of the *fsi* between the kaons leads to the solid curve [@Alexey3]. \[sigt\]](hig3.eps){width="6cm"}
In addition to the $pp\to pK^+\{pK^-\}$ measurement, the ANKE collaboration also extracted data on the $pp\to
pK^+\{\Sigma^0\pi^0\}$ reaction at 3.65 GeV/$c$ [@Iza]. As a second example of a coupled-channel effect, I would like to argue that both data sets might be understood in terms of the production and decay of the $\Lambda(1405)$, even though this resonance has a nominal mass below the $pK^-$ threshold. To investigate this we have to study the coupled $K^-p \rightleftharpoons\pi^0\Sigma^0$ systems in some detail. This is easiest to achieve within the realm of a separable potential description because the resulting equations can be solved algebraically. Separate and conquer [@Brown]!
A separable description of the $I=0$ coupled–channel system has been given in Ref. [@Gal]. Here the potential is taken in the form $$\label{Yamaguchi} V_{ij}(p,p') =
(2\pi)^3\,\frac{A_{ij}}{(p^2+\beta^2)(p'^2+\beta^2)}\,,$$ which is a symmetric matrix in the two channels (1) $\Sigma \pi$ and (2) $\bar{K}N$.
Define a diagonal matrix of form factors $$\Pi_{ij} = \frac{1}{(p_i^2+\beta^2)}\,\delta_{ij}\,,$$ where the momentum $p_i$ in channel $i$ is fixed in terms of the overall c.m. energy $W$. For the Yamaguchi form factors of Eq. (\[Yamaguchi\]), define a second diagonal matrix of dispersion integrals: $$\label{dispersion} \Delta_{ij} =
\frac{m_i}{4\pi\beta(\beta-ip_i)^2}\,\delta_{ij}\:,$$ where $m_i$ is the reduced mass in channel $i$.
The Schrödinger equation can then be resolved to give the purely $S$–wave $T$–matrix $$\label{T1} T(W) =\Pi(I+A\Delta)^{-1}A\,\Pi\,.$$
The resulting differential cross sections becomes $$\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{\!\!j\to i} =
\frac{m_im_j}{4\pi^2}\frac{p_i}{p_j}\,\left|T_{ij}\right|^2\:.$$
The available experimental data are fit with the input $I=0$ potentials [@Gal] $$A_{11} = -0.176\,\textrm{fm}^2\,,\hspace{0.5cm} A_{12} =
1.414\,\textrm{fm}^2\,,\hspace{0.5cm} A_{22} =
-1.370\,\textrm{fm}^2\,$$ with $\beta=3.5\,$fm$^{-2}$. These values lead to a $\Lambda(1405)$ pole at $W=(1406.5-25i)$MeV. The relation between momenta and overall energies was evaluated using non-relativistic kinematics, though this might be questioned for $\pi\Sigma$.
The above formalism is suitable for the description of free coupled $\pi\Sigma/\bar{K}N$ scattering. Suppose now that we introduce a third channel, in this case the initial $pp$ system, that is coupled weakly to these two. In lowest order perturbation theory, the transition matrix element from channel–3 to the other two is then given by $$\label{T2} \mathcal{T}_{i}(W)
=\left[\Pi(I+A\Delta)^{-1}\right]_{ij}C_j\,.$$ The $C_j$ represents a column vector of the initial preparation of the system in the raw $\pi\Sigma/\bar{K}N$ states before the final state interaction is introduced. In keeping with the assumption of a short-range transition, we neglect any energy or mass dependence of the preparation vector $C$.
The values of $|\mathcal{T}|^2$ must be multiplied by the phase spaces for $pp\to pK^+\{pK^-\}$ and $pp\to pK^+\{\Sigma^0\pi^0\}$, with a consistent relative normalisation. The shapes of the distributions are determined by the (complex) ratio $C_2/C_1$. To simplify the notation, we take $C_1=1$ and, purely for presentational purposes, normalise each data set to the integrated measured cross sections. We can then ask whether the relative normalisation is as predicted.
![Cross sections for (left) $pp\to
pK^+\{\Sigma^0\pi^0\}$ [@Iza] and (right) $pp\to
pK^+\{pK^-\}$ [@Maeda08] at a beam momentum of 3.65 GeV/c in terms of the $\Sigma^0\pi^0$ and $pK^-$ invariant masses, respectively. In the latter case the contribution from $\phi$ production was excluded. Theoretical predictions in the separable potential model were obtained with $C=-0.7i$.\[speculate1\]](hig4a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm"} ![Cross sections for (left) $pp\to
pK^+\{\Sigma^0\pi^0\}$ [@Iza] and (right) $pp\to
pK^+\{pK^-\}$ [@Maeda08] at a beam momentum of 3.65 GeV/c in terms of the $\Sigma^0\pi^0$ and $pK^-$ invariant masses, respectively. In the latter case the contribution from $\phi$ production was excluded. Theoretical predictions in the separable potential model were obtained with $C=-0.7i$.\[speculate1\]](hig4b.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm"}
Figure \[speculate1\] is obtained if the purely imaginary value $C_2=-0.7i$ is used. This value predicts a total cross section ratio $$R_{K\pi}=\sigma(pp\to pK^+\{pK^-\})/\sigma(pp\to
pK^+\{\Sigma\pi\}^0) = 9.4\times 10^{-3}\,,$$ to be compared to the experimental value of $(22\pm 8)\times
10^{-3}$, where the contribution from $\phi$ production is not included. This is perfectly acceptable agreement, given the model’s simplicity. Apart from other defects, the $pp$ *fsi* has been neglected, as has any quantum mechanical interference arising from the presence of two final protons.
There is one rather tricky point that must be mentioned. In order to get good agreement for the shape of the $K^-p$ spectrum, Maeda *et al.* [@Maeda08] needed to put in the *fsi* of the $K^-$ with *both* protons. In the present approach it is assumed that the whole $K^-p$ distribution shown does in fact come from the $\Lambda(1405)$ channel, even though there are two protons in the final state. This is in fact completely consistent with the factorisation assumption that the $K^-$ can have simultaneous *fsi* with both protons.
The obvious question now is: “How stable are the results to changes in the value of $C_2$?”. The short answer is: “not very!”. This is illustrated in Fig. \[speculate2\], where a purely real value $C_2=+0.5$ is chosen. The $K^-p$ spectrum doesn’t change too much (although it looks as though my hand must have been shaking when I drew it) but the $\Sigma\pi$ can vary enormously. For this value of $C_2$ one can even generate a double-peaked structure. The predicted cross section ratio of $18 \times 10^{-3}$ is close to experiment, but that is pretty meaningless in view of the complete failure to describe the shape.
![Cross sections for (left) $pp\to
pK^+\{\Sigma^0\pi^0\}$ [@Iza] and (right) $pp\to
pK^+\{pK^-\}$ [@Maeda08], as in Fig. \[speculate1\]. Theoretical predictions were obtained with $C=+0.5$.\[speculate2\]](hig5a.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm"} ![Cross sections for (left) $pp\to
pK^+\{\Sigma^0\pi^0\}$ [@Iza] and (right) $pp\to
pK^+\{pK^-\}$ [@Maeda08], as in Fig. \[speculate1\]. Theoretical predictions were obtained with $C=+0.5$.\[speculate2\]](hig5b.eps "fig:"){width="5.5cm"}
The results presented here are still preliminary, and no attempt has been made to include any contribution from the production of isovector $K^-p$ pairs to the cross section. Nevertheless some general conclusions might be drawn. The first, fairly obvious one, is that the ratio of the $pp\to pK^+\Sigma^0\pi^0$ and $pp\to pK^+pK^-$ comes out about right in this very hand-waving approach. As a consequence it seems likely that the same underlying reaction mechanism drives both processes and, hence, that one should try to estimate the two cross sections together in a realistic dynamical model.
Following from the above argument, the fact that $K\bar{K}$ scalar resonances cannot contribute in a major way to $pp\to
pK^+\Sigma^0\pi^0$, means that they are unlikely to do so for $pp\to
pK^+pK^-$ either, though they could distort the $K^+K^-$ spectrum at low invariant masses through a *fsi* [@Alexey3].
Why is the $K^-p$ spectrum fairly stable to changes in the preparation vector $C_i$ while the $\Sigma^0\pi^0$ distribution can change dramatically? The origin of this probably lies in the form of the separable potential used to describe the channel coupling. Gal [@Gal2] points out that the $\Sigma\pi$ diagonal interaction used in Ref. [@Gal] is much weaker than that of the chiral perturbation theory approaches [@Oller]. In other words, the $\Sigma\pi$ is really being driven here more by the $K^-p$. To check this we would really need a separable potential fitted to the chiral perturbation amplitudes.
Finally we turn to the related question of whether the $\Lambda(1405)$ is actually a single resonance or whether there are two closely spaced states that might be coupled differently to different channels. The ANKE $pp\to pK^+\Sigma^0\pi^0$ data show no sign of any two-peak structure [@Iza] but Geng and Oset [@Oset] have shown that this is not necessary or even likely in a two-pole scenario. It depends on the background and on how the state is prepared. In a sense, this is also what is found here in a much more intuitive approach. The shape of the spectra will depend upon the preparation vector as well on as the coupling potentials. In brief, two poles do not necessarily imply two peaks and two peaks do not necessarily imply two poles!
Coupled-channel effects in strange particle production at intermediate energies seem to be a rich field for theorists to till in the next few years provided that we are given more data, preferably with higher statistics!
I should like to thank the organisers for meeting support. Correspondence with Avraham Gal on the potential of Ref. [@Gal] proved most helpful, as did the email exchanges with Eulogio Oset and Nina Schevchenko. I am also grateful to Alexey Dzyuba for help with the phase-space evaluation.
[99]{} P. Winter et al., *Phys. Lett. B* **635**, 23 (2006). Y. Maeda et al., *Phys. Rev. C* **77**, 015204 (2008). A. Dzyuba et al., *Eur. Phys. J. A* **38**, 1 (2008). A. Dzyuba et al., *Phys. Lett. B* **668**, 315 (2008). I. Zychor et al., *Phys. Lett. B* **660**, 167 (2008). G.E. Brown, A.D. Jackson, *The Nucleon-Nucleon Interaction*, North- Holland, Amsterdam (1979). N.V. Shevchenko, A. Gal, J. Mareš, *Phys.Rev. Lett.* **98**, 082301 (2007); N.V. Shevchenko, A. Gal, J. Mareš, J. Révai, *Phys. Rev. C* **76** (2007) 055204. A. Gal, *private communication*, (2008). See for example: J.A. Oller, U.–G. Meissner, *Phys. Lett. B* 500, 263 (2001); D. Jido, J.A. Oller, E. Oset, A. Ramos, U.–G. Meissner, *Nucl.Phys. A* 725, 181 (2003). L.S. Geng, E. Oset, *Eur. Phys. J. A* **34**, 405 (2007).
[^1]: Presented at the Symposium on Meson Physics, Cracow 2008
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the isometry group of compact spherical orientable $3$-orbifolds $S^3/G$, where $G$ is a finite subgroup of $\mathrm{SO}(4)$, by determining its isomorphism type and, when $S^3/G$ is a Seifert fibrered orbifold, by describing the action on the Seifert fibrations induced by isometric copies of the Hopf fibration of $S^3$. Moreover, we prove that the inclusion of $\mbox{Isom}(S^3/G)$ into $\mbox{Diff}(S^3/G)$ induces an isomorphism of the $\pi_0$ groups, thus proving the $\pi_0$-part of the natural generalization of the Smale Conjecture to spherical $3$-orbifolds.'
address:
- 'M. Mecchia: Dipartimento Di Matematica e Geoscienze, Università degli Studi di Trieste, Via Valerio 12/1, 34127, Trieste, Italy.'
- 'A. Seppi: Dipartimento di Matematica “Felice Casorati", Università degli Studi di Pavia, Via Ferrata 5, 27100, Pavia, Italy.'
author:
- 'Mattia Mecchia\*'
- 'Andrea Seppi\*\*'
bibliography:
- 'ms-bibliography.bib'
title: 'Isometry groups and mapping class groups of spherical 3-orbifolds'
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Orbifolds are a generalization of manifolds, which had been introduced in different contexts by Satake [@satake], by Thurston [@thurston2 Chapter 13] and by Haefliger [@haefliger] – useful references being also [@boileau-maillot-porti; @choi; @Dun2]. The most standard example of an orbifold (of dimension $n$) is the quotient of a manifold $M^n$ by a group $\Gamma$ which acts properly discontinuously – but in general not freely – on $M$. If the action is not free, *singular points* appear in the quotient $M/\Gamma$, keeping track of the action of point stabilizers $\mathrm{Stab}_\Gamma(x)$ on a neighborhood of a fixed point $x\in M$. More generally, an orbifold is *locally* the quotient of a manifold by the action of a finite group.
*Geometric* $3$-*orbifolds* had a large importance in Thurston’s geometrization program. These are *locally* the quotient of one of the eight Thurston’s model geometries by the properly discontinuous action of a group of isometries. The main object of this paper are compact *spherical* $3$-orbifolds, which are *globally* the quotient of the $3$-sphere $S^3$ by the action of a finite group $G$ of isometries. Hence the quotient orbifold inherits a metric structure (which is a Riemannian metric of constant curvature $1$ outside the singularities). The main purpose of this paper is to study the group of *isometries* of compact spherical $3$-orbifolds $\mathcal O=S^3/G$, for $G$ a finite subgroup of $\SO(4)$. Roughly speaking, an isometry of $\mathcal O$ is a diffeomorphism which preserves both the induced metric and the type of singularities.
A widely studied problem concerning the isometry group of $3$-manifolds is the *Smale Conjecture*, and its stronger version, called *Generalized Smale Conjecture*. The latter asserts that the natural inclusion of $\Isom(M)$, the group of isometries of a compact spherical $3$-manifold $M$, into $\Diff(M)$ (its group of diffeomorphisms) is a homotopy equivalence. The original version was stated for $M=S^3$ by Smale. The $\pi_0$-*part* of the original conjecture, namely the fact that the natural inclusion induces a bijection on the sets of path components, was proved by Cerf in [@cerf]. The full conjecture was then proved by Hatcher in [@hatcher]. The Generalized Smale Conjecture for spherical $3$-manifolds was proven in many cases, but is still open in full generality [@MR2976322]. The $\pi_0$-[part]{} was instead proved in [@mccullough]. We will prove the $\pi_0$-[part]{} of the analogous statement for spherical $3$-orbifolds, namely:
\[smale conjecture\] Let $\OO=S^3/G$ be a compact spherical oriented orbifold. The inclusion $\Isom(\OO)\rightarrow\Diff(\OO)$ induces a group isomorphism $$\pi_0 \Isom(\OO)\cong \pi_0 \Diff(\OO)\,.$$
The proof uses both the algebraic description of the finite groups $G$ acting on $S^3$ by isometries, and the geometric properties of *Seifert fibrations for orbifolds*.
In fact, the classification of spherical $3$-orbifolds up to orientation-preserving isometries is equivalent to the classification of finite subgroups of $\SO(4)$ up to conjugacy in $\SO(4)$. Such algebraic classification was first given by Seifert and Threlfall in [@threlfall-seifert] and [@threlfall-seifert2]; we will use the approach of in [@duval]. In the spirit of the paper [@mccullough], we provide an algebraic description of the isometry group of the spherical orbifold $S^3/G$ once the finite subgroup $G<\SO(4)$ is given. To perform the computation, we first understand the group of orientation-preserving isometries, which is isomorphic to the quotient of the normalizer of $G$ in $\SO(4)$ by $G$ itself. We then describe the full group of isometries, when $S^3/G$ has orientation-reversing isometries. Only part of the understanding of $\Isom(S^3/G)$ is indeed necessary for the proof of the $\pi_0$-[part]{} of the Generalized Smale Conjecture for orbifolds, but to the opinion of the authors it is worthwhile to report the isomorphism type of the isometry group for every spherical orbifold, as such list is not available in the literature. Moroever, by the main theorem above, this gives also the computation for the mapping class group of spherical orbifolds.
To prove that the homomorphism $\iota:\pi_0 \Isom(\OO)\to\pi_0 \Diff(\OO)$ induced by the inclusion $\Isom(\OO)\rightarrow\Diff(\OO)$ is an isomorphism, we will in fact prove that the composition $$\xymatrix{
\pi_0\Isompr(\OO) \ar[r]^-{\iota} & \pi_0\Diff^+\!(\OO) \ar[r]^-{\alpha} & \Out(G)\,,
}$$ is injective, where $\Out(G)=\Aut(G)/\Inn(G)$. This implies that $\iota$ is injective, while surjectivity follows from [@cuccagna-zimmermann]. However, the injectivity of $\alpha\circ \iota$ does not hold in general, but will be proved when the singular locus of $\OO$ is nonempty and its complement is a Seifert fibered manifold, while the remaining cases were already treated in [@mccullough] and [@cuccagna-zimmermann]. In order to detect which orbifolds have this property and to prove injectivity in those cases, it is necessary to analyze the Seifert fibrations which a spherical orbifolds $S^3/G$ may admit, in the general setting of Seifert fibrations for orbifolds. The methods to obtain such analysis were provided in [@mecchia-seppi].
Motivated by the relevance of the notion of Seifert fibration for spherical orbifolds, we decided to include in this paper a more explicit discussion of the action of the isometry group $\Isom(S^3/G)$ on Seifert fibrations of $S^3/G$ induced from some isometric copy of the standard Hopf fibration of $S^3$ (when any exists). We thus give a geometric interpretation of the action of the subgroup of $\Isom(S^3/G)$ which preserves a Seifert fibration (such subgroup being always orientation-preserving, for general reasons).
Organization of the paper {#organization-of-the-paper .unnumbered}
-------------------------
In Section \[sec spherical 3-orbifolds\], we explain the algebraic classification of finite subgroups of $\SO(4)$ up to conjugacy, and we give an introduction of two- and three-dimensional orbifolds, with special attention to the spherical case. In Section \[sec isometry group\], we compute the isometry group of spherical $3$-orbifolds, by first computing the subgroup of orientation-preserving isometries and then the full isometry group. The results are reported in Tables \[tableisometry\], \[tableisometryexceptions\] and \[tableisometryreversing\]. In Section \[sec fibrations\] we discuss the Seifert fibrations for spherical orbifolds and in Table \[topolino\] we describe the action of the isometry group on the base $2$-orbifolds of the fibrations. Finally, in Section \[sec gen smale\] we prove the $\pi_0$-part of the Generalized Smale Conjecture for spherical orbifolds.
Spherical three-orbifolds {#sec spherical 3-orbifolds}
=========================
Let $\H=\{a+bi+cj+dk\,|\,a,b,c,d\in\R\}=\{z_1+z_2j\,|\,z_1,z_2\in\C\}$ be the quaternion algebra. Given a quaternion $q=z_1+z_2 j$, we denote by $\bar q=\bar z_1-z_2 j$ its conjugate. Thus $\H$ endowed with the positive definite quadratic form given by $q\bar q=|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2$, is isometric to the standard scalar product on $\R^4$. We will consider the round 3-sphere as the set of unit quaternions:
$$S^3=\{a+bi+cj+dk \,|\, a^2+b^2+c^2+d^2=1\}=\{z_1+z_2j\, \,|\, |z_1|^2+|z_2|^2=1\}\,.$$
The restriction of the product of $\mathbb{H}$ induces a group structure on $S^3$. For $q\in S^3$, $q^{-1}=\bar q$.
Finite subgroups of $\SO(4)$ {#subsec finite subgroups}
----------------------------
In this subsection we present the classification of the finite subgroup of $\SO(4)$, which is originally due to Seifert and Threlfall ([@threlfall-seifert] and [@threlfall-seifert2]). More details can be found in [@duval; @conway-smith; @mecchia-seppi]; we follow the approach and the notation of [@duval]. We have to mention that in Du Val’s list of finite subgroup of $\SO(4)$ there are three missing cases.
Let us consider the group homomorphism $$\Phi:S^3\times S^3\rightarrow \SO(4)\,$$ which associates to the pair $(p,q)\in S^3\times S^3$ the function $\Phi_{p,q}:\H \rightarrow \H$ with $$\Phi_{p,q}(h)=phq^{-1}\,,$$ which is an isometry of $S^3$. The homomorphism $\Phi$ can be proved to be surjective and has kernel $$\mathrm{Ker}(\Phi)=\{(1,1),\,(-1,-1)\}\,.$$ Therefore $\Phi$ gives a 1-1 correspondence between finite subgroups of $\SO(4)$ and finite subgroups of $S^3\times S^3$ containing the kernel of $\Phi$. Moreover, if two subgroups are conjugate in $\SO(4)$, then the corresponding groups in $S^3\times S^3$ are conjugate and vice versa. To give a classification of finite subgroups of $\SO(4)$ up to conjugation, one can thus classify the subgroups of $S^3\times S^3$ which contain $\{(1,1),\,(-1,-1)\}$, up to conjugation in $S^3\times S^3$.
Let $\tilde G$ be a finite subgroup of $S^3\times S^3$ and let us denote by $\pi_i:S^3\times S^3 \rightarrow S^3$, with $i=1,2$, the two projections. We use the following notations: $L=\pi_1(\tilde G)$, $L_K=\pi_1((S^3\times\{1\})\cap \tilde G)$, $R=\pi_2(\tilde G)$, $R_K=\pi_2((\{1\}\times S^3)\cap \tilde G)$. The projection $\pi_1$ induces an isomorphism $$\bar{\pi}_1: \tilde G/(L_K\times R_K)\rightarrow L/L_K\,,$$ and $\pi_2$ induces an isomorphism $$\bar{\pi}_2: \tilde G/(L_K\times R_K)\rightarrow R/R_K\,.$$ Let us denote by $\phi_{\tilde G}:L/L_K\to R/R_K$ the isomorphism $$\phi_{\tilde G}=\bar{\pi}_1^{-1}\circ \bar{\pi}_2\,.$$ On the other hand, if we consider two finite subgroups $L$ and $R$ of $S^3$, with two normal subgroups $L_K$ and $R_K$ such that there exists an isomorphism $\phi:L/L_K\rightarrow R/R_K$, we can define a subgroup $\tilde G$ of $S^3\times S^3$ such that $L=\pi_1(\tilde G)$, $L_K=\pi_1((S^3\times\{1\})\cap \tilde G)$, $R=\pi_2(\tilde G)$, $R_K=\pi_2((\{1\}\times S^3)\cap \tilde G)$ and $\phi=\phi_{\tilde G}$. The subgroup $\tilde G$ of $S^3\times S^3$ is determined uniquely by the 5-tuple $(L,L_K,R,R_K,\phi)$.
To consider the classification up to conjugacy, one uses the following straightforward lemma, which is implicitly used in [@duval].
\[classificationS3\] Let $\tilde G=(L,L_K,R,R_K,\phi)$ and $\tilde G'=(L',L'_K,R',R'_K,\phi')$ be finite subgroups of $S^3\times S^3$ containing $\mathrm{Ker}(\Phi)$. An element $(g,f)\in S^3\times S^3 $ conjugates $\tilde G$ to $\tilde G'$ if and only if the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. $g^{-1}Lg=L'$ and $f^{-1}Rf=R'$;
2. $g^{-1}L_Kg=L_K'$ and $f^{-1}R_Kf=R_K'$;
3. the following diagram commutes:
$$\label{diagramma quadrato}
\begin{gathered}
\xymatrix{
L/L_{K} \ar[d]^-{\alpha}\ar[r]^-{\phi} & R'/R'_{K} \ar[d]^-{\beta}\\
L'/L'_{K} \ar[r]^-{\phi'} & R'/R'_{K} \\
}
\end{gathered}$$
where $\alpha(xL_K)=g^{-1}xgL'_K$ and $\beta(yR_K)=f^{-1}yfR'_K$.
Observe that the diagonal subgroup $\Delta$ in $S^3\times S^3$ is the subgroup which preserves the antipodal points $1$ and $-1$, and thus also preserves the equatorial $S^2$ which is equidistant from $1$ and $-1$. Thus one obtains a map $$\Phi:\Delta\cong S^3\to \SO(3)$$ which associates to $q\in S^3$ the isometry $h\mapsto qhq^{-1}$. By means of this map, and the classification of finite subgroups of $\SO(3)$ one shows that the finite subgroups of $S^3$ are:
$$\begin{array} {rll}
C_n=& \{\cos\left(\frac{2\alpha\pi}{n}\right)+i\sin\left(\frac{2\alpha\pi}{n}\right) \,|\,\alpha=0,\dots,n-1\} & n\geq 1 \\[5pt]
D^*_{2n}=& C_n\cup C_n j & n\geq 3 \\[5pt]
T^*=&\bigcup\limits_{r=0}^2 (\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}i+\frac{1}{2}j+\frac{1}{2}k)^r D^*_{4} & \\[5pt]
O^*=&T^*\cup (\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}+\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}j) T^* & \\[5pt]
I^*=&\bigcup\limits_{r=0}^4 \left(\frac{1}{2}\tau^{-1}+\frac{1}{2}\tau j+\frac{1}{2} k\right)^r T^* \quad (\text{where } \tau=\frac{\sqrt{5}+1)}{2}) & \\[5pt]
\end{array}$$
The group $C_n$ is cyclic of order $n$, and contains the center $-1$ if and only if $n$ is even. The group $D_{2n}^*$ is a generalized quaternion group of order $2n$. The group $D_{2n}^*$ is called also binary dihedral and it is a central extension of the dihedral group by a group of order 2. Observe that for $n=2$, one has $D_{4}^ *=\{\pm 1,\pm j\}$, which is conjugate to $C_4=\{\pm 1,\pm i\}$. For this reason, the groups $D_{2n}^*$ are considered with indices $n\geq 3$. The case $n=3$ is also a well-known group, in fact $D_8^ *=\{\pm 1,\pm i,\pm j,\pm k\}$ is also called quaternion group. The groups $T^*$, $O^*$ and $I^*$ are central extensions of the tetrahedral, octahedral and icosahedral group, respectively, by a group of order two; they are called binary tetrahedral, octahedral and icosahedral, respectively.
Using Lemma \[classificationS3\], one can thus obtain a classification (up to conjugation) of the finite subgroups of $S^3\times S^3$ which contain $\mathrm{Ker}(\Phi)$, in terms of the finite subgroups of $S^3$. We report the classification in Table \[subgroup\]. For most cases the group is completely determined up to conjugacy by the first four data in the 5-tuple $(L,L_K,R,R_K,\phi)$ and any possible isomorphism $\phi$ gives the same group up to conjugacy. So we use Du Val’s notation where the group $(L,L_K,R,R_K,\phi)$ is denoted by $(L/L_K, R/R_K)$, using a subscript only when the isomorphism has to be specified. This is the case for Families $1,\, 1^\prime,\,11,\, 11^\prime,\, 26^\prime,\, 26^{\prime\prime},\,31,\, 31^\prime,\,32,\, 32^\prime,\,33$ and $33^\prime$.
Recalling that $\phi$ is an isomorphism from $L/L_K$ to $R/R_K$, in the group $(C_{2mr}/C_{2m},C_{2nr}/C_{2n})_s$ the isomorphism is $$\phi_s:(\cos(\pi/mr)+i \sin(\pi/mr))C_{2m}\mapsto(\cos(s\pi/nr)+i \sin(s\pi/nr))C_{2n}\,.$$ In the group $(C_{mr}/C_{m},C_{nr}/C_{n})_s$ the situation is similar and the isomorphism is $$\phi_s:(\cos(2\pi/mr)+i \sin(2\pi/mr))C_{m}\mapsto(\cos(2s\pi/nr)+i \sin(2s\pi/nr))C_{n}\,.$$
For Families 11 and $11^\prime$ we extend the isomorphisms $\phi_s$ to dihedral or binary dihedral groups sending simply $j$ to $j$. If $L=D^*_{4mr}$, $R=D^*_{4nr}$, $L_K=C_{2m}$ and $R_K=C_{2n}$, then these isomorphisms cover all the possible cases except when $r=2$ and $m,n>1$. In this case we have to consider another isomorphism $f:D^*_{4mr}/C_{2m}\rightarrow D^*_{4nr}/C_{2n}$ such that:
$$f:\begin{cases} (\cos(\pi/2m)+i \sin(\pi/2m) )C_ {2m}\mapsto jC_{2n} \\
j C_ {2m}\mapsto(\cos(\pi/2n)+i \sin(\pi/2n))C_{2n}\end{cases}\,.$$
This is due to the fact that, if $r>2$, the quotients $L/L_K$ and $R/R_K$ are isomorphic to a dihedral group of order greater then four where the index two cyclic subgroup is characteristic, while if $r=2$ the quotients are dihedral groups of order four and extra isomorphisms appear. The isomorphism $f$ gives another class of groups (the number 33 in our list), this family is one of the missing case in Du Val’s list. However, when $m=2$ or $n=2$, one has $L=D_8^ *$ (or $R=D_8^ *$), and it is possible to conjugate $jC_2=\{\pm j\}$ to $iC_2=\{\pm i\}$ in $S^ 3$ (for instance by means of $(i+j)/\sqrt{2}$). Therefore for $m=1$ or $n=1$, the isomorphism $f$ is equivalent to the trivial isomorphism.
In Family $11^{\prime}$ the behaviour is similar. In fact if $r>2$ the isomorphisms $\phi_s$ give all the possible groups up to conjugacy, if $r=2$ and $m,n>1$ the quotients are quaternion groups of order 8 and a further family has to be considered. This is the second missing case in [@duval] and Family $33^{\prime}$ in our list where $f$ is the following isomorphism:
$$f:\begin{cases} (\cos(\pi/m)+i \sin(\pi/m) )C_ {m}\mapsto jC_{n} \\
j C_ {m}\mapsto(\cos(\pi/n)+i \sin(\pi/n))C_{n}\end{cases}\,.$$
The third family of groups not in Du Val’s list is Family 34 in Table \[subgroup\]. Note that $D^*_{4n}/C_{n}$ is cyclic of order 4 if and only if $n$ is odd. If $m$ is even while $n$ is odd, then $(C_{4m}/C_m,D^*_{4n}/C_n)$ does not contain the kernel of $\Phi$, but if $m$ is odd, a new family appears.
The other groups in the list defined by a non trivial automorphism between $L/L_K$ and $R/R_K$ are the groups $26''$, $32$ and $32'.$ In the first case $f$ is the identity on the subgroup $T^*$ and maps $x$ to $-x$ in the complement $O^*\setminus L^*.$ For the group $32$ (resp. $32'$) the automorphism $f$ can be chosen between the automorphism of $I^*/C_2$ (resp. $I^*$) that are not inner (see [@dunbar page 124]), in particular we choose $f$ of order two; this choice turns out to be useful when we compute the full isometry group in Subsection \[o.r. isometries\].
Finally we remark that the groups $(L,L_K,R,R_K,\phi)$ and $(R,R_K,L,L_K,\phi^{-1})$ are not conjugate unless $L$ and $R$ are conjugate in $S^3$, so the corresponding groups in $\SO(4)$ are in general not conjugate in $\SO(4)$. If we consider conjugation in $\O(4)$ the situation changes, because the orientation-reversing isometry of $S^3$, sending each quaternion $z_1+z_2 j$ to its inverse $\overline{z_1}-z_2j$, conjugates the two subgroups of $\SO(4)$ corresponding to $(L,L_K,R,R_K,\phi)$ and $(R,R_K,L,L_K,\phi^{-1})$. For this reason, in Table \[subgroup\] only one family between $(L,L_K,R,R_K,\phi)$ and $(R,R_K,L,L_K,\phi^{-1})$ is listed.
$\tilde G$ order of $G$
---------------------- ----------------------------------------- -------------- -----------------------------
1. $(C_{2mr}/C_{2m},C_{2nr}/C_{2n})_s$ $2mnr$ $\gcd(s,r)=1$
$1^{\prime}$. $(C_{mr}/C_{m},C_{nr}/C_{n})_s$ $(mnr)/2$ $\gcd(s,r)=1$ $\gcd(2,n)=1$
$\gcd(2,m)=1$ $\gcd(2,r)=2$
2. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},D^*_{4n}/D^*_{4n})$ $4mn$
3. $(C_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})$ $4mn$
4. $(C_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8n}/D^*_{4n})$ $8mn$
5. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},T^*/T^*)$ $24m$
6. $(C_{6m}/C_{2m},T^*/D^*_{8})$ $24m$
7. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},O^*/O^*)$ $48m$
8. $(C_{4m}/C_{2m},O^*/T^*)$ $48m$
9. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},I^*/I^*)$ $120m$
10. $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{4n}/D^*_{4n})$ $8mn$
11. $(D^*_{4mr}/C_{2m},D^*_{4nr}/C_{2n})_s$ $4mnr$ $\gcd(s,r)=1$
$11^{\prime}$. $(D^*_{2mr}/C_{m},D^*_{2nr}/C_{n})_s$ $mnr$ $\gcd(s,r)=1$ $\gcd(2,n)=1$
$\gcd(2,m)=1$ $\gcd(2,r)=2$
12. $(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{8n}/D^*_{4n})$ $16mn$
13. $(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})$ $8mn$
14. $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},T^*/T^*)$ $48m$
15. $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},O^*/O^*)$ $96m$
16. $(D^*_{4m}/C_{2m},O^*/T^*)$ $48m$
17. $(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},O^*/T^*)$ $96m$
18. $(D^*_{12m}/C_{2m},O^*/D^*_{8})$ $48m$
19. $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},I^*/I^*)$ $240m$
20. $(T^*/T^*,T^*/T^*)$ $288$
21. $(T^*/C_2,T^*/C_2)$ $24$
$21^{\prime}.$ $(T^*/C_1,T^*/C_1)$ $12$
22. $(T^*/D^*_{8},T^*/D^*_{8})$ $96$
23. $(T^*/T^*,O^*/O^*)$ $576$
24. $(T^*/T^*,I^*/I^*)$ $1440$
25. $(O^*/O^*,O^*/O^*)$ $1152$
26. $(O^*/C_2,O^*/C_2)$ $48$
$26^{\prime}.$ $(O^*/C_1,O^*/C_1)_{Id}$ $24$
$26^{\prime\prime}.$ $(O^*/C_1,O^*/C_1)_f$ $24$
27. $(O^*/D^*_{8},O^*/D^*_{8})$ $192$
28. $(O^*/T^*,O^*/T^*)$ $576$
29. $(O^*/O^*,I^*/I^*)$ $2880$
30. $(I^*/I^*,I^*/I^*)$ $7200$
31. $(I^*/C_2,I^*/C_2)_{Id}$ $120$
$31^{\prime}.$ $(I^*/C_1,I^*/C_1)_{Id}$ $60$
32. $(I^*/C_2,I^*/C_2)_{f}$ $120$
$32^{\prime}.$ $(I^*/C_1,I^*/C_1)_f$ $60$
33. $(D^*_{8m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8n}/C_{2n})_f$ $8mn$ $m\neq 1$ $n\neq 1$.
$33^{\prime}$. $(D^*_{8m}/C_{m},D^*_{8n}/C_{n})_f$ $4mn$ $\gcd(2,n)=1 \gcd(2,m)=1$
$m\neq 1$ and $n\neq 1$.
34. $(C_{4m}/C_{m},D^*_{4n}/C_{n})$ $2mn$ $\gcd(2,n)=1 \gcd(2,m)=1$
: Finite subgroups of $\SO(4)$[]{data-label="subgroup"}
Two and three-dimensional orbifolds
-----------------------------------
Roughly speaking an orbifold $\mathcal{O}$ of dimension $n$ is a paracompact Hausdorff topological space $X$ together with an atlas of open sets $(U_i,\varphi_i:\tilde U_i/\Gamma_i\to U_i)$ where $\tilde U_i$ are open subsets of $\R^n,$ $\Gamma_i$ are finite groups acting effectively on $U_i$ and $\varphi_i$ are homeomorphisms. The orbifold is smooth if the coordinate changes $\varphi_i\circ\varphi_j^{-1}$ can be lifted to diffeomorphisms $\tilde U_i\to\tilde U_j$. There is a well-defined notion of *local group* for every point $x$, namely the smallest possible group which gives a local chart for $x$, and points with trivial local group are *regular points* of $\mathcal O$. Points with non-trivial local group are *singular points*. The set of regular points of an orbifold is a smooth manifold. The topological space $X$ is called the *underlying topological space* of the orbifold. An orbifold is *orientable* if there is an orbifold atlas such that all groups $\Gamma$ in the definition act by orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms, and the coordinate changes are lifted to orientation-preserving diffeomorphisms. For details see [@boileau-maillot-porti], [@choi] or [@ratcliffe].
A compact orbifold is *spherical* if there is an atlas as above, such that the groups $\Gamma_i$ preserve a Riemannian metric $\tilde g_i$ on $\tilde U_i$ of constant sectional curvature $1$ and the coordinate changes are lifted to isometries $(\tilde U_i,\tilde g_i)\to (\tilde U_j,\tilde g_j)$. An (orientation-preserving) diffeomorphism (resp. isometry) between spherical orbifolds $\mathcal O,\mathcal O'$ is an homeomorphism of the underlying topological spaces which can be locally lifted to an (orientation-preserving) diffeomorphism (resp. isometry) $\tilde U_i'\to\tilde U_j'$. It is known that any compact spherical orbifold can be seen as a global quotient of $S^n$, i.e. if $\mathcal O$ is a compact spherical orbifold of dimension $n$, then there exists a finite group of isometries of $S^n$ such that $\mathcal{O}$ is isometric to $S^n/G$ (see [@ratcliffe Theorem 13.3.10]); if the spherical orbifold is orientable $G$ is a subgroup of $\SO(n+1).$ By a result of de Rham [@derham] two diffeomorphic spherical orbifolds are isometric.
Let us now explain the local models of $2$-orbifolds. The underlying topological space of a 2-orbifold is a 2-manifold with boundary. If $x$ is a singular point, a neighborhood of $x$ is modelled by $D^2/\Gamma$ where the local group $\Gamma$ can be a cyclic group of rotations ($x$ is called a cone point), a group of order 2 generated by a reflection ($x$ is a mirror reflector) or a dihedral group generated by an index 2 subgroup of rotations and a reflection (in this case $x$ is called a corner reflector). The local models are presented in Figure \[lm2o\], a cone point or a corner reflector is labelled by its singularity index, i.e. an integer corresponding to the order of the subgroup of rotations in $\Gamma$. We remark that the boundary of the underlying topological space consists of mirror reflectors and corner reflectors, and the singular set might contain in addition some isolated points corresponding to cone points. If $X$ is a 2-manifold without boundary we denote by $X(n_1,\dots,n_k)$ the 2-orbifold with underlying topological space $X$ and with $k$ cone points of singularity index $n_1,\ldots,n_k$. If $X$ is a 2-manifold with non-empty connected boundary we denote by $X(n_1,\dots,n_k;m_1,\dots,m_h)$ the 2-orbifold with $k$ cone points of singularity index $n_1,\ldots,n_k$ and with $h$ corner reflectors of singularity index $m_1,\ldots,m_h$.
![Local models of 2-orbifolds. On the left, cone point. In the middle, mirror reflector. On the right, corner point.[]{data-label="lm2o"}](cone.eps){width=".8\textwidth"}
![Local models of 2-orbifolds. On the left, cone point. In the middle, mirror reflector. On the right, corner point.[]{data-label="lm2o"}](mirror.eps){width="\textwidth"}
![Local models of 2-orbifolds. On the left, cone point. In the middle, mirror reflector. On the right, corner point.[]{data-label="lm2o"}](corner.eps){width=".9\textwidth"}
Let us now turn the attention to 3-orbifolds. We will only consider orientable 3-orbifolds. The underlying topological space of an orientable 3-orbifold is a 3-manifold and the singular set is a trivalent graph. The local models are represented in Figure \[lm3o\]. Excluding the vertices of the graph, the local group of a singular point is cyclic; an edge of the graph is labelled by its singularity index, that is the order of the related cyclic local groups.
![Local models of 3-orbifolds.[]{data-label="lm3o"}](sphere1.eps){height="3cm"}
![Local models of 3-orbifolds.[]{data-label="lm3o"}](sphere2.eps){height="3cm"}
![Local models of 3-orbifolds.[]{data-label="lm3o"}](sphere3.eps){height="3cm"}
![Local models of 3-orbifolds.[]{data-label="lm3o"}](sphere4.eps){height="3cm"}
![Local models of 3-orbifolds.[]{data-label="lm3o"}](sphere5.eps){height="3cm"}
In this paper we deal with spherical 2-orbifolds and orientable spherical 3-orbifolds, namely orbifolds $\mathcal O$ which are obtained as the quotient of $S^2$ (resp. $S^3$) by a finite group $G<\O(3)$ (resp. $G<\SO(4)$) of isometries. An isometry between two spherical 3-orbifolds $\mathcal O=S^3/\Gamma$ and $\mathcal O'=S^3/\Gamma'$ can thus be lifted to an isometry of $S^3$ which conjugates $\Gamma$ to $\Gamma'$. If the isometry between the orbifolds is orientation-preserving, then the lift to $S^3$ is orientation-preserving. For this reason, the classification of spherical orientable 3-orbifolds $S^3/G$ up to orientation-preserving isometries corresponds to the algebraic classification of finite subgroups of $\SO(4)$ up to conjugation in $\SO(4)$.
Isometry groups of spherical three-orbifolds {#sec isometry group}
============================================
The purpose of this section is to determine the isometry group of the spherical three-orbifolds $S^3/G$, once the finite subgroup $G<\SO(4)$ in the list of Table \[subgroup\] is given.
Orientation-preserving isometries
---------------------------------
We start by determining the index 2 subgroup of orientation-preserving isometries. By the same argument as the last paragraph of Section \[sec spherical 3-orbifolds\], the subgroup of orientation-preserving isometries of $S^3/G$, which we denote by $\Isompr(S^3/G)$, is isomorphic to $\Norm_{\SO(4)}(G)/G$. The latter is in turn isomorphic to the quotient $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)/\tilde G$.
A special case of Lemma \[classificationS3\] is the following:
\[lemma diagramma\] Let $\tilde G=(L,L_K,R,R_K,\phi)$ be a finite subgroup of $S^3\times S^3 $ containing $\mathrm{Ker}(\Phi)$. An element $(g,f)\in S^3\times S^3 $ is contained in the normalizer $N_{S^3\times S^3}(G)$ if and only if the following three conditions are satisfied:
1. $(g,f)\in N_{S^3}(L)\times N_{S^3}(R)$;
2. $(g,f)\in N_{S^3}(L_K)\times N_{S^3}(R_K)$;
3. the following diagram commutes:
$$\label{diagramma quadrato}
\begin{gathered}
\xymatrix{
L/L_{K} \ar[d]^-{\alpha}\ar[r]^-{\phi} & R/R_{K} \ar[d]^-{\beta}\\
L/L_{K} \ar[r]^-{\phi} & R/R_{K} \\
}
\end{gathered}$$
where $\alpha(xL_k)=g^{-1}xgL_k$ and $\beta(yR_k)=f^{-1}yfR_k$.
First, it is necessary to understand the normalizers of the finite subgroups of $S^3$. These are listed for instance in [@mccullough]. We report a list here:
$$\label{list normalizers}
\begin{array}{rll}
\Norm_{S^3}(C_n)=& \O(2)^* & \quad \text{if }n>2 \\
\Norm_{S^3}(C_2)=& S^3 & \quad\text{if }n=2 \\
\Norm_{S^3}(D^*_{4n})=& D^*_{8n} & \quad\text{if }n>2 \\
\Norm_{S^3}(D^*_{8})=& O^* & \quad\text{if }n=2 \\
\Norm_{S^3}(T^*)=& O^* & \\
\Norm_{S^3}(O^*)=& O^* & \\
\Norm_{S^3}(I^*)=& I^* & \\
\end{array}$$
We split the computation in several cases, including in each case those groups for which the techniques involved are comparable. Families 1, $1'$, 11, $11'$ are treated in a systematic way in Case \[casedifficult\], although for some special values of the indices, they should in principle fall in the categories of some of the previous cases. In the following we denote by $D_n$ the dihedral group of order $n$ and $O$ is the octahedral group (that is isomorphic to $O^*/C_2$, and also to the symmetric group on 4 elements).
$\tilde G$ is a product, i.e. $L=L_K$ and $R=R_K$.
In this case $L/L_K$ and $R/R_K$ are trivial groups, hence the conditions of Lemma \[lemma diagramma\] are trivially satisfied. Therefore $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)=\Norm_{S^3}(L)\times\Norm_{S^3}(R)$. Hence $\Isom\!^+\!(S^3/G)=(\Norm_{S^3}(L)/L)\times(\Norm_{S^3}(R)/R)$. This is the case of Families 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19 and Groups 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30 of Table \[subgroup\].
$L/L_K\cong R/R_K\cong\Z_2$ and $L_K,R_K$ are not generalized quaternion groups.
It turns out that, for the pairs $(L,L_K)=(C_{4n},C_{2n}),(D^*_{4n},C_{2n}),(O^*/T^*)$, the normalizer $\Norm_{S^3}(L)$ also normalizes $L_K$ (or analogously for $R$ and $R_K$). In this case, the condition of commutativity of the diagram is trivially satisfied, since the identity is the only automorphism of $\Z_2$. Hence $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)=\Norm_{S^3}(L)\times \Norm_{S^3}(R)$. This shows that, for Families 3, 8, 16 and Group 28 one has $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)=\Norm_{S^3}(L)\times\Norm_{S^3}(R)$.
To understand the isomorphism type of the orientation-preserving isometry group, for instance for the group in Family 3, namely $$\tilde G=(C_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})\,,$$ we consider $$\Isompr(S^3/G)=\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)/\tilde G=\left((\O(2)^*\times D_{8n}^*)/(C_{2m}\times C_{2n})\right)/(\tilde G/(C_{2m}\times C_{2n}))\,.$$ Therefore we get $$\Isompr(S^3/G)\cong(\O(2)\times D_4)/\Z_2$$ and, observing that $D_4\cong \Z_2\times\Z_2$, one concludes that $$\Isompr(S^3/G)\cong\O(2)\times \Z_2\,.$$
$L/L_K\cong R/R_K\cong\Z_2$ and $L_K$ or $R_K$ is a generalized quaternion group.
When $(L,L_K)=(D^*_{8n},D^*_{4n})$, $D^*_{4n}$ is not normal in $\Norm_{S^3}(L)=D^*_{16n}$, and the normalizer of $D^*_{4n}$ is $D^*_{8n}$. This is the case of Families 4, 12, 13 and 17. Basically, here one has to consider $$\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)=(\Norm_{S^3}(L)\cap\Norm_{S^3}(L_K))\times (\Norm_{S^3}(R)\cap\Norm_{S^3}(R_K))$$ and apply the above strategy to successively compute $\Isom(S^3/G)$. For instance, for Family 13, $$\tilde G=(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})\,,$$ we have $$\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)=D^*_{8m}\times D^*_{8n}\,.$$ Hence one gets $$\Isompr(S^3/G)\cong(\Z_2\times D_4)/\Z_2\cong\Z_2\times\Z_2\,.$$
\[caseZ3\] $L/L_K\cong R/R_K\cong\Z_3$.
This case includes Family 6 and Group 22. For Group 22, namely $$\tilde G=(T^*/D^*_{8},T^*/D^*_{8})\,,$$ we have $\Norm_{S^3}(L)=\Norm_{S^3}(R)=O^*$, and $L_K=R_K=D_8^*$ is normal in $O^*$. The induced action of the elements of $T^*$ on $T^*/D_8^*=\Z_3$ is the identity, hence the normalizer of $\tilde G$ contains $T^*\times T^*$. Moreover, the induced action of elements of $O^*\setminus T^*$ on $\Z_3$ is dihedral, hence elements of $O^*\setminus T^*$ on the left side have to be paired to elements of $O^*\setminus T^*$ on the right side to make the diagram commutative. Hence $$\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)=(O^*/T^*,O^*/T^*)$$ and the isometry group is $D_6$. By a similar argument, one checks that the normalizer of $$\tilde G=(C_{6m}/C_{2m},T^*/D^*_{8})$$ is $$\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)=(\O(2)^*/S^1,O^*/T^*)\,.$$ Finally, one can compute $$\begin{aligned}
\Isompr(S^3/G)&=\left((\O(2)^*/S^1,O^*/T^*)/(C_{2m}\times D_8^*)\right)/((C_{6m}/C_{2m},T^*/D^*_{8})/(C_{2m}\times D_8^*))\\
&\cong\mathrm{Dih}(S^1\times \Z_3)/\Z_3\cong \O(2)\,.\end{aligned}$$
$L/L_K\cong R/R_K\cong D_6$.
For Group 27, in a very similar fashion as Group 22, the normalizer in $S^3\times S^3$ is $(O^*/T^*,O^*/T^*)$ and thus the orientation-preserving isometry group is isomorphic to $\Z_3$. The other groups to be considered here are those in Family 18, namely $$\tilde G=(D^*_{12m}/C_{2m},O^*/D^*_{8})\,.$$ Again, arguing similarly to Case \[caseZ3\], one sees that $$\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)=(D_{24m}^*/C_{4m},O^*/D_8^*)\,.$$ Therefore the orientation-preserving isometry group is $\Z_2$.
$\tilde G$ $\Isompr(S^3/G)$ $\Isom_0(S^3/G)$ $\pi_0 \Isompr(S^3/G)$
---------------------- ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------ ------------------------
1. $(C_{2mr}/C_{2m},C_{2nr}/C_{2n})_s$ $\mathrm{Dih}(S^1\times S^1)$ $S^1\times S^1$ $\Z_ 2$
$1^{\prime}$. $(C_{mr}/C_{m},C_{nr}/C_{n})_s$ $\mathrm{Dih}(S^1\times S^1)$ $S^1\times S^1$ $\Z_ 2$
2. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},D^*_{4n}/D^*_{4n})$ $\O(2)\times \Z_2$ $S^1$ $\Z_2\times\Z_ 2$
3. $(C_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})$ $\O(2)\times \Z_2$ $S^1$ $\Z_2\times\Z_ 2$
4. $(C_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8n}/D^*_{4n})$ $\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\Z_ 2$
5. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},T^*/T^*)$ $\O(2)\times\Z_2$ $S^1$ $\Z_2\times\Z_ 2$
6. $(C_{6m}/C_{2m},T^*/D^*_{8})$ $\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\Z_ 2$
7. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},O^*/O^*)$ $\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\Z_ 2$
8. $(C_{4m}/C_{2m},O^*/T^*)$ $\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\Z_ 2$
9. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},I^*/I^*)$ $\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\Z_ 2$
10. $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{4n}/D^*_{4n})$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$
11. $(D^*_{4mr}/C_{2m},D^*_{4nr}/C_{2n})_s$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
$11^{\prime}$. $(D^*_{2mr}/C_{m},D^*_{2nr}/C_{n})_s$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$
12. $(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{8n}/D^*_{4n})$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
13. $(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$
14. $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},T^*/T^*)$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$
15. $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},O^*/O^*)$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
16. $(D^*_{4m}/C_{2m},O^*/T^*)$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$
17. $(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},O^*/T^*)$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
18. $(D^*_{12m}/C_{2m},O^*/D^*_{8})$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
19. $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},I^*/I^*)$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
20. $(T^*/T^*,T^*/T^*)$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$
21. $(T^*/C_2,T^*/C_2)$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
$21^{\prime}.$ $(T^*/C_1,T^*/C_1)$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$
22. $(T^*/D^*_{8},T^*/D^*_{8})$ $D_6$ $\{1\}$ $D_6$
23. $(T^*/T^*,O^*/O^*)$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
24. $(T^*/T^*,I^*/I^*)$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
25. $(O^*/O^*,O^*/O^*)$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$
26. $(O^*/C_2,O^*/C_2)$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$
$26^{\prime}.$ $(O^*/C_1,O^*/C_1)_{Id}$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
$26^{\prime\prime}.$ $(O^*/C_1,O^*/C_1)_f$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
27. $(O^*/D^*_{8},O^*/D^*_{8})$ $\Z_3$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_3$
28. $(O^*/T^*,O^*/T^*)$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
29. $(O^*/O^*,I^*/I^*)$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$
30. $(I^*/I^*,I^*/I^*)$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$
31. $(I^*/C_2,I^*/C_2)_{Id}$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$
$31^{\prime}.$ $(I^*/C_1,I^*/C_1)_{Id}$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
32. $(I^*/C_2,I^*/C_2)_{f}$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$
$32^{\prime}.$ $(I^*/C_1,I^*/C_1)_f$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
33. $(D^*_{8m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8n}/C_{2n})_f$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$
$33^{\prime}$. $(D^*_{8m}/C_{m},D^*_{8n}/C_{n})_f$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
34. $(C_{4m}/C_{m},D^*_{4n}/C_{n})$ $\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\Z_ 2$
: Table of orientation-preserving isometry groups for $C_{2m}\neq C_2$, $D_{4m}^*\neq D_4^*,D_8^*$, $r >2$[]{data-label="tableisometry"}
$L/L_K\cong R/R_K\cong T,T^*,O,O^*,I$ or $I^*$.
We start by considering Group 21, i.e. $\tilde G=(T^*/C_2,T^*/C_2)$. We have $\Norm_{S^3}(L)=\Norm_{S^3}(R)=O^*$. On the other hand, observing that the centre of $O^*$ is precisely $C_2$, the normalizer of $\tilde G$ turns out to be $(O^*/C_2,O^*/C_2)$. In fact, in order to satisfy Lemma \[lemma diagramma\], any element of the form $(g,1)$ which normalizes $\tilde G$ must have $g\in C_2$. Hence the orientation-preserving isometry group is $\Z_2$.
By analogous considerations, since $\Norm_{S^3} (O^*)=O^*$ and $\Norm_{S^3} (I^*)=I^*$, the orientation-preserving isometry groups for Groups 26 and 31 are trivial. Group 32, namely $\tilde G=(I^*/C_2,I^*/C_2)_{f}$, is defined by means of a non-inner automorphism of $I^*$. However, since any automorphism preserves the centre and $O^*/C_2$ has trivial centre, the same argument applies and the orientation-preserving isometry group is trivial.
For Group $21'$, namely $\tilde G=(T^*/C_1,T^*/C_1)$, the normalizer is again $(O^*/C_2,O^*/C_2)$, since the centre of $O^*$ is $C_2$. The orientation-preserving isometry group is $\Z_2\times\Z_2$. Finally, the normalizer of Groups $26'$ and $26''$ is Group 26, the normalizer of Group $31'$ is Group 31, and the normalizer of Group $32'$ is Group 32. Therefore Groups $26'$, $26''$, $31'$ and $32'$ have orientation-preserving isometry groups isomorphic to $\Z_2$.
$L/L_K\cong R/R_K\cong \Z_4,\Z_2\times\Z_2$ or $D_8^*$.
This is the case of Families 33, $33'$ and 34. The definition of Family 33, namely $$\tilde G=(D^*_{8m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8n}/C_{2n})_f\,,$$ makes use of a non-trivial automorphism of $\Z_2\times\Z_2$. One can easily check that in $\Norm_{S^3}(L)\times \Norm_{S^3}(R)=D^*_{16m}\times D^*_{16m}$, it is not possible to obtain a pair $(g,f)$ which makes the diagram commute, unless $(g,f)$ is already in $\tilde G$. This is essentially due to the fact that the non-trivial automorphism of $D_4\cong \Z_2\times\Z_2$ cannot be extended to an automorphism of $D_8$. Hence the orientation-preserving isometry group is trivial. Clearly any group in Family 33’ is normalized by the corresponding group in Family 33, and thus the group of orientation-preserving isometries is $\Z_2$.
Family 34, namely $$\tilde G=(C_{4m}/C_{m},D^*_{4n}/C_{n})\,,$$ is defined by means of the fact that the quotients $L/L_K$ and $R/R_K$ are both isomorphic to $\Z_4$. The normalizer here is $(\O(2)^*/S^1,D_{8n}^*/D_{4n}^*)$. The orientation-preserving isometry group is a dihedral extension of $(S^1\times D_{4n}^*)/\tilde G$. The latter is a quotient of $S^1\times D_4^*\cong S^1\times \Z_4$ by a diagonal action of $\Z_4$, and therefore still isomorphic to $S^1$. In conclusion, the group of orientation-preserving isometries is isomorphic to $\O(2)$.
Exceptional cases for small $m$ or $n$.
It is necessary to distinguish from the results obtained above some special cases for small values of the indices $m$ and $n$. Indeed, as in the list , when $n=2$ the subgroup $C_2$ of $S^3$ is normalized by the whole $S^3$, whereas the normalizer of $D_8^*$ is $O^*$. Therefore one obtains different isometry groups when $L,R=C_2$ or $L,R=D_8^*$. The results are collected in Table \[tableisometryexceptions\].
Excluding Families 1,$1'$,11, $11'$ which are discussed below, to compute the isometry group in these special cases one uses the same approach as above. For Families 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19, which are products, one obtains straightforwardly the result.
For the other groups in which $D^*_8$ may appear, one checks that there are no difference with the case $m>1$ since $O^*$, which is the normalizer of $D^*_8$, does not normalize any subgroup of order 4 of $D^*_8$.
\[tabella isometrie small indices\]
$\tilde G$ $\Isompr(S^3/G)$ $\Isom_0(S^3/G)$ $\pi_0 \Isompr(S^3/G)$
---------------- --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------
1. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},C_{2n}/C_{2n})$ $\O(2)\times \O(2)$ $S^1\times S^1$ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$
$(C_{4m}/C_{2m},C_{4n}/C_{2n})$ $\O(2)\widetilde{\times}\O(2)$ $S^1\times S^1$ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$
$(C_{2}/C_{2},C_{2n}/C_{2n})$ $\SO(3)\times \O(2)$ $ \SO(3)\times S^1$ $\Z_2$
$(C_2/C_2,C_2/C_2)$ $\mathrm{P}\SO(4)$ $\mathrm{P}\SO(4)$ $\{1\}$
$1^{\prime}$. $(C_{2m}/C_{m},C_{2n}/C_{n})$ $\O(2)^*\widetilde{\times} \O(2)^*$ $S^1\times S^1$ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$
$(C_2/C_1,C_{2n}/C_n)$ $S^3\widetilde{\times}\O(2)^*$ $S^3\widetilde{\times}S^1$ $\Z_2$
$(C_2/C_1,C_2/C_1)$ $\SO(4)$ $\SO(4)$ $\{1\}$
2. $(C_{2}/C_{2},D^*_{4n}/D^*_{4n})$ $\SO(3)\times \Z_2$ $\SO(3)$ $\Z_2$
$(C_{2m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8}/D^*_{8})$ $\O(2)\times D_6$ $S^1$ $\Z_2\times D_6$
$(C_{2}/C_{2},D^*_{8}/D^*_{8})$ $\SO(3)\times D_6$ $\SO(3)$ $D_6$
5. $(C_{2}/C_{2},T^*/T^*)$ $\SO(3)\times\Z_2$ $\SO(3)$ $\Z_2$
7. $(C_{2}/C_{2},O^*/O^*)$ $\SO(3)$ $\SO(3)$ $\{1\}$
9. $(C_{2}/C_{2},I^*/I^*)$ $\SO(3)$ $\SO(3)$ $\{1\}$
10. $(D^*_{8}/D^*_{8},D^*_{4n}/D^*_{4n})$ $D_6\times\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $D_6\times\Z_2$
$(D^*_{8}/D^*_{8},D^*_{8}/D^*_{8})$ $D_6\times D_6$ $\{1\}$ $D_6\times D_6$
11. $(D^*_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2\times\Z_2$
$(D^*_{8m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8n}/C_{2n})$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2\times\Z_2$
$(D^*_{8}/C_{2},D^*_{8}/C_{2})$ $O$ $\{1\}$ $O$
$11^{\prime}$. $(D^*_{8}/C_{1},D^*_{8}/C_{1})$ $D_6\times\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $D_6\times\Z_2$
14. $(D^*_{8}/D^*_{8},T^*/T^*)$ $D_6\times\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $D_6\times\Z_2$
15. $(D^*_{8}/D^*_{8},O^*/O^*)$ $D_6$ $\{1\}$ $D_6$
19. $(D^*_{8}/D^*_{8},I^*/I^*)$ $D_6$ $\{1\}$ $D_6$
: Table of orientation-preserving isometry groups for small indices[]{data-label="tableisometryexceptions"}
\[casedifficult\] Families 1, 1’, 11, 11’.
We are left with the treatment of the groups for which $L_K$ and $R_K$ are both cyclic groups, while $L$ and $R$ are both of the same type, either cyclic of generalized dihedral. For Family 1, $$\tilde G=(C_{2mr}/C_{2m},C_{2nr}/C_{2n})_s\,,$$ where we recall that the index $s$ denotes the isomorphism $\phi:\Z_r\to\Z_r$ given by $1\mapsto s$, we have $$\Norm_{S^3}(L)=\Norm_{S^3}(R)=\O(2)^*\,.$$ Moreover $\O(2)^*$ preserves the subgroups $L_K$ and $R_K$. We need to check the commutativity of diagram . For this purpose, observe that the diagram commutes trivially when we choose elements of the form $(g,1)$ or $(1,g)$, for $g\in S^1$. On the other hand, the induced action of elements of $\O(2)^*\setminus S^1$ on $\Z_r$ is dihedral, hence the normalizer is $$\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)=(\O(2)^*/S^1,\O(2)^*/S^1)$$ unless $r=2$ (or $r=1$). The isometry group $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)/\tilde G$ is a dihedral extension of $(S^1\times S^1)/\tilde G$, the latter being again isomorphic to $S^1\times S^1$ (for an explicit isomorphism, see Equation below). Hence we get $\Isompr(S^3/\tilde G)\cong \mathrm{Dih}(S^1\times S^1)$. The same result is recovered analogously for Family $1'$, unless $r=2$.
For some special cases of Family 1, when $r=2$ or $r=1$, $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)=\O(2)^*\times \O(2)^*$. For $r=1$, one has $\Isompr(S^3/\tilde G)\cong \O(2)\times \O(2)$. For $r=2$, the orientation-preserving isometry group is $\O(2)\times\O(2)/(-1,-1)=\O(2)\widetilde{\times}\O(2)$. When $r=2$ the group of orientation-preserving isometries of Family $1'$ turns out to be instead $\O(2)^*\times\O(2)^*/(-1,-1)=\O(2)^*\widetilde{\times}\O(2)^*$. The latter cases are collected in Table \[tableisometryexceptions\]. Trivial cases are recovered for $S^3$ itself and for projective space $S^3/\{\pm 1\}$.
For Family 11, namely $$\tilde G=(D^*_{4mr}/C_{2m},D^*_{4nr}/C_{2n})_s\,,$$ it is not difficult to see that the normalizer is $$(D^*_{8mr}/C_{2m},D^*_{8nr}/C_{2n})_s$$ unless $r=1$ or $r=2$. Hence $\Isompr(S^3/G)$ is isomorphic to $\Z_2$. When $r=1$ the normalizer of $(D_{4m}^*/C_{2m},D_{4n}^*/C_{2n})$ is $D_{8m}^*\times D_{8n}^*$ (also if $m$ of $n$ are equal to $2$), and the computation of the orientation-preserving isometry group follows. When $r=2$, the normalizer of $(D_{8m}^*/C_{2m},D_{8n}^*/C_{2n})$ turns out to be $(D_{16m}^*/D_{8m}^*,D_{16n}^*/D_{8n}^*)$, also if $m=1$ or $n=1$. However, when $m=n=1$, the normalizer is $(O^*/D^*_8,O^*/D^*_8)$ and the orientation-preserving isometry group is isomorphic to $O=O^*/C_2$.
A similar argument shows that for Family $11'$, $\Isompr(S^3/G)$ is isomorphic to $\Z_2\times\Z_2$, also if $r=4$ and one among $m$ and $n$ equals $1$. Thus the only exception is for the group $(D_{8}^*/C_{1},D_{8}^*/C_{1})$.
Orientation-reversing isometries {#o.r. isometries}
--------------------------------
We now compute the full isometry groups of spherical orbifolds $S^3/G$. We collect the results of this section in Table \[tableisometryreversing\] where we list the groups such that $\Isom(S^3/G)\neq\Isompr(S^3/G)$ and the full isometry groups of the corresponding orbifolds are described. If the spherical orbifold does not admit any orientation-reversing isometry then $\Isom(S^3/G)$ can be deduced from Tables \[tableisometry\] and \[tableisometryexceptions\].
An orientation-reversing element of $\O(4)$ is of the form $h\rightarrow p\bar{h}q^{-1}$ where $p$ and $q$ are elements of $S^3$ and $\bar{h}$ is the conjugate element of $h$ (see [@duval p.58]). We will denote this isometry by $\overline{\Phi}_{p,q}$. Let us remark that $$\label{or rev conjugation rule}
\overline{\Phi}_{p,q}\overline{\Phi}_{l,r}\overline{\Phi}_{p,q}^{-1}=\overline{\Phi}_{prp^{-1},qlq^{-1}}\,.$$ We state two lemmata whose proofs are straightforward.
\[lemma orientation-reversing primo\] Let $\tilde{G}=(L,L_K,R,R_K,\phi)$ be a finite subgroup of $S^3\times S^3 $ containing $\mathrm{Ker}(\Phi)$. If $\overline{\Phi}_{p,q}$ normalizes $\Phi(\tilde{G})$ then the following conditions are satisfied:
1. $p^{-1}Lp=R$ and $q^{-1}Rq=L$;
2. $pL_Kp^{-1}=R_K$ and $qR_Kq^{-1}=L_K.$
So if an orientation reversing isometry of $S^3$ normalizes $G$, then we can suppose up to conjugacy that $L=R$ and $L_K=R_K.$
\[lemma orientation-reversing secondo\]
Let $\tilde{G}=(R,R_K,R,R_K,\phi)$ be a finite subgroup of $S^3\times S^3 $ containing $\mathrm{Ker}(\Phi)$. The isometry $\overline{\Phi}_{p,q}$ normalizes $\Phi(\tilde{G})$ if and only if the following two conditions are satisfied:
1. $p,q \in N_{S^3}(R)$;
2. $p,q \in N_{S^3}(R_K)$;
3. the following diagram commutes: $$\label{diagramma quadrato reversing}
\begin{gathered}
\xymatrix{
R/R_{K} \ar[d]^-{\beta}\ar[r]^-{\phi} & R/R_{K} \ar[d]^-{\alpha}\\
R/R_{K} \ar[r]^-{\phi^{-1}} & R/R_{K} \\
}
\end{gathered}$$ where $\alpha(xR_K)=p^{-1}xpR_K$ and $\beta(xR_K)=q^{-1}xqR_K$.
Now we want to analyze which groups in Table \[subgroup\] admit an orientation-reversing isometry in their normalizer. The condition given in Lemma \[lemma orientation-reversing primo\] excludes all the groups in the families 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ,23, 24, 29, 34 and the groups with $n \neq m$ in the families 1, $1^{\prime}$,10, $11$, $11^{\prime}$, 12, 33, $33^{\prime}$. For the remaining groups, by Lemma \[lemma orientation-reversing secondo\] we obtain that if $\phi=Id$ then $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ (i.e. the isometry given by the conjugation in $\mathbb{H}$) normalizes the group and the quotient orbifold admits an orientation-reversing isometry. In these cases the normalizer of $G$ in $\O(4)$ is generated by the normalizer of $G$ in $\SO(4)$ and $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$. The element $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ has order two and $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}\overline{\Phi}_{l,r}\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}^{-1}=\overline{\Phi}_{r,l}$, hence the full isometry group of $S^3/G$ can be easily computed.
The behavior of families $26^{\prime\prime}$, 32, $32^{\prime}$ 33, $33^{\prime}$ is similar, as $\phi^2=Id$ and hence $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ normalizes again the group.
The situation for the four remaining families of groups 1, $1^{\prime}$,10, $11$, $11^{\prime}$ is more complicated. We have already remarked that, if an orientation-reversing element is in the normalizer, then $n=m$. However, in these cases this necessary condition is not sufficient.
We explain in detail the situation for Family 1 with $r\geq 2$. In the other remaining cases the full isometry group can be computed in a very similar way.
**Family 1.** If $\overline{\Phi}_{p,q}$ normalizes $G=\Phi((C_{2mr}/C_{2m},C_{2mr}/C_{2m})_s)$, then both $p$ and $q$ normalize $C_{2mr}$. The action by conjugation of $p$ and $q$ on $C_{2mr}$ is either trivial or dihedral. When $p$ and $q$ act in the same way (both trivially or both dihedrally), by Lemma \[lemma orientation-reversing secondo\] we obtain that $\phi^2=Id$ and $s^2\equiv_{r} 1$ (i.e. $s^2$ is congruent to 1 $\mod\, r$). In this case $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ normalizes the group. If $p$ and $q$ act differently, then $\phi^2$ sends an element of $C_{2mr}/C_{2m}$ to its inverse and $s^2\equiv_{r} -1$ (i.e. $s^2$ is congruent to $-1$ $\mod\, r$). In this case $\overline{\Phi}_{j,1}$ normalizes the group; we remark that $\overline{\Phi}_{j,1}$ has order 4.
We have $\Isompr(S^3/G)\cong \mathrm{Dih}(S^1\times S^1)$. Since $\Isompr(S^3/G)\cong \Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)/\tilde G$, we represent each isometry as the corresponding coset of $\tilde G$ in $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)=(\O(2)^*/S^1,\O(2)^*/S^1).$ The group $\Isompr(S^3/G)$ is generated by the involution $(j,j)\tilde G$ and by the abelian subgroup of index two $N=(S^1\times S^1)/\tilde G$. Both $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ and $\overline{\Phi}_{j,1}$ commute with the element $(j,j)G$. The group $N$ is isomorphic to $S^1\times S^1$, but the direct factors of the quotient do not correspond in general to the projections of the direct factors of the original group $S^1\times S^1$. This fact makes the comprehension of the extension of $N$ by $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ and $\overline{\Phi}_{j,1}$ more complicated. To represent $N$ as the direct product of two copies of $S^1$ we define an isomorphism $\gamma: S^1\times S^1 \to N$ by means of the following construction. Let $$\tilde\gamma:\R\times\R\to N=(S^1\times S^1)/\tilde G \qquad\qquad \tilde\gamma({\alpha},{\beta})=\left(e^{i\left(\frac{\alpha}{2mr}+\frac{\beta}{2m}\right)},e^{i\left(\frac{s\alpha}{2mr}+\frac{(s+1)\beta}{2m}\right)}\right)\tilde G\,.$$ It is easy to check that $\mathrm{Ker}(\tilde\gamma)=2\pi\Z\times2\pi\Z$ and thus $\tilde\gamma$ descends to the isomorphism $\gamma:S^1\times S^1\to N$ which can be defined as $$\label{isomorfismo gamma} \gamma(e^{i\alpha},e^{i\beta})=\left(e^{i\left(\frac{\alpha}{2mr}+\frac{\beta}{2m}\right)},e^{i\left(\frac{s\alpha}{2mr}+\frac{(s+1)\beta}{2m}\right)}\right)\tilde G\,.$$
Since here we have two subgroups isomorphic to $S^1\times S^1$, we need to distinguish the notation in the two cases: an element of $S^1\times S^1 < S^3 \times S^3$ is denoted by $(e^{i a},e^{i b})$ while an element of $N$ is denoted by $(e^{i a},e^{i b})\tilde G$ if it is seen in the quotient $(S^1\times S^1)/\tilde G$ or by $((e^{i\alpha},e^{i\beta}))=\gamma(e^{i\alpha},e^{i\beta})$ if $N$ is seen as the direct product of two copies of $S^1.$
**Suppose that $s^2\equiv_{r} -1 $.** The isometry $\overline{\Phi}_{j,1}$ normalizes the group; moreover $\overline{\Phi}_{j,1}$ is of order 4 and $\overline{\Phi}_{j,1}^2=\Phi_{j,j}$. By [@farrel-short Proposition 7.12] the automorphism group of $S^1\times S^1$ contains only one conjugacy class of order four, so we have a unique semidirect product $\mathbb{Z}_4\ltimes N$ corresponding to the automorphism which maps $((e^{i\alpha}, e^{i\beta}))$ to $((e^{-i\beta}, e^{i\alpha})).$
**Suppose that $s^2\equiv_{r} 1 $.** Here the full isometry group is a semidirect product of $\Isompr(S^3/G)$ with $\mathbb{Z}_2$. In the automorphism group of $(S^1\times S^1)$ we have three classes of involutions which correspond to non-isomorphic semidirect products. In order to determine to which semidirect product $\Isom(S^3/G)$ is isomorphic, we compute the action by conjugation of $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ on $N.$ The element $(e^{i\alpha},e^{i\beta})\tilde G$ is conjugate by $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ to $(e^{i\beta},e^{i\alpha})\tilde G$. To understand which semidirect product we obtain we will use a procedure introduced in [@farrel-short], and to apply this procedure we need to understand the action of $\bar{\Phi}(1,1)$ on $N$ represented as a direct product of two copies of $S^1.$ By using $\gamma$ the action by conjugation of $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ on $N\cong S^1 \times S^1$ is the following:
$$((e^{i\alpha},e^{i\beta}))\longrightarrow ((e^{i(s^2+s-1)\alpha+i(2s+s^2)r\beta},e^{i\frac{1-s^2}{r}\alpha+i(1-s-s^2)\beta}))\,.$$
By applying the procedure presented in the proof of [@farrel-short Proposition 7.9], we obtain that if $r$ is odd the automorphism induced by $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ is conjugate to the following automorphism:
$$((e^{i\alpha},e^{i\beta}))\longrightarrow ((e^{i\beta},e^{i\alpha}))\,,$$ while if $r$ is even $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ is conjugate to the following automorphism:
$$((e^{i\alpha},e^{i\beta}))\longrightarrow ((e^{-i\alpha},e^{i\beta}))\,.$$
[width=]{}
[|l|p[8cm]{}|c||l|c|]{} $G$ & case & $\Isom(S^3/G)$ & $G$ & $\Isom(S^3/G)$\
1 & $m=n,$ $r>2,$ $s^2\equiv_{r} 1 $ and $r$ odd &$(\mathbb{Z}_2\times \mathbb{Z}_2) \ltimes_{\alpha_{1}} (S^1\times S^1)$ & 12 & $\Z_2 \times \Z_2$\
1 & $m=n,$ $r>2,$ $s^2\equiv_{r} 1 $ and $r$ even & $(\mathbb{Z}_2\times \mathbb{Z}_2) \ltimes_{\alpha_{2}} (S^1\times S^1)$ & 20 & $D_8$\
1 & $m=n,$ $r>2$ and $s^2\equiv_{r} -1 \, \mod \, r$ &$\mathbb{Z}_4 \ltimes_{\alpha_{3}} (S^1\times S^1)$ & 21 & $\Z_2 \times \Z_2$\
1 & $m=n,$ $r=1$ and $m>1$ & $\Z_2\ltimes_{\alpha_{4}} (\O(2)\times \O(2))$ & $21^{\prime}$ & $(\Z_2)^3$\
1 & $m=n,$ $r=1$ and $m>1$ & $\Z_2\ltimes_{\alpha_{4}} (\O(2)\widetilde{\times}\O(2))$ & 22 & $\Z_2 \times D_6$\
1 & $m=n=2$ and $r=1$ & $\PO(4)$ & 25 & $\Z_2$\
$1^{\prime}$ & $m=n,$ $r>2,$ $s\equiv_{r} 1$ and $r$ odd &$(\mathbb{Z}_2\times \mathbb{Z}_2) \ltimes_{\alpha_{1}} (S^1\times S^1)$ & 26 & $\Z_2$\
$1^{\prime}$ & $m=n,$ $r>2,$ $s\equiv_{r} 1$ and $r$ even & $(\mathbb{Z}_2\times \mathbb{Z}_2) \ltimes_{\alpha_{2}} (S^1\times S^1)$ & $26^{\prime}$ & $\Z_2 \times \Z_2$\
$1^{\prime}$ & $m=n,$ $r>2,$ $s\equiv_{r} -1$ &$\mathbb{Z}_4 \ltimes_{\alpha_{3}} (S^1\times S^1)$ & $26^{\prime\prime}$ & $\Z_2 \times \Z_2$\
$1^{\prime}$ & $m=n,$ $r=2$ and $m>1$ & $\Z_2\ltimes_{\alpha_{4}} (\O(2)^*\widetilde{\times}\O(2)^*)$ & 27 & $D_6$\
10 & $m=n$ and $m>2$ & $D_{8}$ & 28 & $\Z_2 \times \Z_2$\
10 & $m=n=2$ & $\Z_2\ltimes_{\alpha_{4}} (D_{6} \times D_{6})$ & 30 & $\Z_2$\
11 & $m=n,$ $r>2$ and $s^2\equiv_{r} \pm 1$ &$\Z_2 \times \Z_2$ & 31 & $\Z_2$\
11 & $m=n,$ $m>1$ and $r=1$ &$\Z_2 \times D_8$ & $31^{\prime}$ & $\Z_2 \times \Z_2$\
11 & $m=n,$ $m>1$ and $r=2$ &$(\Z_2)^4$ & $32$ & $\Z_2$\
11 & $m=n=2$ and $r=2$ &$\Z_2 \times O$ & $32^{\prime}$ & $\Z_2 \times \Z_2$\
$11^{\prime}$ & $m=n,$ $r>2,$ $s^2\equiv_{r} 1$, and $(s^2-1)/r$ even &$\Z_2 \times \Z_2 \times \Z_2$ & $33$ & $\Z_2 $\
$11^{\prime}$ & $m=n,$ $r>2,$ $s^2\equiv_{r} 1$ and $(s^2-1)/r$ odd & $D_8$ & $33^{\prime}$ & $\Z_2 \times \Z_2$\
$11^{\prime}$ & $m=n,$ $r>2,$ $s^2\equiv_{r} -1$ and $(s^2+1)/r$ even &$\Z_2 \times \Z_2 \times \Z_2$ & &\
$11^{\prime}$ & $m=n,$ $r>2,$ $s^2\equiv_{r} -1$ and $(s^2+1)/r$ odd & $D_8$ &&\
$11^{\prime}$ & $m=n=1$ and $r=4$ &$\Z_2 \times \Z_2 \times D_6$ &&\
\
\
\
\
Seifert fibrations {#sec fibrations}
==================
In this section, we consider those spherical orbifolds $\mathcal{O}=S^3/\Gamma$ which admit a Seifert fibration, and study the action of subgroups of $\Isom(\mathcal{O})$ which preserve the Seifert fibration.
Definition of Seifert fibrations for orbifolds
----------------------------------------------
A Seifert fibration of a 3-orbifold $\mathcal O$ is a projection map $\pi:\mathcal O \rightarrow \mathcal B$, where $\mathcal B$ is a 2-dimensional orbifold, such that for every point $x\in\mathcal B$ there is an orbifold chart $x\in U\cong \tilde U/\Gamma$, an action of $\Gamma$ on $S^1$ (inducing a diagonal action of $\Gamma$ on $\tilde U\times S^1$) and a diffeomorphism $\psi:(\tilde U\times S^1)/\Gamma\rightarrow \pi^{-1}(U)$ which makes the following diagram commute:
$$\xymatrix{
\pi^{-1}(U) \ar[dr]_-{\pi} & & (\tilde{U}\times S^1)/ \Gamma \ar[ll]_-{\psi} \ar[dl] & \tilde{U}\times S^1 \ar[l] \ar[dl]^-{\mbox{pr}_1} \\
& U\cong\tilde{U}/ \Gamma & \tilde{U} \ar[l] &
}$$
If we restrict our attention to orientable 3-orbifolds $\mathcal O$, then the action of $\Gamma$ on $\tilde U\times S^1$ needs to be orientation-preserving. In this case, we will consider a fixed orientation both on $\tilde U$ and on $S^1$. Every element of $\Gamma$ may preserve both orientations, or reverse both.
The fibers $\pi^{-1}(x)$ are simple closed curves or intervals. If a fiber projects to a non-singular point of $\mathcal B$, it is called generic. Otherwise we will call it exceptional.
Let us define the local models for an oriented Seifert fibered orbifold. Locally the fibration is given by the curves induced on the quotient $(\tilde U \times S^1)/\Gamma$ by the standard fibration of $\tilde U\times S^1$ given by the curves $\{y\}\times S^1$.
If the fiber is generic, it has a tubular neighborhood with a trivial fibration. When $x\in \mathcal B$ is a cone point labelled by $q$, the local group $\Gamma$ is a cyclic group of order $q$ acting orientation preservingly on $\tilde U$ and thus it can act on $S^1$ by rotations. Hence a fibered neighborhood of the fiber $\pi^{-1}(x)$ is a fibered solid torus. One can define the *local invariant* of the fiber $\pi^{-1}(x)$ as the ratio $p/q\in\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$, where a generator of $\Gamma$ acts on $\tilde U$ by rotation of an angle ${2\pi}/{q}$ and on $S^1$ by rotation of $-{2\pi p}/{q}$ – however the study of local invariants is not one of the main purposes of this paper. The fiber $\pi^{-1}(x)$ may be singular (in the sense of orbifold singularities) and the index of singularity is $\gcd(p,q)$. If $\gcd(p,q)=1$ the fiber is not singular. Forgetting the singularity of the fiber (if any), the local model coincides with the local model of a Seifert fibration for manifold.
If $x$ is a corner reflector, namely $\Gamma$ is a dihedral group, then the non-central involutions in $\Gamma$ need to act on $\tilde U$ and on $S^1$ by simultaneous reflections. Here the local model is the so-called solid pillow, which is a topological 3-ball with some singular set inside. There is an index two cyclic subgroup of $\Gamma$, acting as we have previously described. Again, the local invariant associated to $x$ can be defined as the local invariant ${p}/{q}$ of the cyclic index two subgroup, and the fiber $\pi^{-1}(x)$ has singularity index $\gcd(p,q)$. The fibers of $U\times S^1$ intersecting the axes of reflections of $\Gamma$ in $\tilde U$ project to segments that are exceptional fibers of the 3-orbifold; the other fibers of $\tilde U\times S^1$ project to simple closed curves.
Finally, over mirror reflectors (local group $\mathbb{Z}_2$), we have a special case of the dihedral case. The local model is topologically a 3-ball with two disjoint singular arcs of index 2. More details can be found in [@bonahon-siebenmann] or [@dunbar2].
There is a classification theorem for Seifert fibered 3-orbifolds up to orientation-preserving, fibration-preserving diffeomorphisms by means of some invariants. We won’t use this theorem here, so we don’t provide details. We only briefly remind that an oriented Seifert fibered orbifold is determined up to diffeomorphisms which preserve the orientation and the fibration by the data of the base orbifold, the local invariants associated to cone points and corner reflectors, an additional invariant $\xi\in\mathbb{Z}_2$ associated to each boundary component of the base orbifold and the Euler number. If we change the orientation of the orbifold, then the sign of local invariants and Euler number are inverted. For the formal definitions of Euler number and of invariants associated to boundary components, as well as the complete statement and proof of the classification theorem, we refer again to [@bonahon-siebenmann] or [@dunbar2].
Seifert fibrations of $S^3$ {#sec seifert s3}
---------------------------
Seifert fibrations of $S^3$ are well known: it is proved in [@seifert] that, up to an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism, they are given by the maps of the form $\pi:S^3\rightarrow S^2\cong \mathbb{C}\cup\left\{\infty\right\}$ $$\pi(z_1+z_2 j)=\frac{z_1^u}{z_2^v}\qquad\textrm{or}\qquad\pi(z_1+z_2 j)=\frac{\overline{z}_1^u}{z_2^v}$$ for $u$ and $v$ coprimes. We call *standard* the Seifert fibrations given by these maps; the classification of Seifert fibrations of $S^3$ can thus be rephrased in the following way: each Seifert fibration of $S^3$ can be mapped by an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism of $S^3$ to a standard one.
The base orbifold of a Seifert fibration of $S^3$ is $S^2$ with two possible cone points. When $u=v=1$, $\pi(z_1+z_2 j)={z_1}/{z_2}$ is called the Hopf fibration. In this case the base orbifold is $S^2$ and all the fibers are generic. The projection $\pi:S^3\to S^2$ of the Hopf fibration is also obtained as the quotient by the following $S^1$-action on $S^3$: an element $w=x+iy\in S^1$ acts on $S^3$ simply as left multiplication by $w$. That is, $w\cdot(z_1+z_2j)=(wz_1+wz_2j)$.
The only other Seifert fibration whose generic fibers are all generic is given by $\pi(z_1+z_2 j)={\overline{z}_1}/{z_2}$; we call [*anti-Hopf*]{} this fibration.
A Seifert fibration of $S^3/G$ can be induced by a Seifert fibration of $S^3$ left invariant by $G$. Hence let us determine those elements of $S^3\times S^3$ which act on $S^3$ preserving a standard Seifert fibration.
We consider first the Hopf fibration. Equivalently, we want to determine $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1\times \{1\})$, where here $S^1$ is thought as the subset of elements of the form $(w,0)$. It is straightforward that all isometries corresponding to $(0,w_1+w_2 j)\in S^3\times S^3$ normalize $S^1$ and thus preserve the Hopf fibration, with induced action on the base $S^2$ given by $$\label{equation induced action}
\lambda\mapsto \frac{\overline w_1 \lambda+\overline w_2}{-w_2\lambda+w_1}\,.$$ For example, elements of the form $w_1=\cos\theta+i\sin\theta$ act on $S^2$ by rotations of angle $2\theta$ fixing the poles (which are $0$ and $\infty$ in our identification with $\C\cup\{\infty\}$). A further useful example is the induced action of $j$, which is a rotation of order two exchanging $0$ and $\infty$. On the other hand, it can be checked that an isometry given by $(w_1+w_2 j,0)$ normalizes $S^1$, and thus preserves the Hopf fibration, if and only if $w_1=0$ or $w_2=0$. Clearly the elements with $w_2=0$ fix the base $S^2$ pointwise, while a direct computation shows that the elements with $w_1=0$ act by antipodal map on $S^2$. In summary, $$\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1\times\{1\})=\Norm_{S^3}(S^1)\times S^3\,,$$ where $$\Norm_{S^3}(S^1\times\{1\})=\{w_1+w_2 j\,|\,w_1=0\text{ or }w_2=0\}=\O(2)^*\,.$$
On the other hand, the general fibration $\pi(z_1+z_2 j)={z_1^u}/{z_2^v}$ is preserved by $(w_1+w_2 j,u_1+u_2 j)$ provided $w_2=u_2=0$ or $w_1=u_1=0$.
In Du Val’s list, the subgroups of $\SO(4)$ which preserve the Hopf fibration are those with $L=C_{m}$ or $L=D_{2m}^*$, for some $m$. The other fibrations of type $\pi(z_1+z_2 j)={\overline{z}_1^u}/{z_2^v}$ are left invariant only by groups in Family 1,1’,11,11’ and the spherical orbifolds obtained as quotients by these groups have an infinite number of nonisomorphic fibrations.
It is not necessary to repeat the computations for the remaining fibrations; it suffices to note that the orientation-reversing isometry $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ maps the fibration $\pi(z_1+z_2 j)={\overline{z}_1^u}/{z_2^v}$ to $\pi(z_1+z_2 j)={z_1^u}/{z_2^v}$. The isometry $\Phi_{l,r}$ preserves a fibration $\pi(z_1+z_2 j)={\overline{z}_1^u}/{z_2^v}$ if and only if $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}^{-1} \Phi_{l,r}\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}=\Phi_{r,l}$ preserves $\pi(z_1+z_2 j)={z_1^u}/{z_2^v}$.
Seifert fibrations of spherical orbifolds
-----------------------------------------
In the previous sections we discussed which standard Seifert fibrations of $S^3$ are left invariant by the groups in Du Val’s list. We remark that finite subgroups in Du Val’s list can leave invariant also fibrations that are not standard, thus obtaining different fibrations on the same spherical orbifold. In this section we explore this phenomenon; the following Lemma shows that it can occur only in some specific cases.
\[lemma due casi\] Let $G$ be a finite subgroup of $\SO(4)$ leaving invariant a Seifert fibration $\pi$ of $S^3$, then one of the two following conditions is satisfied:
1. $G$ is conjugate in $\SO(4)$ to a subgroup in Families $1$, $1'$, $11$ or $11'$;
2. there exists an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism $f:S^3\to S^3$ such that $\pi\circ f$ is the Hopf or the anti-Hopf fibration and $f^{-1}Gf$ is a subgroup of $\SO(4).$
The fibration $\pi$ is mapped by an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism to a standard Seifert fibration of $S^3.$ We recall that the fibrations $\pi(z_1+z_2 j)={z_1^u}/{z_2^v}$ and $\pi(z_1+z_2 j)={\overline{z}_1^u}/{z_2^v}$ with $(u,v)\neq (1,1)$ have exactly two exceptional fibers which have different invariants. If $\pi$ is mapped to one of these Seifert fibrations, the group $G$ must leave invariant both exceptional fibers. A finite group of isometries leaving invariant a simple closed curve is isomorphic to a subgroup of Dih($\mathbb{Z}_n\times \mathbb{Z}_m$), a dihedral 2-extension of an abelian group of rank at most two (see for example [@mecchia-zimmermann Lemma 1]). The only groups in Du Val’s list with this property are in Families 1, $1$’, $11$ or $11$’ and thus case 1 occurs.
Now we can suppose that $\pi$ is mapped by an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism $g$ either to the Hopf fibration or to the anti-Hopf fibration. Let us first consider the case of the Hopf fibration. In this case $G$ is conjugate by $g$ to $G'$, a finite group of diffeomorphisms of $S^3$ leaving invariant the Hopf fibration. By the proof of [@morgan-davis Theorem 5.1] we can conjugate $G'$ to a group of isometries by using a diffeomorphism $h$ which leaves invariant the Hopf fibration. The diffeomorphism $h\circ g$ is the $f$ we are looking for. We can reduce the anti-Hopf case to the previous one by conjugating by $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}.$
This Lemma implies that, if $L$ and $R$ are both isomorphic to $T^*$, $O^*$ or $I^*$, then no fibration of $S^3$ is preserved by the action of the group $G=\Phi(L,L_K,R,R_K,\phi)$.
From this point on, we will focus on the case of groups of isometries which leave invariant the Hopf fibration. The case of anti-Hopf fibration can then be deduced by conjugation. If $G$ leaves invariant the Hopf fibration, then $G$ is a subgroup of $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1\times\{1\})$. Moreover, conjugation of $G$ by elements of $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1\times\{1\})$ respects the Hopf fibration, and therefore induces in the quotient orbifold $S^3/G$ a fibration-preserving isometry. We remark that some of the conjugations used in the Du Val’s list do not have this property, hence in order to get an algebraic classification of Seifert fibered spherical 3-orbifolds, we need to classify finite subgroups of $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1\times\{1\})$, up to conjugation in $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1\times\{1\})$.
There are three classes of phenomena which can occur, marking the difference with Du Val’s list:
- If $\tilde G=(L,L_K,R,R_K,\phi)$ has $R=C_n$ or $R=D^*_{2n}$, the fibration given by ${\overline{z}_1}/{z_2}$ is left invariant and the group can be conjugated by $\overline{\Phi}_{1,1}$ to the group $(R,R_K,L,L_K,\phi^{-1})$ which preserves the Hopf fibration. Thus with respect to the list of Du Val, two groups $(L,L_K,R,R_K,\phi)$ and $(R,R_K,L,L_K,\phi^{-1})$, that are not of the same form, must not be considered equivalent, and will provide nonequivalent fibrations of the same orbifold.
- In $S^3$ the subgroups generated by $i$ and by $j$ are conjugated, but they are not conjugated in $\O(2)^*$. In Table \[subgroup\], the subgroup $D_4^*=\{\pm1,\pm j\}<\O(2)^*$ is not considered since it gives the same group as when replaced with $C_4=\{\pm1,\pm i\}$. To classify the groups in $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1\times\{1\})$ it is necessary to distinguish the two cases.
- When $L=D_8^*$ and $L_K=C_1$ or $C_2$, the groups of Family 33 with $m=1$, namely $\tilde G=(D^*_{8}/C_{2},D^*_{8n}/C_{2n})_f$ (recalling that the isomorphism $f$ is defined in Subsection \[subsec finite subgroups\]) is conjugate in $S^3$ to the case $r=2$, $m=1$ of Family 11, namely $\tilde G=(D^*_{8}/C_{2},D^*_{8n}/C_{2n})$ (where the automorphism between $L/L_K$ and $R/R_K$ is the identity). But they are not conjugate in $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1\times\{1\})$. The same occurs for Family $33'$. Thus we will consider the case $m=1$ as independent.
The list of finite subgroups of $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1\times\{1\})$ up to conjugation in $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1\times\{1\})$ is thus shown in Table \[topolino\], together with the action on the base orbifold which is explained below. This is essentially the same list of Table \[subgroup\], as in Du Val, having added the groups with the roles of $L$ and $R$ switched when they preserve the Hopf fibration, and with the caveat that the indices vary with no restrictions on $m\geq 1$, and with the usual restrictions on $n$.
In [@mecchia-seppi] the base orbifold and the Seifert invariants of the fibrations induced by the Hopf fibration on $S^3/G$, for the groups $G$ in the Du Val’s list, were computed. Those formulae hold unchanged also for all groups in Table \[topolino\], allowing that the indices vary with no restrictions on $m\geq 1$. In Table \[topolino\], we only included the base orbifolds of the fibrations.
If two groups $G$ and $G'$, both leaving invariant the Hopf fibration, are conjugate in $\SO(4)$ but not in $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1\times\{1\})$, then the quotient orbifold $S^3/G$ has two inequivalent Seifert fibrations both induced by an isometric copy of the Hopf fibration. This remark allows us to make a list of the orbifolds admitting several inequivalent fibrations.
By the above discussion, groups $G$ in Families $1$, $1'$, 11, $11'$ are the families with an infinite number of fibrations, which are induced by all the fibrations of $S^3$ of the form $z_1^u/z_2^v$ and $\bar z_1^u/z_2^v$. There are some special cases for which an orbifold of the form $S^3/G$, with $G$ in Families $1$, $1'$, 11, $11'$, has some additional Seifert fibration induced by an nonstandard isometric copy of the Hopf fibration. Indeed:
- In Family 1 of Du Val’s list, if $r=1$ and $m=1$, the group $\Phi(C_{4}/C_{4},C_{2n},C_{2n})$ is the same group as $\Phi(D^*_{4}/D^*_{4},C_{2n},C_{2n})$, which belongs to Family 2bis ($m=2$) in Table \[topolino\], and thus has one more fibration obtained from an isometric copy of the Hopf fibration;
- In Family 1, if $r=2$ and $m=1$, $\Phi(C_{4}/C_{2},C_{4n}/C_{2n})$ is conjugate in $\SO(4)$ to $\Phi(D^*_{4}/C_{2},C_{4n}/C_{2n})$, of Family 3bis ($m=1$), and thus has two more fibrations, described in Table \[topolino\] by Families 3 and 3bis;
- The case Family 3 of Du Val, $(C_{4}/C_{2},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})$, is conjugate to the case $m=r=1$ of Family 11 of Table \[topolino\], namely $(D^*_{4}/C_{2},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})$, thus having one more fibration;
- The case $(D^*_{8}/C_{4},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})$ of Family 11 also falls within Family 13 in Table \[topolino\], thus having one more fibration;
- In Family $1'$, if $r=4$ and $m=1$, $\Phi(C_{4}/C_{1},C_{4n}/C_{n})$ is conjugate in $\SO(4)$ to $\Phi(D^*_{4}/C_{1},C_{4n}/C_{n})$, which is a case of Family 34bis ($m=1$), and thus has one more fibration obtained from an isometric copy of the Hopf fibration;
- Family 34 of Table \[subgroup\] with $m=1$ coincides with Family $11'$ in the case $(D^*_{4}/C_{1},D^*_{4n}/C_{n})$;
- In Family 11, if $m=1$ then $(D^*_{8}/C_{2},D^*_{8n}/C_{2n})$ has the additional nonequivalent fibration from the case $m=1$ in Family 33, and the same for the cases $m=1$ in Families $11'$ and $33'$.
There are also some groups $G<\SO(4)$ such that $S^3/G$ has a finite number ($>1$) of nonequivalent Seifert fibrations for orbifolds. This can happen in the already treated cases of Families 2, 3, 4, 13 and 34, which preserve both the Hopf fibration and the anti-Hopf fibration, thus giving rise to two nonequivalent fibrations in $S^3/G$; the latter is equivalent (up to orientation-reversing diffeomorphisms) to the fibrations of Families 2bis, 3bis, 4bis, 13bis and 34bis described in Table \[topolino\]. And also Families 10 and 12 leave invariant both the Hopf and the anti-Hopf fibration, and the two induced fibrations in the quotient are nonequivalent if $m\neq n$. Moreover, there are some other special cases in which a group $G$ leaves invariant the Hopf fibration and some other isometric copy of the Hopf fibration:
- In Table \[topolino\], Family 3bis with $m=2$ coincides with Family 4bis with $m=1$. More precisely $(D_{8}^*/C_{4},C_{4n}/C_{2n})$ is conjugate to $(D^*_{8}/D^*_{4},C_{4n}/C_{2n})$. This group also preserves the anti-Hopf fibration and therefore the quotient has a fibration which comes from Family 3 in Table \[topolino\] (which would be equivalent to the case $n=1$ of Family 4, and therefore the latter was not considered in the list). Thus $S^3/G$ has 3 nonequivalent Seifert fibrations;
- Family 2 with $m=2$ is the conjugate in $S^3\times S^3$ to Family 10 with $m=1$, i.e. $(C_{4}/C_{4},D^*_{4n}/D^*_{4n})$ and $(D^*_{4}/D^*_{4},D^*_{4n}/D^*_{4n})$. Considering also the fibration coming from Family 2bis, these groups have 3 fibrations as well;
- The case $(C_{4}/C_{2},D^*_{8n}/D^*_{4n})$ of Family 4 coincides with Family 13bis, thus also having 3 fibrations;
- The case $(D^*_{8}/D^*_{4},D^*_{8n}/D^*_{4n})$ of Family 12 is also a group in Family 13 and 13bis;
- Finally, there are correspondences of Family 5 ($m=2$) and 14 ($m=1$), Family 7 ($m=2$) and 15 ($m=1$), Family 8 and 16 ($m=1$), Family 9 ($m=2$) and 19 ($m=1$), Family 16 ($m=2$) and 17 ($m=1$). All these groups thus have 2 nonequivalent fibrations.
[width=0.88]{}
$\tilde G$ $\mathcal B$ $\Isom_{p}$ $\Isom_{f}$ action on $\mathcal B$
---------------- ----------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------------ --
1. $(C_{2mr}/C_{2m},C_{2nr}/C_{2n})_s$ $S^2(nr,nr)$ $\mathrm{Dih}(S^1\times S^1)$ $S^1$ $\O(2)$
$(C_{2m}/C_{2m},C_{2n}/C_{2n})$ $S^2(n,n)$ $\O(2)\times\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\O(2)\times\Z_2$
$(C_{4m}/C_{2m},C_{4n}/C_{2n})$ $S^2(2n,2n)$ $\O(2)\widetilde{\times}\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\O(2)\times\Z_2$
$(C_{2m}/C_{2m},C_{2}/C_{2})$ $S^2$ $\O(2)\times \SO(3)$ $S^1$ $\O(3)$
$1^{\prime}$. $(C_{mr}/C_{m},C_{nr}/C_{n})_s$ $S^2(nr/2,nr/2)$ $\mathrm{Dih}(S^1\times S^1)$ $S^1$ $\O(2)$
$(C_{2m}/C_{m},C_{2n}/C_{n})$ $S^2(n,n)$ $\O(2)^*\widetilde{\times} \O(2)^*$ $S^1$ $\O(2)\times\Z_2$
$(C_{2m}/C_{m},C_{2}/C_{1})$ $S^2$ $\O(2)^*\widetilde{\times} S^3$ $S^1$ $\O(3)$
2. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},D^*_{4n}/D^*_{4n})$ $S^2(2,2,n)$ $\O(2)\times \Z_2$ $S^1$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$
$(C_{2m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8}/D^*_{8})$ $S^2(2,2,2)$ $\O(2)\times D_6$ $S^1$ $D_6 \times\Z_2$
2.bis $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},C_{2n}/C_{2n})$ $\begin{cases} D^2(n;) & {\small{n\text{ even}}} \\ \mathbb{R}P^2(n) & {\small{n\text{ odd}}} \end{cases} $ $\O(2)\times \Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\O(2)$
$(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},C_{2}/C_{2})$ $\mathbb{R}P^2$ $\SO(3)\times\Z_2$ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$ $\mathrm{P}\SO(3)$
3. $(C_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})$ $S^2(2,2,n)$ $\O(2)\times \Z_2$ $S^1$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$
3.bis $(D^*_{4m}/C_{2m},C_{4n}/C_{2n})$ $\begin{cases} D^2(n;) & {\small{n\text{ odd}}} \\ \mathbb{R}P^2(n) & {\small{n\text{ even}}} \end{cases}$ $\O(2)\times \Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\O(2)$
4. $(C_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8n}/D^*_{4n})$ $S^2(2,2,2n)$ $\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\Z_ 2$
$(C_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8}/C_{4})$ $S^2(2,2,2)$ $\O(2)\times \Z_2$ $S^1$ $\Z_ 2\times \Z_2$
4.bis $(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},C_{4n}/C_{2n})$ $D^2(2n;)$ $\O(2)$ $\Z_2$ $\O(2)$
5. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},T^*/T^*)$ $S^2(2,3,3)$ $\O(2)\times \Z_2$ $S^1$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$
6. $(C_{6m}/C_{2m},T^*/D^*_{8})$ $S^2(2,3,3)$ $\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\Z_ 2$
7. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},O^*/O^*)$ $S^2(2,3,4)$ $\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\Z_2$
8. $(C_{4m}/C_{2m},O^*/T^*)$ $S^2(2,3,4)$ $\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\Z_2$
9. $(C_{2m}/C_{2m},I^*/I^*)$ $S^2(2,3,5)$ $\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\Z_2$
10. $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{4n}/D^*_{4n})$ $\begin{cases} D^2(;2,2,n) & \!\!\!\!{\small{n\text{ even}}} \\ D^2(2;n) & \!\!\!\!{\small{n\text{ odd}}} \end{cases} $ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2$
$(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{8}/D^*_{8})$ $D^2(;2,2,2)$ $D_6 \times\Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $D_6$
11. $(D^*_{4mr}/C_{2m},D^*_{4nr}/C_{2n})_s$ $D^2(;nr,nr)$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
$(D^*_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})$ $D^2(;n,n)$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$
$(D^*_{8m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8n}/C_{2n})$ $D^2(;2n,2n)$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$
$11^{\prime}$. $(D^*_{2mr}/C_{m},D^*_{2nr}/C_{n})_s$ $D^2(;nr/2,nr/2)$ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2$
12. $(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{8n}/D^*_{4n})$ $D^2(;2,2,2n)$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$
$(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{8}/C_{4})$ $D^2(;2,2,2)$ $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2$
13. $(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})$ $\begin{cases} D^2(;2,2,n) & \!\!\!\!{\small{n\text{ even}}} \\ D^2(2;n) & \!\!\!\!{\small{n\text{ odd}}} \end{cases} $ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2$
13.bis $(D^*_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8n}/D^*_{4n})$ $\begin{cases} D^2(;2,2,n) & \!\!\!\!{\small{n\text{ odd}}} \\ D^2(2;n) & \!\!\!\!{\small{n\text{ even}}} \end{cases} $ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2$
$(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},D^*_{8}/C_{4})$ $D^2(;2,2)$ $\Z_2\times \Z_2\times\Z_2$ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$
14. $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},T^*/T^*)$ $D^2(3;2)$ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2$
15. $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},O^*/O^*)$ $D^2(;2,3,4)$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$
16. $(D^*_{4m}/C_{2m},O^*/T^*)$ $D^2(;2,3,3)$ $\Z_2\times \Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2$
17. $(D^*_{8m}/D^*_{4m},O^*/T^*)$ $D^2(;2,3,4)$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$
18. $(D^*_{12m}/C_{2m},O^*/D^*_{8})$ $D^2(;2,3,3)$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$
19. $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{4m},I^*/I^*)$ $D^2(;2,3,5)$ $\Z_2$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$
33. $(D^*_{8m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8n}/C_{2n})_f$ $D^2(;2,2,n)$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$ $\{1\}$
$33^{\prime}$. $(D^*_{8m}/C_{m},D^*_{8n}/C_{n})_f$ $D^2(;2,2,n)$ $\Z_2$ $\{1\}$ $\Z_2$
34. $(C_{4m}/C_{m},D^*_{4n}/C_{n})$ $S^2(2,2,n)$ $\O(2)$ $S^1$ $\Z_2$
34.bis $(D^*_{4m}/C_{m},C_{4n}/C_{n})$ $D^2(n;)$ $\O(2)$ $\{1\}$ $\O(2)$
: The action on the fibrations with good base orbifold[]{data-label="topolino"}
The action on Seifert fibrations
--------------------------------
In this section we want to understand the action of the isometry group of a Seifert fibered spherical 3-orbifold $\mathcal O$. We will focus the attention on the induced action on the base orbifold $\mathcal B$. In particular, we will first determine the subgroup $\Isom_p(\mathcal O)$ of $\Isom(\mathcal O)$ which preserves the Seifert fibration of $\mathcal O$. By an Euler number argument, an isometry which preserves a Seifert fibration must necessarily be orientation-preserving. It will thus suffice to study elements in $\Isompr(\mathcal O)$. Subsequently, we will understand the subgroup $\Isom_f(\mathcal O)$ of $\Isom(\mathcal O)$ which acts trivially on the base orbifold $\mathcal B$; equivalently, it leaves invariant every fiber (although in general it does not fix the fiber pointwise). Finally, we will describe the action of $\Isom_p(\mathcal O)/\Isom_f(\mathcal O)$ on the base orbifold $\mathcal B$.
As discussed above, we will consider the groups of Table \[topolino\] and their fibrations induced by the Hopf fibration. Equivalently, we consider Seifert fibrations for spherical orbifolds with good base orbifold. Some of these groups are conjugated in $\SO(4)$ and thus there will be several inequivalent fibrations in the same orbifold $S^3/G$. Let us fix a group $G$ in the list of Table \[topolino\], and consider the fibration $p$ induced on $S^3/G$ by the Hopf fibration. Recalling that $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1)=\O(2)^*\times S^3$, the subgroup $$\Isom_{p}(S^3/G)=\{\varphi\in\Isom(S^3/G):\varphi \text{ preserves the fibration }p\}$$ is isomorphic to $$\Norm_{\O(2)^*\times S^3}(G)/G\,.$$ On the other hand, the subgroup fixing the fibration: $$\Isom_{f}(S^3/G)=\{\varphi\in\Isom(S^3/G):\varphi \text{ fixes every fiber of }p\}\,,$$ is determined as the quotient of the subgroup of $\Norm_{\O(2)^*\times S^3}(G)$ generated by $G$ and by $S^1\times \{1\}$, quotiented by $G$. Up to composing with an element of $G$, it is not difficult to show that every isometry $\varphi$ of $S^3/G$ which is in $\Isom_{f}(S^3/G)$ has a lift to $S^3$ which is in $\SO(4)$ and fixes the Hopf fibration, and therefore is in $S^1\times\{1\}$. Hence $\Isom_{f}(S^3/G)$ is also the image of $\Norm_{\O(2)^*\times S^3}(G)\cap (S^1\times \{1\})$ in $\Isom(S^3/G)$, by means of the usual projection $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(G)\to \Isom(S^3/G)\cong\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(G)/G$.
To understand the induced action on the fibration, one has first to find the base orbifold $\mathcal B$ of the Seifert fibration (this had already been done in [@mecchia-seppi]), and then determine the action of $\Isom_{p}(S^3/G)/\Isom_{f}(S^3/G)$ on such base orbifold. This is done case-by-case, and we will treat in detail the cases of Families 1, 3 and 4, which are quite illustrating.
**Family 3.** Let us start by Family 3, namely $\tilde G=(C_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{4n}/C_{2n})$. The normalizer of $\tilde G$ is $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(\tilde G)=\O(2)^*\times D_{8n}^*$ and is entirely contained in $\Norm_{S^3\times S^3}(S^1)$, thus $\Isom_{p}(S^3/G)=\Isompr(S^3/G)$. On the other hand, the $S^1$ component in $\Isompr(S^3/G)\cong\O(2)\times\Z_2$ fixes all the fibers, and thus the group acting on $\mathcal B$ is $\Z_2\times\Z_2$. To find $\mathcal B$, it suffices to understand the action of $R=D_{4n}^*$: recalling Formula and the following example, the subgroup $C_{2n}$ acts by rotations as a cyclic group of order $n$, and the elements of $D_{4n}^*\setminus C_{2n}$ by rotations of order two which switch the fixed points of the cyclic action. Thus $\mathcal B$ is the orbifold $S^{2}(2,2,n)$. The group $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ then acts on $\mathcal B$ in such a way that one generator produces a rotation of order 2, fixing the cone point of order $n$ and switching the cone points of order $2$. The other generator comes from the action of $j\in \O(2)^*$ on the left, and gives a reflection in a plane which fix all the three cone points of $S^2(2,2,n)$. This is actually the only way in which $\Z_2\times\Z_2$ can act effectively on $S^2(2,2,n)$. In Table \[topolino\], we report the group which acts effectively on $\mathcal B$, without giving further details when the action is obvious.
**Family 4.** Group $\tilde G=(C_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8n}/D^*_{4n})$ is a normal extension of the corresponding group in Family 3, the whole orientation-preserving isometry group $\O(2)$ preserves the fibration, and the base orbifold $\mathcal B$ is $S^2(2,2,2n)$. The effective action on $\mathcal B$ is a $\Z_2$ action. Here the action is not obvious, and is an action by reflection, as indicated in Table \[topolino\]. However, when $n=1$ in Family 4, we find $\tilde G=(C_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8}/D^*_{4})$, which is conjugate to $\tilde G=(C_{4m}/C_{2m},D^*_{8}/C_{4})$ by an element which preserves the Hopf fibration (as it acts on the right). Hence this case falls in the already considered case of Family 3, having base orbifold $S^2(2,2,2)$ and action $\Z_2\times \Z_2$ generated by a rotation and a reflection, as one can check. For this reason, the case $n=1$ is not considered in the list.
**Families 3bis and 4bis.** It is also quite illuminating to consider the case of Families 3 bis and 4 bis, namely $(D^*_{4m}/C_{2m},C_{4n}/C_{2n})$ and $(D^*_{4m}/D^*_{2m},C_{4n}/C_{2n})$. In the first case, to understand the base orbifold, notice that the subgroup $\{1\}\times R_K=\{1\}\times C_{2n}$ acts as a group of rotations of order $n$, while the elements of $R=C_{4n}$ are paired to the antipodal map due to the action of $L=D^*_{4m}$ on the left (recall again the discussion in Subsection \[sec seifert s3\]). Hence, depending whether $n$ is odd or even, the quotient can be seen to be $D^2(n)$ or $\mathbb{R}P^2(n)$. Now, the action of the normalizer $D_{8n}^*\times \O(2)^*$ gives an $\O(2)$ action on $\mathcal B$, where the $S^1$ component acts by rotations and the other elements by reflections. Finally, observe that the groups in Family 3 having $m=2$, namely $(D^*_{8}/C_{4},C_{4n}/C_{2n})$, are conjugate in $S^3\times S^3$ to groups of Family 4 with $m=1$, of the form $(D^*_{8}/D^*_{4},C_{4n}/C_{2n})$. However, the conjugating element does not preserve the Hopf fibration, and indeed the fibrations of the quotient orbifolds are different.
**Family 1.** Another case when the action of $\Isom_{p}(S^3/G)/\Isom_{f}(S^3/G)$ on $\mathcal B$ is not obvious is Family 1. In fact, the normalizer of the groups of Family 1 is $(\O(2)^*/S^1,\O(2)^*/S^1)$ unless $r=1$ or $r=2$. The left $S^1$ acts by fixing all fibers pointwise. Hence the action on the base orbifold $S^2(nr,nr)$ is an $\O(2)$ action, where the $S^1$ subgroup clearly fix the two singular points, while the involutions act by reflections. Essentially what happens is that the local invariants associated to the two cone points of order $nr$ are different, hence there are no fibration-preserving isometries which switch the two singular fibers. However, when $r=1$ or $r=2$, the isometry group is larger and the action on $\mathcal B$ turns out to be an $(\O(2)\times\Z_2)$-action, where the action of $\O(2)$ is the same as before, and the nontrivial element in the $\Z_2$ factor acts by the antipodal map of the “football” $\mathcal B$. For the same reason, the groups in Family 11, i.e. $(D^*_{4mr}/C_{2m},D^*_{4nr}/C_{2n})_s$, have isometry group $\Z_2$ if $r>2$, acting on $\mathcal B=D^2(;nr,nr)$ by a reflection which fixes the two corner points. When $r=1$ or $r=2$, extra isometries appear, which induce on $\mathcal B$ reflections switching the two corner points.
Generalized Smale conjecture {#sec gen smale}
============================
The purpose of this section is to provide a proof of the $\pi_0$-part of the Generalized Smale Conjecture for spherical compact 3-orbifolds.
\[smale conjecture\] Let $\OO$ be any compact three-dimensional spherical orbifold. The inclusion $\Isom(\OO)\rightarrow\Diff(\OO)$ induces a group isomorphism $$\pi_0 \Isom(\OO)\cong \pi_0 \Diff(\OO)\,.$$
Let $\OO=S^3/G$ be a spherical 3-orbifold, where $G$ is a finite subgroup of $\SO(4)$. We denote by $\Sigma$ the singular set of $\OO$ and by $M$ the complement of $\overset{\circ}{N}(\Sigma)$ in $\OO$, where $\overset{\circ}{N}(\Sigma)$ is the interior of a regular neighbourhood of $\Sigma$.
\[Seifert-complement\] If $M$ is a Seifert fibered manifold, then $G$ is conjugate to one of the groups in Families from 1 to 9 (including $1'$) or in Family 34.
Since $M$ has a Seifert fibration for manifolds, then $\Sigma$ is a link.
Lift the fibration of $M$ to $S^3\setminus \overset{\circ}{N}(\tilde{\Sigma})$ where $\tilde{\Sigma}$ is the preimage in $S^3$ of $\Sigma$ under the projection $S^3\rightarrow S^3/G$ and $\overset{\circ}{N}(\tilde{\Sigma})$ is the interior of a regular neighbourhood of $\tilde{\Sigma}$; we note that $\tilde{\Sigma}$ is the set of points in $S^3$ that are fixed by a non-trivial element of $G$. The fibration of $S^3\setminus \overset{\circ}{N}(\tilde{\Sigma})$ extends to a fibration of $S^3$ invariant under the action of $G$ unless $\tilde{\Sigma}$ is the link in Figure \[singular-link\] (see the proof of [@burde-murasugi Theorem 1]).
![[]{data-label="singular-link"}](sifert){height="4cm"}
*Case 1: the fibration of $S^3\setminus \overset{\circ}{N}(\tilde{\Sigma})$ extends.* In this case the Seifert fibration of $M$ is induced by a Seifert fibration of $S^3$ invariant under the action on $G$ and extends to $\OO$. We remark that the fibration on $M$ is a classical Seifert fibration for manifold, while the fibration on $\OO$ is a Seifert fibration in an orbifold sense. The base orbifold of $\OO$ contains mirror reflector or corner reflector if and only if the fibration of $\OO$ contains infinite fibers that are not closed curves (they are arcs). Hence the fibration of $\OO$ induces a Seifert fibration on the manifold $M$ when the singularities of the base orbifold are only cone points.
Table \[topolino\] gives the base orbifolds for all fibrations induced by an isometric copy of the Hopf fibration (including the anti-Hopf fibration). Lemma \[lemma due casi\] ensures that the spherical orbifolds only have such fibrations except for groups which belong to Families $1$, $1'$, $11$, $11'$ up to conjugation. We recall that the fibrations of $S^3$ of the form $z_1^u/z_2^v$ or $\bar z_1^u/z_2^v$, with $(u,v)\neq (1,1)$ have two exceptional fibers, each left invariant by the group. For groups in Families $11$, $11'$, there must be an involution which acts as a reflection on the exceptional fibers, and therefore the base orbifold of the quotient contains corner reflectors. Finally, by analyzing Table \[topolino\], one sees that if a spherical orbifold $S^3/G$ has (at least) one Seifert fibration with only cone singular points in the base orbifold, then it is conjugate to a group in Families 1 to 9 (including $1'$) or in Family 34.
*Case 2: $\tilde{\Sigma}$ is the link in Figure \[singular-link\]*. In this case $\Sigma_0$ is the fixed point set of a non trivial element of $G$. Since $\Sigma$ admits no singular point with dihedral local group, the subgroup of $G$ leaving invariant $\Sigma_0$ is cyclic or the direct product of two cyclic groups (see for instance [@mecchia-zimmermann Lemma 1]) and can be conjugated to a group in Familiy 1 or $1'$. If $n\neq 1$, the whole group $G$ leaves invariant $\Sigma_0$ and we are done. In the case of $n=1$, $G$ contains a subgroup $G_0$ of index at most two leaving invariant $\Sigma_0$. If $G=G_0$, then the group can be conjugated to a group in Familiy 1 or $1'$. Otherwise the elements in $G\setminus G_0$ exchange $\Sigma_0$ with $\Sigma_1$. The groups having these properties are in Families 2, 3, 4 and 34.
We denote by $\iota: \pi_0 \Isom(\OO) \rightarrow \pi_0 \Diff(\OO) $ the homomorphism induced by the inclusion $\Isom(\OO)\rightarrow\Diff(\OO).$
For spherical manifolds the theorem was proved in [@mccullough]. Therefore we can suppose that $\Sigma$ is not empty and we can apply the results in [@cuccagna-zimmermann] where the authors proved the existence of a finite subgroup of diffeomorphisms $H$ such that the standard projection $\Diff(\OO) \rightarrow \pi_0 \Diff(\OO) $ restricted to $H$ is surjective. As a consequence of the Thurston Orbifold Geometrization Theorem (see [@boileau-leeb-porti] and [@dinkelbach-leeb]), we can suppose that $H$ is a group of isometries of $\OO$, and we can conclude that also $\iota$ is surjective.
If $\Sigma$ is a link, then [@gordon-litherland Theorem 2] implies directly that $M=\OO\setminus \overset{\circ}{N}(\Sigma)$ is irreducible and atoroidal (i.e. each incompressible torus is boundary parallel). Indeed the argument used in the proof of [@gordon-litherland Theorem 2] works also if $\Sigma$ is not a link, so we have that in any case $M$ is irreducible and atoroidal. By the geometrization of 3-manifolds with non-empty boundary (see for example [@shalen Proposition 3]) we obtain that $M$ is either hyperbolic or Seifert fibered.
If $M$ is hyperbolic, then by [@cuccagna-zimmermann Theorem 1] the homomorphism $\iota$ is also injective and we are done. We can suppose that $M$ is Seifert fibered and by Lemma \[Seifert-complement\] the group $G$ is in one of the Families from 1 to 9 (including $1'$) or in Family $34$.
An orientation-reversing isomorphism cannot be homotopic to the identity, hence to prove that $\iota$ is injective we can reduce to the orientation preserving case. We denote by $\Diff^+\!(\OO)$ the group of orientation-preserving diffeomorphism of $\OO$.
From now on we will identify the orbifold fundamental group $\pi_1(\OO)$ with $G$. We denote by $\Out(G)$ the outer automorphism group, namely the quotient of the group of automorphisms of $G$ by the normal subgroup of inner automorphisms. By using the properties of the universal covering orbifolds (see for example [@choi Sections 4.6 and 4.7]), we will define a homomorphism $\beta:\Diff^+\!(\OO) \rightarrow \Out(G)$. If $f\in \Diff^+\!(\OO)$, then $f$ can be lifted to a diffeomorphism $\tilde f$ of $S^3$ that normalizes $G$ and by conjugation induces an automorphism of $G$. Different choices of the lifting can give different automorphisms, but they coincide up to the composition with an inner automorphism. Thus we can define $\beta(f)$ as the outer automorphism induced by a lift of $f$. Since an element of $\Diff^+\!(\OO)$ isotopic to the identity lifts to a diffeomorphism of $S^3$ isotopic to the identity, an element of $\Diff^+_0\!(\OO) $ induces a trivial automorphism on $G.$ Thus $\Diff^+_0\!(\OO) $ is contained in the kernel of $\beta$ and we obtain an induced homomorphism $\pi_0\Diff(\OO) \rightarrow \Out(G)$ that we denote by $\alpha.$
Therefore we have the following composition of group homomorphisms $$\xymatrix{
\pi_0\Isompr(\OO) \ar[r]^-{\iota} & \pi_0\Diff^+\!(\OO) \ar[r]^-{\alpha} & \Out(G)\,.
}$$
Analyzing the isometry group of $\OO$ when $G$ is in Families 1-9 and 34 (see Tables \[tableisometry\] and \[tableisometryexceptions\]), we can conclude that, if an element of $\Isompr(\OO)$ induces a trivial outer automorphism on $G$, we can find an isotopy from this element to the identity such that each level of the isotopy is an isometry. We obtain that $\alpha\circ\iota$ is injective, and consequently $\iota$ is injective.
We remark that the restriction to Families 1-9 and 34 is essential, in fact in some other cases $\alpha\circ\iota$ is not injective, even in the orientation preserving case (e.g. for groups in Family $31'$).
[^1]: $^{*}$Partially supported by the FRA 2015 grant “Geometria e topologia delle varietà ed applicazioni”, Università degli Studi di Trieste.
[^2]: $^{**}$Partially supported by the FIRB 2011-2014 grant “Geometry and topology of low-dimensional manifolds”.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The energy of a droplet of linear extent $l$ in the “droplet theory” of spin glasses goes as $l^{\theta}$ for large $l$. It is argued that this formula needs to be modified by the addition of a scaling correction $l^{-\omega}$ in order to accurately describe droplet energies at the length scales currently probed in numerical simulations. With this simple modification all equilibrium numerical data on Ising spin glasses in two, three and four dimensions becomes compatible with the droplet model.'
author:
- 'M.A.Moore'
title: Corrections to Scaling in the Droplet Picture of Spin Glasses
---
The controversy as to the nature of the ordered state of spin glasses still remains to be resolved. There are two theories: the “droplet theory” [@McM; @BM; @FH] and the replica symmetry breaking (RSB) theory of Parisi [@Parisi; @sgb]. Many numerical studies have been done in an attempt to resolve the controversy with results which are often uncomfortable for proponents of both theories. The most natural summary of the current numerical situation is the TNT (*trivial, non-trivial*) picture of Refs. [@KM; @PY]. On this picture, which we shall explain in more detail below, the Parisi spin overlap function $P(q,L)$ for a system of linear dimension $L$ seems to behave as expected from the RSB theory i.e. in a *non-trivial* fashion, while the behavior of the link overlap seems to be more in accordance with droplet model ideas as its variance seems to be tending to zero as $L$ increases to infinity (which is regarded as *trivial*). In this paper we shall show that a simple and natural correction to scaling term added to the usual droplet energy expression can explain the origin of the TNT picture.
In the RSB theory there are low-energy excitations in which a finite fraction of the spins in the system are reversed but which only cost a finite amount of energy in the thermodynamic limit. The surface of these excitations is space-filling so that the fractal dimension of their surface $d_s$ is the same as the space dimension $d$ [@Marinari]. In the droplet theory, the lowest energy excitations of linear spatial extent $l$ typically costs of order $l^{\theta}$, where $\theta$ is a positive exponent, of order 0.20 in three dimensions [@3D] and 0.70 in four dimensions [@4D] according to studies of the energy to create a domain wall right across the system. Thus in the thermodynamic limit the excitations which flip a finite fraction of the spins cost an infinite amount of energy and also the surface of these excitations is not space filling, as $d_s<d$.
The Hamiltonian which is usually studied in numerical work is the Ising spin glass model: $${\mathcal H}=-\sum_{<i,j>}J_{ij}S_iS_j,$$ where the sites $i$ lie on the sites of a cubic lattice with $N=L^d$ sites, $S_i=\pm1$, the $J_{ij}$ have a Gaussian distribution of zero mean and unit variance and couple nearest-neighbor sites on the lattice. Typically for equilibrium studies at low temperatures (done at temperatures $T$ much less than the critical temperature $T_c$ in order to diminish the complications from critical point effects [@Drossel]), $L\leq14$ for 3D and $L\leq5$ for 4D. By studying two real replicas of the system, with spins $S_i$ and $S^{'}_i$ one can derive the Parisi spin overlap function $P(q,L)$, where $$q=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i}S_iS_i^{'}$$ and study the properties of link overlaps $$q_l=\frac{1}{N_b}\sum_{<ij>}S_iS_jS^{'}_iS^{'}_j,$$ where $N_b$ is the number of mearest-neighbor bonds on the lattice. On the droplet picture $P(q,L)$ should tend as $L\rightarrow\infty$ to a delta function at $q=q_{EA}$, and $P(q,L)\sim T/L^{\theta^{'}}$ for all $q\neq q_{EA}$ where the expectation is that $\theta^{'}=\theta$. In fact it is found that $\theta^{'}\approx0$ and that $P(q,L)$ looks very similar to what is predicted from the mean-field RSB picture [@Marinari] in that $P(q,L)\neq 0$ for all $q\neq q_{EA}$ It is this result which advocates of the droplet model have found hardest to understand.
Studies of link overlaps are more in accordance with droplet model expectations. Their variance is predicted on the droplet model to decrease with $L$ as $T/L^{\mu_l}$ with $\mu_l=2(d-d_s)+\theta^{'}$ [@Drossel2]. The most recent investigations of link overlaps have been performed by adding a bulk perturbation $-\epsilon q_l$ to ${\mathcal H}$ and studying its effect in the ground state (see below). Using this method Palassini and Young [@PY] report that in 3D $d_s= 2.58\pm0.02$ and $\theta^{'}=0.02\pm0.03$ while in 4D $d_s=3.77\pm0.05$ and $\theta^{'}=0.03\pm0.05$. The droplet model expectation is again that $\theta^{'}=\theta$, which is clearly not satisfied at the $L$ values which can be currently studied. On the RSB picture the variance of $q_l$ should be non-zero for large L, which is not in accord with the results of [@PY]. (However, Marinari and Parisi [@MP] did obtain a finite variance of the link overlap in the large $L$ limit by extrapolating it in an ad hoc way as $1/L$).
Thus if one accepts the TNT version of the numerical results but believes in the droplet model, the task is to understand why $\theta^{'}\ne\theta$ at least at the small values of $L$ which can be currently reached in equilibrium numerical studies. We will assume that the droplet picture is essentially correct and explain why corrections to scaling result in $\theta{'}$ appearing to be close to zero for small $L$ values.
It is important to realise what the low-energy excitations look like in spin glasses. Consider a domain wall crossing a system $M\times M\times L$. The energy cost of this domain on the droplet picture will be of order $M^{\theta}$ and the domain wall will be fractal with dimension $d_s$ and with an area of order $M^{d_s}$. In three or more dimensions the interface may have holes throught it. Because it is fractal the extent of this wandering is of order $M$. The wandering of the interface by an amount of order $M$ affects the determination of $\theta$, see Ref. [@Carter], where it was found that the best results were obtained when $L\gg M$ as then the interface is not affected by its interactions with the ends of the system. Suppose now we have two domain walls across the system. Then if their separation is large compared to $M$ they will be unaffected by the presence of the other. However, if they are closer together then they interfere with each other and their overall energy will be greater than if the other one were absent. In other words, domain walls effectively repel each other. If they have a separation of order $l$, then the repulsive energy between them would be expected to vary with their separation as a power law, $l^{-\omega^{'}}$. No investigations of $\omega^{'}$ seem to exist in the literature.
Consider now a droplet of linear extent $l$. It too will have a fractal surface described by $d_s$. Pictures of large droplets have now appeared [@KM], and a systematic investigation of them is in [@HKM]. Their fractal nature ensures that in three or more dimensions that they have holes through them, giving them a sponge-like appearance. However, because the surface of the droplet may wander by a distance of order $l$ the energy of the droplet $E$ will be modified by its wandering and “collisions” with itself to a form which we suppose by analogy with the above is $$E=Al^{\theta}+Bl^{-\omega}.
\label{basic}$$ The term $Bl^{-\omega}$ is a scaling correction to the form of the droplet energy at large $l$ and $A$ and $B$ are positive constants. We shall argue that with this scaling correction it is possible to understand the TNT description of the numerical scene. The exponent $\omega$ is only well-defined as a correction to scaling exponent when $l\rightarrow\infty$, but we shall assume that Eq. (\[basic\]) has utility outside this limit. We do not know whether $\omega^{'}=
\omega$, but fortunately there already exists numerical data on the value of $\omega$ in 3D from the work of Lamarcq et al. [@LQ].
These authors first computed the ground state for both $N=6^3$ and $N=10^3$. They then chose an arbitrary reference spin and flipped it along with a cluster containing $v-1$ other spins connected to it. They next minimized the energy of this cluster by exchange Monte Carlo, but with the constraint that the reference spin is held fixed and the cluster was always connected and of size $v$. They found the largest extension (mean end-to-end distance) $l$ of the cluster and found that for $v\leq 33$ its energy $E(l)$ varied as $l^{-\omega}$, where the exponent $\omega$ was $0.13 \pm0.02$. For larger $v$ values they found that $E(l)$ was increasing rather than decreasing with $l$ but they were unsure whether this might not be an artifact of insufficient numbers of Monte Carlo steps. Note that according to Eq. (\[basic\]), when both $\theta$ and $\omega$ are small $E(l)$ will have a shallow minimum. The clusters generated by their procedure were not compact (that is, $v\sim l^d$), but on the droplet picture, which is a scaling picture associated with the zero-temperature fixed point [@McM; @BM] it is only required that large clusters be compact.
Eq. (\[basic\]) is more illuminating when expressed in variables associated with its minimum at $l=l_0$: $$E(l)=C\left(\frac{(l/l_0)^{\theta}}{\theta}+\frac{(l_0/l)^{\omega}}
{\omega}\right),$$ where $C$ is a positive constant. The position of the minimum is essentially unknown but there is a hint from the upturn in $E(l)$ seen in Ref. [@LQ] that $l_0$ might lie between 7 and 10 lattice spacings in 3D. Then because the values of both $\theta$ and $\omega$ are small there is only a weak dependence of $E(l)$ on $l$ in the region accessible to numerical studies (say 14 lattice spacings). The minimum is very shallow so that the apparent value of $\theta$, which is $\theta^{'}$, will be close to zero. For example, the ratio $E(14)/E(7)=1.006$ if $l_0$ is 7, whereas in the absence of the correction to scaling term this ratio is 1.15. In 4D the values of $\omega$ and $l_0$ are undetermined at present, but provided $l_0$ happens to lie in the region open to numerically studies, then again $\theta^{'}$ would be small.
While it is inevitable that exponents in 4D will be difficult to determine in numerical studies this is not so for 2D. There seems to be indirect evidence which supports an $E(l)$ as in Eq. (\[basic\]) also for 2D systems. In two dimensions $\theta$ is very accurately determined as systems of $480^2$ can be studied [@HY]. The exponent associated with a single domain wall, that is $\theta$, is $-0.282(2)
$ [@Carter; @HY]. However, studies where, say, $\theta$ is determined from the effects of thermally excited droplets (such as Monte Carlo simulations of the spin-glass susceptibility) yield an apparent $\theta^{'}$ close to $-0.47$ [@KA]. This discrepancy has long been a puzzle, and has prompted suggestions that perhaps different exponents describe domain wall energies and droplet energies [@KA]. However, Eq. (\[basic\]) with $\omega\approx0.47$ would seem to offer another way of resolving the descrepancy. For small values of $l$, droplets would apparently have energies decreasing as $l^{-\omega}$ as their energies are dominated by the correction to scaling term, but at large values of $l$ the decrease with $l$ will be slower and be as $l^{-|\theta|}$, as expected from the conventional droplet approach.
This crossover between the large and small $l$ dependencies can be seen in the work of Middleton [@M]. He studied link overlaps as in [@PY] and [@MP], by comparing the unperturbed $J_{ij}$ ground state, $\{S_i^0\}$, with the $\epsilon$-perturbed state, where $J_{ij}\rightarrow J_{ij}-\epsilon S_i^0S_j^0/N_b$. The fraction of link values $S_iS_j$ on nearest-neighbor bonds $<ij>$ which are changed by the perturbation is $(1-q_l)$. On the droplet model the sample average of this, $\overline{1-q_l}$, is predicted to decrease as $\epsilon/L^{\mu_l}$. Using the values $\theta=-0.28$ and $d_s=1.27$, $\mu_l\approx1.18$, but with $\theta^{'}$ at its small $l$ value of $-0.47$ the expected value of $\mu_l\approx0.99$. Middleton studied the effective value of $\mu_l$ at length scale L using the definition $$\mu_l^{\rm eff}=-\frac{d[{\rm ln}(\overline{1-q_l})]}{d\, {\rm ln}(L)}.$$ At $L=16$ $\mu_l^{eff}$ was found to be 0.99 and increased to the large $l$ expected value 1.18 when $L\sim200$. In other words, $\mu_l^{eff}$ seems to interpolate beteen the two limits as expected on the basis of our correction to scaling.
Middleton himself attributed this gradual evolution of $\mu_l^{eff}$ with $L$ to finite size corrections which can arise when studying quantities which have contributions from droplets of all sizes up to the system size $L$. The domain wall energy exponent $\theta$ is free of this problem as by definition domain walls only exist on the scale $L$. He showed that even if $E(l)$ varies just as $l^{\theta}$ for all $l$, then the contributions of droplets on all length scales up to $L$ means that $\mu_l^{eff}$ approaches its asymptotic value only as $1/L^{d-\mu_l}$. These scale averaging corrections decrease in 2D with the exponent $d-\mu_l\approx0.82$ and are therefore unlikely to be important when $L\sim100$. In three dimensions $d-\mu_l\approx1.3$. As in 3D only modest values of $L$ can be studied the scale averaging corrections may there be a significant effect.
The effect of the correction to scaling in the formula for the droplet energy will have relevance beyond the confines of numerical simulations. The droplet model provides scaling laws for time-dependent quantities such as dynamical susceptibilities in terms of a length scale $L(t)$ which increases in a logarithmic manner with time $t$ due to thermal activation of droplets on the length scale $L(t)$. In practice the length scale which can be explored in real experiments is rather limited (typically more than 10 lattice spacings but probably less than 200 [@JYN]). The fact that this length scale is not very large means that corrections to asymptotic formula will be important and that will include the correction to the scaling energy proposed in this paper.
To summarize: there exists a simple correction to the usual scaling formula for the energy of a droplet which is consistent with the TNT summary of the numerical data on spin glasses. It would be useful to have direct studies of the two correction to scaling exponents exponents $\omega$ and $\omega^{'}$. In 3D and 4D, information on the value of $l$ at the minimum of $E(l)$, $l_0$, is needed. As perhaps $l_0$ might have been already seen in the 3D work of Ref. [@LQ], a precise determination could be possible with a little extra effort. In 2D an accurate determination of both exponents might be achievable with the techniques used in Refs. [@HY] and [@M].
I would like to thank Alan Bray for many discussions.
[99]{} W. L. McMillan, J. Phys. C **17**, 3179 (1984). A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, in *Glassy Dynamics and Optimization*, edited by J. L. van Hemmen and I. Morgenstern, (Springer, Berlin, 1986). D. S. Fisher and D. A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. **56**, 1601 (1986); Phys. Rev. B **38**, 386 (1988). G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **43**, 1754 (1979); J. Phys. A **13**, 1101 (1980); Phys. Rev. Lett. **50**, 1946 (1983). M. Mézard, G. Parisi and M. A. Virasoro, *Spin Glass Theory and Beyond* (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987). F. Krzakala and O. C. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 3013 (2000). M. Palassini and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett. **85**, 3017 (2000). E. Marinari, G. Parisi, F. Ricci-Tersenghi, J. Ruiz-Lorenzo and F. Zuliani, J. Stat. Phys. **98**, 973 (2000). A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, J. Phys. C **17**, L463 (1984); W. L. McMillan, Phys. Rev. B **30**, 476 (1984); A. K. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. E **59**, 84 (1999). A. K. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. E **60**, 5135 (1999); K. Hukushima, Phys. Rev. E **60**, 3606 (1999). M. A. Moore, H. Bokil, and B. Drossel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **81**, 4252 (1998). B. Drossel, H. Bokil, M. A. Moore and A. J. Bray, Eur. Phys. J. B **13**, 369 (2000). E. Marinari and G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **86**, 3887 (2001). A. C. Carter, A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 077201 (2002). J. Houdayer, F. Krzakala, and O. C. Martin, Eur. Phys. J. B **18**, 467 (2000). J. Lamarcq, J.-P. Bouchaud, O. C. Martin and M. Mézard, EuroPhysics Lett. in press. cond-mat/0107544. A. K. Hartmann and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B **64**, 180404 (2001). A very extensive review of the 2D spin glass problem has been given by N. Kawashima and T. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., **69**, Suppl. A, 169 (2000). A. A. Middleton Phys. Rev. B **63**, 060202 (2001). P. E. Jönsson, H. Yoshino and P. Nordblad, cond-mat /0203444.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Falk Bruckmann and\
Universität Regensburg, Universitätsstraße 31, 93053 Regensburg, Germary\
E-mail: ,
title: Scalar QCD at nonzero density
---
=1
Introduction
============
Lattice QCD is one of the most important tools for studying the nonperturbative as well as thermodynamic aspects of QCD from first principles. However, if we introduce a chemical potential $\mu$ in order to explore the phase-diagram of QCD at nonzero density, the standard approach fails due to the sign problem, that is, the weights of the gauge configurations (having integrated out the quarks) become complex and therefore ill-suited for importance sampling in Monte-Carlo simulations.
There have been many proposals to remedy this shortcomming. Standard reweighting techniques fail because the reweighting factor rapidly approaches zero in the interesting regime around the critical chemical potential $\mu_c$. Another proposal has been the MDP-formulation (Monomer-Dimer-Polymer) of strong coupling QCD [@ROSSIWOLFF; @KARSCHMUTTER]. There first the gauge links and after that the fermion fields are integrated out. This leaves a constrained spin system of occupation numbers or dual variables. However, even then there is still a sign problem remaining, even though it is rather mild [@FROMM].
In these proceedings we consider a scalar version of QCD in the strong coupling limit (scSQCD), where instead of fermionic fields we use complex scalar fields. We can couple a chemical potential to the conserved charge of the scalar fields, which also results in a complex action. We dualize the theory in a similar way to the MDP-formulation, which solves the sign problem. Afterwards we discuss the diagrammatic representation of the dual theory and propose a simulation strategy for it.
Strong coupling scalar QCD
==========================
The action for this model reads $$\begin{aligned}
S
&=
\sum_{x}
\sum_{f=1}^{N_f}
\left(
\sum_{\nu=1}^{d}
\left(
e^{\mu\delta_{\nu,\hat 0}}\phi_x^{(f)\dagger} U_{x,\nu} \phi_{x+\hat\nu}^{(f)}
+
e^{-\mu\delta_{\nu,\hat 0}}\phi_{x+\hat\nu}^{(f)\dagger} U_{x,\nu}^\dagger \phi_{x}^{(f)}
-2 \phi_x^{(f)\dagger}\phi_x^{(f)}
\right)
-m^2 \phi_x^{(f)\dagger}\phi_x^{(f)}
\right)
\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi$ is the complex scalar field, $U$ the SU(3) gauge field, $N_f$ the number of flavors and $d$ the number of spacetime dimensions.
For $\mu\neq 0$ the action becomes complex and we end up with a sign problem. In figure \[fig:rewfac\] the (phase-quenched) reweighting factor, $r = \langle(|\det M| / \det M)^{N_F}\rangle$, is plotted as a function of the chemical potential $\mu$. Above $\mu = 0.7$ it decreases rapidly. Figure \[fig:deltaf\] shows that $r = e^{-\Delta f V}$ obeys the correct volume dependence, where $\Delta f$ is the free energy density. Further we note that $\Delta f$ seems to have an exponential increase/decrease with $\mu$. A naive extrapolation gives a maximal free energy density of $\Delta f(\mu_\times) = 2.04(7)$ at $\mu_\times = 1.172(2)$. This means that the reweighting factor becomes smaller than $10^{-14}$ already for a $4\times 4$ lattice. Therefore it is unfeasible to simulate the region around $\mu_c$ by reweighting[^1].
![ The reweighting factor is plotted as a function of $\mu$. The data is from 10000 configurations and we set $N_f=3, m = 0.1$. For $\mu \in [0.7,1.6]$ the autocorrelationtime becomes so large that neither the errors nor the mean values are reliable any more. Therefore we have omitted the data points in this region. []{data-label="fig:rewfac"}](rewfac.pdf)
![ The free energy density $\Delta f$, $r = e^{-\Delta f V}$, is plotted as a function of $\mu$. A naive extrapolation yields a crossing point at $\mu_\times = 1.172(2)$, with a free energy density of $\Delta f_\times = 2.04(7)$. []{data-label="fig:deltaf"}](deltaf.pdf)
Dualization
===========
In order to proceed to dualize the theory, we rewrite the action: $$\begin{aligned}
S
&=
\sum_{x}
\left(
\sum_\nu
{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\left(
J_{x,\nu}U_{x,\nu}
+
K_{x,\nu}U_{x,\nu}^\dagger
\right)
-
\sum_{f}
\left(
(2d +m^2) \phi_x^{(f)\dagger}\phi_x^{(f)}
\right)
\right)
\\
J_{x,\nu}
&=
e^{\mu\delta_{\nu,\hat 0}}
\sum_f
\phi_{x+\hat\nu}^{(f)}\phi_x^{(f)\dagger}
\hspace{3em}
\mathrm{forward\ hopping}
\label{eq:forwardhop}
\\
K_{x,\nu}
&=
e^{-\mu\delta_{\nu,\hat 0}}
\sum_f
\phi_{x}^{(f)}\phi_{x+\hat\nu}^{(f)\dagger}
\hspace{2.7em}
\mathrm{backward\ hopping}
\label{eq:backwardhop}\end{aligned}$$ For the partition function $Z$ we have to integrate over the gauge field $U$ as well as the scalar fields $\phi$: $$\begin{aligned}
Z
&=
\int \mathcal{D}\phi\mathcal{D}\phi^\dagger
\int\mathcal{D}U\,
e^{S}.\end{aligned}$$ The SU(3) integral at a single bond $(x,\nu)$ can be turned into a five-fold sum, see, e.g., [@SKAND]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SKAND}
&\int_{\mathrm{SU(3)}}dU\,
\exp({\mathrm{Tr}\,}(JU + KU^\dagger))
=
\sum_{j,k,l,n,\bar n = 0}^{\infty}
\frac{X^j}{j!}
\frac{Y^k}{k!}
\frac{Z^l}{l!}
\frac{\Delta^{n}}{n!}
\frac{\bar\Delta^{\bar n}}{\bar n!}
\frac{2}{f^{(1)}! f^{(2)}!}
\end{aligned}$$ where $f^{(1)}$ and $f^{(2)}$ are shorthands for $$\begin{aligned}
f^{(1)}
= k+2l+n+\bar n + 1
\hspace{3em}
f^{(2)} = j+2k+3l+n+\bar n +2,
\end{aligned}$$ and $X,Y,Z,\Delta,\bar\Delta$ are functions of $J,K$: $$\begin{aligned}
X
&= {\mathrm{Tr}\,}(KJ)
&
Y
&=
\frac{1}{2} \left[ X^2 - {\mathrm{Tr}\,}((KJ)^2) \right]
&
Z
&=
\det(KJ)
\\
\Delta
&= \det J
&
\bar\Delta
&= \det K
\end{aligned}$$ We can apply to each bond separately because the SU(3) integrals factorize. Then the partition function becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:partition_function_dual}
Z
&=
\sum_{\{j,k,l,n,\bar n\}}
\int
\mathcal{D}\phi
\mathcal{D}\phi^\dagger
\rho(|\phi|)
\prod_{x,\nu}
2 \frac{X^{j_{x,\nu}}_{x,\nu}Y^{k_{x,\nu}}_{x,\nu}Z^{l_{x,\nu}}_{x,\nu}\Delta^{n_{x,\nu}}_{x,\nu}\bar\Delta^{\bar n_{x,\nu}}_{x,\nu}}
{j_{x,\nu}!k_{x,\nu}!l_{x,\nu}! n_{x,\nu}!\bar n_{x,\nu}! f^{(1)}_{x,\nu}! f^{(2)}_{x,\nu}!}
\\
\rho(|\phi|)
&=
\prod_{x,f} e^{-(2d+m^2)|\phi^{(f)}_x|^2}
\end{aligned}$$ Thus we are left with the integration over the scalar fields, which are gaussian distributed, and the summation over configurations of dual variables $j,k,l,n,\bar n$.
The functions $X,Y,Z$ only depend on the matrix $KJ$. In our case the $\mu$ dependence cancels, cf. and , and we have $KJ = J^\dagger J$, which is a positive operator, and hence $X,Y,Z$ are positive as well[^2]. However, $\Delta, \bar\Delta$ are complex in general. One can work out that $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{x,\nu}
&=
e^{3\mu\delta_{\nu,0}}
\sum_\sigma
\phi^{(\sigma(1))}_{x+\hat\nu}
\cdot
\left(
\phi^{(\sigma(2))}_{x+\hat\nu}
\times
\phi^{(\sigma(3))}_{x+\hat\nu}
\right)
\left(
\phi^{(\sigma(1))}_{x}
\cdot
\left(
\phi^{(\sigma(2))}_{x}
\times
\phi^{(\sigma(3))}_{x}
\right)
\right)^*
\\
\bar\Delta_{x,\nu}
&=
e^{-3\mu\delta_{\nu,0}}
\sum_\sigma
\phi^{(\sigma(1))}_{x}
\cdot
\left(
\phi^{(\sigma(2))}_{x}
\times
\phi^{(\sigma(3))}_{x}
\right)
\left(
\phi^{(\sigma(1))}_{x+\hat\nu}
\cdot
\left(
\phi^{(\sigma(2))}_{x+\hat\nu}
\times
\phi^{(\sigma(3))}_{x+\hat\nu}
\right)
\right)^*\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ runs over all maps $\sigma: \{1,2,3\}\to \{1,\dots, N_f\}$ with $\sigma(1) < \sigma(2) < \sigma(3)$. This means that for $N_f < 3$ there is no $\mu$ dependence since then $\Delta \equiv \bar\Delta \equiv 0$, see also [@WOLFF]. In the following we restrict ourselves to the first nontrivial case, $N_f = 3$. However, the result is valid also for $N_f>3$.
To tackle the remaining sign problem, note that the partition function involves gaussian integrations of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\int d\phi d\phi^*\, e^{-|\phi|^2}
(\phi)^a (\phi^*)^{ b}
&\sim
\delta_{ab}
\label{eq:constraint}\end{aligned}$$ at each site for each flavor and color. Thus the only contribution to the partition function comes from terms where the power of $\phi$ at a site matches that of $\phi^*$.
$X,Y,Z$ satisfy the constraint at a single bond, however, $\Delta, \bar\Delta$ do not. From one can see that only closed loops of $\Delta, \bar\Delta$ satisfy the constraint. For such a closed loop $C$ the weight is proportional to $$\begin{aligned}
w(C)
&\sim
e^{3N_t\mu w_t}
\prod_{(x,\hat\nu) \in C}
\phi^{(1)}_{x}
\cdot
\left(
\phi^{(2)}_{x}
\times
\phi^{(3)}_{x}
\right)
\left(
\phi^{(1)}_{x+\hat\nu}
\cdot
\left(
\phi^{(2)}_{x+\hat\nu}
\times
\phi^{(3)}_{x+\hat\nu}
\right)
\right)^*
\\
&=
e^{3N_t\mu w_t}
\prod_{x \in C}
\left |
\phi^{(1)}_{x}
\cdot
\left(
\phi^{(2)}_{x}
\times
\phi^{(3)}_{x}
\right)
\right |^2
\ge 0,
\label{eq:loop_positive}\end{aligned}$$ where $w_t$ is the winding number in the temporal direction. So we have to consider only closed loop configurations in the partition function. Then there is no sign problem remaining even at $\mu \neq 0$[^3].
Discussion and Conclusion
=========================
![ A sample configuration of the dual variables. Bonds can be occupied arbitrarily with the dual variables $j,k,l,n,\bar n$, the only constraint being that the $n,\bar n$ have to form closed loops. Since these loops are directional, they are marked with arrows. Note that in constrast to the MDP-formulation there is also no restriction of *baryonic* bonds ($n,\bar n$) being disjunct from *mesonic* bonds ($j,k,l$) and sites without occupied bonds are possible as well. Also there is no restriction on the occupation numbers, they can, in principle, be arbitrarily large. However, large values are surpressed by the factorials in the denominator of eq. (3.9).[]{data-label="fig:sample_config"}](config.pdf)
The configurations of the dual variables can be represented diagrammatically in a similar way to the MDP-formulation, see figure \[fig:sample\_config\]. We may call closed loops of $n,\bar n$ *baryonic*, since they are directional, and couple to the chemical potential $\mu$. The other dual variables $j,k,l$ we call *mesonic*. A notable difference to the MDP-formulation is that in our case there is no restriction of mesonic bonds being disjunct from baryonic ones. Also, since we are in a bosonic theory, there is no restriction on the dual variables. In principle they can run from $0$ to $\infty$, however, large values are strongly suppressed by the factorials in the denomitator of .
From the derivation of the original MDP-formulation it is evident that there the remaining sign problem stems from the fermionic nature of the fields. In particular, there the sign problem comes from the anticommutation rules, the staggered phases, the backward hoppings, and the antiperiodic boundary conditions in the time direction. In the scalar case all these causes are absent, and as we have seen this results in a dual theory that has no sign problem.
For the simulation of this model we propose a hybrid strategy. The dual variables $j,k,l$ can be updated via a local metropolis step, which involves an evaluation of the functions $X,Y,Z$ on the corresponding bond, as $X,Y,Z$ are all positive. The $n,\bar n$ can be updated using a worm-type of algorithm. To that end one can use the fact that for a closed loop the contribution of each site is positive, see eq. , and one can use a heat-bath method to decide which way to go with the worm. Finally the (gaussian distributed) scalar fields $\phi, \phi^\dagger$ can also be updated via a local metropolis step by evaluating $X,Y,Z$ on the adjacent bonds as well as the contribution of the closed $n,\bar n$-loops to that particular site, cf. eq. . We leave numerical simulations which explore the phase diagram of this model for future publications.
We thank Jacques Bloch for helpful discussions. This work is supported by the DFG-grants [BR 2872/6-1 & 2872/7-1]{}.
[99]{} P. Rossi, U. Wolff, [*[Lattice [QCD]{} With Fermions at Strong Coupling: A Dimer System]{}*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B248, (1984), p105-122 F. Karsch, K. H. Mutter, [*[Strong coupling QCD at finite baryon number density]{}*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B313 (1989) p541-559, CERN-TH-5063/88 M. Fromm, [*[Lattice QCD at strong coupling]{}*]{}, (2010), ETH-19297, <http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/view/eth:2616> K. E. Eriksson, N. Svartholm, B. S. Skagerstam, [*[On Invariant Group Integrals in Lattice [QCD]{}]{}*]{}, J. Math. Phys. 22 (1981) 2276, CERN-TH-2974 U. Wolff, [*[The SU($N$) Lattice Higgs Model at Strong Gauge Coupling]{}*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B280 (1987), p680-688, DESY-86-085
[^1]: For large $\mu \gg \mu_c$ the reweighting factor becomes well behaved again.
[^2]: Note that in particular $Y$ is also positive.
[^3]: Note that this only applies to real $\mu$; for complex values of $\mu$ a sign problem reappears.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A probable sky map of the emission from a short-lived isotrope produced by massive stars is presented. The model is based on the nonaxisymmetric component of a dust distribution model developed to reproduce Galactic FIR emission. Features seen in COMPTEL observations are qualitatively reproduced.'
address: Turin Astronomical Observatory
author:
- Ronald Drimmel
title: Galactic Structure and Radioactivity Source Distributions
---
Introduction
============
The opening of the gamma ray window presents us with the possibility of tracing star formation (SF) on a Galactic scale via short-lived isotopes produced by supernovae (SN). An example is the isotope $^{26}$Al, whose half-life is short (0.75Myr) and is believed to be primarily produced by Type II SN, with progenitors of mass $> 10M_\odot$, and WR stars of mass $> 20M_\odot$. The correlation between the distribution of $^{26}$Al and SF activity derives from the brief lifetimes of these massive stars, typically shorter than 20Myr, and the short half-life of $^{26}$Al, the latter insuring that the emitting material does not have time to turbulently mix throughout the ISM. Empirical support is found in the observed correlation between $^{26}$Al emission and millimeter radiation [@Knod99a], while $^{26}$Al emission has been used to place theoretical constraints on the global SF rate [@Knod99aa; @TDH97].
To date the only gamma ray all-sky survey available is that from the [*Compten Gamma-Ray Observatory*]{}, which produced a low resolution sky map of MeV radiation showing irregular emission along the Galactic plane. In the future these observations will be supplemented by the INTEGRAL mission. The purpose of this paper is to give a description of the anticipated Galactic emission from short-lived isotopes, as seen from the Sun’s position in the Milky Way, and as inferred from a model of the Galactic distribution of dust and stars.
Star formation on a Galactic scale
==================================
Spiral arms can be regarded as star formation fronts. While SF does not take place exclusively in spiral arms, they can be regarded as the principal sites of SF activity in most disk galaxies. Indeed, it is for this reason that they are visible at optical wavelengths as complexes of HII regions. Our position within the Milky Way impedes a complete mapping of the it’s spiral arms, but observations of Galactic HII regions have allowed a partial tracing of the spiral arms on our side of the Galaxy [@GG76; @TC93]
This tracing of the Milky Way’s spiral arms is found to trace well the far-infrared (FIR) emission associated with spiral arms [@DS01]. The Galactic FIR emission was observed by the COBE satellite, and is due to interstellar dust, entrained in the gaseous component of the Galactic disk. The time scales for Galactic dust production and redistribution is considerably longer than the dynamical time scales that produces the concentration of gas and dust into the spiral arms, making the dust a good tracer of the azimuthal variation of the gas as well. It is therefore no surprise that a tracing of the spiral arms based on the location of HII regions can be used to model the FIR emission, since SF preferentially occurs where the gas density is highest. For our purposes here I adopt the nonaxisymmetric component of the dust density model, used to reproduce the COBE FIR observations, as a tentative model of the probable flux density from a short-lived isotope produced by massive stars, such as $^{26}$Al. For details of the model, please refer to @DS01. The nonaxisymmetric component is shown in Figure 1, showing clearly the spiral arms. The reader should also note another feature near the Sun, a small dust lane that corresponds to the Orion “arm”.
I have argued above that the nonaxisymmetric component of the dust distribution is logically associated with SF, so using it to describe $^{26}$Al emission is strictly valid only if SF and $^{26}$Al production are contemporaneous, as Galactic differential rotation will shear the distribution of newly born stars with respect to the spiral arm pattern. However, as the lifetimes of $^{26}$Al producers are much shorter than the period of Galactic rotation, the resulting azimuthal offsets are negligible over most of the Galaxy, as shown in Figure 2.
While we can have some confidence that azimuthal variation of the dust should correspond to that of $^{26}$Al emission, we are left with the question of the radial variation. A priori, it is not obvious that the radial variation in the dust and $^{26}$Al will be the same, one being the product of past SF and dynamical evolution, while the other is a result of current SF. Nevertheless it is worth mentioning that the adopted model for the radial variation of the dust density in the spiral arms is of the same form as the free electron density associated with the arms [@TC93]. As this electron density is a consequence of the ionizing radiation of young OB stars, it should also reflect the radial variation of SF activity.
Expected sky emission from short-lived isotopes
===============================================
Having a presumed three-dimensional model of the $^{26}$Al at our disposal, it is now possible to produce a sky map of the expected emission from this isotope, the flux density being proportional to the density of the emitting material. Another approximation made is similar to that made for the FIR, that at the wavelengths (energies) in question, the Galaxy is optically thin. Figure 3 shows the resulting sky map. Several features are worth pointing out in this figure. First, within 90 degrees of the Galactic center the spiral arms are seen as emission peaks along the Galactic plane. Particularly visible are the tangents at Galactic longitudes $-$75 and $-$50 degrees, corresponding to the Sagittarius-Carina and Scutum arms respectively. At Galactic longitudes of approximately 90. and $-$100. two more bright spots are notable for their extent in Galactic latitudes; these are due to the local Orion “arm”, a structure important in our sky only because of our proximity to it. Lastly, emission between $\pm 90$ degrees is attributed to the Perseus arm, whose scale height is significantly larger than the other spiral arms. Another nonaxisymmetric structure that is less obvious in the sky map is the Galactic warp, which causes the Perseus arm to deviate from the Galactic plane.
To better see the variation in the Galactic plane Figure 4 shows the emission profile at $b=0$. The spiral arms are easily seen by the sawtooth pattern they produce in the profile. This characteristic profile was also predicted by @Prant93 with a very similar model, using the same spiral arm geometry. I also point out that the incompleteness of the spiral arm map on the other side of the Galaxy is not important for producing the sky maps, as their small scale height insure that they remain unresolved.
Summary
=======
Using a model based on FIR observations, a predicted map of the emission from short-lived isotopes has been presented at resolutions comparable to the future INTEGRAL mission though, not being a survey mission, it will not produce such a sky map. This model is parametric, using smooth mathematical functions to describe the distribution of the emitting material, and is thus much simpler than reality. This can be immediately seen by comparing Figure 3 with the COMPTEL sky map at 1.8MeV [@Knod99b or see http://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cossc/comptel/]. However, the major features in the map at Galactic longitudes $> 30$ degrees are reproduced on a qualitative level. This includes the location of the spiral arm tangents, the two bright spots attributable to the local Orion “arm”, and the contribution of the Perseus arm to emission toward the Galactic anticenter with its relatively large range in Galactic latitude.
No attempt has been made here to fit the model to actual gamma-ray data; for this the reader is referred to @Knod96, who uses the same spiral arm geometry, adopting the free-electron density model of @TC93 as a template. Perhaps the only significant differences between this model and the one presented here is a reduction factor on the Sagittarius-Carina arm, the Galactic warp and a flair in the spiral arm scale height.
As a worker in the field of Galactic structure, preparing this report underlined for me the value of gamma ray mapping missions, as it provides an avenue for observing and identifying the distribution of SF regions on a large scale. This is important for untangling the contribution from bright young sources which contaminates other wavelengths and frustrates efforts at mapping the mass distribution in the Galactic disk.
Drimmel, R. and Spergel, D. 2001 [*ApJ*]{}, 556, 181
Georgelin, Y. M., and Georgelin, Y. P. 1976 [*A&A*]{}, 49, 57
, J. 1999a [*ApJ*]{}, 510, 915
, J., [Bennett]{}, K., [Bloemen]{}, H., [Diehl]{}, R., [Hermsen]{}, W., [Oberlack]{}, U., [Ryan]{}, J., [Sch[" o]{}nfelder]{}, V., and [von Ballmoos]{}, P. 1999b [*A&A*]{}, 344, 68
, J., [Dixon]{}, D., [Bennett]{}, K., [Bloemen]{}, H., [Diehl]{}, R., [Hermsen]{}, W., [Oberlack]{}, U., [Ryan]{}, J., [Sch[" o]{}nfelder]{}, V., and [von Ballmoos]{}, P. 1999c [*A&A*]{}, 345, 813
, J., [Prantzos]{}, N., [Bennett]{}, K., [Bloemen]{}, H., [Diehl]{}, R., [Hermsen]{}, W., [Oberlack]{}, U., [Ryan]{}, J., and [Schoenfelder]{}, V. 1996 [*A&AS*]{}, 120C, 335
N. Prantzos, 1993 [*ApJL*]{}, 405, L55
Taylor, J. H., and Cordes, J. M. 1993 [*ApJ*]{}, 411, 674
Timmes, F. X., Diehl, R., and Hartmann, D. H. 1997 [*ApJ*]{}, 479, 760
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider classification tasks in the regime of scarce labeled training data in high dimensional feature space, where specific expert knowledge is also available. We propose a new hybrid optimization algorithm that solves the elastic-net support vector machine (SVM) through an alternating direction method of multipliers in the first phase, followed by an interior-point method for the classical SVM in the second phase. Both SVM formulations are adapted to knowledge incorporation. Our proposed algorithm addresses the challenges of automatic feature selection, high optimization accuracy, and algorithmic flexibility for taking advantage of prior knowledge. We demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our algorithm and compare it with existing methods on a collection of synthetic and real-world data.'
author:
- 'Z. Qin'
- 'X. Tang'
- 'I. Akrotirianakis'
- 'A. Chakraborty'
bibliography:
- 'scr\_bib.bib'
title: 'HIPAD - A Hybrid Interior-Point Alternating Direction algorithm for knowledge-based SVM and feature selection'
---
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
Introduction {#sec:motivation}
============
Classification tasks on data sets with large feature dimensions are very common in real-world machine learning applications. Typical examples include microarray data for gene selection and text documents for natural language processing. Despite the large number of features present in the data sets, usually only small subsets of the features are relevant to the particular learning tasks, and local correlation among the features is often observed. Hence, feature selection is required for good model interpretability. Popular classification techniques, such as support vector machine (SVM) and logistic regression, are formulated as convex optimization problems. An extensive literature has been devoted to optimization algorithms that solve variants of these classification models with sparsity regularization [@pardalos-hansen-2008; @sra-nowozin-wright-2011]. Many of them are based on first-order (gradient-based) methods, mainly because the size of the optimization problem is very large. The advantage of first-order methods is that their computational and memory requirements at each iteration are low and as a result they can handle the large optimization problems occurring in classification problems. Their major disadvantage is their slow convergence, especially when a good approximation of the feature support has been identified. Second-order methods exhibit fast local convergence, but their computational and memory requirements are much more demanding, since they need to store and invert the Newton matrix at every iteration. It is therefore very important to be able to intelligently combine the advantages of both the first and the second order optimization methods in such a way that the resulting algorithm can solve large classification problems efficiently and accurately. As we will demonstrate in this paper such combination is possible by taking advantage of the problem structure and the change in its size during the solution process. In addition, we will also show that our algorithmic framework is flexible enough to incorporate prior knowledge to improve classification performance.
Related Work {#sec:related_work}
------------
The above requirements demand three features from a learning algorithm: 1. it should be able to automatically select features which are possibly in groups and highly correlated; 2. it has to solve the optimization problem in the training phase efficiently and with high accuracy; and 3. the learning model needs to be flexible enough so that domain knowledge can be easily incorporated. Existing methods are available in the literature that meet some of the above requirements [*individually*]{}. For enforcing sparsity in the solution, efficient optimization algorithms such as that proposed in [@koh2007interior] can solve large-scale sparse logistic regression. On the other hand, the $L_1$-regularization is unstable with the presence of highly correlated features - among a group of such features, essentially one of them is selected in a random manner. To handle local correlation among groups of features, the elastic-net regularization [@zou2005regularization] has been successfully applied to SVM [@wang2006doubly] and logistic regression [@ryali2010sparse]. However, incorporating domain knowledge into the logistic regression formulation is not straightforward. For SVM, including such knowledge in the optimization process has been demonstrated in [@fung2003knowledge]. Recently, an Alternating Direction Method of Multipliers (ADMM) has been proposed for the elastic-net SVM (ENSVM) [@yeefficient]. ADMM is quick to find an approximate solution to the ENSVM problem, but it is known to converge very slowly to high accuracy optimal solutions [@boyd2010distributed]. The interior-point methods (IPM) for SVM are known to be able to achieve high accuracy in their solutions with a polynomial iteration complexity, and the dual SVM formulation is independent of the feature space dimensionality. However, the classical $L_2$-norm SVM is not able to perform automatic feature selection. Although the elastic-net SVM can be formulated as a QP (in the primal form), its problem size grows substantially with the feature dimensionality. Due to the need to solve a Newton system in each iteration, the efficiency of IPM quickly deteriorates as the feature dimension becomes large.
Main Contributions
------------------
In this paper we propose a new hybrid algorithmic framework for SVM to address [*all*]{} of the above challenges and requirements [*simultaneously*]{}. Our framework combines the advantages of a first-order optimization algorithm (through the use of ADMM) and a second-order method (via IPM) to achieve both superior speed and accuracy. Through a novel algorithmic approach that is able to incorporate expert knowledge, our proposed framework is able to exploit domain knowledge to improve feature selection, and hence, prediction accuracy. Besides efficiency and generalization performance, we demonstrate through experiments on both synthetic and real data that our method is also more robust to inaccuracy in the supplied knowledge than existing approaches.
A Two-phase Hybrid Optimization Algorithm {#sec:two_phase_alg}
=========================================
As previously mentioned, for data sets with many features, the high dimensionality of the feature space still poses a computational challenge for IPM. Fortunately, many data sets of this kind are very sparse, and the resulting classifier $w$ is also expected to be sparse, i.e. only a small subset of the features are expected to carry significant weights in classification. Naturally, it is ideal for IPM to train a classifier on the most important features only.
Inspired by the Hybrid Iterative Shrinkage (HIS) [@shi2010fast] algorithm for training large-scale sparse logistic regression classifiers, we propose a two-phase algorithm to shrink the feature space appropriately so as to leverage the high accuracy of IPM while maintaining efficiency. Specifically, we propose to solve an elastic-net SVM (ENSVM) or doubly-regularized SVM (DrSVM) [@wang2006doubly] problem during the first phase of the algorithm. The elastic-net regularization performs feature selection with grouping effect and has been shown to be effective on data sets with many but sparse features and high local correlations [@zou2005regularization]. This is the case for text classification, microarray gene expression, and fMRI data sets. The support of the weight vector $w$ for ENSVM usually stabilizes well before the algorithm converges to the optimal solution. Taking advantage of that prospect, we can terminate the first phase of the hybrid algorithm early and proceed to solve a classical SVM problem with the reduced feature set in the second phase, using an IPM solver.
Solving the Elastic Net SVM using ADMM {#sec:admm}
--------------------------------------
SVM can be written in the regularized regression form as $$\label{eq:unconstr_svm}
\min_{{\textbf{w}},b}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N(1 - (y_i({\textbf{x}_i}^T{\textbf{w}}+ b)))_+ + \frac{\lambda}{2}\|{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2,$$ where the first term is an averaged sum of the hinge losses and the second term is viewed as a ridge regularization on $w$. It is easy to see from this form that the classical SVM does not enforce sparsity in the solution, and $w$ is generally dense. The ENSVM adds an $L_1$ regularization on top of the ridge regularization term, giving $$\label{eq:en_svm}
\min_{{\textbf{w}},b}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(1-y_i({\textbf{x}_i}^T{\textbf{w}}+ b))_+ + \lambda_1\|{\textbf{w}}\|_1 + \frac{\lambda_2}{2}\|{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2.$$ Compared to the Lasso ($L_1$-regularized regression) [@tibshirani1996regression], the elastic-net has the advantage of selecting highly correlated features in groups (i.e. the grouping effect) while still enforcing sparsity in the solution. This is a particularly attractive feature for text document data, which is common in the hierarchical classification setting. Adopting the elastic-net regularization as in (\[eq:en\_svm\]) brings the same benefit to SVM for training classifiers.
To approximately solve problem (\[eq:en\_svm\]), we adopt the alternating direction method of multipliers (ADMM) for elastic-net SVM recently proposed in [@yeefficient]. ADMM has a long history dating back to the 1970s [@gabay1976dual]. Recently, it has been successfully applied to problems in machine learning [@boyd2010distributed]. ADMM is a special case of the inexact augmented Lagrangian (IAL) method [@rockafellar1973multiplier] for the structured unconstrained problem $$\label{eq:struct_unc}
\min_x F(x) \equiv f(x) + g(Ax),$$ where both functions $f(\cdot)$ and $g(\cdot)$ are convex. We can decouple the two functions by introducing an auxiliary variable $y$ and convert problem (\[eq:struct\_unc\]) into an equivalent constrained optimization problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:struct_c}
\min_{x,y} && f(x) + g(y), \quad s.t. \>\> Ax = y.\end{aligned}$$ This technique is often called variable-splitting [@combettes2011proximal]. The IAL method approximately minimizes in each iteration the augmented Lagrangian of (\[eq:struct\_c\]) defined by $\mathcal{L}(x,y,\gamma) := f(x) + g(y) + \gamma^T(y-Ax) + \frac{\mu}{2}\|Ax-y\|_2^2$ , followed by an update to the Lagrange multiplier $\gamma \gets \gamma - \mu(Ax - y)$. The IAL method is guaranteed to converge to the optimal solution of (\[eq:struct\_unc\]), as long as the subproblem of approximately minimizing the augmented Lagrangian is solved with an increasing accuracy [@rockafellar1973multiplier]. ADMM can be viewed as a practical implementation of IAL, where the subproblem is solved approximately by minimizing $\mathcal{L}(x,y;\gamma)$ with respect to $x$ and $y$ [*alternatingly once*]{}. Eckstein and Bertsekas [@eckstein1992douglas] established the convergence of ADMM for the case of two-way splitting. Now applying variable-splitting and ADMM to problem (\[eq:en\_svm\]), [@yeefficient] introduced auxiliary variables $({\textbf{a}},{\textbf{c}})$ and linear constraints so that the non-smooth hinge loss and $L_1$-norm in the objective function are decoupled, making it easy to optimize over each of the variables. Specifically, problem (\[eq:en\_svm\]) is transformed into an equivalent constrained form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:en_svm_constr}
\min_{{\textbf{w}},b,{\textbf{a}},{\textbf{c}}} && \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N (a_i)_+ + \lambda_1\|\textbf{c}\|_1 + \frac{\lambda_2}{2}\|{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2 \\
\nonumber s.t. && \textbf{a} = {\textbf{e}}- Y(X{\textbf{w}}+ b{\textbf{e}}) \quad \mbox{and} \quad {\textbf{c}}= {\textbf{w}}$$ where ${\textbf{x}_i}^T$ is the $i$-th row of $X$, and $Y = \textrm{diag}({\textbf{y}})$. The augmented Lagrangian $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{L}({\textbf{w}},b,{\textbf{a}},{\textbf{c}},\gamma_1,\gamma_2) := \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N a_i + \lambda_1\|\textbf{c}\|_1 + \frac{\lambda_2}{2}\|{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2 + \gamma_1^T({\textbf{e}}- Y(X{\textbf{w}}+ b{\textbf{e}})-{\textbf{a}})\\
+\gamma_2^T({\textbf{w}}-{\textbf{c}}) + \frac{\mu_1}{2}\|{\textbf{e}}- Y(X{\textbf{w}}+ b{\textbf{e}})-{\textbf{a}}\|_2^2 + \frac{\mu_2}{2}\|{\textbf{w}}-{\textbf{c}}\|_2^2\end{gathered}$$ is then minimized with respect to $({\textbf{w}},b), {\textbf{a}},$ and ${\textbf{c}}$ sequentially in each iteration, followed by an update to the Lagrange multipliers $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$. The original problem is thus decomposed into three subproblems consisting of computing the proximal operator of the hinge loss function (with respect to ${\textbf{a}}$), solving a special linear system (with respect to $({\textbf{w}},b)$ ), and performing a soft-thresholding operation (with respect to ${\textbf{c}}$), which can all be done in an efficient manner. Due to lack of space in the paper, we have included the detailed solution steps in the Appendix (see Algorithm \[alg:admm-ensvm\] ADMM-ENSVM), where we define by $\mathcal{S}_\lambda(\cdot)$ the proximal operator associated with the hinge loss $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}_\lambda(\omega) &=& \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\omega - \lambda, & \hbox{$\omega > \lambda$;} \\
0, & \hbox{$0 \leq \omega \leq \lambda$;} \\
\omega, & \hbox{$\omega < 0$.}
\end{array}
\right.\end{aligned}$$ and $\mathcal{T}_\lambda(\omega) = sgn(\omega)\max\{0,|\omega|-\lambda \}$ is the shrinkage operator.
SVM via Interior-Point Method {#sec:ipm}
-----------------------------
Interior Point Methods enjoy fast convergence rates for a wide class of QP problems. Their theoretical polynomial convergence ($O(n\log \frac{1}{\epsilon})$) was first established by Mizuno [@mizuno1994]. In addition, Andersen [*et al*]{} [@Andersen1996implement] showed that the number of iterations needed by IPMs to converge is $O(\log n)$, which demonstrates that their computational effort increases in a slower rate than the size of the problem.
Both the primal and the dual SVM are QP problems. The primal formulation of SVM [@vapnik2000nature] is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{(SVM-P)} \qquad \min_{{\textbf{w}},b,\xi,{\textbf{s}}} && \frac{1}{2}{\textbf{w}}^T{\textbf{w}}+ c{\textbf{e}}^T\xi \\
\qquad s.t. && y_i({\textbf{w}}^T{\textbf{x}_i}- b) + \xi_i - s_i = 1, i=1,\dots,N, \\
&& {\textbf{s}}\geq 0, \xi \geq 0.\end{aligned}$$ whereas the dual SVM has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{(SVM-D)} \quad \min_{\alpha} && \frac{1}{2}\alpha^TQ\alpha - {\textbf{e}}^T\alpha \\
s.t. && {\textbf{y}}^T\alpha = 0, \quad \mbox{and} \quad 0 \leq \alpha_i \leq c, \quad i = 1,\cdots,N,\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{ij} = y_iy_j{\textbf{x}_i}^T{\textbf{x}_j}= \bar{X}\bar{X}^T$. By considering the KKT conditions of (SVM-P) and (SVM-D), the optimal solution is given by ${\textbf{w}}= \bar{X}^T\alpha = \sum_{i\in SV}\alpha_i y_i {\textbf{x}_i}$, where $SV$ is the set of sample indices corresponding to the support vectors. The optimal bias term $b$ can be computed from the complementary slackness condition $\alpha_i(y_i({\textbf{x}_i}^T{\textbf{w}}+ b)-1 + \xi_i) = 0$.
Whether to solve (SVM-P) or (SVM-D) for a given data set depends on its dimensions as well as its sparsity. Even if $X$ is a sparse matrix, $Q$ in (SVM-D) is still likely to be dense, whereas the Hessian matrix in (SVM-P) is the identity. The primal problem (SVM-P), however, has a larger variable dimension and more constraints. It is often argued that one should solve (SVM-P) when the number of features is smaller than the number of samples, whereas (SVM-D) should be solved when the number of features is less than that of the samples. Since in the second phase of Algorithm \[alg:hipad\] we expect to have identified a small number of promising features, we have decided to solve (SVM-D) by using IPM. Solving (SVM-D) is realized through the OOQP [@gertz2003object] software package that implements a primal-dual IPM for convex QP problems.
The Two-phase Algorithm
-----------------------
Let us keep in mind that the primary objective for the first phase is to appropriately reduce the feature space dimensionality without impacting the final prediction accuracy. As we mentioned above, the suitability of ADMM for the first phase depends on whether the support of the feature vector converges quickly or not. On an illustrative dataset from [@yeefficient], which has 50 samples with 300 features each, ADMM converged in 558 iterations. The output classifier ${\textbf{w}}$ contained only 13 non-zero features, and the feature support converged in approximately 50 iteration (see Figure \[fig:fea\_supp\_plots\] in the Appendix for illustrative plots showing the early convergence of ADMM). Although the remaining more than 500 iterations are needed by ADMM in order to satisfy the optimality criteria, they do not offer any additional information regarding the feature selection process. Hence, it is important to monitor the change in the signs and indices of the support and terminate the first phase promptly. In our implementation, we adopt the criterion used in [@shi2010fast] and monitor the relative change in the iterates as a surrogate of the change in the support, i.e. $$\label{eq:hipad_transition}
\frac{\|{\textbf{w}}^{k+1}-{\textbf{w}}^k\|}{\max(\|{\textbf{w}}^k\|,1)} < \epsilon_{tol}.$$ We have observed in our experiments that when the change over the iterates is small, the evolution of the support indices stabilizes too.
Upon starting the second phase, it is desirable for IPM to warm-start from the corresponding sub-vector of the solution returned by ADMM. It should also be noted that we apply IPM during the second phase to solve the classical $L_2$-regularized SVM (\[eq:unconstr\_svm\]), instead of the ENSVM (\[eq:en\_svm\]) in the first phase. There are two main reasons for this decision. First, although ENSVM can be reformulated as a QP, the size of the problem is larger than the classical SVM due to the additional linear constraints introduced by the $L_1$-norm. Second, since we have already identified (approximately) the feature support in the first phase of the algorithm, enforcing sparsity in the reduced feature space becomes less critical. The two-phase algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \[alg:hipad\].
\[alg:hipad\] Given ${\textbf{w}}^0, b^0, {\textbf{a}}^0, {\textbf{c}}^0, {\textbf{u}}^0,$ and ${\textbf{v}}^0$. **PHASE 1: ADMM for ENSVM** $({\textbf{w}}^{\textrm{ADMM}},b^{\textrm{ADMM}}) \gets \textrm{ADMM-ENSVM}({\textbf{w}}^0, b^0, {\textbf{a}}^0, {\textbf{c}}^0, {\textbf{u}}^0,{\textbf{v}}^0)$ **PHASE 2: IPM for SVM** $\widetilde{{\textbf{w}}} \gets $ non-zero components of ${\textbf{w}}^{\textrm{ADMM}}$ $(\widetilde{X}, \widetilde{Y}) \gets $ sub-matrices of $(X, Y)$ corresponding to the support of ${\textbf{w}}^{\textrm{ADMM}}$ $({\textbf{w}},b) \gets \textrm{SVM-IPM}(\widetilde{X}, \widetilde{Y}, \widetilde{{\textbf{w}}}$), through (SVM-D). $({\textbf{w}},b)$
Domain Knowledge Incorporation {#sec:enk-svm}
==============================
Very often, we have prior domain knowledge for specific classification tasks. Domain knowledge is most helpful when the training data does not form a comprehensive representation of the underlying unknown population, resulting in poor generalization performance of SVM on the unseen data from the same population. This often arises in situations where labeled training samples are scarce, while there is an abundance of unlabeled data.
For high dimensional data, ENSVM performs feature selection along with training to produce a simpler model and to achieve better prediction accuracy. However, the quality of the feature selection depends entirely on the training data. In pathological cases, it is very likely that the feature support identified by ENSVM does not form a good representation of the population. Hence, when domain knowledge about certain features is available, we should take it into consideration during the training phase and include the relevant features in the feature support should them be deemed important for classification.
In this section, we explore and propose a new approach to achieve this objective. We consider domain knowledge in the form of class-membership information associated with features. We can incorporate such information (or enforce such rules) in SVM by adding equivalent linear constraints to the SVM QP problem (KSVM) [@fung2003knowledge; @lauer2008incorporating]. To be specific, we can model the above information with the linear implication $$\label{eq:linear_implication}
B{\textbf{x}}\leq \textbf{d} \quad \Rightarrow \quad {\textbf{w}}^T{\textbf{x}}+ b \geq 1,$$ where $B \in \mathbb{R}^{k_1\times m}$ and ${\textbf{d}}\in \mathbb{R}^{k_1}$. It is shown in [@fung2003knowledge] that by utilizing the non-homogeneous Farkas theorem of the alternative, (\[eq:linear\_implication\]) can be transformed into the following equivalent system of linear inequalities with a solution ${\textbf{u}}$ $$\label{eq:equiv_lin_constr}
B^T{\textbf{u}}+ {\textbf{w}}= \textbf{0}, \quad \textbf{d}^T{\textbf{u}}- b + 1 \leq 0, \quad \textbf{u} \geq \textbf{0}.$$ Similarly, for the linear implication for the negative class membership we have: $$\label{eq:lin_imp_neg}
D{\textbf{x}}\leq {\textbf{g}}\Rightarrow {\textbf{w}}^T{\textbf{x}}+ b \leq -1, \quad D \in \mathbb{R}^{k_2\times m}, g\in\mathbb{R}^{k_2},$$ which can be represented by the set of linear constraints in ${\textbf{v}}$ $$\label{eq:equiv_lin_constr_neg}
D^T{\textbf{v}}- {\textbf{w}}= {\textbf{0}}, \quad {\textbf{g}}^T{\textbf{v}}+ b + 1 \leq 0, \quad {\textbf{v}}\geq {\textbf{0}}.$$ Hence, to incorporate the domain knowledge represented by (\[eq:linear\_implication\]) and (\[eq:lin\_imp\_neg\]) into SVM, Fung [*et al*]{} [@fung2003knowledge] simply add the linear constraints (\[eq:equiv\_lin\_constr\]) and (\[eq:equiv\_lin\_constr\_neg\]) to (SVM-P). Their formulation, however, increases both the variable dimension and the number of linear constraints by at least $2m$, where $m$ is the number of features in the classification problem we want to solve. This is clearly undesirable when $m$ is large, which is the scenario that we consider in this paper.
In order to avoid the above increase in the size of the optimization probelm, we choose to penalize the quadratics $\|B^T{\textbf{u}}+{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2$ and $\|D^T{\textbf{v}}-{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2$ instead of their $L_1$ counterparts considered in [@fung2003knowledge]. By doing so the resulting problem is still a convex QP but with a much smaller size. Hence, we consider the following model for domain knowledge incorporation. $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{(KSVM-P)} \qquad
\min_{{\textbf{w}},b,\xi,{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{v}},\eta_u,\eta_v} && \frac{1}{2}{\textbf{w}}^T{\textbf{w}}+ c{\textbf{e}}^T\xi + \frac{\rho_1}{2}\|B^T{\textbf{u}}+{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2 \\
&& + \rho_2\eta_u + \frac{\rho_3}{2}\|D^T{\textbf{v}}-{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2 + \rho_4\eta_v \\
\nonumber s.t. && y_i({\textbf{w}}^T{\textbf{x}_i}+ b) \geq 1 - \xi_i, \quad i = 1,\cdots,N, \\
\nonumber && \textbf{d}^T{\textbf{u}}- b + 1 \leq \eta_u, \\
\nonumber && \textbf{g}^T{\textbf{v}}+ b + 1 \leq \eta_v,\\
\nonumber && (\xi,{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{v}},\eta_u,\eta_v) \geq {\textbf{0}}.\end{aligned}$$
We are now ready to propose a novel combination of ENSVM and KSVM, and we will explain in the next section how the combined problem can be solved in our HIPAD framework. The main motivation behind this combination is to exploit domain knowledge to improve the feature selection, and hence, the generalization performance of HIPAD. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first method of this kind.
ADMM Phase
----------
Our strategy for solving the elastic-net SVM with domain knowledge incorporation is still to apply the ADMM method. First, we combine problems (\[eq:en\_svm\]) and (KSVM-P) and write the resulting optimization problem in an equivalent unconstrained form (by penalizing the violation of the inequality constraints through hinge losses in the objective function) $$ \textrm{(ENK-SVM)} \quad \min_{{\textbf{w}},b,{\textbf{u}}\geq {\textbf{0}},{\textbf{v}}\geq {\textbf{0}}} F({\textbf{w}},b,{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{v}}),$$ where $F({\textbf{w}},b,{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{v}}) \equiv \frac{\lambda_2}{2}\|{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2 + \lambda_1\|{\textbf{w}}\|_1 + \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}(1-y_i(x_i^Tw + b))_+
+ \frac{\rho_1}{2}\|B^T{\textbf{u}}+{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2 + \rho_2({\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}- b + 1)_+ + \frac{\rho_3}{2}\|D^T{\textbf{v}}-{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2
+ \rho_4({\textbf{g}}^T{\textbf{v}}+ b + 1)_+$. We then apply variable-splitting to decouple the $L_1$-norms and hinge losses and obtain the following equivalent constrained optimization problem: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ensvm_ksvm_c}
\min_{{\textbf{w}},b,{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{v}},{\textbf{a}},{\textbf{c}},p,q} &&\>\>\> F({\textbf{w}},b,{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{v}},{\textbf{a}},{\textbf{c}},p,q) \\
\nonumber s.t. && \>\>\> {\textbf{a}}= {\textbf{e}}- (\bar{X}{\textbf{w}}+ {\textbf{y}}b), \>\>\> {\textbf{c}}= {\textbf{w}}, \\
\nonumber && \>\>\> q = {\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}- b + 1, \>\>\> p = {\textbf{g}}^T{\textbf{v}}+ b + 1, \\
\nonumber && \>\>\> {\textbf{u}}\geq {\textbf{0}}, \>\>\> {\textbf{v}}\geq {\textbf{0}}.\end{aligned}$$ with $F({\textbf{w}},b,{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{v}},{\textbf{a}},{\textbf{c}},p,q)
\equiv \frac{\lambda_2}{2}\|{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2 + \lambda_1\|{\textbf{c}}\|_1 + \frac{1}{N}{\textbf{e}}^T({\textbf{a}})_+
+ \frac{\rho_1}{2}\|B^T{\textbf{u}}+{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2 + \rho_2(q)_+
+ \frac{\rho_3}{2}\|D^T{\textbf{v}}-{\textbf{w}}\|_2^2 + \rho_4(p)_+$. As usual, we form the augmented Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}$ of problem (\[eq:ensvm\_ksvm\_c\]), $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{L} := F({\textbf{w}},b,{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{v}},{\textbf{a}},{\textbf{c}},p,q)
+ \gamma_1^T({\textbf{e}}-({\bar{X}}{\textbf{w}}+{\textbf{y}}b)-{\textbf{a}})
+ \frac{\mu_1}{2}\|{\textbf{e}}-({\bar{X}}+{\textbf{y}}b)-{\textbf{a}}\|_2^2\\
+ \gamma_2^T({\textbf{w}}-{\textbf{c}}) + \frac{\mu_2}{2}\|{\textbf{w}}-{\textbf{c}}\|_2^2
+ \gamma_3({\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}-b+1-q) + \frac{\mu_3}{2}\|{\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}-b+1-q\|_2^2 \\
+ \gamma_4({\textbf{g}}^T{\textbf{v}}+b+1-p) + \frac{\mu_4}{2}\|{\textbf{g}}^T{\textbf{v}}+b+1-p\|_2^2\end{gathered}$$ and minimize $\mathcal{L}$ with respect to ${\textbf{w}},b,{\textbf{c}},{\textbf{a}},p,q,{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{v}}$ individually and in order. For the sake of readability, we do not penalize the non-negative constraints for ${\textbf{u}}$ and ${\textbf{v}}$ in the augmented Lagrangian.
Given $({\textbf{a}}^k, {\textbf{c}}^k, p^k, q^k)$, solving for $({\textbf{w}},b)$ again involves solving a linear system $$\label{eq:ksvm_admm_linsys_wb}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\kappa_1 I + \mu_1 X^TX & \mu_1 X^T{\textbf{e}}\\
\mu_1{\textbf{e}}^TX & \mu_1 N + \kappa_2 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\textbf{w}}^{k+1} \\
b^{k+1} \\
\end{array}
\right) =
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\textbf{r}_{{\textbf{w}}}\\
\textbf{r}_b\\
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $\kappa_1 = \lambda_2 + \mu_2 + \rho_1 + \rho_3, \kappa_2 = \mu_3 + \mu_4, \textbf{r}_{{\textbf{w}}} = X^TY\gamma_1^k + \mu_1 X^TY({\textbf{e}}-{\textbf{a}}^k) - \gamma_2^k + \mu_2{\textbf{c}}^k + \rho_3D^T{\textbf{v}}^k - \rho_1B^T{\textbf{u}}^k$ and $\textbf{r}_{b} = {\textbf{e}}^TY\gamma_1^k + \mu_1{\textbf{e}}^TY({\textbf{e}}-{\textbf{a}}^k) + \gamma_3^k + \mu_3({\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}^k + 1 - q^k) - \gamma_4^k - \mu_4({\textbf{g}}^T{\textbf{v}}^k+1-p^k)$. Similar to solving the linear system in Algorithm \[alg:admm-ensvm\] ADMM-ENSVM, we can compute the solution to the above linear system through a few PCG iterations, taking advantage of the fact that the left-hand-side matrix is of low-rank.
To minimize the augmented Lagrangian with respect to ${\textbf{u}}$, we need to solve a convex quadratic problem with non-negative constraints $$\label{eq:ksvm_admm_usub}
\min_{{\textbf{u}}\geq {\textbf{0}}} \quad \frac{\rho_1}{2}\|B^T{\textbf{u}}+ {\textbf{w}}^{k+1}\|_2^2 + \gamma_3^k{\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}+ \frac{\mu_3}{2}\|{\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}- b^{k+1} + 1 - q^{k}\|_2^2.$$ Solving problem efficiently is crucial for the efficiency of the overal algorithm. We describe a novel way to do so. Introducing a slack variable ${\textbf{s}}$ and transferring the non-negative constraint on ${\textbf{u}}$ to ${\textbf{s}}$, we decompose the problem into two parts which are easy to solve. Specifically, we reformulate (\[eq:ksvm\_admm\_usub\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{s}}\geq {\textbf{0}}} && \>\>\> \frac{\rho_1}{2}\|B^T{\textbf{u}}+ {\textbf{w}}^{k+1}\|_2^2 + \gamma_3^k{\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}+ \frac{\mu_3}{2}\|{\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}- b^{k+1} + 1 - q^{k}\|_2^2 \\
\nonumber s.t. && \>\>\> {\textbf{u}}- {\textbf{s}}= {\textbf{0}}.\end{aligned}$$ Penalizing the linear constraint ${\textbf{u}}- {\textbf{s}}= {\textbf{0}}$ in the new augmented Lagrangian, the new subproblem with respect to $({\textbf{u}},{\textbf{s}})$ is $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:ksvm_admm_ussub}
\min_{{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{s}}\geq {\textbf{0}}} \quad \frac{\rho_1}{2}\|B^T{\textbf{u}}+ {\textbf{w}}^{k+1}\|_2^2 + \gamma_3^k{\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}\\
+ \frac{\mu_3}{2}\|{\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}- b^{k+1} + 1 - q^k\|_2^2 + \gamma_5^T({\textbf{s}}-{\textbf{u}}) + \frac{\mu_5}{2}\|{\textbf{u}}-{\textbf{s}}\|_2^2.\end{gathered}$$ Given an ${\textbf{s}}^k \geq {\textbf{0}}$, we can compute ${\textbf{u}}^{k+1}$ by solving a $k_1 \times k_1$ linear system $$\label{eq:ksvm_admm_linsys_u}
(\rho_1 BB^T + \mu_3 {\textbf{d}}{\textbf{d}}^T + \mu_5 I){\textbf{u}}^{k+1} = \textbf{r}_{\textbf{u}},$$ where $\textbf{r}_{\textbf{u}}= -\rho_1B{\textbf{w}}^{k+1} + \mu_3 {\textbf{d}}b^{k+1} + \mu_3{\textbf{d}}(q^k-1) - {\textbf{d}}\gamma_3^k + \gamma_5 + \mu_5{\textbf{s}}^k$. We assume that $B$ has full row-rank. This is a reasonable assumption since otherwise there is at least one redundant domain knowledge constraint and we can simply remove it. The number of domain knowledge constraints ($k_1$ and $k_2$) are usually small, so the system (\[eq:ksvm\_admm\_linsys\_u\]) can be solved exactly and efficiently by Cholesky factorization.
Solving for ${\textbf{s}}^{k+1}$ corresponding to ${\textbf{u}}^{k+1}$ is easy, observing that problem (\[eq:ksvm\_admm\_ussub\]) is separable in the elements of ${\textbf{s}}$. For each element $s_i$, the optimal solution to the one-dimensional quadratic problem with a non-negative constraint on $s_i$ is given by $\max(0,u_i - \frac{(\gamma_5)_i}{\mu_5})$. Writing in the vector form, ${\textbf{s}}^{k+1} = \max({\textbf{0}}, {\textbf{u}}^{k+1} - \frac{\gamma_5^k}{\mu_5})$. Similarly, we solve for ${\textbf{v}}^{k+1}$ by introducing a non-negative slack variable ${\textbf{t}}$ and solve the linear system $$\label{eq:ksvm_admm_linsys_v}
(\rho_3DD^T + \mu_4 {\textbf{g}}{\textbf{g}}^T + \mu_6 I){\textbf{v}}^{k+1} = {\textbf{r}}_{\textbf{v}},$$ where ${\textbf{r}}_{\textbf{v}}= \rho_3D{\textbf{w}}^{k+1} - \mu_4{\textbf{g}}b^{k+1} - {\textbf{g}}\gamma_4^k - \mu_4{\textbf{g}}(1-p^k) + \gamma_6 + \mu_6{\textbf{t}}^k$, and ${\textbf{t}}^{k+1} = \max(0,{\textbf{v}}^{k+1} - \frac{\gamma_6^k}{\mu_6})$.
Now given $({\textbf{w}}^{k+1},b^{k+1},{\textbf{u}}^{k+1},{\textbf{v}}^{k+1})$, the solutions for ${\textbf{a}}$ and ${\textbf{c}}$ are exactly the same as in Lines \[line:a\_sol\] and \[line:c\_sol\] of Algorithm \[alg:hipad\], i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
{\textbf{a}}^{k+1} &=& \mathcal{S}_{\frac{1}{N\mu_1}}\left( {\textbf{e}}+ \frac{\gamma_1^k}{\mu_1} - Y(X{\textbf{w}}^{k+1} + b^{k+1}{\textbf{e}}) \right), \\
{\textbf{c}}^{k+1} &=& \mathcal{T}_{\frac{\lambda_1}{\mu_2}}\left( \frac{\gamma_2^k}{\mu_2}+{\textbf{w}}^{k+1} \right).\end{aligned}$$ The subproblem with respect to $q$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ksvm_admm_qsub}
\nonumber \min_q && \quad \rho_2(q)_+ - \gamma_3^k q + \frac{\mu_3}{2}\|{\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}^k - b^{k+1} + 1 - q\|_2^2 \equiv \\
&& \rho_2(q)_+
+ \frac{\mu_3}{2}\|q - ({\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}^k - b^{k+1} + 1 + \frac{\gamma_3^k}{\mu_3})\|_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ The solution is given by a (one-dimensional) proximal operator associated with the hinge loss $$\label{eq:ksvm_admm_qsol}
q^{k+1} = \mathcal{S}_{\frac{\rho_2}{\mu_3}}\left( {\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}^k - b^{k+1} + 1 + \frac{\gamma_3^k}{\mu_3} \right).$$ Similarly, the subproblem with respect to $p$ is $$\min_p \quad\quad \rho_4(p)_+ - \gamma_4^k p + \frac{\mu_4}{2}\|{\textbf{g}}^T{\textbf{v}}^k + b^{k+1} + 1 - p\|_2^2,$$ and the solution is given by $$\label{eq:ksvm_admm_psol}
p^{k+1} = \mathcal{S}_{\frac{\rho_4}{\mu_4}}\left( {\textbf{g}}^T{\textbf{v}}^k + b^{k+1} + 1 + \frac{\gamma_4^k}{\mu_4} \right).$$ Due to lack of space in the paper, we summarize the detailed solution steps in the Appendix (see Algorithm \[alg:admm\_enk\] ADMM-ENK)
Although there appears to be ten additional parameters (six $\rho$’s and four $\mu$’s) in the ADMM method for ENK-SVM, we can usually set the $\rho$’s to the same value and do the same for the $\mu$’s. Hence, in practice, there is only one additional parameter to tune, and our computational experience in Section \[sec:exp\_ksvm\] is that the algorithm is fairly insensitive to the $\mu$’s and $\rho$’s.
IPM Phase
---------
The second phase for solving the knowledge-based SVM problem defined by (KSVM-P) follows the same steps as that described in section \[sec:ipm\]. Note that in the knowledge-based case we have decided to solve the primal problem. This decision was based on extensive numerical experiments with both the primal and dual formulation which revealed that the primal formulation is more efficient.
We found in our experiments that by introducing slack variables and transforming the above problem into a linearly equality-constrained QP, Phase 2 of HIPAD usually requires less time to solve.
HIPAD with domain knowledge incorporation
-----------------------------------------
We formally state the new two-phase algorithm for the elastic-net KSVM in Algorithm \[alg:hipad\_ksvm\].
\[alg:hipad\_ksvm\] Given ${\textbf{w}}^0, b^0, {\textbf{a}}^0, {\textbf{c}}^0, {\textbf{u}}^0,{\textbf{v}}^0,p^0,q^0,{\textbf{s}}^0\geq{\textbf{0}},{\textbf{t}}^0\geq{\textbf{0}}$. **PHASE 1: ADMM for ENK-SVM** $({\textbf{w}},b,{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{v}}) \gets $ADMM-ENK$({\textbf{w}}^0, b^0, {\textbf{a}}^0, {\textbf{c}}^0, {\textbf{u}}^0,{\textbf{v}}^0,p^0,q^0,{\textbf{s}}^0,{\textbf{t}}^0)$ **PHASE 2: IPM for KSVM** $\widetilde{{\textbf{w}}} \gets $ non-zero components of ${\textbf{w}}$ $(\widetilde{X}, \widetilde{Y}) \gets $ sub-matrices of $(X, Y)$ corresponding to the support of ${\textbf{w}}$ $\eta_u^0 \gets {\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}-b+1$ $\eta_v^0 \gets {\textbf{g}}^T{\textbf{v}}+b+1$ $({\textbf{w}},b) \gets \textrm{SVM-IPM}$$(\widetilde{X}, \widetilde{Y}, \widetilde{{\textbf{w}}},b,{\textbf{u}},{\textbf{v}},\eta_u^0,\eta_v^0$) $({\textbf{w}},b)$
Numerical results
=================
We present our numerical experience with the two main algorithms proposed in this paper: HIPAD and its knowledge-based version HIPAD-ENK. We compare their performance with their non-hybrid counterparts, i.e., ADMM-ENSVM and ADMM-ENK, which use ADMM to solve the original SVM problem. The transition condition at the end of Phase 1 is specified in (\[eq:hipad\_transition\]), with $\epsilon_{tol} = 10^{-2}$. The stopping criteria for ADMM are as follows: $\frac{|F^{k+1}-F^k|}{\max\{1,|F^k|\}} \leq \epsilon_1, \|{\textbf{a}}-({\textbf{e}}-\bar{X}{\textbf{w}}-{\textbf{y}}b)\|_2\leq \epsilon_1, \|{\textbf{c}}-{\textbf{w}}\|_2\leq \epsilon_1$ and $ \frac{\|{\textbf{w}}^{k+1}-{\textbf{w}}\|_2}{\|{\textbf{w}}^k\|_2} \leq \epsilon_2$, with $\epsilon_1 = 10^{-5}$, and $\epsilon_2 = 10^{-3}$.
HIPAD vs ADMM
-------------
To demonstrate the practical effectiveness of HIPAD, we tested the algorithm on nine real data sets which are publicly available. **rcv1** [@lewis2004rcv1] is a collection of manually categorized news wires from Reuters. The original multiple labels have been consolidated into two classes for binary classification. **real-sim** contains UseNet articles from four discussion groups, for simulated auto racing, simulated aviation, real autos, and real aviation. Both **rcv1** and **real-sim** have large feature dimensions but are highly sparse. The rest of the seven data sets are all dense data. **rcv1** and **real-sim** are subsets of the original data sets, where we randomly sampled 500 training instances and 1,000 test instances. **gisette** is a handwriting digit recognition problem from NIPS 2003 Feature Selection Challenge, and we also sub-sampled 500 instances for training. (For testing, we used the original test set of 1,000 instances.) **duke**, **leukemia**, and **colon-cancer** are data sets of gene expression profiles for breast cancer, leukemia, and colon cancer respectively. **fMRIa**, **fMRIb**, and **fMRIc** are functional MRI (fMRI) data of brain activities when the subjects are presented with pictures and text paragraphs. The data was compiled and made available by Tom Mitchell’s neuroinformatics research group [^1]. Except the three fMRI data sets, all the other data sets and their references are available at the LIBSVM website [^2].
The parameters of HIPAD, ADMM-ENSVM, and LIBSVM were selected through cross validation on the training data. We summarize the experiment results in Table \[tab:real\_data\_results\]. Clearly, HIPAD produced the best overall predication performance. In order to test the significance of the difference, we used the test statistic in [@iman1980approximations] based on Friedman’s $\chi^2_F$, and the results are significant at $\alpha=0.1$. In terms of CPU-time, HIPAD consistently outperformed ADMM-ENSVM by several times on dense data. The feature support sizes selected by HIPAD were also very competitive or even better than the ones selected by ADMM-ENSVM. In most cases, HIPAD was able to shrink the feature space to below 10$\%$ of the original size.
Simulation for Knowledge Incorporation {#sec:exp_ksvm}
--------------------------------------
We generated synthetic data to simulate the example presented at the beginning of Section \[sec:enk-svm\] in the high dimensional feature space. Specifically, four groups of multi-variate Gaussians $K_1,\cdots,K_4$ were sampled from $\mathcal{N}(\mu_1^+, \Sigma_1), \cdots, \mathcal{N}(\mu_4^+, \Sigma_4)$ and $\mathcal{N}(\mu_1^-, \Sigma_1), \cdots, \mathcal{N}(\mu_4^-, \Sigma_4)$ for four disjoint blocks of feature values (${\textbf{x}}_{K_1}, \cdots, {\textbf{x}}_{K_4}$). For positive class samples, $\mu_1^+ = 2, \mu_2^+ = 0.5, \mu_3^+ = -0.2, \mu_4^+ = -1$; for negative class samples, $\mu_1^- = -2, \mu_2^- = -0.5, \mu_3^- = 0.2, \mu_4^- = 1$. All the covariance matrices have 1 on the diagonal and 0.8 everywhere else. The training samples contain blocks $K_2$ and $K_3$, while all four blocks are present in the test samples. A random fraction (5%-10%) of the remaining entries in all the samples are generated from the standard Gaussian distribution.
The training samples are apparently hard to separate because the values of blocks $K_2$ and $K_3$ for the two classes are close to each other. However, blocks $K_1$ and $K_4$ in the test samples are well-separated. Hence, if we are given information about these two blocks as general knowledge for the entire population, we could expect the resulting SVM classifier to perform much better on the test data. Since we know the mean values of the distributions from which the entries in $K_1$ and $K_4$ are generated, we can supply the following information about the relationship between the block sample means and class membership to the KSVM: $\frac{1}{L_1}\sum_{i\in K_1}x_i \geq 4 \Rightarrow {\textbf{x}}\in A^+$, and $\frac{1}{L_4}\sum_{i\in K_4}x_i \geq 3 \Rightarrow {\textbf{x}}\in A^-$ where $L_j$ is the length of the $K_j$, $j=1,\cdots,4$, $A^+$ and $A^-$ represent the positive and negative classes, and the lowercase $x_i$ denotes the $i$-th entry of the sample ${\textbf{x}}$. Translating into the notation of (KSVM-P), we have $$\small
B = \left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
{\textbf{0}}& \underbrace{-\frac{{\textbf{e}}}{L_1}^T } & {\textbf{0}}& {\textbf{0}}& {\textbf{0}}&{\textbf{0}}\\
& K_1 & & & & \\
\end{array}
\right)
, d = -4, \label{eq:enk_data_knowledge1} \mbox{ and }
D = \left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
{\textbf{0}}& {\textbf{0}}& {\textbf{0}}& {\textbf{0}}& \underbrace{-\frac{{\textbf{e}}}{L_4}^T } & {\textbf{0}}\\
& & & & K_4 & \\
\end{array}
\right)
, g = -3.$$
The information given here is not precise, in that we are confident that a sample should belong to the positive (or negative) class only when the corresponding block sample mean well exceeds the distribution mean. This is consistent with real-world situations, where the domain or expert knowledge tends to be conservative and often does not come in exact form.
We simulated two sets of synthetic data for ENK-SVM as described above, with $(N_{train} = 200, N_{test} = 400, m_{train} = 10,000)$ for **ksvm-s-10k** and $(N_{train} = 500, N_{test} = 1,000, m_{test} = 50,000)$ for **ksvm-s-50k**. The number of features in each of the four blocks ($K_1,K_2,K_3,K_4$) is 50 for both data sets. Clearly, HIPAD-ENK is very effective in terms of speed, feature selection, and prediction accuracy on these two data sets. Even though the features in blocks $K_1$ and $K_4$ are not discriminating in the training data, HIPAD-ENK was still able to identify all the 200 features in the four blocks correctly and exactly. This is precisely what we want to achieve as we explained at the beginning of Section \[sec:enk-svm\]. The expert knowledge not only helps rectify the separating hyperplane so that it generalizes better on the entire population, but also makes the training algorithm realize the significance of the features in blocks $K_1$ and $K_4$.
Conclusion
==========
We have proposed a two-phase hybrid optimization framework for solving the ENSVM, in which the first phase is solved by ADMM, followed by IPM in the second phase. In addition, we have proposed a knowledge-based extension of the ENSVM which can be solved by the same hybrid framework. Through a set of experiments, we demonstrated that our method has significant advantage over the existing method in terms of computation time and the resulting prediction accuracy. The algorithmic framework introduced in this paper is general enough and potentially applicable to other regularization-based classification or regression problems.
Appendix
========
\[alg:admm-ensvm\] Given ${\textbf{w}}^0, b^0, {\textbf{a}}^0, {\textbf{c}}^0, \gamma_1^0,$ and $\gamma_2^0$. $({\textbf{w}}^{k+1}, b^{k+1}) \gets$ PCG solution of: $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
(\lambda_2 + \mu_2)I + \mu_1 X^TX & \mu_1 X^T{\textbf{e}}\\
\mu_1{\textbf{e}}^TX & \mu_1 N \\
\end{array}
\right)
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
{\textbf{w}}^{k+1} \\
b^{k+1} \\
\end{array}
\right) =
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
X^TY\gamma_1^k - \mu_1 X^TY({\textbf{a}}^k-{\textbf{e}}) - \gamma_2^k + \mu_2{\textbf{c}}^k \\
{\textbf{e}}^TY\gamma_1^k - \mu_1{\textbf{e}}^TY({\textbf{a}}^k - {\textbf{e}}) \\
\end{array}
\right)$ \[line:admm\_linsys\]
${\textbf{a}}^{k+1} \gets \mathcal{S}_{\frac{1}{N\mu_1}}\left( {\textbf{e}}+ \frac{\gamma_1^k}{\mu_1} - Y(X{\textbf{w}}^{k+1} + b^{k+1}{\textbf{e}}) \right)$ \[line:a\_sol\]
${\textbf{c}}^{k+1} \gets \mathcal{T}_{\frac{\lambda_1}{\mu_2}}\left( \frac{\gamma_2^k}{\mu_2}+{\textbf{w}}^{k+1} \right)$ \[line:c\_sol\] $\gamma_1^{k+1} \gets \gamma_1^k + \mu_1({\textbf{e}}- Y(X{\textbf{w}}^{k+1} + b^{k+1}{\textbf{e}}) - {\textbf{a}}^{k+1})$ $\gamma_2^{k+1} \gets \gamma_2^k + \mu_2({\textbf{w}}^{k+1} - {\textbf{c}}^{k+1})$ $({\textbf{w}}^K,b^K)$
![Illustration of the early convergence (in approximately 50 iterations) of the feature support for ADMM.[]{data-label="fig:fea_supp_plots"}](fea_supp_plots.png){width="99.00000%"}
\[alg:admm\_enk\] Given ${\textbf{w}}^0, b^0, {\textbf{a}}^0, {\textbf{c}}^0, {\textbf{u}}^0,{\textbf{v}}^0,p^0,q^0,{\textbf{s}}^0\geq{\textbf{0}},{\textbf{t}}^0\geq{\textbf{0}},\gamma_i^0$, and the parameters $\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\rho_i, i = 1,\cdots,6$. $({\textbf{w}}^{k+1}, b^{k+1}) \gets $ PCG solution of the structured linear system \[line:admm\_enk\_linsys\_wb\] ${\textbf{u}}^{k+1} \gets $ the solution of the linear system ; $\>\>\>$ ${\textbf{s}}^{k+1} \gets \max({\textbf{0}}, {\textbf{u}}^{k+1} - \frac{\gamma_5^k}{\mu_5})$ ${\textbf{v}}^{k+1} \gets $ the solution of the linear system ; $\>\>\>$ ${\textbf{t}}^{k+1} \gets \max(0,{\textbf{v}}^{k+1} - \frac{\gamma_6^k}{\mu_6})$ ${\textbf{a}}^{k+1} \gets \mathcal{S}_{\frac{1}{N\mu_1}}\left( {\textbf{e}}+ \frac{\gamma_1^k}{\mu_1} - Y(X{\textbf{w}}^{k+1} + b^{k+1}{\textbf{e}}) \right)$; $\>\>\>$ ${\textbf{c}}^{k+1} \gets \mathcal{T}_{\frac{\lambda_1}{\mu_2}}\left( \frac{\gamma_2^k}{\mu_2}+{\textbf{w}}^{k+1} \right)$ $q^{k+1} \gets \mathcal{S}_{\frac{\rho_2}{\mu_3}}\left( {\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}^k - b^{k+1} + 1 + \frac{\gamma_3^k}{\mu_3} \right)$; $\>\>\>$ $p^{k+1} \gets \mathcal{S}_{\frac{\rho_4}{\mu_4}}\left( {\textbf{g}}^T{\textbf{v}}^k + b^{k+1} + 1 + \frac{\gamma_4^k}{\mu_4} \right)$ $\gamma_1^{k+1} \gets \gamma_1^k + \mu_1({\textbf{e}}- Y(X{\textbf{w}}^{k+1} + b^{k+1}{\textbf{e}}) - {\textbf{a}}^{k+1})$; $\>\>\>$ $\gamma_2^{k+1} \gets \gamma_2^k + \mu_2({\textbf{w}}^{k+1} - {\textbf{c}}^{k+1})$ $\gamma_3^{k+1} \gets \gamma_3^k + \mu_3({\textbf{d}}^T{\textbf{u}}^{k+1}-b^{k+1}+1-q^{k+1})$; $\>\>\>$ $\gamma_4^{k+1} \gets \gamma_4^k + \mu_4({\textbf{g}}^T{\textbf{v}}^{k+1}+b^{k+1}+1-p^{k+1})$ $\gamma_5^{k+1} \gets \gamma_5^k + \mu_5({\textbf{s}}^{k+1} - {\textbf{u}}^{k+1})$; $\>\>\>$ $\gamma_6^{k+1} \gets \gamma_6^k + \mu_6({\textbf{t}}^{k+1} - {\textbf{v}}^{k+1})$ $({\textbf{w}}^K,b^K)$
[^1]: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/ tom/fmri.html
[^2]: http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/ cjlin/libsvmtools/datasets
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this work we study the overheads of virtual-to-physical address translation in processor architectures, like x86-64, that implement paged virtual memory using a radix tree which are walked in hardware.\
Translation Lookaside Buffers are critical to system performance, particularly as applications demand larger memory footprints and with the adoption of virtualization; however the cost of a TLB miss potentially results in multiple memory accesses to retrieve the translation. Architectural support for superpages has been introduced to increase TLB hits but are limited by the operating systems ability to find contiguous memory. Numerous prior studies have proposed TLB designs to lower miss rates and reduce page walk overhead; however, these studies have modeled the behavior analytically. Further, to eschew the paging overhead for big-memory workloads and virtualization, Direct Segment maps part of a process linear virtual address space with segment registers albeit requiring a few application and operating system modifications.\
The recently evolved die-stacked DRAM technology promises a high bandwidth and large last-level cache, in the order of Gigabytes, closer to the processors. With such large caches the amount of data that can be accessed without causing a TLB fault - the reach of a TLB, is inadequate. TLBs are on the critical path for data accesses and incurring an expensive page walk can hinder system performance, especially when the data being accessed is a cache hit in the LLC.\
Hence, we are interested in exploring novel address translation mechanisms, commensurate to the size and latency of stacked DRAM. By accurately simulating the multitude of multi-level address translation structures using the QEMU based MARSSx86 full system simulator, we perform detailed study of TLBs in conjunction with the large LLCs using multi-programmed and multi-threaded workloads.\
author:
- '*[email protected]*'
title: 'TLB and Pagewalk Performance in Multicore Architectures with Large Die-Stacked DRAM Cache'
---
Translation Lookaside Buffers, Die-Stacked DRAM cache, Memory Management Unit, Performance
Introduction
============
Memory Management Units (MMU) have historically divided the virtual address space into pages, each usually being a few kilobytes. The lower bits are the offset within a page and the upper bits form the virtual page numbers which are translated into corresponding physical page number in main memory. Address Translations use in-memory tables called page tables to map virtual page numbers to physical page numbers. The page table entries also contain meta-information regarding the page including dirty bit, bits for replacement, access privilege, cacheable page etc. A cache of these entries is stored in a special CAM structure called the Translation Lookaside Buffers (TLB).
In the early x86 processors, from the Intel 80386 to the Pentium, the page table had at most two levels, which meant that on a TLB miss at most two memory accesses were needed to complete the translation. However, as the physical and virtual address spaces supported by x86 processors have grown in size, the maximum depth of the tree has increased, to three levels in the Pentium Pro to accommodate a 36-bit physical address within a page table entry, and recently to four levels in the AMD Opteron to support a 48-bit virtual address space [@amd48bit]. TLBs are accessed on every instruction and data reference and a TLB miss overhead can adversely impact system performance, incurring multiple memory accesses to complete the translation. Furthermore, modern application’s are heavily data centric and have larger memory footprint, as evidenced in big data [@bigdatabench] and scale-out cloud applications[@cloudsuite], there is increased pressure on the TLBs to have a larger “TLB-reach” to remain effective. Under virtualization environment, where the guest’s view of physical memory is different from system’s view of physical memory, a second level of address translation is required to convert guest physical addresses to machine addresses which further increases the overhead of a TLB miss [@amd2d].
![Modern processor organization showing MMU caching structures and proposed Die-stacking technology[]{data-label="arch"}](arch1)
Parallely, DRAM memory speeds have not been able to keep pace commensurate to CPU speeds which has led to the well known “Memory Wall” bottleneck[@memorywall]. This has led to development of complex memory hierarchies with replication, to avoid off-chip accesses. Also, currently the DRAM memory chips are fabricated using the high-density NMOS process to create high-quality capacitors and low-leakage transistors while logic chips are manufactured using high-speed CMOS process to create complex multi-level metalizations for transistors. The two processes are not compatible to be interfaced on the same die and must be interfaced using off-chip interconnects that add to the latency of an access.
The advent of die-stacking technology [@diestacking] provides a way to integrate disparate silicon die with better interconnects. The implementation could be accomplished by 3D vertical stacking of DRAM chips using through-silicon vias (TSV) interconnects or horizontally/2.5D stacking on a interposer chip as depicted in Figure \[arch\]. This allows the addition of a sizable DRAM chip close to processing cores. The onchip DRAM memory can provide anywhere from a couple of hundreds of megabytes to a few gigabytes of storage at high bandwidths of 400GB/s compared to the 90GB/s of DDR4 bandwidth. This on-chip memory has been advocated to be used as a large last level cache which is transparent to software. In this context, incurring expensive page walks on TLB miss, when the data being accessed is a hit in these large LLCs can hinder system performance.
This work studies and explores the following design opportunities:
- We study the problem of reach of the multitude of TLBs in the modern processors and the associated latency of page walks on a TLB miss in detail. We find that some workloads suffer from significant page walk overheads, incurring as much as 135 cycles on an average per dTLB miss. This overhead is high compared to 40-50 cycles for accessing die-stacked LLC or 80-100 cycles for off-chip DRAM memory access.
- We quantify the effects of caching of page walk levels in the cache hierarchy and the TLB miss overheads on a modern OoO processor architecture. We find that for the higher levels of the page walk tree, only about 20%-30% of accesses hit in L1 or L2 cache. The lower levels are found either in L3 caches or access main memory for translation.
- We also evaluate the impact on IPC with ideal TLB / address translation in an OoO processor. The total overheads of address translation system on IPC values for some workloads is as much as 10%
- Finally, we correlate the TLB reach to the size and latency of the large last level die-stacked caches. Across a wide range of cache sizes and 2 different block sizes, we analyze the efficiency of TLBs to use the proposed large capacity caches efficiently.
Overall, this work is an early study towards the design of efficient MMUs and caches for future multi-core designs. In particular our results are focused on understanding the TLB-reach for the large die-stacked DRAM cache to avoid needless page walk overheads when data accessed is present in caches close to the processor.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II introduces the relevant aspects of page table structure in modern x86-64 architecture and describes the page table walk in native and virtualized environments. Section II also describes the die-stacked DRAM caches. Section III discusses related work. Section IV lists our simulator infrastructure and experimental methodology. Section V presents results of page walk overheads and TLB-reach problems for the die-stacked LLCs. Section VI concludes the study and lists the future work.
x86-64 Page Walk and DRAM caches
================================
Page Table Structure
--------------------
x86 processors use a radix tree to map virtual to physical address. The depth of the tree in modern processors currently stands at 4 levels to accommodate 48-bit virtual addresses. A virtual address is split into page offset and page number. The virtual page number is further divided into a sequence of indices. The first index selects an entry from the root level of the tree, pointed to by the CR3 register, which contains the pointer to the next level of the tree and so on until either the address is invalid (i.e. no valid translation is present for that address, in which case a page fault ensues) or the entry points to a data page. If the entry is found, the virtual address offset is concatenated with the physical page number to retrieve the complete physical address. In x86 systems the TLBs are *hardware-managed*, meaning on a miss MMUs use hardware state machine to walk the page table and locate the mapping and insert to TLB. The effect of hardware-manged TLBs is that the page table organization is largely fixed but avoids expensive interrupts as in a *software-managed* TLB [@softwareTLB].
Figure \[pagewalk\] shows the structure of a x86 64-bit virtual address. The standard page size 4KB is used, giving the 12-bit offset. The remaining bits are divided into 9-bit offsets to index into the four levels of the page table. The four levels are PML4(Page Map Level4), PDP(Page Directory Pointer), PD(Page Directory) and PT (Page Table) . For simplicity we will refer to these levels as PL4, PL3, PL2 and PL1 levels respectively. Given this structure of the page table, the current virtual address translation requires upto four memory references to “walk” the page table. Each entry at every level is 8 bytes (i.e. 512 PTEs fit in one 4KB page). Superpages, which are virtually and physically aligned pages of memory, were proposed to allocate large chunks of memory. Superpages of 2MB or 1GB can be allocated if the Operating System can find contiguous and aligned 2MB or 1GB regions in memory which are less likely in a long running system due to memory fragmentation. Superpages allow a single entry in the TLB to cover a larger memory address space, hence increasing the TLB-reach.
Figure \[arch\] shows the architectural support for translation caching in modern processors which consists of multiple hierarchical levels of translation caching structures. Typically there are 64-entry, 4-way associative split L1 Data and Instruction TLB and a shared 8-way associative L2 TLB of 1024 entries for 4KB pages. Superpage TLBs contain a handful of entries for 2MB pages and 1GB pages which are looked up in parallel with L1 TLBs for a match. If these translation structures encounter a miss, accessing each page table level on every page walk will incur a penalty of several tens of cycles, even if all translations are present in the L2 data cache. To exploit the significant locality in the upper level entries, vendors have introduced low latency structures to store these upper level page table entries allowing the walk to skip a few levels. AMD’s Page Walk Cache (PWC) and Intel’s Paging-Structure Caches are examples of translation caches [@skipdontwalk].
Page Walk in Virtualization
---------------------------
With virtualization, page walks could incur upto 24 memory references to complete a walk. This is due to the use of separate guest page tables (gPT) to translate guest virtual to guest physical addresses and nested page tables (nPT) to translate guest physical addresses to system physical addresses. Guest and nested page tables are set up and modified independently by the guest and hypervisor respectively and they have their own CR0, CR3, CR4, EFER and PAT state registers. When a guest attempts to reference memory using a virtual address and nested paging is enabled, the page walker performs a 2-dimensional walk using the gPT and nPT to translate the guest virtual address to system physical address as shown in Figure \[virtwalk\]. When the page walk is completed, an entry containing the end to end translation is inserted into the TLB.
Large Last Level Die-Stacked DRAM Cache
---------------------------------------
The inclusion of large last level DRAM cache reduces off-chip memory access time. These DRAMs operate in the same model as off-chip DRAMs and are subject to the timing restrictions in terms of t$_{CL}$, t$_{RCD}$, t$_{RP}$ and t$_{RAS}$. The use of this capacity as cache at fine granularities incurs prohibitively high meta-data storage overhead. Prior research has worked towards reducing the tag storage overhead by co-locating tags and data (TAD) in the same row buffer and reducing cache hit latency by using a hit predictor [@alloycache]. Using these large caches could lead to a combination of TLBs hit/miss along with cache hit/miss. The inferences for the resulting combinations, in increasing order of latency, are listed in Table \[cachetlb\].
[l|l|l|l]{}
--------
Cache
access
--------
: Cache access and TLB lookup
&
--------
TLB
lookup
--------
: Cache access and TLB lookup
& Effect & Inference\
HIT & HIT & data retrieved without additional delay &
---------------------------
working set fits in cache
and TLB reach sufficient
---------------------------
: Cache access and TLB lookup
\
MISS & HIT &
----------------------------
off-chip access for data,
no overhead in translation
----------------------------
: Cache access and TLB lookup
&
----------------------------------
TLB reach is sufficient,
but exhibits poor cache locality
----------------------------------
: Cache access and TLB lookup
\
HIT & MISS &
-----------------------------------------
multiple memory access for translation,
but requested data resides in cache
-----------------------------------------
: Cache access and TLB lookup
&
-----------------------------------
TLB reach insufficient for cache
translation dominates access time
-----------------------------------
: Cache access and TLB lookup
\
MISS & MISS &
-------------------------------------
multiple memory access
to retrieve both translation & data
-------------------------------------
: Cache access and TLB lookup
&
-------------------------------------
possibly first access to the page /
no recent accesses / page fault
-------------------------------------
: Cache access and TLB lookup
\
\[cachetlb\]
Related Work
============
Many prior studies have pointed out the importance of TLB-reach and the necessity of speeding up miss handling methods. Prior work has proposed exploiting spatial locality by coalescing [@colt] and clustering [@clusteredtlb] a group of spatially contiguous TLB entries into a single entry in the TLB. On look-up, the offset between the base virtual address stored in the tag is used to calculate the offset from the base physical page. More recently there have been efforts to make the TLB structures more superpage friendly without unfairly biasing applications which use small pages. This has been achieved in [@superpagefriendly] using a combination of skewed TLB [@skewedtlb] and page size prediction on lookup. Abhishek Bhattacharjee et al. [@sharedtlb] propose last level shared TLB structures rather than the norm of per core private TLBs.
Direct segment [@directsegment] analyses the memory characteristics of big-memory workloads like database, memcached, graph500 etc. and observe that these workloads do not require fine grained protection or swapping as they are memory aware, long running and pay substantial cost for page walks. They propose primary region abstraction for these workloads which allows programs to specify a portion of their memory which does not benefit from paging and maps this region as a segment with base and offset register to completely eliminate paging overhead. Furthermore, in [@rmm] Jayneel Gandhi et. al propose allocation in OS in units of ’ranges’ which are mapped using segment registers. Their scheme is backward compatible with traditional paging using a range TLB at L2 level which is looked up in parallel on a L1 TLB miss.
Virtualization has seen the widespread adoption in the cloud space, however, it comes with overheads in I/O and memory accesses due to expensive page walks using nested page tables. To reduce these overheads AMD [@amd2d]proposed accelerating 2D page walks using nested page walk caches which cache frequently used levels of the page walk in hardware, greatly reducing the overheads of TLB miss. Based on direct segment [@efficientvirt] seeks to futher reduce memory overheads of virtualization.
There have been efforts to characterize the behaviors and sensitivity of individual applications in the SPEC 2000 and PARSEC benchmarks in [@spectlb] and [@parsectlb] respectively. For SPEC 2000 the effects of TLB associtivity, prefetching and super-paging was studied for each workload ignoring the OS involvement. For PARSEC workloads they explored the effect of sharing TLB structures with the idea that cores may fetch entries that maybe useful to other cores in the near future due to multi-threaded nature of the programs.
The other area of active research has been die-stacked DRAM organization. There have been significant efforts to reduce meta data overhead from various researchers world over. Most notably Loh-Hill cache [@lohhill] and direct mapped Alloy cache [@alloycache] organization use the TAD structure. More notably close to our work are TagTables [@tagtables] and Tagless DRAM [@taglessdram] cache that piggyback on the TLB translation mechanism to detect presence of the block in cache. Tagtables achieves this by flipping the page table organization, which as observed earlier is difficult to implement due to hardware managed TLBs. Tagless DRAM is more a practical solution which translates virtual address to a die-stacked cache address and moves the translation to physical address off critical path.
Experimental Setup
==================
Simulator Platform
------------------
**Parameter** **Value**
------------------- -----------------------------------------------
Processor 3.9GHz, 4-core, 5way OoO, x86-64 ISA
L1 i-cache 32KB private, 4-way SA, 64B blocks, 2 cycles
L2 d-cache 32KB private, 8-way SA, 64B blocks, 4 cycles
L2 cache 256KB private, 8-way SA, 64B blocks, 6 cycles
L3 cache 4MB shared, 12-way SA, 64B blocks, 9 cycles
L1 iTLB 4KB pages 64 entries, fully associative
L1 dTLB 4KB pages 64 entries, fully associative
L2 TLB 4KB page 1024 entries, unified fully associative
Superpage TLB 32 entries, 2MB fully associative
(as applicable)
Main Memory 4GB DDR2, 50ns
: Experimental Setup
\[setup\]
We use the QEMU based x86-64 cycle accurate full system simulator MARSSx86 [@marss86] for this study. We modify the simulators MMU to incorporate the various appropriately sized multi-level TLB structures. We add a shared L2 TLB, a dedicated superpage TLB for 2MB pages. We also modify the page walk handler to accurately model the reduced number of page walk levels for superpages. We boot unmodified Linux kernel 2.6.38 which supports Transparent Huge Pages (THP). We also include a L4 cache in the memory hierarchy and systematically account for timing characteristics in the simulator. This gives us the lower bound on the overheads. However, we leave the analysis of superpage TLBs as future work. Hence for this work, TLB insertions are done at 4KB page sizes. We chose full system simulation to be able to observe impact of TLB shootdowns due to context switches and influences of OS on TLB behavior, which has been shown to have considerable influence in the past literature [@softwareTLB].
[ c ||c|c|c|c]{} mix1 & milc & mcf & omnetpp & gcc\
mix2 & GemsFDTD & leslie3d & dealII & soplex\
mix3 & cactusADM & libquantum & tonto & shinpx3\
mix4 & lbm & bwaves & zuesmp & sjeng\
mix5 & milc & GemsFDTD & cactusADM & lbm\
mix6 & mcf & omnetpp & soplex & leslie3d\
mix7 & bwaves & astar & zeusmp & gcc\
mix8 & gobmk & bzip2 & h264ref & hmmer\
-----------
PARSEC
4-threads
-----------
: Workloads
&\
\[workload\]
Methodology
-----------
In order to study the overheads of address translation we run a comprehensive set of multi-programmed and multi-threaded workloads. We selected memory-intensive benchmarks from the SPEC2006 suite [@spec2006] and those with large and unbounded working sets in PARSEC suite [@parsec]. The SPECCPU 2006 were compiled with ’base’ tuning and run with ’ref’ input data sets. Our workloads mix consists of four multi-programmed benchmarks, listed in Table \[workload\], prudently combined to create a representative mix of high, average and low memory activity. The workloads mixes were run for 4 Billion cycles in detailed simulation mode after fast forwarding the first 8 Billion instructions over the entire workload. In each case the total instructions executed for each configuration was more than 8 Billion instructions. In case of PARSEC applications we simulate the entire region of interest (ROI) of the application with 4 threads. The PARSEC applications were executed with the ’simlarge’ input data set. Our baseline architecture parameters used for the simulation are listed in Table \[setup\], modeling the recent Intel Ivy Bridge processor. For die-stacked DRAM cache we simulate a flat cache with 16 way associative, 20 cycle latency writeback cache. L1 and L2 cache have 256 entry MSHR, while L3 and L4 have 128 entries each.
Results
=======
Page Walk latency analysis
--------------------------
We limit our analysis to only data references (dTLB) in this work since data references are much less well-behaved than instructions in terms of misses. We find the iTLB hit rate to be greater than 99 % for most workloads. We studied the latency distribution incurred for a page walk to understand the average number of cycles taken to retrieve a translation on a TLB miss. Figure \[walklatencies\] plots latencies experienced by page walk vs the fraction of walks that experience this latency. The plot shows that the workloads exhibit wide range of page walk latencies ranging from 20 cycles for mix8 and freqmine (not plotted) to 150 cycles for mix4 and fluidanimate. However, average page walk latencies are aggregate numbers for the entire page walk duration and are not adequate to conclude behavior of walks. TLB hit rates for most of the workloads were measured to be in the 90% to 95% range which makes page walks few and far spaced temporally. To better understand the page walk behavior we examined the locality characteristics of each page walk level. To determine this we collected cache hit distribution of these page walk levels over the cache hierarchy of a multi-core architecture. Figure \[walkcache\] shows the distribution of page walk hits for each workload. Clearly PL1 has highest memory access percentages amongst all workloads due to low locality. PL2 has a uniform hit percentage in almost all cache levels and we observe that most of the 8 translations in a cache line are used. For SPEC workloads PL3 level sees around 50 % of the accesses are to either L3 or main memory. On the contrary for PL3, PARSEC sees very high L1 locality due to the fact that most PARSEC workloads have footprints of less than 1GB. Due to the cache pollution resulting from page walks AMDs MMU designs have made a design decision to walk page tables in L2 caches rather than L1 caches [@amd2d] which may exacerbate the walk latencies.
Modern OoO processors are very efficient at hiding latency of memory accesses with reorder buffers and load-store queues. Due to this masking, the latency incurred for page walks may not manifest as an overall IPC impact. To accurately understand the TLB miss impact on IPC we delve deeper and compare IPC against a simulated ideal TLB. We simulate an ideal TLB as (a) zero page walk overhead, (b) no cache pollution, (c) returns the translation in a single cycle. We compare the resulting IPC values to determine the precise page walk overheads. Figure \[walkipc\] shows the IPC values normalized to the baseline performance. We observe that in some workloads, specifically mix1 and mix6 IPC increases by 6.05% and 4.26% respectively and for canneal and ferret the increase is 11.75 % and 12.01% compared to baseline. This shows that with larger memory footprint a reasonable IPC improvement is possible with improved address translation schemes.
TLB reach in Die-Stacked DRAM Caches
------------------------------------
To understand how often each of cases of cache and TLB hit-miss interplay occur in various workloads, we performed a detailed study for various cache capacities. We perform experiments for two different block sizes - 64B and 512B. Currently, we have been able to simulate 4 SPEC and 4 PARSEC workloads for the purposes of presentation in this paper. The rest of the configurations and workload permutations are currently being run and we expect to have results in the near future. Figure \[walkoverhead\] plots the number of cases which result in L4 Hit-TLB miss per thousand L4 Hits for various cache sizes at 64B line size. We observe that as cache size increases this parameter almost flatlines out. For an L4 cache size tailored dynamic TLB reach, we should theoretically see a robust decrease in this parameter as shown by the *L4 dovetail TLB* line. To complement the increase in L4 hit rate, a dynamic TLB would also need to correspondingly increase hits for the L4 cache to be effective. In other words for an oracle TLB this parameter would be 0.
![L4Hit - TLBMiss per 1K L4 Hits - 64B line size[]{data-label="walkoverhead"}](cachediff)
Future Work and Conclusion
==========================
This is the first work that examines the TLB-reach and page walk overheads in the context of large last level die-stacked DRAM caches. We characterize the page walk latency and quantify effect on IPC. We layout the goals of an L4 dovetail TLB which adjusts reach as size of L4 cache increases to maximize efficiency of large die-stacked caches. Going forward we would like to examine the impact of superpage allocation, using dedicated superpage TLBs and vary TLB associativity. We also would like to simulate modern big data and cloud benchmarks with accurate latencies of DRAMs.
[1]{}
Moinuddin K. Qureshi and Gabe H. Loh. 2012. Fundamental Latency Trade-off in Architecting DRAM Caches: Outperforming Impractical SRAM-Tags with a Simple and Practical Design. In Proceedings of the 2012 45th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO-45)
Nagendra Gulur, Mehendale M, Manikantan R, Govindarajan R. 2014. Bi-Modal DRAM Cache: Improving Hit Rate, Hit Latency and Bandwidth. In Proceedings of the 2014 47th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO-47)
Yongjun Lee, Jongwon Kim, Hakbeom Jang, Hyunggyun Yang, Jangwoo Kim, Jinkyu Jeong, and Jae W. Lee. 2015. A fully associative, tagless DRAM cache. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA ’15) Gabriel H. Loh and Mark D. Hill. 2011. Efficiently enabling conventional block sizes for very large die-stacked DRAM caches. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO-44)
Franey S, Lipasti M. 2015. Tag tables. In Proceedings of 21th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA ’15)
Wm. A. Wulf and Sally A. McKee. 1995. Hitting the memory wall: implications of the obvious. SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News 23, 1 (March 1995),
B. Black, M. Annavaram, N. Brekelbaum, J. DeVale, L. Jiang, G. H. Loh, D. McCaule, P. Morrow, D. W. Nelson, D. Pan- tuso, P. Reed, J. Rupley, S. Shankar, J. Shen, and C. Webb, “Die stacking (3D) microarchitecture,” in Proceedings of the 39th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, 2006, pp. 469–479.
D. Nagle, R. Uhlig, T. Stanley, S. Sechrest, T. Mudge, and R. Brown. Design Tradeoffs for Software Managed TLBs. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, pages 27–38, 1993
Binh Pham, Viswanathan Vaidyanathan, Aamer Jaleel, and Abhishek Bhattacharjee. 2012. CoLT: Coalesced Large-Reach TLBs. In Proceedings of the 2012 45th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO-45)
Binh Pham, Abhishek Bhattacharjee, Yasuko Eckert, and Gabriel Loh. 2014. Increasing TLB Reach by Exploiting Clustering in Page Translations. In Proceedings of 20th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA ’14)
Thomas W. Barr, Alan L. Cox, and Scott Rixner. 2010. Translation caching: skip, don’t walk (the page table). In Proceedings of the 37th annual international symposium on Computer architecture (ISCA ’10)
Arkaprava Basu, Jayneel Gandhi, Jichuan Chang, Mark D. Hill, and Michael M. Swift. 2013. Efficient virtual memory for big memory servers. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA ’13).
Vasileios Karakostas, Jayneel Gandhi, Furkan Ayar, Adrián Cristal, Mark D. Hill, Kathryn S. McKinley, Mario Nemirovsky, Michael M. Swift, and Osman Ünsal. 2015. Redundant memory mappings for fast access to large memories. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA ’15).
Jayneel Gandhi, Arkaprava Basu, Mark D. Hill, and Michael M. Swift. 2014. Efficient Memory Virtualization: Reducing Dimensionality of Nested Page Walks. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (MICRO-47)
Abhishek Bhattacharjee, Lustig D, Martonosi M. 2011. Shared Last-Level TLBs for Chip Multiprocessors. In Proceedings of 17th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA ’11)
Misel-Myrto Papadopoulou, Xin Tong, Andre Seznec, and Andreas Moshovos. 2014. Prediction-based superpage-friendly TLB designs. In Proceedings of 21st IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA ’15)
A. Seznec. 2004. Concurrent Support of Multiple Page Sizes on a Skewed Associative TLB. IEEE Trans. Comput. 53, 7 (July 2004)
Ravi Bhargava, Benjamin Serebrin, Francesco Spadini, and Srilatha Manne. 2008. Accelerating two-dimensional page walks for virtualized systems. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Architectural support for programming languages and operating systems (ASPLOS XIII)
Avadh Patel, Furat Afram, Shunfei Chen, Kanad Ghose. 2011. MARSSx86: A Full System Simulator for x86 CPUs. In Proceedings of the 48th Design Automation Conference (DAC ’11).
Christian Bienia. 2011. Benchmarking Modern Multiprocessors. Ph.D. Dissertation. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA. Advisor(s) Kai Li. AAI3445564.
SPEC CPU2006: http://www.spec.org/cpu2006/Docs/readme1st.html
Abhishek Bhattacharjee, Martonosi M.2009. Characterizing the TLB Behavior of Emerging Parallel Workloads on Chip Multiprocessors. 18th International Conference on Parallel Architectures and Compilation Techniques (PACT ’09).
Gokul B. Kandiraju and Anand Sivasubramaniam. 2002. Characterizing the d-TLB behavior of SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM SIGMETRICS international conference on Measurement and modeling of computer systems (SIGMETRICS ’02)
Michael Ferdman, Almutaz Adileh, Onur Kocberber, Stavros Volos, Mohammad Alisafaee, Djordje Jevdjic, Cansu Kaynak, Adrian Daniel Popescu, Anastasia Ailamaki, and Babak Falsafi. 2012. Clearing the Clouds: A Study of Emerging Scale-out Workloads on Modern Hardware. In the 17th International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS ’12)
Lei Wang, Jianfeng Zhan, Chunjie Luo, Yuqing Zhu, Qiang Yang, Yongqiang He, WanlingGao, Zhen Jia, Yingjie Shi, Shujie Zhang, Cheng Zhen, Gang Lu, Kent Zhan, Xiaona Li, and Bizhu Qiu. 2014. BigDataBench: a Big Data Benchmark Suite from Internet Services. The 20th IEEE International Symposium On High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA ’14)
AMD64 Architecture Programmer’s Manual Volume 2: System Programming, http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/24593.pdf
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a numerical study of mixed boson-fermion systems at zero temperature in isotropic and anisotropic harmonic traps. We investigate the phenomenon of component separation as function of the strength of the inter-particle interaction. While solving a Gross-Pitaevskii mean field equation for the boson distribution in the trap, we utilize two different methods to extract the density profile of the fermion component; a semiclassical Thomas-Fermi approximation and a quantum mechanical Slater determinant Schrödinger equation.'
author:
- |
Nicolai Nygaard and Klaus M[ø]{}lmer\
[Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus ]{}\
[DK-8000 [Å]{}rhus C, Denmark]{}
title: 'Component separation in harmonically trapped boson-fermion mixtures'
---
Introduction
============
Since the recent experimental realization of Bose-Einstein condesation in dilute gases of rubidium [@cornell2; @heinzen; @konstanz; @quictrap], sodium [@ketterle1; @hau2], lithium [@hulet1], and hydrogen [@hydrogen] a great deal of interest in Bose condensed systems has concentrated on the topic of multi-component condensates. This field was stimulated by the succesful demonstration of overlapping condensates in different spin states of rubidium in a magnetic trap [@cornell3; @cornell5] and of sodium in an optical trap [@ketterle8], the (binary) mixtures being produced either by sympathetic cooling, which involves one species being cooled to below the transition temperature only through thermal contact with an already condensed Bose gas, or by radiative transitions out of a single component condensate. Since then a host of experiments has been conducted on systems with two condensates, exploring both the dynamics of component separation [@cornell6], and measuring the relative quantum phase of the two Bose-Einstein condensates [@cornell7]. Most of the theoretical work concerning multi-component condensates [@shenoy; @esry; @walls2; @bigelow2; @sten2; @bigelow3; @bigelow4; @cornell10; @gordon; @shlyapnikov4] has been devoted to systems of two Bose condensates. However, other systems are of fundamental interest, one of these being a Bose condensate with fermionic impurities, a system reminiscent of superfluid mixtures. In particular the possibilty of sympathetic cooling of fermionic isotopes has been predicted in both $^6\mathrm{Li}$-$^7\mathrm{Li}$ [@lithium], $^{39}\mathrm{K}$-$^{40}\mathrm{K}$, and $^{41}\mathrm{K}$-$^{40}\mathrm{K}$ [@potassium]. Magneto-optical trapping of the fermionic potassium isotope $^{40}\mathrm{K}$ has been reported [@cornell12].
The boson-fermion mixture was discussed in a previous paper [@klaus1] within the Thomas-Fermi approximation, which amounts to neglecting the kinetic energy of the bosons, and to apply a semi-classical filling of phase space of the fermions. For the bosons, this is a valid approximation in the limit of strong interactions or large particle numbers, see [@lewenstein3]. In this paper we present a numerical analysis of the system, incorporating the correct operator form of the kinetic energy of the particles. The paper is structured as follows. In Sec. II we study in detail the case of an isotropic external potential and we develop both the Thomas-Fermi approximation and the full quantum mechanical description of the fermions. The numerical procedure is briefly introduced. In Sec. III the case of the anisotropic harmonic oscillator trap is outlined within the Thomas-Fermi approximation for the fermions. In Sec. IV we present our quantitative results for the isotropic and anisotropic trapping potentials, demonstrating the accuracy of the predictions made in [@klaus1], and addressing the issue of symmetry breaking in elongated traps. Sec. V summarizes the main results.
Throughout, we assume that the bosons and fermions have the same mass, $M$, and that the atoms are all trapped in the same external harmonic oscillator potential. This choise is of course only a convenience; all our calculations are readily generalized to differing experimental parameters.
Isotropic traps
===============
Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the bosons
----------------------------------------
In the mean field description the behavior of the single particle wavefunction $\psi(\vec{r})$, assumed to describe all $N_{B}$ bosons in the gas, is governed by the Gross-Pitaevskii equation [@pitaevskii; @gross]. In the presence of fermions, this equation is modified by the addition of an interaction term proportional to the fermion density, $n_{F}(\vec{r})$ $$\left[ -\frac{\hbar^2}{2M}\nabla^2+V_{ext}(\vec{r})+gN_{B}|\psi(\vec{r})|^2
+hn_{F}(\vec{r})\right]\psi(\vec{r}) = \mu \psi(\vec{r}),
\label{gross-pita}$$ where $V_{ext}(\vec r)
={1\over 2}M(\omega_x^2 x^2 + \omega_y^2y^2 + \omega_z^2 z^2)$ is the external confining potential, and $\mu$ is the boson chemical potential (energy per particle). The value of $\mu$ is fixed by the normalisation condition, $\int d^{3}r \, n_{B}(\vec{r}) = N_{B}$ on the boson density $n_{B}(\vec{r}) = N_{B}|\psi(\vec{r})|^2$.
The low kinetic energies of the atoms permit the replacement of their short range interaction potential by a delta function potential of strength g or h. This is known as the pseudopotential method [@huang]. There is no fermion-fermion interaction in this description, see below. In (\[gross-pita\]) thus represent the boson-boson and the boson-fermion interaction strengths proportional to the respective $s$-wave scattering lengths [@lewenstein3].
In isotropic traps we have $V_{ext}(\vec{r}) = {1\over 2}M\omega^2r^2$, r being the distance from the trap center. By the substitution $\chi = r\psi$ in (\[gross-pita\]) we obtain the radial equation $$-\frac{\hbar^2}{2M}\frac{d^2\chi}{dr^2}+\left[V_{ext}(r)+gN_{B}
\left|\frac{\chi(r)}{r}\right|^2
+hn_{F}(r)\right]\chi(r) = \mu \chi(r).
\label{rad-bos}$$ In order to simplify the formalism, we rescale (\[rad-bos\]) in terms of harmonic oscillator units, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\vec{r} & = & a_0\tilde{\vec{r}}, \nonumber \\
\mu & = & \hbar\omega\tilde{\mu}, \nonumber \\
\psi(\vec{r}) & = & a_0^{-3/2}\tilde{\psi}(\tilde{\vec{r}}), \nonumber \\
\chi(r) & = & a_0^{-2}\tilde{\chi}(\tilde{r}),
\label{ho-units}\end{aligned}$$ where $a_0 = \sqrt{\hbar/M\omega}$ is the width of the oscillator ground state. Defining $$\tilde{g} = \frac{gM}{a_0\hbar^2} , \ \tilde{h} = \frac{hM}{a_0\hbar^2},
\label{intst-tilde}$$ we arrive at the simplified equation for the radial function $$-{1\over 2}\frac{d^2\tilde{\chi}}{d\tilde{r}^2}+\left[{1\over 2}\tilde{r}^2
+\tilde{g}N_{B}\left|\frac{\tilde{\chi}(\tilde{r})}{\tilde{r}}\right|^2
+\tilde{h}\tilde{n_{F}}(\tilde{r})\right]\tilde{\chi}(\tilde{r})
= \tilde{\mu} \tilde{\chi}(\tilde{r}).
\label{rad-tilde}$$ In the remaining parts of the paper we shall omit the tilde from this equation.
To solve the Gross-Pitaevskii equation for the bosons, we must find $n_{F}(\vec{r})$. To this end we invoke two methods: A semi-classical (Thomas-Fermi) approximation and a quantum mechanical treatment.
Thomas-Fermi approximation for the fermions
-------------------------------------------
In the semi-classical (Thomas-Fermi) approximation the particles are assigned classical positions and momenta, but the effects of quantum statistics are taken into account. That is: The density in the occupied part of phase space is simply $(2\pi)^{-3}$, and sums over states can be replaced by the corresponding integrals over $\vec{r}$ or $\vec{k}$. The fermions experience a potential $V(\vec r)=V_{ext}(\vec r)+hn_B(\vec r)$ and for particle motion in such a potential it is posible to define a local Fermi vector $\vec{k}_{F}(\vec{r})$ by $$E_F={\hbar^2k_F(\vec r)^2\over 2M}+V(\vec r),
\label{energy}$$ so that the volume of the local Fermi sea in $k$ space is simply $${4\over 3}\pi k_F(\vec r)^3=(2\pi)^3 n_F(\vec r).
\label{fermi-k}$$ In the low temperature limit, where $p$-wave (and higher multipole) scattering can be neglected, the supression of the $s$-wave scattering amplitude due to the antisymmetry of the many-body wavefunction implies that the spin polarized fermions constitute a noninteracting gas (for the case of an interacting Fermi gas, see [@burnett6]). Hence the density of the fermionic component is given by $$n_F(\vec r)=\left\{{2M\over \hbar^2}\left[E_F-V_{ext}(\vec r)-hn_{B}(\vec r)\right]
\right\}^{3/2}/(6\pi^2).
\label{density-f}$$ As in the case of the bosons, where the chemical potential must be adjusted for the integral of the density over space to give the correct number of particles, the Fermi energy determines the proper normalisation; $\int d^{3}r \, n_{F}(\vec{r}) = N_{F}$. For a thorough discussion of trapped fermions (also at $T > 0$), and comments on the range of validity of the Thomas-Fermi approximation see [@fermigas].
Slater determinant description
------------------------------
The many-body wavefunction, $\Psi(\vec{r}_1 \ldots \vec{r}_{{N}_F})$, may be represented by a Slater determinant $$\Psi(\vec{r}_1 \ldots \vec{r}_{{N}_F}) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}{\mathcal{A}} \prod_{i=1}^{N_F}
\varphi_i(\vec{r}_i),
\label{slater}$$ where ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the antisymmetrization operator. This Slater determinant solves a stationary Schrödinger equation $$\hat{H}\Psi(\vec{r}) = E\Psi(\vec{r}),
\label{stat-schr}$$ with a Hamiltonian that is the sum of $N_F$ independent single-particle operators $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H} & = & \sum_{i=1}^{N_F} \hat{H}_i, \\
\hat{H}_i & = & -\frac{\hbar^2}{2M}\nabla_{r_i}^2+{1\over 2}M\omega^2r_{i}^2
+hn_{B}(\vec{r}_i).
\label{hamilton}\end{aligned}$$ The orbitals $\varphi_i(\vec{r}_i)$ solve the eigenvalue equation $$\hat{H}_i\varphi_i(\vec{r}_i) = E_i\varphi_i(\vec{r}_i).
\label{eigeneq}$$ We make the substitution $\varphi(\vec{r}) =
\frac{u_{n\ell}(r)}{r}Y_{{\ell}m}(\theta,\phi)$, where $Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)$ are the usual spherical harmonics, and we thus obtain a radial equation for the functions $u_{n\ell}$ in harmonic oscillator units $$-{1\over 2}\frac{d^2u_{n\ell}}{dr^2}+\left[{1\over 2}r^2+\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{2r^2}
+hn_{B}(r)\right]u_{n\ell}(r) = E_{n\ell} \, u_{n\ell}(r).
\label{rad-fer}$$ It is important to keep in mind that the radial functions must satisfy the boundary condition $u_{n\ell}(0) = 0$, to ensure a finite particle density at the center of the trap.
Equation (\[rad-fer\]) can be solved once for every $\ell$-value, thus producing the energy spectrum. The centrifugal term in the radial equation, implies that the fermions can be considered to move in an isotropic effective potential, $V_{eff}(r) = V_{ext}(r)+hn_B(r)+\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{2r^2}$. The energy levels $E_{n\ell}$ are $2\ell+1$ times degenerate, and we have the fermion density given by $$n_F(\vec{r}) = \sum_{\stackrel{occupied}{states}} \left| \frac{u_{n\ell}(r)}{r}
Y_{{\ell}m}(\theta,\phi)\right|^2 = \sum_{n\ell} (2\ell +1)
\frac{|u_{n\ell}(r)|^2}{4\pi r^2},
\label{fermidens}$$ since $\sum_{m = -\ell}^{m = \ell} |Y_{{\ell}m}(\theta,\phi)|^2 = (2\ell+1)/4\pi$. Once found the eigenstates are sorted after energy and the energy levels are filled from below with $N_F$ particles. The Fermi energy is the energy of the highest occupied orbital. The maximum value of the angular momentum, may be estimated from the Thomas-Fermi expressions (\[fermi-k\],\[density-f\]) for $h=0$ by maximizing $r k_F (\vec{r})$, the maximal length of $\ell$ at the point $\vec r$. This yields the simple result, ${\ell}_{max} \! \approx \! E_F$, where the Fermi energy in the noninteracting limit is $E_F=(6N_F)^{1/3}$ in harmonic oscillator units. To test our numerical calculations for fermions not interacting with the bosons ($h=0$), we have compared our spatial density distributions with those of Schneider and Wallis [@meso_fermi] and found excellent agreement.
Numerical Procedure
-------------------
We note that the solution of both Eqs. (\[density-f\]) and (\[rad-fer\]) require prior knowledge of the boson density $n_B(\vec r)$. To obtain the density profiles of the two components, we insert iteratively the density of one component into the equation for the other until a desired convergence is reached.
To solve (\[rad-tilde\]) for the boson density, we use the method of steepest descend, that is we propagate a trial function (which can be chosen initially almost arbitrarily) in imaginary time $\tau$, replacing $\mu\chi(r)$ by $-(\partial / \partial\tau)\chi(r,\tau)$. In the long time limit the propagation “filters” the trial function to the condensate ground state Alternative methods for solving numerically the equation are presented in [@bigelow3; @burnett7; @burnett1; @krauth].
The evaluation of the fermion density profile is done by two methods, as described above. In the case of the Thomas-Fermi approximation, $n_F(\vec r)$ is found by direct insertion of $n_B(\vec r)$ into (\[density-f\]), searching numerically for the energy $E_F$ giving the right number of particles. Within the Slater determinant method one obtains the density profile directly from (\[fermidens\]), once the diagonalization of (\[rad-fer\]) has been done.
Anisotropic traps
=================
In this section we treat the case of an anisotropic trapping potential with a cylindrical geometry ($\omega_x \!=\omega_y = \! \omega_{\perp} \neq
\omega_z$) as this corresponds to current experimental setups We thus have $$V_{ext} = {1\over 2}M\omega_{\perp}^2r^2+{1\over 2}M\omega_z^2z^2,
\label{aniso-pot}$$ where $r \! = \! \sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ and $z$ are the radial and axial coordinate respectively. We define the asymmetry parameter $\lambda = \omega_z / \omega_{\perp}$.
As in the case of the isotropic potential we have for the bosons a non-linear Schrödinger equation corresponding to (\[gross-pita\]). By the substitution $\chi = \sqrt{r}\psi$ we obtain the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\chi(r,z)=&-& {1\over 2} \left[ \frac{\partial^2\chi}{\partial r^2} + \frac{\partial^2\chi}
{\partial z^2}\right]-\frac{\chi(r,z)}{8r^2}
+{1\over 2}(r^2+\lambda^2z^2)\chi(r,z) \nonumber \\
&+& gN_B\frac{\left|\chi(r)\right|^2}{r}\chi(r,z)+hn_F(\vec{r})\chi(r,z),
\label{aniso-gp}\end{aligned}$$ in harmonic oscillator units. Again the radial function has to vanish on the symmetry axis to remove potential problems of divergences near the origin. This boundary condition is implemented in our numerical procedure by imposing on the radial function a $\sqrt{r}$ dependence for small values of $r$, fitting to the value of $\chi$ at larger distances from the axis. As in the case of the isotropic trapping potential a Split-Step-Fourier technique is used to propagate the boson wavefunction to the ground state. An alternative method for solving the Gross-Pitaevskii equation in a cylindrical configuration, applying an alternating-direction implicit method to compute the derivatives is discussed in [@cooper].
We shall limit ourselves to the Thomas-Fermi approximation for the fermions, both out of necessity and convenience. Already in the spherically symmetric, effectively 1-dimensional case, the full quantum mechanical analysis is very time consuming and as we shall demonstrate in the next section, the Thomas-Fermi approximation offers the same qualitative features as the exact description. The fermion density is thus evaluated using equation (\[density-f\]) with the external potential (\[aniso-pot\]) and with the boson density obtained from (\[aniso-gp\]).
Results
=======
The main conclusion of [@klaus1] is the prediction of a component separation under variation of the strength of the boson-boson and boson-fermion interaction. In the Thomas-Fermi approximation for both components, the density distributions solve the coupled equations $$\begin{aligned}
V_{ext}(\vec r)+g\cdot n_B(\vec r) + h\cdot n_F(\vec r)&=&\mu\nonumber \\
{\hbar^2\over 2M}(6\pi^2n_F(\vec r))^{2/3}+
V_{ext}(\vec r)+h\cdot n_B(\vec r)& =& E_F.
\label{coupled}\end{aligned}$$ In the case of $N_F/N_B \ll 1$ the fermions may be neglected in the equation for the bosons. For the fermions we then obtain the simple equation $$\begin{aligned}
{\hbar^2\over 2M}(6\pi^2n_F(\vec r))^{2/3}+
(1-{h\over g}) V_{ext}(\vec r) + {h\over g}\mu = E_F,
\label{fewferm}\end{aligned}$$ where the terms proportional with $h$ are absent in regions with vanishing $n_B(\vec r)$. We may distinguish between 3 different types of solutions; if $h < g$ the potential minimum of the fermions is located at the center of the trap, and if their number is small enough, they will constitute a ’core’ entirely enclosed within the Bose condensate. The two quantum gases are truly interpenetrating. If $h = g$ the fermions have a constant density throughout the Bose condensate, falling towards zero outside. If $h > g$ the effective potential for the fermions is that of an inverted harmonic oscillator having a minimum at the edge of the Bose condensate, where the fermions localize as a ’shell’ wrapped around the condensate.
Isotropic trap, quantum treatment
---------------------------------
When we replace the Thomas-Fermi approximation by an exact description including the kinetic energy operator for the bosons and treating the fermions quantum mechanically, we expect to observe the same overall behaviour, but with minor corrections. The boson kinetic energy is expected to cause penetration into the fermionic component and a rounding off of the atomic distributions at the boundaries. Fig. \[fermiplot\] shows the spatial distribution of 1000 fermions in a condensate of $10^6$ bosons for different values of the boson-fermion interactions strength, $h$. The strength of the boson-boson interaction, $g$, is chosen to give maximal overlap between the two atomic clouds. In order to have clouds of comparable size, we equate the Thomas-Fermi expressions for the radius of the Bose condensate $(15N_Bg/4\pi M\omega^2)^{1/5}$, and the radius of the zero temperature Fermi gas $(48N_F)^{1/6}\sqrt{\hbar/M\omega}$. This gives the condition: $$g/(\hbar\omega {a_0}^3) \simeq 21.1 {N_F}^{5/6}/N_B,
\label{g_constraint}$$ which for the parameters of Fig. \[fermiplot\] requires $g~=~0.015$. The coupling $g$ differs for different atomic species and this value is in approximate agreement with the coupling stregth in the MIT Na setup [@ketterle1], and we recall the possibility to achieve couplings of arbitrary strength by the recently demonstrated modification of the atomic scattering length by external fields [@shlyapnikov2; @ketterle9]. This allows a ’tuning’ of the scattering length through both positive and negative values. Finally we recall that we have insisted on equal masses and trapping potentials for the two components. If these constraints are relaxed, we may more easily vary the values of the scaled interaction strengths.
The oscillations in the fermion density distribution near the trap center reflect the matter wave modulation of the particles in the outermost shell. Their de Broglie wavelength can be estimated in the Thomas-Fermi approximation from (\[energy\]): In the center of the trap the particles in the $\ell \! = \! 0$ states experience a vanishing potential for $h=0$. As the Thomas-Fermi expression for the Fermi energy of $N_F$ fermions in a harmonic potential is $E_F = (6N_F)^{1/3}\hbar\omega$ we find for the de Broglie wavelength $$\lambda_{DB} \sim \frac{2\pi}{k_F(0)} \sim \frac{\sqrt{2}\pi a_0}{(6N_F)^{1/6}}
\sim 1 \ a_0,$$ an estimate that is reproduced by the data, see inset.
We now turn to the case of equal numbers of bosons and fermions. The influence of the inter-species interaction grows as the number of fermions is increased with dramatical effects on the atomic distibutions, as we shall demonstrate. We study the case of $10^6$ fermions, and the same number of bosons with an interaction strength of $g=2.11 \hbar\omega{a_0}^3$. We again expect that for certain critical parameters, the components find it energetically favorable to separate into two distinct phases, but this time bosons are expelled from the trap center, minimizing their internal interaction energy by spreading in a ’shell’ around a fermionic bubble. Figs. \[densplot\] and \[magnify\] present our results. The essential features are again the spatial separation of the two components, this time manifesting itself by the exclusion of the bosonic component from the trap center and the existence of a constant fermion density through the boson distribution for $h=g$. For a different choise of parameters, for example by letting the fermions be trapped by a weaker potential, we are also capable of producing a multi-layered structure with fermions residing on both sides of the bosons.
We notice that as the bosons are expelled from the center of the trap, forming a ’mantle’ around the fermions, the fermionic component is compressed, having a higher peak density and covering a smaller portion of the trapping volume. A similar behavior has been noted for bi-condensate systems [@sten2; @bigelow3]. One of the essential features predicted in the Thomas-Fermi approximation is the existence of a ’plateau’ of constant fermion density through the boson distribution for $h=g$. As illustrated by Fig. \[magnify\], which is just a magnification of the central parts of Fig. \[densplot\]e, this phenomenon also appear in our quantum mechanical treatment, although with the parameters chosen it does not involve quite as many particles as obtained from the semi-classical calculations in [@klaus1].
It is interesting to compare the above mentioned results with those obtained by treating the fermions in the Thomas-Fermi approximation. This is done in Fig. \[compare\] for $N_B\!=\!N_F\!=\!10^6$, $h\!=\!g\!=\!2.11 \hbar\omega a_0^3$, and we note that the semi-classical description gives a qualitatively correct description, in that it reliably predicts the phase separation. Thus it is reasonable to use this approximative treatment of the fermions in the anisotropic case, where the exact description is too cumbersome.
Anisotropic trap
----------------
We now turn our attention to the anisotropic potentials, where we will use only the semi-classical Thomas-Fermi approximation for the fermion density. We aim to reveal similar variations in the ground state density profiles as for the isotropic trap, but going to higher dimensions we now have the opportunity to investigate the phenomenon of spatial symmetry breaking. Intuitively, we assume that for critical parameters it may be preferable for the two components to break mirror symmetry ($z\rightarrow -z$), thereby minimizing their mutual interaction, especially in elongated traps. Such a behavior has been predicted by Öhberg and Stenholm for bi-condensates in two dimensions [@sten2].
It remains to be demonstrated though, that the features described in the case of the isotropic trap are still essential, when we consider the anisotropic scenario relevant in comparison with currently experimentally feasible setups. We present in Figs. \[fermiplot2\] and \[fermiplot3\] the analog of Fig. \[fermiplot\] with the same choise of parameters and $\lambda=1/\sqrt{8}$, *i.e.* the inverse of the value for the current traps which have the strongest confinement along the $z$-axis. We notice the appearance of the same qualitative features as in the isotropic trap, that is component separation for $h>g$ and a plateau of constant fermion density for $h=g$.
The $10^6$ bosons are in the condensate which is unaffected in form and location by the presence of the relatively few fermions. Not shown in Figs. \[fermiplot2\] and \[fermiplot3\] is the distribution of fermions for $h$ smaller than $g$. In this case the fermionic component overlaps the boson cloud at the center of the trap.
To address the issue of symmetry breaking we adopt the same procedure as Öhberg and Stenholm [@sten2]. This offers only suggestive evidence that symmetry breaking may occur. To investigate this behavior correctly one must use an altogether different approach, minimizing the energy functional to find the ground-state density profile [@gordon]. The point is that the solutions of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation are stationary points of the energy functional, not necessarily corresponding to minima. They may therefore be unstable in certain parameter regions. It is possible though to single out the more stable of two configurations by comparing their total energy as this is minimum in equilibrium.
The total energy functional of the two-component system is a sum of four terms $$E = T_B + T_F + V_{ext} + V_{int}.
\label{energyfunc}$$ The first term is the boson kinetic energy $$T_B = \int d^{3}r \, \frac{\hbar^2}{2M}|\nabla \psi(\vec r)|^2.
\label{boskin}$$ As a fermion with wave number $\vec{k}(\vec r)$ has a kinetic energy of $\hbar^2k^2/2M$, the total fermionic contribution to the kinetic energy is found by integrating this local term over all of phase-space, weighted by the phase-space density, $1/(2\pi)^3$, $$\begin{aligned}
T_F & = & \int \frac{d^{3}r}{(2\pi)^3} \, \int_{0}^{k_F(\vec r)} d^{3}k \,
\frac{\hbar^2 k^2}{2M} \nonumber \\
& = & \int \frac{d^{3}r}{2\pi^2} \, \frac{\hbar^2}{10M} \left[
6\pi^2 n_F(\vec r) \right]^{5/3}.
\label{fermikin}\end{aligned}$$ Calculating the potential energy terms is easy, as they involve only integrals over the atomic densities $$\begin{aligned}
V_{ext} & = & \int d^{3}r \, {1\over 2} M\omega^2 r^2 \left[ n_B(\vec r)+n_F(\vec r)
\right] \\
V_{int} & = & \int d^{3}r \, n_B(\vec r)\left[ g n_B(\vec r) +
hn_F(\vec r) \right].
\label{poten}\end{aligned}$$ We have chosen the number of atoms to be $N_B=N_F=10^3$, while the asymmetry parameter is still set to $\lambda=1/\sqrt{8}$. The interaction parameters are $g=6.67\hbar{\omega}a_0^3$ and $h=5g$.
Starting the iteration with two well separated clouds displaced along the cylinder axis, *i.e.* along the direction of the weaker trapping potential, the calculation converges to a situation where the fermions localize on both sides of a central concentration of the Bose condensate: a ’boson-burger’, see Fig. \[boseburger\]. Initiating the calculation with two overlapping clouds in the center of the trap results in just the reversed situation: a ’fermion-burger’, consisting of a central fermionic part surrounded on two sides by bosons, but this configuration has a larger energy. The ’boson-burger’ seems to be the stable solution.
In Fig. \[symbreak\] we show the spatial distribution of 5000 fermions and 1000 bosons. The particles feel the same trapping potential as in Fig. \[boseburger\], and the interaction strengths are kept unchanged. This configuration is the result when the starting point of the calculation is two separated clouds. When we start by placing both species at the center of the trap we achieve again the ’fermion-burger’, but at a higher energy. Thus we conclude that in this region of parameter space the system is unstable against breaking of the reflection symmetry.
We note that our approach provides two degenerate symmetry broken states, the one in Fig. \[symbreak\] and its mirror image in the $xy$-plane. Going beyond our theoretical treatment (Hartree), we may construct superpositions of these two macroscopically states which do not break the spatial symmetry. One of these states will have a lower energy, but such a ’Schr[ö]{}dinger-cat’ state is exceedingly complicated to prepare, [*c.f.*]{} the discussion in [@klaus2]. Thus the symmetry broken solution is most likely to be observed in an experiment.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we have investigated the zero temperature ground state of a mixture of boson and fermion gases in both isotropic and anisotropic trapping potentials. We have addressed the issue of component separation using nummerical techniques to solve coupled equations for the spatial density of the two species. Our calculations have confirmed and expanded upon the results of a previous paper [@klaus1], which treated the problem only within the Thomas-Fermi approximation for both components and which analyzed only the case of an isotropic trap. We have confirmed the existence of three distinct states of the system under variation of the ratio of the interaction strengths $h/g$: For small values of this parameter the gases are interpenetrable, overlapping throughout the occupied volume of the trap, as their mutual repulsion is not strong enough to cause separation. When the coupling strength $h$ exceeds the strength of the boson-boson interaction one of the species is expelled from the center of the trap. The spatial configuration in this case depends on the symmetry of the trapping potential. In an isotropic trap the separated phase is rotationally symmetric, the excluded component constitutes a spherical shell wrapped around a centrally compressed bulk. The anisotropic trap however has a parameter region where a breaking of symmetry ($z\rightarrow -z$) may occur, and we have demonstrated such forms. In the limiting case $h=g$ there exists the possibility for the fermions to have a constant spatial density where the bosons are localized.
An aspect of this work is the availability of an almost isolated degenerate Fermi gas through the complete separation of the two species. The trapped, degenerate Fermi gas is interesting in view of the possibility of a BCS transition when two spin states are trapped simultaneously [@burnett6; @stoof1; @stoof2] and because of the analogies between this system and both atomic nuclei and the interior of neutron stars.
The details of sympathetically cooling the Fermi gas to the degeneracy level through thermal contact with the Bose condensate are of course of great importance in further research [@timmer1]. In general the investigation of the cooling ability of the condensate should not be restricted to fermionic impurities. In view of the recent trapping of simple molecules in both optical [@stapelfeldt] and magnetic [@cahtrap] potentials, also more complex solutes with several internal degrees of freedom pose an interesting challenge for future research.
Another direction worth noticing is the prospect of trapping a boson-fermion mixture in the periodic potential of an optical lattice [@klaus3], both in its own right and as a study of solid state phenomena. With quantum gases well beyond the degeneracy level a complete filling of the potential wells may well be expected [@zoller2].
Finally it should be mentioned that in this work we have concentrated solely on systems with a positive coupling strength $h$. Allowing the interaction between the species to become attractive is known to induce a dramatic change in the macroscopic behavior of the system as it becomes unstable against collapse for large negative values of $h$ [@klaus1]. We are currently setting up calculations to investigate this phenomenon in detail using the numerical procedure developed in this work.
[10]{}
M. H. Anderson [*et al.*]{}, Science [**269**]{}, 198 (1995).
D. J. Han, R. H. Wynar, P. Courteille, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A [ **57**]{}, R4114 (1998).
U. Ernst [*et al.*]{}, Europhys. Lett. [**41**]{}, 1 (1998).
T. Esslinger, I. Bloch, and T. W. H[ä]{}nsch, Phys. Rev A [**58**]{}, R2664 (1998).
K. B. Davis [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 3969 (1995).
L. V. Hau [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, R54 (1998).
C. C. Bradley, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 985 (1997).
D. G. Fried [*et al.*]{}, physics/9809017 (1998).
C. J. Myatt [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 586 (1997).
M. R. Matthews [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 243 (1998).
D. M. Stamper-Kurn [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2027 (1998).
D. S. Hall [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1539 (1998).
D. S. Hall, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1543 (1998).
T.-L. Ho and V. B. Shenoy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3276 (1996).
B. D. Esry, C. H. Greene, P. B. James, Jr., and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 3594 (1997).
R. Graham and D. Walls, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 484 (1998).
R. Ejnisman, H. Pu, Y. E. Young, and N. P. Bigelow, Optics Express [**2**]{}, 330 (1998).
P. Öhberg and S. Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 1272 (1998).
H. Pu and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1130 (1998).
H. Pu and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1134 (1998).
J. Williams [*et al.*]{}, cond-mat/9806337 v2 (1998).
D. Gordon and C. M. Savage, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, 1440 (1998).
A. Sinatra [*et al.*]{}, cond-mat/9809061 (1998).
F. A. van Abeelen, B. J. Verhaar, and A. J. Moerdijk, Phys. Rev. A [**55**]{}, 4377 (1997).
R. Côté, A. Dalgarno, H. Wang, and W. C. Stwalley, Phys. Rev. A [ **57**]{}, R4118 (1998).
F. S. Cataliotti [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev A [**57**]{}, 1136 (1998).
K. M[ø]{}lmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1804 (1998).
M. Lewenstein and L. You, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**36**]{}, 221 (1996).
L. P. Pitaevskii, Soviet Physics JETP [**13**]{}, 451 (1961).
E. P. Gross, Journal of Mathematical Physics [**4**]{}, 195 (1963).
K. Huang, [*Statistical Mechanics*]{} (Wiley, N.Y., 1963).
G. M. Bruun and K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. A [**58**]{}, 2427 (1998).
D. A. Butts and D. S. Rokhsar, Phys. Rev. A [**55**]{}, 4346 (1997).
J. Schneider and H. Wallis, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 1253 (1998).
M. Edwards and K. Burnett, Phus. Rev. A [**51**]{}, 1382 (1995).
M. Edwards, R. J. Dodd, C. W. Clark, and K. Burnett, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. [**101**]{}, 553 (1996).
W. Krauth, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3695 (1996).
M. J. Holland, D. S. Jin, M. L. Chiofalo, and J. Cooper, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **78**]{}, 3801 (1997).
P. O. Fedichev, Y. Kagan, G. V. Shlyapnikov, and J. T. M. Walraven, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2913 (1996).
S. Inouye [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**392**]{}, 151 (1998).
J. I. Cirac, M. Lewenstein, K. M[ø]{}lmer, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 1208 (1998).
H. T. C. Stoof, M. Houbiers, C. A. Sackett, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 10 (1996).
M. Houbiers [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**56**]{}, 4864 (1997).
E. Timmermans and R. C[ô]{}t[é]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 3419 (1998).
H. Sakai [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 2794 (1998).
J. D. Weistein [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**395**]{}, 148 (1998).
K. Berg-S[ø]{}rensen and K. M[ø]{}lmer, Phys. Rev A [**58**]{}, 1480 (1998).
D. Jaksch [*et al.*]{}, cond-mat/9805329 (1998).
$ \begin{array}{ccc}
\epsfig{file=dens1.ps,angle=270,width=5.0cm} &
\epsfig{file=dens2.ps,angle=270,width=5.0cm} &
\epsfig{file=dens3.ps,angle=270,width=5.0cm} \\
\epsfig{file=dens4.ps,angle=270,width=5.0cm} &
\epsfig{file=dens5.ps,angle=270,width=5.0cm} &
\epsfig{file=dens6.ps,angle=270,width=5.0cm} \\
\end{array} $
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'It is well known that the description of topological and geometric properties of bisectors in normed spaces is a non-trivial subject. In this paper we introduce the concept of bounded representation of bisectors in finite dimensional real Banach spaces. This useful notion combines the concepts of bisector and shadow boundary of the unit ball, both corresponding with the same spatial direction. The bounded representation visualizes the connection between the topology of bisectors and shadow boundaries (Lemma 1) and gives the possibility to simplify and to extend some known results on radial projections of bisectors. Our main result (Theorem 1) says that in the manifold case the topology of the closed bisector and the topology of its bounded representation are the same; they are closed, $(n-1)$-dimensional balls embedded in Euclidean $n$-space in the standard way.'
author:
- 'Á. G. Horváth and H. Martini'
date:
title: Bounded representation and radial projections of bisectors in normed spaces
---
[**MSC(2000):**]{} 46B20, 51M05, 52A21, 57N16
**Keywords:** bisector, bounded representation, Minkowski space, normed space, radial projection, shadow boundary, topological manifold
Introduction and some preliminary results
=========================================
In recent times, Minkowski Geometry (i.e., the geometry of finite dimensional, real Banach spaces; see [@tho]) became again an important research field. Strongly related to Banach Space Theory, Finsler Geometry and Classical Convexity, it is permanently enriched by new results in the spirit of Discrete and Computational Geometry, of Operations Research, Location Science, and further applied disciplines. In addition, the most examined concepts of it naturally connect to Physics, Functional Analysis, and non-Euclidean Geometries. We will not introduce basic notions and terminology of this field going beyond our purpose; for its fundaments the reader is referred to the monograph [@tho] and to the surveys [@martini; @1] and [@martini; @2]. The present paper refers to [*bisectors*]{} in (finite dimensional normed or) *Minkowski spaces*, i.e., to collections of points which have, in each case, the same distance (with respect to the corresponding norm) to two given points ${\bf x}$, ${\bf y}$ of these spaces. Note that bisectors in Minkowski spaces play an essential role in Discrete and Computational Geometry, mainly in view of constructing (generalized) Voronoi diagrams, and also for motion planning with respect to translations; see, e.g., the surveys [@aurenhammer] and [@martini; @2].
In some previous papers on this topic (see [@gho1], [@gho2], and [@gho3]), Á. G. Horváth proved that if the unit ball of a Minkowski space is strictly convex, then every bisector is a topological hyperplane (see Theorem 2 in [@gho1], or [@martini; @2]). On the other hand, Example 3 in [@gho1] shows that strict convexity does not follow from the fact that all bisectors are topological hyperplanes.
In these papers, the connections between shadow boundaries of the unit ball and bisectors (regarding the direction ${\bf x}-{\bf y}$ or the points [**x**]{} and [**y**]{}, respectively) in Minkowski spaces are investigated. The author was sure that the following statement is true: *A bisector is a topological hyperplane if and only if the corresponding shadow boundary is a topological $(n-2)$-dimensional sphere*. However, the respective conjecture was proved only in the three-dimensional case (Theorem 2 and Theorem 4 in [@gho2]). In [@gho3], some further topological observations on shadow boundaries are discussed, e.g., that they are compact metric spaces containing $(n-2)$-dimensional closed, connected subsets separating the boundary of $K$. Á. G. Horváth also investigated the manifold case, and he proved (using an approximation theorem for cell-like mappings) that the shadow boundary is homeomorphic to an $(n-2)$-dimensional sphere. Consequently this result (if the bisector is a homeomorphic copy of $R^{n-1}$, then the shadow boundary is a topological $(n-2)$-sphere) confirms the first direction of the above mentioned conjecture.
Independently, H. Martini and S. Wu [@martini-wu] introduced and investigated the concept of radial projection of bisectors. Strongly using the central symmetry of Minkowskian balls, they proved some interesting results on radial projections of bisectors.
Theorem 2.6 in [@martini-wu] says that the shadow boundary is a subset of the closure of such a radial projection, and Theorem 2.9 there refers to the converse statement. If for a point ${\bf x}$ from the boundary of the unit ball there exists a point ${\bf z}$, unique except for the sign, such that ${\bf x}$ is orthogonal to ${\bf z}$ in the sense of Birkhoff (see below), then ${\bf z}$ is a point of the radial projection of the bisector corresponding to ${\bf x}$ and $-{\bf x}$.
In the present paper we introduce the concept of bounded representation of bisectors, which yields a useful combination of the notions of bisector, shadow boundary, and radial projection. We prove that the topological properties of the radial projection (in higher dimensions) do not determine the topological properties of the bisector. More precisely, the manifold property of the bisector does not imply the manifold property of the radial projection (see our Example below). The situation is different with respect to the bounded representation of the bisector. Namely, if one of them is a manifold, then the other is also. More precisely, if the bisector is a manifold of dimension $n-1$, then its bounded representation is homeomorphic to a closed $(n-1)$-dimensional ball $B^{n-1}$ (i.e., it is a cell of dimension $n-1$). And conversely, if the bounded representation is a cell, then the closed bisector is also (Theorem 1).
We will also present new approaches to higher dimensional analogues of several theorems given in [@martini-wu]. By our new terminology, we will rewrite and reprove Theorems 2.6, 2.9, and 2.10 from that paper.
Basic notions and radial projections of bisectors
=================================================
Let $K$ be a compact, convex sets with nonempty interior (i.e., a [*convex body*]{}) in the $n$-dimensional Euclidean space $E^n$ which, in addition, is centred at the origin $O$. Then the $(n-1)$-dimensional boundary bd $K$ of $K$, in the following also denoted by $S$, can be interpreted as the [*unit sphere*]{} of an $n$-dimensional (real Banach or) *Minkowski space* $M^n$ with norm $\|\cdot \|$, i.e., $$S:=\{{\bf x}\in M^n\mbox{ : } \|{\bf x}\|=1\}.$$ It is well known that there are different types of orthogonality in Minkowski spaces. In particular, for ${\bf x},{\bf y}\in M^n$ we say that ${\bf x}$ is [*Birkhoff orthogonal*]{} to ${\bf y}$ if $\|{\bf x}+t{\bf y}\|\geq \|{\bf x}\|$ for all $t\in \mathbb{R}$, denoted by ${\bf x}\bot _B{\bf y}$ (see [@birkhoff]); and [**x**]{} is [*isosceles orthogonal*]{} to ${\bf y}$ if $\|{\bf x}+{\bf y}\|=\|{\bf x}-{\bf y}\|$, denoted by ${\bf x}\bot _I{\bf y}$ (cf. [@james]). The [*shadow boundary*]{} $S(K,{\bf x})$ of $K$ with respect to the direction [**x**]{} is the intersection of $S$ and all supporting lines of $K$ having direction ${\bf x}$.
Given a point ${\bf x}\in
S$, the *bisector* of $-{\bf x}$ and ${\bf x}$, denoted by $B(-{\bf x},{\bf x})$, consists of all those vectors [**y**]{} which are isosceles orthogonal to ${\bf x}$ with respect to the Minkowski norm generated by $K$. The *radial projection* $P({\bf x})$ of this bisector consists of those points ${\bf y}$ of $S$ for which there is a positive real value $t$ such that $t{\bf y}\in B(-{\bf x},{\bf x})$.
We remark that, in the relative topology of $S$, $P({\bf x})$ can either be closed or open; this can be easily seen in the cases of the Euclidean and of the maximum norm. Thus, for topological investigations in higher dimensions we suggest the extension of the definition of $B(-{\bf x},{\bf x})$ to ideal points by a limit property.
Consider the compactification of $E^n$ to a closed ball $B^n$ by the set of ideal points ${\bf x}_\infty $ ($-{\bf x}_\infty\not ={\bf x}_\infty$). We say that ${\bf y}_\infty :=\infty {\bf y}\in B(-{\bf x},{\bf x})$ if there is a sequence $(t_i{\bf y}_i)\in B(-{\bf x},{\bf x})$ for which $\lim\limits_{i\rightarrow \infty} {\bf y}_i={\bf y}$. We call the points of the original bisector [*ordinary points*]{} and the new points [*ideal points*]{}, respectively.
By this definition $P({\bf x})$ could be closed as we can see in our first statement. Let $P({\bf x})^l$ be the collection of those points ${\bf y}$ of $S$ for which $$\|t{\bf y}+{\bf x}\|< \|t{\bf y}-{\bf x}\|$$ holds, for all real $t\geq 0$. Let $P({\bf x})^r$ denote the image of $P({\bf x})^l$ under reflection at the origin.
In the described way, $S$ is decomposed into three disjoint sets: $P({\bf x})$, $P({\bf x})^l$, and $P({\bf x})^r$. $P({\bf x})$ is an at least $(n-2)$-dimensional closed (and therefore compact) set in $S$ which is connected for $n \geq 3$, the sets $P({\bf x})^l$ and $P({\bf x})^r$ are arc-wise connected components of their union.
[[**Proof:** ]{}]{}By Theorem 5.1 of [@martini-wu], $P({\bf x})$ is connected for $n\geq 3$. We prove that it is also closed with respect to the relative topology of the boundary of the unit ball. To see this, consider a convergent sequence $({\bf y}_i$) in $P({\bf x})$ having the limit [**y**]{}. For any $i$ there is a new sequence of points $({\bf y}^j_i)$ such that for every pair $\{i,j\}$ there are $t_j\in \mathbb{R}^+$ and ${\bf x}_i^j\in B(-{\bf x};{\bf x})$ such that $ (t^j_i{\bf y}^j
_i) ={\bf x}^j_i$. (For an ordinary point the mentioned sequence can be regarded as a constant one.) It is clear that for the diagonal sequence $({\bf y}^i_i)$ we have $$\lim\limits_{i\rightarrow \infty}{\bf y}^i_i = {\bf y},$$ implying that [**y**]{} is also in $P({\bf x})$.
The continuity property of the norm function implies that all points of $S$ belong to precisely one of the three mentioned sets. Thus the first statement is clear, and the union of $P({\bf x})^l$ and $P({\bf x})^r$ is open with respect to the topology of $S$. Observe once more that $P({\bf x})^l$ and $P({\bf x})^r$ are images of each other regarding reflection at the origin. Furthermore, they are arc-wise connected sets. To prove this, consider the following inequality for an element [**y**]{} of $P({\bf x})^r$: $$\|({\bf y}-t({\bf y}-{\bf x})-{\bf x}\| = (1-t)\|{\bf y}-{\bf x}\| < (1-t)\|{\bf y} + {\bf x}\| = \|({\bf y}-t({\bf y}-{\bf x})) + {\bf x}- 2t{\bf x}\|,$$ where $0 \leq t \leq 1$ is an arbitrary parameter. The point ${\bf z}_t := ({\bf y}-t({\bf y}-{\bf x}))+{\bf x} = (1-t){\bf y}+(1+t){\bf x}$ is on the right half-line, starting with the point $(1-t)({\bf y} + {\bf x}) ={\bf z}_t- 2t{\bf x}$ and being parallel to the vector ${\bf x}$, meaning that its norm is larger than the norm of the point ${\bf z}_t - 2t{\bf x}$ (see Fig. 1). Thus $$\|{\bf z}_t\|\geq \|{\bf z}_t -2t{\bf x}\|,$$ and so $$\|({\bf y}-t({\bf y}-{\bf x}))-{\bf x}\| < \|({\bf y}- t({\bf y}-{\bf x})) + {\bf x}\|.$$
A consequence of this inequality is that the arc of $S$ connecting the respective endpoints of the vectors ${\bf y}$ and ${\bf x}$ belongs to the set $P({\bf x})^r$. Thus every two points of $P({\bf x})^r$ can be connected by an arc, as we stated. Now, with respect to the topology of their union, they are connected components. This means that both of them are also open with respect to the topology of $S$. Thus $P({\bf x})$ separates $S$. By a theorem of P. S. Aleksandrov (Theorem 5.12 in vol. I of [@alexandrov]) we get that the topological dimension of $P({\bf x})$ is at least $n-2$.
[[**Remark:** ]{}]{}If we identify the opposite points of $S$, then we get an $(n-1)$-dimensional projective space $P$ dissected into two parts, one of them open and the other one closed, respectively. The open part contains the points of the identified sets $P({\bf x})^r$ and $P({\bf x})^l$, while the closed one contains the identified point-pairs of $P({\bf x})$.
Bounded representation of the bisector
======================================
We define now an important mapping of the bisector. Let ${\bf z}$ be a point of $B(-{\bf x},{\bf x})$. If it is an ordinary point, then there is a unique value $1 < t_{\bf z} < \infty$ for which ${\bf z}\in (t_{\bf z}S + x) \cap (t_{\bf z}S-x)$. Let $\Phi : B(-{\bf x},{\bf x})\longrightarrow K$ denote the mapping which sends [**z**]{} into $\Phi({\bf z}) = \frac{1}{t_{\bf z}}{\bf z}$. For ordinary points the mapping $\Phi $ of the bisector is continuous. We extend $\Phi $ to the ideal points by the following rule: The image of an ideal point is its radial projection. Denote the image set of $\Phi $ (with respect to this extended mapping) by $\Phi(B(-{\bf x},{\bf x}))$. We will call this set *the bounded representation of the bisector*. We now have a connection between the concept of bisector and metrical properties of $K$.
The bounded representation of the bisector is the union of the shadow boundary of $K$ and the locus of the midpoints of the chords of K parallel to [**x**]{}.
[[**Proof:** ]{}]{}For an ordinary point [**z**]{} of the bisector we have $1 \leq t_{\bf z} < \infty$, and thus the norm of $$\frac{1}{t_{\bf z}}{\bf z} =\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{1}{t_{\bf z}}({\bf z}-{\bf x}) +\frac{1}{t_{\bf z}}
({\bf z} + {\bf x})\right)$$ is less or equal to 1.
If it is equal to 1, then the point $\frac{1}{t_{\bf z}}{\bf z}$ is a point of a horizontal segment (parallel to [**x**]{}) of the boundary and thus a point of the shadow boundary, and the set of all points corresponding to the value $t_{\bf z}$ yields a horizontal segment of $S$. If now $t\geq t_{\bf z}$, the points of the bounded representation corresponding to this value $t$ form another segment containing the segment of $t_{\bf z}$. Thus the directions determined by the points of the segment of $t_{\bf z}$ are ideal points of the bisector, proving that the points of the shadow boundary are images of certain ideal points.
In the other case the obtained point is the midpoint of that chord whose endpoints are $\frac{1}{t_{\bf z}}({\bf z}-{\bf x})\in S$ and $\frac{1}{t_{\bf z}}({\bf z}+{\bf x})\in S$, respectively.
Now, by the definition of ideal points, the continuity of the mapping is clear. In fact, we have to check that the image of a point of the bisector with large norm is close to the boundary $S$ of $K$. Since, by definition, $t_{\bf z}$ is equal to $\|{\bf z}-{\bf x}\|$, we have the two inequalities $$1\geq \|\frac{1}{t_{\bf z}}{\bf z}\|=\frac{\|{\bf z}\|}{\|{\bf z}-{\bf x}\|}=\frac{1}{\|\frac{{\bf z}}{\|{\bf z}\|}-\frac{{\bf x}}{\|{\bf z}\|}\|}\geq \frac{1}{1+\frac{\|{\bf x}\|}{\|{\bf z}\|}},$$ showing that for ${\bf z}$ with large norm its bounded representation is close to $S$. To visualize the proof, we show in Fig. 2 the bisector and its bounded representation in a two-dimensional space.
For example, by [@james2] we get from this lemma immediately the following
[*The bounded representation of the bisector $B({\bf x},-{\bf x})$ with respect to any point [**x**]{} from the unit sphere of a Minkowski space is contained in an $(n-1)$-subspace if and only if the Minkowski space is Euclidean.*]{}
It is easy to see that the shadow boundary $S(K,{\bf {\bf x}})$ is the set of points of $S$ which are orthogonal to the vector ${\bf x}$ in the sense of Birkhoff, and thus some results on Birkhoff orthogonality in [@martini-wu] can be extended to higher dimensions. These are described in the following.
Theorem 2.6 in [@martini-wu] says that the shadow boundary is a subset of the closure of the radial projection. A consequence of the concept of bounded representation of the bisector is the fact that such theorems can be extended to higher dimensions. To prove this, we observe that the radial projection is exactly the radial projection of the bounded representation of the bisector, implied by Lemma 1. So it contains the shadow boundary, extending Theorem 2.6 of [@martini-wu].
Theorem 2.9 in [@martini-wu] refers to the converse statement. If for a point ${\bf x}$ of $S$ there exists a unique point ${\bf z}$ (except for the sign) such that ${\bf x}$ is orthogonal to ${\bf z}$ in the sense of Birkhoff, then ${\bf z}$ is a point of the radial projection of the bisector corresponding to ${\bf x}$. If we denote the sharp points of the shadow boundary as those points of $K$ which are unique in their carrying supporting line of $K$ parallel to ${\bf x}$, we can say that the sharp points of the shadow boundary corresponding to the direction of ${\bf x}$ belong to the radial projection of the bisector of ${\bf x}$. This is also a consequence of our present definitions and Lemma 1.
Let now $n=2$, and assume that ${\bf z}$ is the radial projection of an ideal point of the bisector of ${\bf x}$. Then it belongs to the shadow boundary of ${\bf x}$ implying that it is Birkhoff orthogonal to ${\bf x}$. Thus, if we consider a boundary point [**z**]{} of the radial projection which is not Birkhoff orthogonal to ${\bf x}$, this is a projective image of an ordinary point of the bisector. Thus ${\bf z}$ is a point of the radial projection in the classical sense, too. This proves Theorem 2.10 in [@martini-wu]
The main aim of this paper is to prove the following theorem on the topology of the bounded representation of the bisector.
If the bisector is a manifold of dimension $n-1$ with boundary, then its bounded representation is homeomorphic to the $(n-1)$-dimensional closed ball $B^{n-1}$. Conversely, if the bounded representation is a topological ball of dimension $n-1$, then the bisector is of the same type. Furthermore, its relative interior (which is the set of its ordinary points) is a topological hyperplane of dimension $n-1$.
[[**Proof:** ]{}]{}Assume that the bisector is a manifold of dimension $n-1$ with boundary. Then an ordinary point has a relatively open $(n-1)$-dimensional neighborhood in the bisector, and thus there are interior points. On the other hand, there is no ideal point which could be in the relative interior of the bisector implying that the set of ordinary points of the bisector is a manifold of dimension $n-1$. Hence our assumption implies that the shadow boundary $S(K,{\bf x})$ is a manifold of dimension $n-2$. In fact, from Theorem 5 and Theorem 4 in [@gho3] we get that the shadow boundary is also a topological manifold of dimension $n-2$. Theorem 2 says that it is homeomorphic to $S^{n-2}$. On the other hand, the set $C$ of midpoints of correspondingly directed chords containing interior points of $K$ is always homeomorphic to the positive part $S^+$ of the boundary $S$ of $K$, determined by the shadow boundary. Thus it is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$. Finally we observe that the boundary of the latter set $C$ is the shadow boundary itself, showing that the bounded representation of the bisector is homeomorphic to $B^{n-1}$, as we stated.
We remark that the converse statement is true if and only if the manifold property of the bounded representation can be extended to the bisector. This is clear for the points mapping to the interior of $K$, but it is not evident for other points of the bisector. The problem is that the pre-images of a point of the shadow boundary could form a point or a half-line, respectively. Thus $\Phi $ is not an injective (but, of course, a surjective) continuous mapping. Clearly, both of the two sets (the bisector and its bounded representation) are continua, i.e., compact, connected Hausdorff ($T_2$) spaces. Moreover, the points and half-lines are cell-like sets; thus $\Phi$ is a cell-like mapping. Restricting $\Phi$ to the ideal point of the bisector, we get a bijective mapping onto the shadow boundary. We prove that the set of ideal points is compact in the bisector. Of course, the ideal points of the bisector give a proper part $I$ of $S^{n-1}$ bounding the topological ball $B^n$. Hence this point set can be regarded as a subset of an $(n-1)$-dimensional Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$. (We can consider ${\bf x}_\infty$ as the center of a stereographic projection.) Its clear that $I$ is bounded. It is also closed by its definition, and so it is compact by the Heine-Borel theorem on compact sets in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ (see, e.g., p. 9 in [@knopp]). On the other hand, the shadow boundary can also be regarded as an $(n-2)$-sphere embedded into a Euclidean $(n-1)$-space, because ${\bf x}$ is not a point of it. A continuous and bijective mapping from a compact set of $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ into $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ is a homeomorphism (see again [@knopp]). Thus the ideal points of the bisector give a topological $(n-2)$-dimensional sphere.
Now we prove that the ordinary points of the bisector are, with respect to its relative topology, interior points of it. We remark that it is trivial for a point ${\bf z}\in B(-{\bf x},{\bf x})$ if $\Phi ({\bf z})$ is an interior point of $K$, because $\Phi $ (by its definition) is a homeomorphism on the collection of such points onto the interior of the bounded representation of the bisector. Thus it is also relatively open with respect to the bisector, and this part of the bisector is a topological manifold, homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.
Let now $\Phi ({\bf z})$ belong to the shadow boundary. Since it is a topological sphere of dimension $n-2$, there is a cell of dimension $n-2$ (a homeomorphic copy of a closed ball of dimension $n-2$), namely $Z$, containing $\Phi ({\bf z})$ in its interior. The pre-image $\Phi^{-1}(\mbox{int }B)$ of the interior $\mbox{int }B$ of $B$ is (by the continuity of $\Phi $) open with respect to the topology of the bisector and contains ${\bf z}$. Thus it has also an interior point with respect to the topology of the bisector.
Finally we observe that from the compactness of $B$ the existence of an $\varepsilon$ follows for which the set $$\{{\bf v} \mbox{ : } \|{\bf z}\|-\varepsilon \leq\|{\bf v}\| \leq \|{\bf z}\|-\varepsilon \mbox{, }{\bf v}\in \Phi^{-1}(B)\}$$ is a closed cone (truncated by two parallel surfaces) containing ${\bf z}$ in its interior. Since the interior of this body is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$, we get that the set of ordinary points is a manifold of dimension $n-1$. In the proof of Theorem 5 from [@gho3] it is shown that if the ordinary points of the bisector yield an $(n-1)$-manifold, then it is homeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$, and Theorem 6 there establishes that it is a topological hyperplane. Thus we proved that the closed bisector is a cell of dimension $n-1$ whose interior can be embedded in the $n$-dimensional Euclidean space in a standard (unknotted) way, as we stated.
In higher dimensions the topology of the radial projection does (in contrast to the bounded representation) not simplify by the simplification of the topology of the bisector. Finally we give an example showing that it is possible that the bisector is a manifold with boundary of dimension $n-1$, but $P({\bf x})$ is not a manifold.
Take a cartesian coordinate system in the Euclidean space, with the respective coordinate-axes $x,y$ and $z$, and vectors ${\bf x}$ and ${\bf z}$ having coordinates $(1,0,0)$ and $(0,0,1)$, respectively. Consider the example from [@gho1] in which the body $K$ is the convex hull of two half-circles with parallel diameters and in symmetric position with respect to the origin, such that their affine hulls are parallel to the plane $x=0$ (see Fig. 4). Besides the two half circles, the ruled part of the boundary of their convex hull contains four conic surface parts and two opposite triangles. The bounded representation of the bisector corresponding to the direction orthogonal to the planes of the half-circles is homeomorphic to a plane. It can be obtained in the following way: Cut the surface of $K$ by the segments parallel to ${\bf x}$ into two parts. The described half-disks do no longer belong to the surface. Apply an affinity to these two parts, by the ratio $\frac{1}{2}$, with direction orthogonal to the end planes. Finally glue these parts together at their common vertical segment $[-{\bf z},{\bf z}]$. It is clear that the central projection of this ruled surface from the midpoint of $[-{\bf z},{\bf z}]$ is the union of those curves which are the intersections of the planes through $[-{\bf z},{\bf z}]$ and the respective points of $S$. The obtained four parts are conic surfaces separated by $-{\bf z}$, ${\bf z}$ and the two opposite points of the half-circles lying on the horizontal plane $z=0$. Of course, in this case the radial projection is not a topological manifold.
[99]{}
Aleksandrov, P. S.: [*Combinatorial Topology.*]{} Graylock Press Rochester, N.Y 1956.
Aurenhammer, F., Klein, R.: [*Voronoi diagrams.*]{} Handbook of Computational Geometry, Chapter 5, Eds. J.-R. Sack and J. Urrutia, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2000, pp. 201-209.
Birkhoff, G.: [*Orthogonality in linear metric spaces.*]{} Duke Math. J. [**1**]{} (1935), 169–172.
G. Horváth, Á.: [*On bisectors in Minkowski normed spaces.*]{} Acta Math. Hungar. [**89(3)**]{} (2000), 233-246.
G. Horváth, Á.: [*Bisectors in Minkowski 3-spaces.*]{} Beiträge zur Algebra und Geometrie [**45(1)**]{} (2004), 225-238.
G. Horváth, Á.: [*On the shadow boundary of a centrally symmetric convex body.*]{} Beiträge zur Algebra und Geometrie [**50/1**]{} (2009), 219-233.
James, R. C.: [*Orthogonality in normed linear spaces.*]{} Duke Math. J. [**12**]{} (1945), 291–302.
James, R. C.: [*Orthogonality and linear functionals in normed linear spaces.*]{} Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**53**]{} (1947), 559–566.
Knopp, K.: [*Theory of Functions, Parts I and II, Two Volumes Bound as One, Part I.*]{} New York: Dover, 1996.
Martini, H., Swanepoel, K., Weiss, G.: [*The geometry of Minkowski spaces - a survey. Part I.*]{} Expositiones Mathematicae [**19**]{} (2001), 97-142.
Martini, H., Swanepoel, K.: [*The geometry of Minkowski spaces - a survey. Part II.*]{} Expositiones Mathematicae [**22(2)**]{} (2004), 93-144.
Martini, H., Wu, S.: [*Radial projections of bisectors in Minkowski spaces.*]{} Extracta Mathematicae [**23(1)**]{} (2008), 7-28
Thompson, A. C.: *Minkowski Geometry*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.
Horst Martini\
Faculty of Mathematics\
Chemnitz University of Technology\
09107 Chemnitz\
Germany
Ákos G.Horváth,\
Department of Geometry\
Budapest University of Technology and Economics\
1521 Budapest, Hungary\
e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Transient computing has become popular in public cloud environments for running delay-insensitive batch and data processing applications at low cost. Since transient cloud servers can be revoked at any time by the cloud provider, they are considered unsuitable for running interactive application such as web services. In this paper, we present VM deflation as an alternative mechanism to server preemption for reclaiming resources from transient cloud servers under resource pressure. Using real traces from top-tier cloud providers, we show the feasibility of using VM deflation as a resource reclamation mechanism for interactive applications in public clouds. We show how current hypervisor mechanisms can be used to implement VM deflation and present cluster deflation policies for resource management of transient and on-demand cloud VMs. Experimental evaluation of our deflation system on a Linux cluster shows that microservice-based applications can be deflated by up to 50% with negligible performance overhead. Our cluster-level deflation policies allow overcommitment levels as high as 50%, with less than a 1% decrease in application throughput, and can enable cloud platforms to increase revenue by 30%.'
author:
- Alexander Fuerst
- 'Ahmed Ali-Eldin'
- Prashant Shenoy
- Prateek Sharma
bibliography:
- 'sample.bib'
title: 'Cloud-scale VM Deflation for Running Interactive Applications On Transient Servers'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Transient computing is becoming commonplace in cloud environments. Today, all major cloud providers such as Amazon, Azure, and Google offer transient cloud servers in the form of preemptible instances that can be unilaterally revoked during periods of high server demand. Transient computing resources enable cloud providers to increase revenue by offering idle servers at significant discounts (often 7-10X cheaper) while retaining the ability to reclaim them during periods of higher demand.
While transient cloud servers have become popular due to their discounted prices, their revocable nature has meant that users typically limit their use for running disruption-tolerant jobs such as batch or data processing tasks. They have traditionally not been used for online web services due to potential downtimes that occur when the underlying servers are revoked.
In this paper, we present virtual machine (VM) deflation as an alternative mechanism for reclaiming resources from transient cloud servers. We argue that VM deflation is more attractive than outright preemption for applications, since they continue to run, albeit more slowly, under resource pressure rather than being terminated. Deflation simplifies application design since they no longer need to implement fault tolerance approaches such as checkpointing to handle server preemptions. Deflation also expands the classes of applications that are suitable to run on transient cloud servers—even web services can utilize such servers since downtimes from preemptions are no longer a risk; with the exception of mission critical web workloads, less critical web applications that are willing to tolerate occasional slowdowns can run on such servers at a much lower cost than on traditional cloud servers.
The notion of resource deflation was first proposed as a cascade deflation approach [@deflation-eurosys19] that collaboratively reclaimed resources from the application, the OS, and the hypervisor. Cascade deflation requires cooperation from the OS and the application and is impractical in public clouds that treat VMs as “black boxes.” Instead, a hypervisor-only approach to deflation that requires no support from the application or OS is better suited to Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS) public clouds—the key focus of our work.
By fractionally reclaiming resources from applications instead of outright preemption, VM deflation reduces the risk of downtimes for interactive applications, with a modest decrease in application performance. In designing and implementing our hypervisor-only deflation approach, our paper makes the following contributions.
We demonstrate the feasibility of using VM deflation as a resource reclamation mechanism in public clouds using real CPU, memory, disk, and network traces from two top-tier cloud providers (Azure and Alibaba). Our analysis shows that cloud VMs running interactive applications have substantial slack and can withstand deflation of 30-50% of their allocated resources with less than a 1% performance impact.
We then show how current hypervisor mechanisms such as hot-plug and throttling can be used to implement VM deflation. We also present several cluster-wide policies for VM deflation-based resource reclamation. Our policies present different tradeoffs and capabilities while attempting to minimize the performance impact of VM deflation.
We implement a prototype of our VM deflation mechanisms and policies on a virtualized Linux cluster and evaluate its efficacy using realistic web applications as well as other workloads. We also conduct a trace-driven evaluation of our policies using VM-level workloads from a cloud provider. Our results show that:
1. The resource utilization of cloud VMs is low, which makes deflation a viable technique for transient resources.
2. Deflation can be implemented with hypervisor and guest-OS level overcommitment. These deflation mechanisms can reclaim large amounts of resources in a black-box manner, with minimal performance degradation. For interactive microservice based applications, even 50% deflation results in negligible reduction in performance.
3. Our cluster-level deflation policies make deflation an effective technique for increasing cluster overcommitment (the ratio of committed VM allocations to cluster hardware availability) by up to 50%; nearly eliminates the risk of preemptions; and results in less than 1% drop in application throughput.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. Section \[sec:background\] presents background on transient computing and deflation. Section \[sec:feasibility\] presents our feasibility analysis of VM deflation in public clouds. Section \[sec:mechanisms\] and \[sec:policies\] present VM deflation mechanisms and cluster-wide deflation policies, respectively. Section \[sec:impl\] and \[sec:eval\] present our implementation and experimental results. Finally, Section \[sec:related\] and \[sec:conclusions\] present related work and our conclusions.
Background {#sec:background}
==========
In this section, we provide background on transient cloud computing, and VM deflation.
[**Transient computing.**]{} Our work assumes a cloud data center where applications run on traditional (“on-demand”) servers or transient servers. Both types of servers are provisioned using virtual machines, and cloud applications run inside such VMs. Cloud offerings such as Amazon spot Instances [@warning-time], Google Preemptible VMs [@preemptible], and Azure batch VMs [@azure-batch] are examples of transient servers. Transient cloud servers represent surplus capacity that is offered at discounted rates but these resources can be reclaimed under resource pressure (e.g., higher demand for on-demand servers).
Batch-oriented applications are particularly well suited for transient computing. Such applications tend to be both delay and disruption tolerant and can handle longer completion times. In the event of a preemption, they can simply be restarted from the beginning or restarted from a checkpoint if the application is amenable to periodic checkpointing. Consequently, transient cloud servers have become popular for running large batch workloads at a substantial discount over using on-demand servers [@flint-eurosys16].
[**Deflation.**]{} While current transient servers implement resource reclamation in the form of preemptions—where the VM is unilaterally revoked by the cloud provider—our work explores the use of VM deflation as an alternative approach for resource reclamation under pressure. Although deflation frees up fewer resources than preemption (which frees up all of the VM resources), it enables applications to continue execution and eliminates application downtimes due to preempted servers [@deflation-eurosys19]. Our hypothesis is that occasional performance degradation, rather than termination and downtime, is more acceptable to many interactive and web applications, except the most critical ones, making transient computing feasible for a broader class of applications.
Since modern hypervisors allow resource allocation of resident VMs to be increased or decreased dynamically, VM deflation can be realized using current hypervisor mechanisms, such as ballooning [@waldspurger2002memory], hotplugging, changing CPU shares, etc. While any of the existing techniques can be used to implement VM deflation mechanisms, the challenge lies in the design of judicious policies on [*when*]{} and [*what*]{} to deflate and by [*how much*]{}, while minimizing the impact of deflation on application performance. We note that while VM deflation mechanisms are similar to elasticity (e.g., vertical scaling) mechanisms, our goal is to focus on cluster-wide deflation policies for resource reclamation, a different problem than elastic scaling as discussed in Section \[sec:related\].
Figure \[fig:defl-over\] gives an overview of our deflation system—the cluster manager implements the global VM deflation and placement policies (Section \[sec:policies\]) and places new VMs onto servers. The hypervisor implements local deflation policies (also in Section \[sec:policies\]), and uses VM deflation mechanisms (Section \[sec:mechanisms\]). The hypervisor also sends notifications to the application manager (such as a load balancer), which can help applications respond to deflation.
![Overview of our deflation system.[]{data-label="fig:defl-over"}](Figs_deflat-full-system.pdf){width="30.00000%"}
Feasibility of Deflation in Public Clouds {#sec:feasibility}
=========================================
Before presenting our deflation techniques, we examine the efficacy and feasibility of deflating public cloud applications. We use publicly-available resource usage traces from two top-tier cloud providers, Azure [@resourcecentral-sosp] and Alibaba [@alibaba-trace]. The goal of our analysis is to understand the feasibility of deflating CPU, memory, disk, and network allocations of real cloud applications, and specifically interactive web applications, under time-varying workloads that they exhibit. We seek to answer two key research questions through our feasibility analysis: (1) How much slack is present in cloud VMs and by how much can these VMs be safely deflated without any performance impact? (2) How does workload class and VM size impact the deflatability of VMs?
![Application behavior under different levels of deflation.[]{data-label="fig:deflation-model"}](Figs_util-curve2.pdf){width="1.8in"}
Application Behavior under Deflation
------------------------------------
We first present an abstract model to capture the performance behavior of an application under different amounts of resource deflation. Figure \[fig:deflation-model\] illustrates this behavior. We assume that an application running inside a cloud VM will have a certain amount of slack—unused CPU and memory resources. Reclaiming these unused resources represented by the slack will typically have negligible performance impact on the application since they are surplus resources; the behavior in this operating region is depicted by the horizontal portion of the performance curve labelled slack in Figure \[fig:deflation-model\]. Once all of the slack has been reclaimed by deflating the VM, any further deflation will actually impact performance. We assume that initially this performance impact is linear with increasing amounts of VM deflation. For some applications, this behavior can even be sub-linear, which means that a certain reduction in allocated resources yields proportionately less performance slowdown. For less elastic applications, however, the impact can be super-linear. In either case, beyond a certain point—represented by the knee of the curve—the performance drops precipitously, implying that allocated resources are insufficient for satisfactory performance.
This abstract model captures the three regions with varying performance impacts on applications due to deflation. Clearly, deflating slack is the simplest approach since it usually has little or no performance impact. When additional resources need to be reclaimed, the deflation policy should ensure that such deflation minimizes the performance impact and does not push application performance beyond the knee of the curve.
Figure \[fig:util-all\] depicts this behavior for three different applications. As can be seen, different applications have different amounts of slack (with SpecJBB not exhibiting any slack at all in this example), and the size of the linear performance degradation region also varies from application to application. The figure illustrates the need to take application’s characteristics into account when reclaiming its allocated resources using deflation.
![Application performance when all resources (CPU, memory, I/O) are deflated in the same proportion. []{data-label="fig:util-all"}](graphs_no-spark-utils-all.pdf){width="33.00000%"}
![Deflation can result in underallocated resources.[]{data-label="fig:underalloc"}](Figs_underalloc.pdf){width="25.00000%"}
Usage-based Feasibility Analysis
--------------------------------
### CPU Deflation
We analyze VM traces of CPU utilization in the Azure dataset to quantify their deflation capability. The dataset, which includes data from 2 million VMs, provides CPU utilization time series for each VM at 5-minute granularity. Importantly for us, each VM trace is partitioned into one of three classes—interactive, delay-insensitive, and unknown—depending on the type of application resident in the VM. We analyze all three classes of VM traces but pay particular attention to interactive applications, which tend to be dominated by web-based services. To analyze the impact of deflation, we assume that the CPU allocation of the VM is reduced by a certain percentage and calculate the percentage of time for which the *maximum* CPU usage over each interval in the original trace exceeds this value. We observe that as long as the CPU utilization is below this deflated allocation, there will be no performance impact on the application. However, during periods where the utilization exceeds the allocation under deflation (i.e., underallocation), the application will experience a slowdown.
As shown in Figure \[fig:underalloc\], the resource utilization and deflation determine how much time a VM is underallocated. The total amount of under-allocation (area of the utilization curve above the deflated allocation) is the decrease in application throughput. We want to quantify the slack in the VMs under different levels of deflation such that there is no performance impact on the application.
Figure \[fig:bp-thresh\] shows a box plot of the fraction of time spent by VMs above the deflated resource allocation (i.e., underallocated) for all 2 million VMs. Even at high deflation levels (50%), the median VM spends 80% of the time below the deflated allocation. This result indicates that even high deflation levels of as much as 50% do not lead to significant resource bottlenecks for applications.
Since the Azure dataset labels each VM trace with the class of application hosted by the VM, we break down the overall result in Figure \[fig:bp-over-thresh\] by application type. Figure \[fig:bp-over-thresh\] depicts a box plot of the fraction of time that VMs of different application classes exceed their deflated allocations under different levels of deflation. The figure shows that interactive applications, which include web workloads, tend to have lower overall utilization and hence more slack than delay insensitive batch workloads (presumably since they are over provisioned to handle unexpected peak loads). Consequently, interactive application VMs are more amenable to deflation of their surplus (slack) capacity. Thus, for any given deflation level, interactive VMs see significantly *less* impact in terms the CPU usage exceeding the deflated allocation. The percentage of time when the interactive VMs get impacted ranges from 1% to 15%, as deflation percentage is varied from 10% to 50%. In contrast, batch jobs see 1% to 30% impact. This result shows that interactive applications and web workloads can be subjected to deflation just like, and perhaps more so, than delay-insensitive batch applications.
Figure \[fig:bp-mem\] examines whether the VM size has an impact on its ability to be deflated. Based on the trace we partition VMs into 3 groups – small VMs with 2 GB RAM or lower, medium VMs with up to 8 GB RAM, and large VMs with more than 8GB RAM, and examine the percentage of time the VM CPU usage exceeds the deflated allocation within each group. The figure shows that VM size has no direct correlation to the deflatability of a VM, and all VMs see a similar performance impact under different deflation levels regardless of VM size. The result implies that VMs of all sizes are more or less equally amenable to deflation.
Finally, Figure \[fig:bp-p95\] examines the deflatability of VMs for VMs with different peak loads. We compute the $95^{th}$ percentile of CPU usage for all VMs and partition VMs into four classes; those with low peak utilization of less than 33%, those with moderate peak load between 33% and 66% peak utilization, those with higher load between 66% and 80% utilization and finally, the rest with high peak loads above 80%. As shown in the figure, higher peak loads implies that VMs see greater impact when deflated since the peak will exceed the deflated allocation for longer durations. Interestingly, for deflation levels of up to 20%, all VMs, except the ones with peak load exceeding 80%, have enough slack to see minimal impact. The figure generally indicates that the peak load, represented by a high percentile of the utilization distribution is a coarse indicator of the “deflatability”’ of the VM; VMs with lower peak loads are more amenable to deflation.
![Fraction of time (i.e. probability) of CPU usage of VMs being higher than different deflation targets.[]{data-label="fig:bp-thresh"}](AzureGraphs_percent-over-thresh-box-total-vector.pdf){width="2in"}
{width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:bp-over-thresh\]
{width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:bp-mem\]
{width="\linewidth"}
\[fig:bp-p95\]
### Memory and I/O Deflation
We also analyze the memory, disk, and network deflation feasibility based on Alibaba’s resource traces [@alibaba-analysis] [@alibaba-trace], that provide a time series of resource utilization for their internal container-based interactive services. Note that VM-based applications have a higher deflation potential because they are overprovisioned and must include additional resources for the guest OS; thus this container-level analysis of Alibaba’s cloud applications provides a very conservative (lower-bound) estimate of the actual deflation potential.
**Memory.** We analyze the memory usage of the applications under different deflation levels in Figure \[fig:ali-mem\]. Interestingly, as shown, the fraction of time that the application spends above different deflation thresholds is generally high. At first glance, this might suggest that the high memory utilization leaves little slack to deflate memory (e.g., even at 10% memory deflation, the applications would spend more than 70% time underallocated).
However, further analysis of the memory usage traces indicates that this is not really the case. First, the Alibaba memory traces provide the [*total*]{} memory usage and do not provide a fine-grain breakdown of memory usage, such as such as working set size, page-cache and disk-buffer pages. Over 90% of the applications in Alibaba trace are JVM-based services that overallocate memory (for the heap) to reduce the garbage collection overhead. As is well known, modern applications and operating systems aggressively used unallocated RAM for purposes of caching and buffering. Hence, the total memory usage shown in Figure \[fig:ali-mem\] is not a true measure of deflation potential of applications.
Conventional wisdom holds that application performance will be affected when the memory is deflated below its *working set* size, and deflation of other memory used for caching or garbage collection should have a lesser impact on performance. In fact, our experiments have shown that, even when memory is deflated *below* the working set size, the performance degradation, while noticeable, is not serve. For instance, Figure \[fig:util-all\] shows the resilience of Memcached, a highly memory-dependent application. Figure \[fig:jbb-mem\] shows that even SpecJBB (which is representative of the JVM-based applications that comprise the trace) can have its memory deflated by up to 30% without significant drop in performance.
To further analyze the true memory deflation potential, we we use the memory-bus bandwidth used by the different applications as a proxy metric for memory usage. As shown in Figure \[fig:ali-mem-band\], we see that the memory bandwidth usage is very low, with the mean memory bandwidth utilization across all containers being less than one-tenth of one percent, while the maximum is only 1%. This indicates that the applications are not reading/writing to the RAM in proportion to their memory allocations, and that the memory deflatability should be significantly higher than what is indicated by Figure \[fig:ali-mem\] alone.
**Disk and Network.** Finally, we examine the deflatability of disk and network bandwidth in Figures \[fig:ali-disk\] and \[fig:ali-net\] using the Alibaba trace. We see that the usage of both I/O resources is very low. The boxplot of application’s disk bandwidth that rises above various deflation thresholds is given in Figure \[fig:ali-disk\]. The percentage of time the actual disk bandwidth usage rises above various deflated allocations is low, indicating there is ample room to deflate the allocated I/O bandwidth. Even at a high deflation level of 50%, containers are underallocated less than 1% of the time. Network usage (sum of normalized incoming and outgoing traffic) is also low: in Figure \[fig:ali-net\] we can see that even this combined network bandwidth is not impacted by even at high (70%) deflation levels, only suffering underallocation 1% of their lifetime. Below 50% deflation, the impact is near-zero and cannot be plotted.
Our analysis shows that low-priority VMs can be shrunk to fit incoming VMs without preemption. Deflation allows providers to continue offering high-priority traditional VMs, and sell unused server space for low-priority VMs that can be deflated. This allows consumers to still have fully-resourced VMs available for a variety of applications. Because the average resource utilization is low, it makes sense for cloud providers to offer low-priority VMs.
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
Deflatable Virtual Machines {#sec:mechanisms}
===========================
In this section we describe how VM deflation mechanisms can be implemented using existing hypervisor mechanisms.
VM Deflation Mechanisms
-----------------------
VM deflation requires the ability to dynamically shrink the resources allocated to the VM. Modern hypervisors expose interfaces to determine the current resource allocation of a VM and to dynamically modify this allocation. A cluster or cloud management framework can use these hypervisor APIs to implement VM deflation mechanisms.
Our system implements two classes of deflation mechanisms—[*transparent*]{} mechanisms, which transparently shrink the VM’s resource allocation, and [*explicit*]{} mechanisms, where the deflation is performed in a manner that is visible to the guest OS, (and by extension, to the applications and the application cluster manager). In the former case, the guest OS and applications are unaware of the deflation and the VM simply runs “slower” than prior to deflation. In the latter case, since deflation is visible to the guest OS and/or applications, they can take explicit measures, if wanted, to deal with deflation. We describe each mechanism and a hybrid approach that exploits the key benefits of both approaches.
Transparent VM Deflation
------------------------
Since hypervisors offer virtualized resources to virtual machines, they can also *overcommit* these resources by multiplexing virtual resources onto physical ones. Transparent VM deflation is implemented using these hypervisor overcommitment mechanisms. For example, the hypervisor allows virtual CPUs (vCPUs) of the VM to be mapped onto dedicated physical CPU cores. Such an allocation can be deflated by remapping the vCPUs onto a smaller number of physical cores using the hypervisor’s CPU scheduler. Thus the guest OS and applications inside the VM still see the same number of vCPUs, but these vCPUs run slower.
In the case of memory, hypervisors allocate an amount of physical memory to a VM and multiplexes the VM’s virtualized memory address-space onto physical memory, via two-dimensional paging. Memory deflation thus involves dynamically reducing the physical memory allocated to a VM.
In the case of network, one or more logical network interfaces of a VM are mapped onto one or more physical NICs and a certain bandwidth of the physical NICs is allocated to each vNIC by the hypervisor. Network deflation involves reducing the physical NIC bandwidth allocated to the VM. Finally, in the case of local disks, the I/O bandwidth allocated to each VM can be throttled. With the above hypervisor level transparent techniques, the VM and applications are oblivious of the deflation, which is done at the hypervisor level outside of the VM. The VM may get scheduled at a lower frequency or have less physical memory, etc. Our deflation framework has been implemented in KVM and Linux using Linux’s cgroups facility. By running KVM VMs inside of cgroups, we can control the physical resources available for the VM to use. For deflating CPUs, we use CPU bandwidth control by setting the CPU shares of the deflatable VM. The memory footprint of a deflatable VM is controlled by restricting the VM’s physical memory allocation by setting the memory limit in the memory cgroup. Similarly for disk and network I/O, we use the respective I/O cgroups to set bandwidth limits.
Explicit Deflation via Hotplug
------------------------------
Modern virtualization environments now support the ability to explicitly hot plug (and unplug) resources from running guest operating systems. Explicit deflation mechanisms use these hot unplug techniques to reduce the VM’s allocation in a manner that is visible to the guest OS and the applications. In the case of CPU, if a VM has $n$ vCPUs allocated to it, its CPU resources are reclaimed by unplugging $k$ out of $n$ vCPUs. Hot plugging and unplugging requires guest OS support, since it must reschedule/rebalance processes and threads to a smaller or larger number of cores. Thus, the deflation is visible to the guest OS and applications. In the case of memory, we use memory unplugging to inform the OS and applications of the resource pressure, which allows them to return unused pages, shrink caches, etc. Explicit unplugging of NICs and disks is generally unsafe, and we rely on the transparent hypervisor-level mechanisms for these.
Hot unplugging has a safety threshold—unplugging too many resources (e.g., too much memory) beyond this safety threshold can cause OS or application failures. Furthermore, hot unplug can only be done in coarse-grained units. For example, it is not possible to unplug 1.5 vCPUs.
Hybrid Deflation Mechanisms
---------------------------
Both transparent and explicit deflation have advantages and disadvantages. Explicit deflation—by virtue of being visible, allows the OS and applications to gracefully handle resource deflation. However, deflation can only be done in coarse-grained units and has a safety threshold. Transparent deflation can be done in more fine-grained slices and has a much broader deflation range than explicit deflation. It does not require any guest OS support but can impose a higher performance penalty since the OS and applications do not know that they are deflated.
Our hybrid deflation technique combines both mechanisms to exploit the advantages of each. Initially, a VM is deflated using explicit deflation until its safety threshold is reached for each resource. From this point, transparent deflation is used for further resource reclamation to extract the maximum possible resources from the VM under high resource pressure. Figure \[fig:hybrid-code\] presents the high-level pseudo-code of our hybrid deflation approach. The key challenge is to determine the hot unplug safety threshold so as to switch over from explicit to transparent deflation.
``` {.numberLines .python language="Python" numbers="left" frame="single" basicstyle="\scriptsize\sffamily"}
def deflate_hybrid(target):
hotplug_val = max(get_hp_threshold(), round_up(target))
deflate_hotplug(hotplug_val)
deflate_multiplexing(target)
```
For deflating CPUs, we first set the hotplug target by rounding up the target number of vCPUs (line 2 in Figure \[fig:hybrid-code\]). Then the cgroups based CPU multiplexing deflation can deflate the VM the rest of the way. The hotplug operation may not always succeed in removing all the CPUs requested—the guest OS unplugs the CPU only if it is safe to do so. If the number of reclaimed CPUs via hotplug is less than the number requested, then the multiplexing-based CPU deflation takes up the slack. When deflating memory, we set the hotplug threshold by using the guest OS’s resident set size (RSS)—since unplugging memory beyond the RSS results in guest swapping, and we presume that it is safe to unplug as long as the VM has more memory than the current RSS value.
Our hybrid deflation mechanisms can be used to reclaim significant amounts of CPU, memory, and I/O resources from applications. When deflating memory, hybrid deflation allows the guest OS to hot-unplug unused memory, which can improve performance, as shown in Figure \[fig:jbb-mem\]. The figure shows the mean response time with the SpecJBB 2015 benchmark, and we see that the performance with both transparent and hybrid deflation is largely unaffected up to 40% deflation, and hybrid deflation improves performance by about 10%. Additional results with CPU deflation and with other applications are presented later in Section \[sec:eval\].
![Performance of SpecJBB 2015 with transparent and hybrid memory deflation.[]{data-label="fig:jbb-mem"}](graphs_jbb-hv-hybr.pdf){width="30.00000%"}
Cluster Deflation Policies {#sec:policies}
==========================
In this section, we describe how the mechanisms discussed in the previous section can be used to implement cluster-level deflation policies. We assume a cloud resource management framework that multiplexes physical servers in the cluster across two pools of VMs: non-deflatable higher-priority VMs and deflatable lower-priority VMs. When there is surplus capacity in the cluster, the cloud manager allocates these resources to lower priority VMs (without deflating them). When demand from higher-priority VM causes resource pressure, resources from lower priority VMs are reclaimed using deflation and re-assigned to higher priority VMs. Below, we describe *policies* for doing so that determine how much each VM is actually deflated by, and under what conditions. Our policies assume the worst-case linear correlation between deflation and performance, as shown by Figures \[fig:util-all\] and \[fig:underalloc\]. Which policy to apply we leave up to cloud providers as they have different trade-offs and capabilities that we discuss in Section \[sec:clust-policy-eval\]. The policies we propose are implemented at the level of a physical server. That is, the deflation of a VM is determined by the “local” conditions and the resource profiles of co-located VMs.
Server-level Deflation Policies {#subsec:server-deflation}
-------------------------------
Our system uses three policies for deflation–proportional, priority-based and deterministic—that we describe below.
### Proportional Deflation
In the simplest case, we assume that all VMs that fall into two broad classes: high-priority non-deflatable VMs (aka on-demand), and low-priority deflatable VMs. A server may host VMs of both classes.
Proportional deflation involves deflating each low priority VM in proportion to its original maximum size. More formally, suppose we need to reclaim $R$ amount of a particular resource (CPU, memory, etc.) from $n$ deflatable VMs, and suppose $M_i$ is the original undeflated allocation of that resource allocated to VM $i$. The proportional deflation policy reclaims $x_i$ amount from each VM $i$: $$x_i = M_i - \alpha_1 \cdot M_i,
\label{eq:simple-prop}
\vspace*{-3pt}$$ where $\alpha_1$ is determined by the constraint that $\sum x_i = R$, and is given by $\alpha_1 = 1-({R}/{\sum_i^n M_i})$. Intuitively, we want VMs to deflate in proportion to their size, to avoid excessively deflating small VMs. Note that a new incoming VM may be deflatable, and is included in the pool of $n$ deflatable VMs, and can thus start its execution in a deflated mode under high resource pressure conditions.
This simple proportional deflation policy forms the basis of more sophisticated policies for addressing various cluster management requirements. For instance, some VMs may have a “limit” to their deflatability or QoS minimum requirements if deflated by more than, say, 80%. Applications can provide these requirements to the cluster on provisioning. The cluster manager enforces the minimum resource allocation ($m_i$) with proportional deflation policy, and reclaim resources from each VM using the following relation: $$x_i = (M_i - m_i) - \alpha_2 \cdot ({M_i-m_i}) \\
\label{eq:min-prop}
\vspace*{-3pt}$$
The proportional deflation is performed for each resource (CPU, memory, disk bandwidth, network bandwidth) individually. Enforcing the minimum resource allocation limits can minimize application performance degradation, but can reduce the overcommitment (and possibly revenue) of cloud platforms.
### Priority-based Deflation
Since the impact of deflation is application dependent, a cloud platform can offer multiple classes of deflatable VMs. These priority levels influence how much each VM is deflated by, and can be offered by cloud providers at different prices. These priority classes can be chosen by the user based on their price sensitivity and application characteristics.
The proportional deflation policy (Equation \[eq:simple-prop\]) can be extended to incorporate priorities through a weighted proportional deflation framework. Let $\pi_i\in (0,1)$ be the priority level of VM-$i$. Then, $$x_i = M_i - \alpha_3 \cdot \pi_i \cdot M_i ,
\label{eq:prio-simple}
\vspace*{-3pt}$$ where low $\pi_i$ values indicate lower priority and higher deflatability.
VM priorities can also be applied to determine the minimum resource allocation levels ($m_i$) of the VMs. Intuitively, VMs with a higher priority ($\pi_i$) have a lower deflation tolerance, and thus larger $m_i$ values. For instance, cloud platforms can determine the VM’s minimum resource allocation level as: $m_i = \pi_i \cdot M_i$, and we can then extend the minimum-level-aware deflation (Equation \[eq:min-prop\]) with weighted proportional deflation:
$$x_i = (M_i - \pi_i M_i) - \alpha_4 \cdot \pi_i ({M_i-\pi_i M_i})
\label{eq:prio-all}
\vspace*{-3pt}$$
### Deterministic Deflation
With the above proportional deflation policies, a VM’s deflation level is determined dynamically based on the local resource pressure on the server. In some cases, cloud platforms and applications may require a more deterministic deflation policy, that only deflates VMs to a pre-specified level. VM priorities can be used for determining the deflation levels of VMs—with higher priorities ($\pi_i$) indicating lower deflation. In this case, deflation is binary: either the deflatable VMs are allocated 100% of their resource allocation ($M_i$), or $\pi_i\cdot M_i$. In case of multiple deflatable VMs on a server, VMs are deflated in decreasing order of $\pi_i$’s until sufficient resources are reclaimed to run the new VM.
**Reinflation:** Both our proportional and priority-based policies can also reinflate previously deflated VMs when additional resources become available. When $R_{\text{free}}$ additional resources have become available, we reinflate VMs proportionally by setting $R = -R_{\text{free}}$ in equations \[eq:simple-prop\], \[eq:min-prop\], \[eq:prio-simple\], \[eq:prio-all\], and effectively run the proportional deflation backwards in all the cases. For deterministic deflation, the highest priority VMs are reinflated first.
Deflation-aware VM Placement {#subsec:vm-placement}
----------------------------
The initial placement of VMs onto physical servers also affects their deflation. Conventionally, for non-deflatable VMs, bin-packing based techniques are used by cluster managers to place VMs onto the “right” server in order to minimize fragmentation and total number of servers required. This is often solved through multi-dimensional bin-packing lens. The VM’s CPU, memory, disk and network resource needs as well as the resources available on each server are multi-dimensional vectors. Policies such as best-fit or first-fit can be used to choose a specific server. We use the notion of “fitness” for placing VMs onto a server. Similar to [@tetris], we use the [*cosine similarity*]{} between the demand vector and the availability vector to determine fitness: $ \text{fitness}(\mathbf{D}, \mathbf{A_j}) = \frac{\mathbf{A_j} \cdot \mathbf{D}}{|\mathbf{A_j}||\mathbf{D}|}$. Here, $\mathbf{D}$ is the demand vector of the new VM, and $\mathbf{A_j}$ is the resource availability vector of server $j$. If $A_j = 0$, i.e. there are no available resources, a small value $\epsilon$ can be added to it, or the server can be removed from consideration, to prevent division by 0. The availability vector is given by $A_j = \text{Total}_j - \text{Used}_j + (\text{deflatable}_j / \text{overcommitted}_j)$, where $\text{deflatable}_j$ is the maximum amount of resources that can be reclaimed by deflation and $\text{overcommitted}_j$ is the extent of the deflation already done. By evaluating all severs and considering their level of overcommitment, this approach prefers servers with lower overcommitment, and thus achieves better load balancing.
### Placement With Cluster Partitions.
The above VM placement approach results in VMs of different priority levels sharing physical servers. This “mixing” can be beneficial and improve overall cluster utilization, since lower priority VMs can be deflated to make room for higher priority VMs. However, increasing the number of co-located deflated VMs can potentially result in higher performance interference (aka noisy neighbor effect).
While performance interference can be mitigated through stronger hypervisor and hardware-level isolation techniques, it can also be addressed by VM placement. The key idea is to *partition* the cluster into multiple priority pools, and only place VMs in their respective priority pools. Within a pool, we use the bin-packing approach for deflatable VMs and continue to use either proportional or deterministic deflation policies on the individual servers. The size of the different pools can be based on the typical workload mix.
Thus, higher priority VMs will generally run on servers with lower overcommitment and lower risk of performance interference, and lower priority VMs face higher risk of overcommitment. This approach also allows cloud operators to limit and control the distribution of overcommittment of different servers, which reduces the risk of severe performance degradation due to overcommitment.
A possible downside of cluster partitions is that if a partition becomes “full” even after deflating all its VMs to their maximum limits, new VMs may have to be rejected using the admission control mechanism. This can reduce cluster overcommitment and revenue.
### Pricing Considerations
Our work assumes that deflatable VMs are priced differently from traditional on-demand VMs. Similar to preemptible VMs, a cloud provider may choose to offer deflatable VMs at fixed discounted prices (e.g., at 60-80% discount). The cloud provider may also price deflatable VMs based on priority levels, where the priority level determines the proportion by which VM can be deflated and also the discount in the price. Finally, the cloud provider may use variable pricing where the deflatable VM is billed based on the actual allocation of resources over time, with lower prices charged during periods of deflation. The different pricing policies, when combined with placement and server-level deflation policies, result in different levels of application performance, cluster utilization, and revenue. These tradeoffs are presented in the evaluation section.
Implementation {#sec:impl}
==============
We have implemented all the deflation mechanisms and policies discussed in Sections \[sec:mechanisms\]-\[sec:policies\] as well as deflation-aware web applications, as part of a deflation-aware cluster manager framework. Our system is comprised of two main components (see Figure \[fig:defl-over\]). A centralized cluster manager implements and invokes the VM placement policies and generally controls the global-state of the system. In addition, we run local deflation controllers that run on each server. These local controllers control the deflation of VMs by responding to resource pressure, by implementing the proportional deflation policies described in \[sec:policies\]. Both the centralized cluster manager and the local-controllers are implemented in about 4,000 lines of Python and communicate with each other via a REST API.
[**Deflation Mechanisms.**]{} Our prototype is based on the KVM hypervisor [@kivity2007kvm], and uses the libvirt API for running VMs and for dynamic resource allocation required for deflation. Our hybrid resource deflation mechanisms presented in \[sec:mechanisms\] are implemented by the per-server local controller. CPU and memory hot-plugging (and unplugging) are performed via QEMU’s agent-based hotplug. Hotplug commands are first passed to the user-space QEMU agent, which then forwards them to the guest OS kernel. Thus, the guest OS is made aware of the deflation attempt, and knows the unplug is not due to hardware-failure, and allows the hotplug to be “virtualization friendly”. For example, if the guest kernel cannot safely unplug the requested amount of memory, the hot unplug operation is allowed to return unfinished. In this case, the memory reclaimed through hot plug will be lower, but the safety of the operation is maintained.
For hypervisor level multiplexing of resources, we run KVM VMs inside cgroups containers, which allows us to multiplex resources. For CPU multiplexing, we adjust the cgroups cpu shares of the VM through libvirt’s cgroups API. For transparent memory deflation, we adjust the VM’s physical memory usage by setting the memory usage of the cgroup (). Disk and network bandwidth are also dynamically adjusted via libvirt API’s.
**Deflation Policies.** The server-level deflation policies are implemented by a local deflation controller on each server, which maintains and manager all aspects of the server’s resource allocation state, and determines deflation amounts of different VMs. Each server updates the central master about all changes in server utilization after every deflation event. New VMs are placed on servers using a three-step approach. First, the centralized cluster manager finds the “best” server for the VM based on the VM size and utilizations of all servers. The second step involves the server computing the deflation required to accommodate the new VM. If this violates any resource constraint, then the server rejects the VM. Finally, the actual deflation is performed and the VM is launched.
**Deflation-aware Web Cluster:** When running web clusters on deflatable VMs, the load balancer can be made deflation aware for improved performance. The load balancer can adjust the number of requests sent to a VM based on its deflation level. We implement a deflation-aware load-balancing policy in HAProxy [@haproxy]. We have modified HAProxy’s Weighted Round Robin algorithm by dynamically changing the weights assigned to the different servers based on the current deflation level, which adjusts the number of requests sent to each server based on the “true” resource availability. The load balancer changes are implemented in Python and Kotlin in a total of 300 LOCs and are wrapped in a Docker container.
Experimental Evaluation {#sec:eval}
=======================
In this section, using testbed experiments and simulation, we show the performance of deflatable VMs, and focus on answering the following questions:
1. What is the performance of interactive applications when deployed on deflatable VMs?
2. What is the impact of deflation policies on cluster utilization, application throughput, and cloud revenue?
Evaluation Environment
----------------------
### Web-based interactive applications.
![The micro-service architecture of the social network application used in our evaluation (Courtesy of [@gan2019open]).[]{data-label="fig:death"}](Figs_socialNet_arch.png){width="45.00000%"}
We use two interactive applications to evaluate deflation on real-world web workloads:
**Wikipedia:** We replicate the German Wikipedia on our local testbed. We choose the German Wikipedia as it is the second most popular Wikipedia in terms of number of views—with more than 720000 page views per hour—, and the fourth most in terms of number of articles—with more 2.25 Million articles [@WikiStats]. We setup a KVM VM with MediaWiki, MySQL database, Apache HTTP webserver, and Memcached. Our workload generator randomly selects from the top 500 largest pages (page sizes ranging from 0.5–2.2 MB).
**DeathStarBench** is a recently released benchmark that implements different applications using the microservice architecture [@gan2019open]. We evaluate the benchmark’s social networking application, which consists of 30 microservices (Figure \[fig:death\]) built using Redis, Memcached, MongoDB, RabbitMQ, Nginx, Jaeger, and other custom made services that provide the required functionality. We run each micro-service runs in a separate Docker container using using Docker swarm. We use a workload generator based on wrk2 [^1] for evaluating the overall application performance.
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
{width="\linewidth"}
### Cluster-level simulation framework.
To analyze various cluster-level deflation policies, we have developed a trace-driven discrete event simulation framework that allows us to understand the impact on application and cloud-level metrics. The simulation framework is written in Python in about 2000 lines of code, and implements our VM deflation and pricing policies, and allows large-scale simulations with different policy and workload combinations. We use the Azure VM-level dataset to determine the starting and stopping times of VMs, their size (aka resource vectors), and CPU utilization history. We also use the VM metadata such as VM category (batch, interactive, unknown), and the 95-th percentile CPU utilization to determine priority levels for our priority-based deflation policies. The simulation framework allows us to determine the deflation levels of VMs, preemptions in the cluster, and also correlate VM’s dynamic resource allocation with its CPU utilization time-series to determine the performance impact of deflation. For the simulation-based cluster-level experiments, we primarily focus on the effect of deflation on the cloud provider. This complements our application-focused performance evaluation done using web services in the next subsection, as well as prior work on deflation [@deflation-eurosys19] that looked at performance of distributed applications under deflation.
Given our focus on deflatability of interactive applications, we assume that the interactive VMs in the trace are deflatable, while the unknown and batch VMs are non-deflatable (“on-demand”). This translates to roughly 50% of the VMs being deflatable. We consider each VM’s CPU core count and memory size for bin-packing as well as all deflation policies. We determine VM priorities based on their 95-th percentile CPU usage and use 4 priority levels. We show results on a randomly sampled trace of 10,000 VMs, which require a cluster of 40 servers each with 48 CPUs and 128 GB RAM. For simulating varying degrees of cluster overcommitment, we first find the minimum cluster size capable of running all VMs without any preemptions or admission-controlled rejections. We then vary and increase the overcommitment by reducing the number of servers and use the same VM-trace throughout for all the experiments. We do not look at the impact on individual application performance in a cluster settings for two reasons 1) the cluster level impact of deflation was examined in [@deflation-eurosys19] and 2) we want to focus on the effect of our deflation policies on large-scale cluster management.
VM deflation of Web services
----------------------------
Our first set of experiments aim to measure the effect of *transparent* deflation on the performance of different types of web services, and how the reduction in resource allocation can be mitigated by well-engineered web applications.
**Multi-tiered Applications.** In order to evaluate the effects of deflation on the QoS of multi-tiered services, we use the German Wikipedia replica running on a VM with 30 CPU cores, and 16 GB of memory. We subject it to a mean load of 800 requests/s selected randomly from the 500 largest pages. We set the request time out period to 15 seconds, and consider that requests that take longer are dropped, or no longer interesting to the users. We progressively deflate the VM’s CPU for this CPU-bound application. Figure \[fig:wikiviolin\] shows a violin plot of the distribution of the response times of the requests at each deflation level, with the y-axis in log-scale. As shown, the response time does not increase significantly until the deflation increases above 70%—even though the average CPU usage at 50% deflation is 100%. We find that the average response time for the application with no deflation is 0.3s, with 50% deflation is 0.45s, and with 80% deflation is 0.6s—which is $2\times$ the undeflated response time. The 99th percentile response time is 6.8s for no deflation, and increases by only 43% to 9.74s even at 80% deflation. We also find that, even when deflated to a single core, the application did not crash when serving a load of 800 req/s. This leads us to believe that many well architected web services tolerate deflation well, with a disproportionately small performance penalty. This observation is further reinforced by Figure \[fig:wikiloss\], which shows the percentage of requests served with different deflation settings. Similar to our previous result, we see that noticeable request loss rates occur only after 70% deflation.
**Micro-service based Applications.** We next evaluate the impact of transparent deflation on micro-service based applications. Figure \[fig:death\] shows the architecture of the social networking application described previously. The application microservices can be classified based on their functionality into three logical classes that are similar to multi-tiered applications, namely, frontend microservices, logic microservices, and finally, caching and storage microservices. In the social networking service used, there are three frontend microservices, 15 logic microservices, and 12 backend microservices. In our deflation experiment, we deflate all microservices except for the databases, i.e., we deflate all frontend and logic microservices, and the four memcached microservices from the backend, deflating a total of 22 microservices out of 30. We start by allocating a maximum limit of 2 cores per microservice, and a minimum of 0.05 CPUs for each container. Each container is allocated 800MB of memory. We use the workload generator to generate 500 requests per second, and deflate the 22 microservices by 30%, 50%, 60% and 65%. Figure \[fig:uservices\] shows the median, 90th%, and 99th% response times in milliseconds. We again see that the service can be deflated by up to 50% with no performance losses. Beyond this level, the degradation in QoS and response time is more abrupt than the the multi-tiered Wikipedia case, likely due to the higher communication- and coordination-intensive nature of the application.
Deflation-aware Web Load Balancing
----------------------------------
Next, we evaluate the effect of *explicit* deflation on clustered web services. To do so, we compare the performance of using vanilla HAProxy [@haproxy] with our modified deflation-aware HAProxy. We run three replicas of the German Wikipedia application behind HAProxy. Each instance starts with 10 vCPU cores, and 10 GB of memory. We assume that two of these instances are running on deflatable VMs , and the third runs on a non-deflatable VM.
We generate an average load of 200 requests/s and deflate the two deflatable VMs equally. Our deflation-aware load balancer attempts to masks the impact of deflation by changing the server weights based on the deflated number of vCPUs, causing more requests to be sent to the third undeflated replica. Figure \[fig:lbc\] shows the average and 90th percentile response times for the unmodified and deflation-aware load balancers. We see that the deflation-aware load balancer yields 15 to 40% lower tail latency at high deflation levels of 40 to 80% when compared to vanilla load balancing; mean response times are also lower or comparable as shown in the figure.
![Our deflation-aware load balancer yields lower response times even at high deflation levels.[]{data-label="fig:lbc"}](graphs_lb-compare2.pdf){width="38.00000%"}
Impact Of Cluster Deflation Policies
------------------------------------
\[sec:clust-policy-eval\] We now evaluate the effect of VM deflation at a cluster level using trace-driven simulations. We are interested in the differences with current transient server offerings that rely on preemptions, and the impact of the different deflation policies on cluster overcommitment, VM performance, and cloud revenue.
![Failure probability with deflation remains very low even for high cluster overcommitment.[]{data-label="fig:preemptions"}](Figs_num-preemptions-10000-vector.pdf){width="35.00000%"}
### Eliminating Preemptions.
VM deflation is intended to eliminate preemptions, which are detrimental to interactive applications because they cause downtimes. Currently, cloud operators preempt low-priority VMs when there is high resource pressure, which increases at high cluster overcommitment levels. Figure \[fig:preemptions\] shows the failure probability for low-priority VMs under different overcommitment levels. Failure probability represents the probability of failure to reclaim sufficient resources from deflatable VMs due to “too much” overcommitment; for traditional preemptible instances, it is same as preemption probability. Even at 70% overcommitment, the failure probability is below 1% for proportional deflation, compared to 35% for preemptible VMs. From a provider standpoint, this implies that they can reclaim the desired amount of resources via deflation with $>$0.99 probability. The priority-based and deterministic deflation policies have higher failure probability than proportional but still below preemptible VMs. More broadly, this result shows that a judicious choice of overcommitment level (of as much as 50%) allows the provider to eliminate preemptions and use deflation to reclaim the necessary resources under resource pressure.
**Result:** *Deflatable VMs have very low probability of resource reclamation failure even when the overcommitment is as high as 50%*
### Throughput.
![Decrease in throughput of deflatable VMs is low even at high overcommitment.[]{data-label="fig:tputloss"}](Figs_throughput-loss-10000-vector.pdf){width="35.00000%"}
While deflation can eliminate preemptions, it comes with an important tradeoff: the reduction in resource allocation due to overcommitment can reduce application performance and throughput. We examine the effect of deflation on VM performance at a cluster level, using the CPU-traces of the Azure VMs. Note that a VM’s deflation is *dynamic* and based on the time-varying resource pressure conditions as VMs are launched and terminated. At a given point in time, the performance depends on the deflation and the VM’s resource utilization. Thus if the VM is deflated when its resource (CPU) utilization is low, then we are reclaiming unused resources (i.e., slack), and there should be no drop in throughput. The loss in throughput only occurs when a VM is deflated below its CPU usage, and is proportional to the total underutilization (area under the curve of Figure \[fig:underalloc\] in Section \[sec:feasibility\]. Based on this principle, Figure \[fig:tputloss\] shows the decrease in throughput for the different deflation policies at varying overcommitment levels.
We see negligible reduction in throughput below 40% overcommitment, and a 1% reduction at 50% overcommitment. Even at 80% overcommitment, the loss in throughput is below 5% for all deflation policies. We note that this is fundamentally due to the low utilization of VMs of the Azure VMs (especially interactive VMs), as was shown earlier in Figure \[fig:bp-over-thresh\]. Additionally, the average VM deflation is *not* equal to the cluster overcommitment but is significantly lower. Our cluster was provisioned for the *peak* load, and furthermore, deflatable VMs significantly improve the bin-packing efficiency by allowing the cluster manager to slightly adjust VM allocations to make room for new VMs that would have otherwise not fit and required an additional server.
The priority-based and deterministic deflation policies take into account the VM’s anticipated utilization levels by using their 95 percentile CPU usage to determine the deflation priority and the minimum allocation levels. Thus, high utilization VMs are deflated less, which reduces their loss in throughput compared to simple proportional deflation. Thus, we see that adding priorities can reduce the loss in throughput by an order of magnitude. When we place VMs into dedicated cluster partitions based on their priority (as described in Section \[subsec:vm-placement\]), Figure \[fig:tputloss\] also shows that incorporating partitioning does not significantly impact throughput loss. Cluster-partitioning is thus a viable technique that can be used by cloud operators to minimize the risk of performance interference among deflatable VMs of different priorities.
Interestingly, deterministic deflation, which deflates VMs in their priority order, has the lowest decrease in throughput. This is because the proportional deflation policies (both the simple and priority-based proportional) result in deflation of *all* VMs, even though the magnitude of deflation of each VM is small. Thus, even high priority deflatable VMs are deflated, and their throughput will decrease if their CPU utilization is higher than the deflated allocation. With deterministic deflation, the lower priority VMs (with lower 95 percentile CPU usage) are penalized more, but the average cluster-wide throughput loss is reduced.
**Result:** *Deflatable VMs allow clusters to be overcommited by 80%, and keep the performance degradation to less than 5%.*
**Impact on Quality of Experience.** The low average loss in throughput represents a low risk of QoS violations, since performance is affected only when the application’s peak usage coincides with deflation. However, end-users of interactive applications may observe a perceivable drop in their quality of experience due to the jitter and the longer response times during deflation. Ultimately, evaluating the user experience with deflation requires user studies similar to [@skype-study], and is a potential candidate for future work. End-users can be alerted with a “degraded mode” warning during periods of high deflation, similar to downtime indicators for popular web services. Finally, we note that distributed applications can also run on a mix of non-deflatable and deflatable VMs with different priorities (similar to [@spotweb-hpdc19]), and reduce the risk of QoS violations even further.
### Cloud Revenue.
![Increase in cloud revenue due to deflatable VMs.[]{data-label="fig:revenue"}](Figs_revenue-vector.pdf){width="35.00000%"}
We have seen how deflatable VMs can minimize preemptions and have negligible impact on performance of interactive applications. Since deflation allows for increased overcommitment, it provides cloud platforms the opportunity to increase their revenue on low-priority resources. Figure \[fig:revenue\] shows the increase in revenue from the low-priority (i.e., deflatable) resources, at different cluster overcommitment levels for different combinations of deflation and pricing policies. For ease of exposition, we assume that the static price of deflatable VMs is $0.2\times$ the on-demand price—corresponding to the discounts offered by current transient cloud servers such as EC2 spot instances, Google Preemptible VMs, and Azure Low-priority Batch VMs. For VMs with different deflation priorities, we set their price equal to the priority—i.e, priority-level 0.5 has price $0.5\times$ the on-demand price, etc. We also evaluate variable allocation-based pricing which considers the actual resource allocation over time, and again price resources linearly (i.e, VMs pay half price when at 50% allocation).
Figure \[fig:revenue\] shows that as the cluster overcommitment increases, the revenue with static-pricing VMs increases, and the cloud platform can increase revenue by 15% at 60% overcommitment. Having priority-based differentiated pricing significantly increases the revenue, since higher priority VMs pay more. The priority-based pricing (when used with priority-based deflation) increases the revenue per server by $2\times$ compared to simple static pricing.
Interestingly, the revenue with allocation-based pricing scheme, which charges VMs what they were actually allocated, does not increase with increasing overcommitment. This is because at low overcommitment levels, VMs are not deflated and thus pay “full price”, and as the overcommitment increases, there are more VMs running per server, but they are highly deflated, and thus the total revenue remains the same.
**Policy Comparison:** *Deflation policies have different tradeoffs. Proportional deflation minimizes resource reclamation failure, but provides lower revenues. Priority-based deflation and pricing increases revenue, but also increases failure probability.*
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
VM deflation draws upon many related techniques and systems.
**Systems for handling transient server revocation** use a combination of fault tolerance and resource allocation to mitigate the performance and cost effects of preemptions. Prior work has focused on system [@spotcheck; @spoton] and application [@flint; @exosphere; @marathe2014exploiting; @pado-eur17; @proteus-eur17; @conductor] support for handling preemptions. We believe that deflatable VMs minimize the need for such middleware, and can avoid the performance, development, and deployment costs associated with preemption.
**Resource overcommitment mechanisms** have been extensively studied and optimized to allow for more efficient virtualized clusters. Memory overcommitment typically relies on a combination of hypervisor and guest OS mechanisms, and has received significant attention [@waldspurger2002memory; @amit2014vswapper; @singleton]. Memory ballooning is another memory overcommitment technique with generally inferior performance to hotplug [@fraser-ballooning-hotplug; @liu2015hotplug]. Hotplug can also be used for reducing energy consumption [@zhang2014dimmer], since unused but powered-on RAM draws a significant amount of energy. CPU hotplugging can also be used to mitigate lock-holder preemption problems in overcommitted vCPUs [@ding2014gleaner; @ouyang2013preemptable]. Burstable VMs [@ec2-burstable; @bhuvan-burstable] also offer dynamic resource allocation, but are the “inverse” of deflatable VMs. The resource allocation is high by default for deflatable VMs and only reduced during resource pressure, whereas burstable VMs have low allocation by default and only ocassionally can be “inflated” to higher allocations. Furthermore, burstable VMs have been restricted to CPU and I/O bursting, whereas deflatable VMs also adjust memory.
**Resource consolidation** using dynamic resource allocation [@borg] and VM migration [@wood2009sandpiper] is common to increase cluster utilization. VMWare’s distributed resource scheduler [@vmware-drs] uses per-VM reservations (minimum limits) and shares for dynamically allocating resources—similar to our resource-pressure based local deflation policies. Many approaches for performance-sensitive resource allocation among co-located VMs have been suggested [@liu2014reciprocal; @moldable-vms; @zhou2010vmctune; @stopgap-elastic; @elasticity-driver-vee15], but they assume some application performance model, which our work does not. VM memory allocations can be set using working-set estimation [@zhang2016iballoon; @chiang2013working; @zhao2009dynamic], utility-maximizing [@hines2011-ginko], or market-based approaches [@agmon2014ginseng; @nom-vee]. As noted earlier, deflation was first proposed in [@deflation-eurosys19] but required OS and application cooperation, while we focus on a hypervisor-only deflation approach.
**Vertical scaling with performance differentiation** for a single server under resource pressure due to increasing application load and server overbooking has been well studied in the past [@lakew2015performance; @Padala:2009; @rao2013qos]. All previous work we are aware of tackles the problem of performance differentiation for a single server. Our work focuses on cluster-wide performance optimization when resources are deflated across the whole cluster. Application performance models and workload prediction is a key component of elastic scaling [@gong2010press; @nguyen2013agile; @padala2007adaptive; @shen2011cloudscale; @ali2012adaptive]. In contrast, deflation is a black-box, application agnostic, and reactive technique for handling resource pressure. Our deflatable VMs use a combination of overcommitment mechanisms that are adapt to application resource usage, and we consider the simultaneous deflation of *all* resources. Deflation also exposes an explicit performance tradeoff, whereas elastic scaling approaches typically only reclaim unused resources.
Conclusions
===========
\[sec:conclusions\]
In this paper we proposed the notion of deflatable VMs for running low-priority interactive applications. Deflatable VMs allow applications to continue running on transient resources, while minimizing the risk of preemptions and the associated downtimes. Our VM deflation mechanisms and cluster-level deflation policies reduce the performance overhead of applications and allow cloud platforms to increase cluster overcommitment and revenue. The performance of deflatable VMs is within 10% of their undeflated allocation—making them a viable alternative to current cloud transient VMs.
**Acknowledgments.** We wish to thank all the anonymous reviewers and our shepherd Renato Figueiredo, for their insightful comments and feedback. This research was supported by NSF grants 1836752, 1763834, and 1802523.
[^1]: https://github.com/giltene/wrk2
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present the first results of a study of faint 12$\mu$m sources detected with the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) in four deep, high galactic latitude fields. The sample includes 50 such sources in an area of 0.1 square degrees down to a 5$\sigma$ flux limit of $\sim
500\mu$Jy. From optical identifications based on the US Naval Observatory (USNO) catalogue and analysis of the optical/IR colours and Digital Sky Survey (DSS) images, we conclude that 37 of these objects are galaxies and 13 are stars. We derive galaxy number counts and compare them with existing IRAS counts at 12$\mu$m, and with models of the 12$\mu$m source population. In particular, we find evidence for significant evolution in the galaxy population, with the no-evolution case excluded at the 3.5$\sigma$ level. The stellar population is well matched by existing models. Two of the objects detected at 12$\mu$m are associated with known galaxies. One of these is an IRAS galaxy at z=0.11 with a luminosity of 10$^{11}
L_{\odot}$.
author:
- 'D.L. Clements$^1$, F-X. Desert$^{1,2}$, A. Franceschini$^3$, W.T. Reach$^{1,4}$, A.C. Baker$^5$ J.K. Davies$^6$'
- 'C. Cesarsky$^5$'
date: 'Received; accepted'
title: 'A Deep 12 Micron Survey with ISO [^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Whenever a radically new wavelength or sensitivity regime is opened in astronomy, new classes of object and unexplained phenomena are discovered. The IRAS satellite, in opening the mid- to far-IR sky, revealed that the bolometric luminosities of many galaxies are dominated by this spectral region. This has raised questions concerning the evolution of galaxies in the mid- to far-IR, the role of dust-extinction in the formation of galaxies, the relationship between quasars and galaxies, and the nature of galaxy formation itself. Limited as they were to fluxes not much smaller than 1Jy, the IRAS surveys were constrained to the fairly local universe for the vast majority of the detected objects. The evolutionary properties of IR galaxies, both the normal galaxy population and the unusual ultra- and hyper-luminous objects (see e.g. Clements et al. 1996a), are thus still mostly unknown.
Recent work in the visible and near-IR has had a major impact on our understanding of the star formation history of galaxies (eg. Steidel et al., 1996, Cowie et al., 1994, Giavalisco et al., 1996, Lilly et al., 1996). It appears that the star formation rate in the universe peaked at around z=1 and has been declining since (Madau et al. 1998). Many of the objects studied in deep, high redshift fields appear to be distorted, and are possibly undergoing tidal interaction or merging (Abraham et al., 1996). It is well–known that tidal interactions and mergers in the local universe produce significant amounts of star formation (Joseph & Wright, 1985, Clements et al., 1996b, Lawrence et al., 1989), and that these are usually associated with a significant luminosity in the mid- to far-IR. The dust responsible for this emission is heated by the star formation process, which it also obscures. We must thus consider that the view of the universe obtained in the visible and near-IR, corresponding to the rest-frame optical and near-UV of many of the objects observed, may well be biased by such obscuring material. The question of how much of the star-formation in the universe is obscured by dust thus becomes important. This issue can only be properly addressed by selecting objects in the mid- or far-IR which are less affected by such obscuration.
Previous work in the mid- and far-IR used data from IRAS, with all-sky sensitivities of $\sim$0.1 Jy in the mid-IR bands (12 and 25 $\mu$m), and $\sim$ 0.3–1 Jy at 60 and 100 $\mu$m. These typically allow the detection of galaxies out to z=0.2, though a few exceptional objects, such as the gravitationally lensed z=2.286 galaxy IRAS10214+4724 (Rowan-Robinson et al., 1991, Serjeant et al., 1995), have also been detected.
Most evolutionary studies with IRAS have concentrated on the 60$\mu$m waveband (Sanders et al., 1990, Hacking & Houck, 1987, Bertin et al., 1997). This work has found evidence for strong evolution in the 60$\mu$m population, at rates similar to those of optically selected AGN, but the nature of this evolution is still unclear, and it is difficult to extrapolate to higher redshift with any confidence.
At mid-IR wavelengths, the IRAS mission has produced both large-area surveys of fairly nearby objects (eg. Rush et al., 1993), and small-area, deep surveys in repeatedly scanned regions (eg. Hacking & Houck, 1987). The former surveys do not probe sufficiently deeply into the universe to be able to say much about galaxy evolution, but they do have the advantage that plentiful data exists for the nearby galaxy samples they produce. The latter surveys are plagued by stellar contamination. The vast majority of the 12$\mu$m objects in the survey of Hacking et al., for example, are stars – there are only five galaxies in their entire survey.
The Infrared Space Observatory (ISO, Kessler et al. 1996) provides a major improvement to our observational capabilities beyond those of the IRAS satellite. For observations in the mid-IR, the ISOCAM instrument (Cesarsky et al. 1996) allows us to reach flux limits $\sim$100 times fainter than those achieved by IRAS while observing fairly large areas ($\sim$0.1 sq. degree) in integration times of only a few hours. We can thus probe flux regimes that were previously impossible to study.
This paper presents the results of a survey of four high galactic latitude fields using the LW10 (12$\mu$m) filter, which was specifically designed to match the 12$\mu$m filter on the IRAS satellite. The present results can thus be compared to existing IRAS data with minimal model-dependent K- corrections. This survey is much deeper than any based on IRAS data, and is sufficiently deep to detect distant galaxies. The survey region is also fairly small and at high galactic latitude, so that stellar contamination should not be a major problem.
There are of course other studies in the mid-IR underway using the ISO satellite. These include the DEEP and ULTRADEEP surveys (Elbaz et al., in preparation), the ELAIS survey (Oliver et al., in preparation) and the ISOHDF project (Oliver et al., 1997; Desert et al., 1998 (Paper I); Aussel et al. 1998). All of these programmes use the LW2 6.7$\mu$m and/or LW3 15$\mu$m filter on ISO. Only the ISOHDF results have been published to date. At 15$\mu$m these observations reach a flux limit of $\sim$0.1 mJy, about 5 times deeper than the observations discussed here, but cover only 1/24th of the area. There are also deep surveys at longer wavelengths using the PHOT instrument at 175$\mu$m (Kawara et al., 1998, and Puget et al., 1998). Future missions will also be probing this part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The first of these will be the WIRE mission (Fang et al., 1996) which will obtain a large area, deep survey at 12 and 25$\mu$m. The SIRTF project (Werner & Bicay, 1997) and IRIS satellite (Okuda, 1998) will also be used for deep number counts, and should be able to probe significantly deeper than ISO. Finally the planned NGST (Stockman & Mather, 1997) will provide incomparable performance in this cosmologically interesting waveband. The present work provides the first results of the exploration of the distant universe at these mid-IR wavelengths, and can provide a guideline for future missions, useful for their planning and preparation.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 describes the observations, data reduction and calibration. Section 3 provides details on identifications of the 12$\mu$m source population, star-galaxy separation, and on individual source properties. Section 4 discusses number counts, comparison with statistics at other wavelengths, and with model predictions. Section 5 summarises our conclusions.
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
The observations presented here were part of a survey of cometary dust trails (ISO project name JDAVIES/JKDTRAIL). The original goal was to observe the width and structures of the cometary trails, which are produced by large particles, ejected from the comet into independent heliocentric orbits but with very similar orbital elements and very small radiation pressure effects. The comet 7P/Pons-Winnecke was selected because of its similarity to other comets with dust trails, the detection of a dust trail by IRAS (Sykes & Walker, 1992) and its suitability for observation by ISO. Four fields were imaged, each field being a raster map centred on the ephemeris prediction for particles with the same orbital elements as the nucleus except for the mean anomaly of the orbit, which was shifted by $+1^\circ$ (ahead) and $-0.5^\circ$, $-1^\circ$, and $-2^\circ$ (behind). Each raster was 11 by 7 pointings, with a spacing of $60^{\prime\prime}$ by $48^{\prime\prime}$. The pixel field of view was $6^{\prime\prime}$, so that there was substantial overlap between individual frames of the 32 by 32 pixel ISOCAM LW array (Cesarsky et al., 1996) to ensure good flatfielding and high observational redundancy. A typical position on the sky was visited 12 times during the raster, each time with a different pixel of the array. The rasters were rotated such that the predicted cometary trail would run parallel to the short axis of the raster. Unfortunately for the cometry trails programme, the observations took place on 17 August 1997, one day later than assumed for the ephemeris calculations and therefore the trail is predicted to run horizontally across the very bottom edge of the image. Based on the results of observations of the trail of another comet (P/Kopff) from the same observing program (Davies et al., 1997), we expect that the trail would occupy at most the lower $1^{\prime}$ of the image and that it would be relatively smooth. The presence of the dust trail in the field should not have any effect on the observations presented here, though an excess of sources in the bottom of the raster could potentially be related to structures in the dust trail. No such excess is seen. All observations presented here are in the LW10 filter, which is very similar to the IRAS 12 $\mu$m filter in wavelength-dependent response. Since these fields are at high galactic lattitude ($>$50 degrees), and, in the absence of cometary trails, are effectively blank fields, they become ideal for a deep survey of the extragalctic 12$\mu$m source population. The positions of the fields are given in Table \[fields\].
The data reduction process is described in detail in Paper 1. Basically, for each AOT file (total 4) the raw data (CISP format) and pointing history (IIPH format) are read and merged. The raw data cube (typically 1244 readouts of 32 by 32 pixels) is deglitched for fast and slow cosmic ray impacts. A transient correction is applied to recover the linearity and the nominal flux response of the camera. A triple–beam method is then applied to the processed data cube, in order to find the best (ON- (OFF1+OFF2)/2) differential value of the sky brightness for each pixel and each raster position, where OFF1 and OFF2 refer to the previous and next raster position value for the same camera pixel. The resulting low–level reduced cube is then simply flat–fielded (there is no need for a dark correction because we perform a differential measurement on the sky). The flat–fielded reduced cube along with an error cube is made up of 77 values for each of the 32 by 32 pixels of the camera. The 2 cubes are then projected onto the sky using an average effective position for ISO during each raster position, with a $1/\sigma^2$ optimal weighting. A noise map is thus calculated as well as a sky differential map. Any given source will leave 2 negative half–flux ghosts 60 arcseconds away on both sides along the raster scan direction. This is a trade–off in order to beat the 1/f noise regime that is reached by the camera for long integrations per position. On the final map, shown in Fig. \[images\], we search for point sources with a Gaussian fitting algorithm that uses the noise map for weighting the pixels and deducing the noise of the final flux measurement. A FWHM of 9 arcseconds was used. The final internal flux is converted to $\mu$Jy by using the ISOCAM cookbook value (Cesarsky et al., 1994). The present understanding of ISOCAM calibration is that no additional factor should be applied to the pre-flight sensitivity estimates for the determination of surface brightness.
We have devised a scheme to assess the reproducibility of the sources, in order to test for false sources that would be due to undetected glitches. This is described in detail in Paper I, but consists of breaking the observations of each object into a number of independent subsurveys. Sources are deemed reliable if they are detectable, with suitably reduced significance, in each of these subsurveys. Of the 193 sources above the 3$\sigma$ limit only 7 fail the reproducibility test (4%) and these are not considered in the following. Visual screening helped in removing a further 38 residual companions of strong sources due to imperfect fitting. Visual screening also showed that two sources, F1\_0 and F2\_0, were significantly extended at 12$\mu$m. We thus use aperture photometry to obtain an accurate flux for these objects. The aperture used had a diameter of 20 arcsecs.
Simulation of the expected PSF from ISO after the same processing reveals that part of the flux is missed by the optimised Gaussian fitting. We therefore correct the fluxes and errors by a factor of 1.52 determined from this modelling. The final absolute photometry should be in error by no more than an estimated 30%. The fluxes are given at the nominal wavelength of 12 $\mu$m (i.e. an additional correction of $1.04= 12/11.5$ is applied since the nominal ISOCAM calibration is for a wavelength of 11.5$\mu$m), in order to facilitate the comparison with previous IRAS observations. This assumes a flat spectrum in $\nu F_{\nu}$ as was used for IRAS calibration. The flux prediction for known stars should thus be colour corrected, since they have a Rayleigh-Jeans spectral index, in order for comparison to ISOCAM measurements: the real flux at 12$\mu$m should be divided by 0.902. An additional factor comes from the fact that the PSF is smaller for stellar sources (which are dominated by the short wavelength part of the broad filter) than for the assumed extragalactic sources which have a broader spectrum. Thus the real flux should also be multiplied by a supplementary factor of 1.13 (see Section 3.1 for this [*a priori*]{} calibration and the comparison with flux measurements of known stars in the fields). The basic calibration of ISOCAM, before the corrections for point sources are applied, can be checked by comparing the integrated surface brightness of these fields with values interpolated from the DIRBE experiment on COBE (Hauser et al. 1997a). The ISO surface brightnesses agree with the DIRBE values to better than 5%.
The sensitivity that is achieved in the central area of the fields is about $1\sigma = 100 \mu$Jy. This was achieved with a total integration time of 4 minutes for each camera field–of–view. Astrometry was assessed by matching ISO sources to bright stars in the fields. We estimate the astrometric accuracy to be $\sim$6” (2 $\sigma$).
Field RA Dec l b
--------- ---------- ----------- --------- ---------
Field 1 03 05 30 -09 35 00 190.327 -53.895
Field 2 03 00 40 -10 42 00 190.813 -55.466
Field 3 03 09 50 -08 37 00 189.979 -52.433
Field 4 03 04 00 -09 56 00 190.477 -54.361
: Details of 12$\mu$m Survey Fields
RA and Dec are in J2000. All fields have high galactic latitude $>$50 degrees, making them ideal for cosmological studies. \[fields\]
The 12$\mu$m Source Population
==============================
A total of 186 candidate 12$\mu$m sources are found in the survey to a 3$\sigma$ flux limit of $\sim$ 300$\mu$Jy. Visual inspection then removes 38 of these sources as fragments of brighter sources incorrectly identified as separate objects, giving a master list of 148 objects. For the remainder of this paper we shall restrict ourselves to discussion of only those sources detected at 5$\sigma$ sensitivity or above in this master list. This is for several reasons. Firstly, a number of uncertainties remain in the identification of the weakest sources. These are the sources most likely to be affected by the remnants of subtracted glitches or by weak, undetected glitches. Further examination of the detailed time histories and reproducibilities of these sources is underway, and a full catalogue reaching to the faintest flux limits can then be constructed. Secondly, the problems of Malmquist bias (Oliver, 1995) are most easily controlled in catalogues detected with significances $\geq 5\sigma$. A source list using a 5$\sigma$ detection threshold is thus best suited to our examination of the 12$\mu$m source counts. 50 objects are detected at 5$\sigma$ or greater significance. Details of these objects are given in Table \[catalog\], and they are discussed further in the following sections.
Name F$_{12}$($\mu$Jy) RA(2000) DEC(2000) Class
--------- ------------------- ---------- ------------- -----------------------
F1\_0 12147.$\pm$ 200. 3 5 36.2 -9 31 21.6 Extended; IRAS Source
F1\_1 4258.$\pm$ 219. 3 5 4.5 -9 31 6.6 Star
F1\_2 4155.$\pm$ 131. 3 5 40.4 -9 33 56.1 Star
F1\_3 3835.$\pm$ 99. 3 5 15.1 -9 31 17.6
F1\_4 2150.$\pm$ 185. 3 5 5.3 -9 32 7.7
F1\_5 1046.$\pm$ 102. 3 5 24.5 -9 35 50.7
F1\_9 3732.$\pm$ 142. 3 5 35.9 -9 31 43.8
F1\_10 1903.$\pm$ 185. 3 5 6.1 -9 32 41.5
F1\_11 1324.$\pm$ 113. 3 5 14.9 -9 31 3.8
F1\_12 842.$\pm$ 92. 3 5 28.4 -9 35 17.5
F1\_18 2190.$\pm$ 171. 3 5 36.3 -9 31 32.2
F1\_22 615.$\pm$ 112. 3 5 33.0 -9 31 50.4 Star
F1\_30 636.$\pm$ 88. 3 5 30.7 -9 33 13.4
F1\_44 622.$\pm$ 109. 3 5 36.7 -9 32 30.1
F1\_48 605.$\pm$ 119. 3 5 11.0 -9 33 10.0
F2\_0 10479.$\pm$ 260. 3 1 6.1 -10 44 27.5 GSC-galaxy; Extended
F2\_1 6884.$\pm$ 175. 3 0 36.7 -10 36 57.3 Star
F2\_3 2385.$\pm$ 100. 3 0 37.3 -10 42 51.0
F2\_6 911.$\pm$ 99. 3 0 31.0 -10 41 7.2
F2\_12 744.$\pm$ 136. 3 0 59.4 -10 44 38.2
F2\_16 770.$\pm$ 104. 3 0 38.2 -10 42 46.6 Star
F2\_23 702.$\pm$ 95. 3 0 39.7 -10 40 47.0 Star
F2\_24 814.$\pm$ 118. 3 0 35.4 -10 43 22.3
F2\_80 522.$\pm$ 89. 3 0 39.5 -10 39 43.4
F2\_87 536.$\pm$ 88. 3 0 37.6 -10 41 59.4
F2\_195 464.$\pm$ 87. 3 0 35.8 -10 41 6.5
F3\_0 7265.$\pm$ 104. 3 9 42.6 -8 35 33.4 Binary Star
F3\_1 3266.$\pm$ 98. 3 9 56.7 -8 36 24.5 Star
F3\_2 1901.$\pm$ 100. 3 9 52.5 -8 37 1.5 Star
F3\_3 1760.$\pm$ 95. 3 10 0.9 -8 39 39.2
F3\_4 1682.$\pm$ 105. 3 10 9.1 -8 38 57.2
F3\_5 1374.$\pm$ 108. 3 9 44.7 -8 32 55.6
F3\_9 5444.$\pm$ 93. 3 9 42.2 -8 35 50.3 Binary Star
F3\_15 597.$\pm$ 100. 3 10 3.3 -8 37 46.7
F3\_34 639.$\pm$ 105. 3 9 46.1 -8 32 44.0
F3\_37 648.$\pm$ 101. 3 9 57.4 -8 36 44.2
F4\_0 7684.$\pm$ 140. 3 3 54.5 -9 59 6.7 Star
F4\_1 3670.$\pm$ 149. 3 4 3.4 -10 1 18.0
F4\_2 3581.$\pm$ 155. 3 3 35.8 -9 55 43.1
F4\_3 3207.$\pm$ 84. 3 3 55.2 -9 56 59.9
F4\_4 3166.$\pm$ 357. 3 3 53.8 -9 50 40.0 Star
F4\_5 2481.$\pm$ 215. 3 3 47.3 -9 59 18.2
F4\_6 3051.$\pm$ 197. 3 4 6.3 -9 53 47.6
F4\_9 1234.$\pm$ 95. 3 3 56.8 -9 57 31.3
F4\_11 806.$\pm$ 89. 3 4 1.4 -9 57 36.6
F4\_12 933.$\pm$ 106. 3 3 54.7 -9 58 45.6
F4\_24 559.$\pm$ 92. 3 3 58.0 -9 59 5.2
F4\_28 474.$\pm$ 88. 3 3 55.6 -9 56 11.0
F4\_57 615.$\pm$ 118. 3 3 55.8 -9 59 28.3
F4\_68 690.$\pm$ 87. 3 3 55.7 -9 56 40.4 Star
Objects are classified as stars based on their optical/IR colours (see section 3.1). The object indicated as GSC-galaxy is in the GSC but inspection of the DSS image reveals it to be a galaxy. Two of the stars F3\_0 and F3\_9 are very close, precluding accurate photometry. \[catalog\]
Optical Identifications and Star-Galaxy Separation
--------------------------------------------------
Comparison of the 12$\mu$m ISOCAM images with Digital Sky Survey (DSS)[^2] images shows that a number of the sources are associated with bright stars. Before we are able to analyse the galaxy component of the 12$\mu$m source population, these and any other contaminating stars must be identified and removed. This was achieved by using the US Naval Observatory (USNO) all-sky photometric catalogue (Monet et al., 1996). The database was searched for all optical objects within 12 arcseconds of each ISO position. 12 sources were immediately identified with HST Guide Star Catalogue (GSC) stars, though inspection of the DSS images shows that one of these is in fact a galaxy (03 01 06.16 -10 44 23.6, the GSC ‘star’ 5290\_640). B and R band photometry was extracted for 29 of the 32 optically identified objects – three of the GSC stars were too bright to allow photometry from the B survey plates used by the USNO catalogue. These magnitudes were then corrected for the estimated galactic extinction. A comparison of the final F$_B$/F$_R$ and F$_{12}$/F$_R$ flux ratios was then made. Figure \[optplot\] shows the optical/ISO colour-colour diagram, together with a Black Body colour track. Simple stars, without associated dust or stellar companions, should lie on or near to this colour track. As can be seen, almost all of the GSC stars and several other objects lie near to the Black Body line. This allows us to remove all those stars that have not been identified in the GSC. Three such objects are removed. One star (F3\_9: 03 09 42.14 -08 35 44.6) seems to be anomalously blue (B-R = -0.8 from the USNO catalogue). However, this object and another bright star (F3\_0: 03 09 42.6 -08 35 33.4) are so close to one another that accurate photographic photometry is likely to be difficult, resulting in the anomalous colours. These objects are removed from further analysis.
Of the 32 optically identified 12$\mu$m sources we thus conclude that 13 are stars and that the remaining 19 are optically identified galaxies. 18 sources, all probably galaxies, thus remain without optical identifications to the limits of the USNO-A catalogue ie. around 20th magnitude in B and R.
The colour-colour plot also allows us to check the calibration for the 12$\mu$m survey. We can use the B-R colours to provide a rough spectral type for all stars in the survey. This can then be cross-referenced to the surface temperature of that stellar type. The 12$\mu$m flux can then be extrapolated from the R band flux, assuming a simple Black Body spectrum. This approach suggests that the flux calibration is accurate at the $\sim$20% level (see Table \[stars\]). We have also checked these results using detailed spectral energy distributions (SEDs) based on the Kurucz stellar atmosphere codes instead of a simple Black Body extrapolation, and arrive at very similar conclusions. The main source of uncertainly here is the treatment of undersampled unresolved sources in the ISOCAM reduction systems. As more data becomes available on the details of the ISOCAM PSF, this systematic uncertainty will be reduced. There is also the possibility that one or more of the stars in the survey have genuine IR excesses. Ground-based near- to mid-IR photometry will be required to confirm this.
Name F$_{12}$($\mu$Jy) Bmag Rmag F$_{12 PRED}$ ($\mu$Jy) Pred/Obs Excess?
-------- ------------------- ------ ------ ------------------------- ---------- ---------
F1\_1 4258 12.6 11.7 1794 0.42 Yes
F1\_2 4155 10.9 10.3 4962 1.19
F1\_22 615 13.1 12.7 442 0.72
F2\_1 6884 13.1 11.3 8018 1.16
F2\_16 770 13.7 12.7 747 0.97
F2\_23 702 13.7 12.9 540 0.77
F3\_2 1902 13.5 12.3 1220 0.64
F3\_1 3266 13.5 12.0 2289 0.70
F4\_68 690 13.7 12.9 720 1.04
Predicted fluxes are calculated as described in the text. A star is described as having a candidate IR excess if its predicted flux is less than half the measured flux. \[stars\]
We are then able to remove all 13 stars from the 12$\mu$m source lists generated in this survey, and can thus examine the statistics of faint galaxies at 12$\mu$m.
Triangles are anonymous 12$\mu$m sources, stars are objects identified with GSC stars, the line shows the locus for Black Bodies, with temperature decreasing from 10000 K in the lower left. Points on the line lie at 1000K intervals. Note the concentration of stars on the Black Body line, and the majority of sources lying well away from the line. This allows star-galaxy separation. \[optplot\]
Individual Sources
------------------
We discuss here individual sources of note in this survey.
[**IRAS 03031-0943**]{} This lies at 03 05 36.4 -09 31 27.0 (J2000) and is an IRAS source identified with a B=18.6 galaxy at z=0.112 (Clements et al., 1996a). It is associated with object F1\_0 in the present survey. This galaxy has IRAS fluxes of 0.85 and 0.51 Jy at 100 and 60$\mu$m respectively, and limits of 0.15 and 0.095 Jy at 25 and 12$\mu$m, consistent with the measured ISO 12$\mu$m flux of 12.1$\pm$0.2 mJy. This galaxy has a 60$\mu$m luminosity of 10$^{11}L_{\odot}$ (H$_0$=100kms$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$, q$_0$=0.5) which places it among the high luminosity IRAS galaxies but at lower luminosity than the ultraluminous class (see eg. Sanders & Mirabel, 1996). Its optical spectrum contains strong emission from the H$\alpha$-NII blend and SII, but the redshift measurement spectrum is of too low a resolution to provide any emission line diagnostics (Clements, private communication). We thus do not know what sort of power source is energetically dominant in this object — starburst or AGN.
[**NPM1G-10.0117**]{} This lies at 03 01 06.2 -10 44 24 (J2000) and is a B=16.63 galaxy used in a proper-motion survey (Klemola et al., 1987). It is associated with object F2\_0 in this survey, and has a 12$\mu$m flux of 9.10$\pm$0.26 mJy. It is also identified with HST Guide Star GSC 5290\_640, but is clearly a galaxy in the Digitised Sky Survey images. Little else is currently known about it.
Altogether, we can say relatively little about the galaxies identified so far in this survey since the identification programme has only just started. Nevertheless, it is a useful check of the processing to note that the only IRAS galaxy within the survey region has been detected by ISOCAM.
The 12 $\mu$m Number Counts
===========================
Integral number counts from a survey with homogeneous sensitivity are calculated by summing up the number of sources to a given flux limit, and then dividing by the survey area: $$\label{eq:rawc}
N(>S) = \sum_{flux>S} \frac{1}{\Omega}$$ where $\Omega$ is the area of the survey. However, in our case the noise in the survey is inhomogeneous (it has a bowl-like shape) since the border pixels were observed with smaller integration times. We thus have to make a correction to equation \[eq:rawc\] to account for this. If we define $\eta (\sigma )= \Omega/ \Omega(\leq
s )$, where $\Omega(\leq s )$ is the area where the $1\sigma$ sensitivity is better than $s$, then the corrected number counts are given by:\
$$\label{eq:cts}
N(>S) = \sum_{flux>S} \frac{1}{\Omega} \times \frac{1}{\eta(S/n)}$$ where n is the detection threshold of the survey. In the present paper we consider only those sources detected at $> 5 \sigma$ confidence, so n=5. We plot the area coverage, $\eta$, in Fig. \[coverage\].
A correction must also be applied to account for Malmquist bias (Oliver, 1995). This bias arises when looking at number counts for a population with rapidly increasing numbers at fainter fluxes, as is the case for our 12$\mu$m galaxy sample. In the presence of observational noise, some galaxies close to, but below, the flux limit will be scattered above the flux limit by noise and will appear in the final catalogue. Similarly some galaxies close to but above the flux limit will be scattered out of the catalogue. However, since there are many more galaxies at fainter fluxes, more galaxies will be scattered above the flux limit than below it. Number counts that are uncorrected for this bias thus show a steep rise in counts towards the faintest flux levels. In the case of Gaussian noise and a Euclidean count slope, which approximates to the present case, Murdoch et al (1973) tabulated the effects of this bias to a detection level of 5$\sigma$, allowing for the observed fluxes to be corrected. Oliver (1995) provides a numerical version of this correction which we apply here. For observations probing below the 5$\sigma$ limit this simple correction cannot be applied, and a more complex Monte Carlo approach must be adopted (eg. Bertin et al. 1997).
This plot presents the current observational state of knowledge on galaxy counts at 12$\mu$m. Since the errors in integral-counts plots are correlated, we show the areas allowed within the $\pm 1\sigma$ error bars as shaded regions. The cross-hatched region indicates the deep IRAS counts from Hacking & Houck (1987) including stars. Triangles indicate the galaxy content of this survey (lower) and the Gregorich et al. survey (1995) (upper). The solid region in the bottom left shows the counts from the extended IRAS galaxy survey by Rush et al. (1993) using the all-sky IRAS Point source Catalogue, with the area of this survey taken from Oliver et al. (1997). The single-hatched region shows the results of the present work, reaching fainter magnitudes than previous 12$\mu$m studies. The 13 stars among the 50 objects detected at $>5\sigma$ are not included in these count statistics. The triangle in the top right shows the ISOHDF counts at 15$\mu$m (Oliver et al. 1997) – note that no correction has been applied to this data to convert from 15 to 12 $\mu$m. The solid line is the strong evolution model which is discussed in the text. \[intcounts\]
Figure \[intcounts\] shows the Malmquist-bias corrected integral number count plot from the present work and from 12$\mu$m IRAS surveys, along with some other information. The first thing to notice in this diagram is that we have reached flux limits almost 100 times fainter than the deepest IRAS number counts at these wavelengths. We are thus able to see much deeper into the universe than the IRAS surveys and can provide considerably more powerful sampling of the 12$\mu$m galaxy population.
Secondly, our survey is the first flux limited 12$\mu$m survey to be dominated by galaxies rather than stars. The deepest IRAS sample (Hacking & Houck 1987) included $\sim$50 objects of which only 5 were galaxies. As discussed above, the present survey contains 50 objects above the 5$\sigma$ flux limit, of which only 13 are stars.
The integral counts of stellar identifications in the 12 $\mu$m survey are shown in Fig. \[starcounts\]. We find good agreement with model counts by Franceschini et al. (1991) based on the Bahcall and Soneira galactic model and on a stellar luminosity function scaled from the V band to $\lambda=12\ \mu m$ according to Hacking & Houck (1987). This agreement suggests that no major new stellar component is emerging at faint fluxes with respect to those detected in the optical.
Same as in Fig. \[intcounts\], but for the 13 sources identified as stars in the 12$\mu$m survey. The fluxes are corrected by a factor 1/1.25 to account for the wide LW10 response function and for the typical SEDs of stars. A comparison is made with the model stellar counts from Franceschini et al. (1991). \[starcounts\]
We have so far shown the integral number counts for the galaxies in our survey. A more statistically meaningful way to compare observed and theoretical number counts is to examine them in a differential form, i.e. $dN(S_{12})/dS_{12}$ versus $S_{12}$. This is done in Fig. \[difcounts\], where we report the Euclidean-normalised differential counts from our 12$\mu$m survey compared to the 15$\mu$m number counts derived from ISOCAM observations of the Hubble Deep Field (Paper I). The lines correspond to predictions for Euclidean-normalised counts based on both non-evolving and strongly evolving population models.
The differential counts of sources identified with galaxies in the LW10 survey are normalised here to the Euclidean law $S^{-2.5}$. The filled squares are from our 12 $\mu$m survey, the open circles from the 15 $\mu$m survey in the Hubble Deep Field (all with Poissonian error bars). The number associated with each bin indicates the number of sources in the bin. The dashed line is the no-evolution curve, while the continuous line corresponds to the model with evolution. The dotted line provides a comparison with the expected stellar counts (see the corresponding integral counts in Fig. \[intcounts\]). \[difcounts\]
The no-evolution model is based on the local luminosity function (Saunders et al., 1990) at 60$\mu$m and on the Rush et al (1993) results at 12$\mu$m. (for more details see Franceschini et al. 1997). This minimal curve significantly under predicts the observed counts from ISO. We thus appear to have detected evolution in the 12$\mu$m source population at a $3.5\sigma$ significance level.
On the other hand, our observed 12$\mu$m counts are matched by a model assuming an evolving luminosity function. This is described in terms of two populations, which we assume dominate the extragalactic sky at these wavelengths:
\(1) Gas-rich systems, i.e. spiral, irregular and starbursting galaxies, with luminosity functions evolving with cosmic time as $N(L,z)=N(L,z=0)\ exp(k\ \tau (z))$, where $N(L,z=0)$ is the locally observed distribution (see above), $\tau (z)$ is the lookback time $(t_0 - t)/t_0$, where t is the age of the universe at a redshift z and $t_0$ is the present age, and $k=3$ is the evolution parameter. This corresponds to density evolution, yielding an average increase in galaxy co-moving number density of a factor of 5.8 at z=1 (for an assumed $q_0$=0.15 value of the cosmological deceleration parameter).
\(2) Active Galactic Nuclei, which are described by a model based again on the Rush et al. (1993) local luminosity function and assuming pure luminosity evolution: $N(L,z) = N(L_0,z)$, where $L(z) = L_0\ \exp(k
\tau [z])$ with $k=3$.
Note that the same model with the additional contribution of a population of high-redshift starbursts (forming elliptical and S0 galaxies as described by Franceschini et al. 1994) accounts nicely for the cosmological far-IR background recently detected in the far-infrared and submillimeter wavebands by Puget et al. (1996), Hauser et al. (1997b) and Fixsen et al (1998).
It is also interesting to compare the 12$\mu$m counts described here with the 15$\mu$m counts from the HDF. These counts are derived from two different ISOCAM filters (LW10 and LW3) with rather different response functions. As can be seen in Fig. 6, there appears to be a clear offset between the two differential galaxy counts by roughly a factor 2 – 4 (though the two bins with overlapping fluxes are in formal agreement). No simple model can explain this shift in the counts by such a large factor over such a narrow flux interval. We interpret this shift as probably not due to actual changes in the counts, but to the different responses of the LW10 and LW3 filters to the complex SEDs of galaxies in the mid-IR. Specifically the 7$\mu$m PAH emission feature, which enters the LW3 15$\mu$m band at z$\sim$0.5 to 1, and the 10$\mu$m absorption feature. Unfortunately, the strength of these mid-IR spectral features varies considerably from object to object (see eg. Elbaz et al., 1998). A full understanding of the effects of these features on mid-IR number counts thus awaits a better theoretical treatment, a better understanding of the variation of these features locally, and a better idea of the nature of objects making up the milli–Jansky 12$\mu$m source population. Xu et al. (1998) used a three component model including cirrus, starburst and AGN contributions to fit the mid-IR SEDs of a large sample of local galaxies. They then extrapolate from this to predict the effects of the mid-IR SEDs on number counts under various evolutionary assumptions. Such an approach may be useful for understanding the present work and its relation to the ISOHDF data. However, assumptions would have to be made about the nature of the faint mid-IR galaxy population, and whether it was significantly different from the local galaxies studied in detail by IRAS and ISO. There are already suggestions from the ISOHDF that there are more and bigger starbursts in the faint mid-IR selected galaxies than in the local population (Rowan-Robinson et al., 1997). At this stage we lack redshifts, and thus luminosity and star-formation-rate estimates, for our 12$\mu$m galaxies. A large number of assumptions would thus need to be made about these objects for an empirical approach similar to Xu et al. (1998) to be applied. There would thus be considerable uncertainties in such an analysis.
A proper test of models of this population is thus even more critically dependent on obtaining the redshifts of individual sources than similar work at optical or far-IR wavelengths. We have therefore begun a followup programme to identify and determine the redshifts for all the 12$\mu$m galaxies discussed in this paper. Once this data is available, we will be able to draw firmer conclusions about the nature and evolution of the mJy 12$\mu$ source population.
Our number counts can directly set a lower limit to the extragalactic infrared background light between 8 and 15 $\mu$m. By integrating the light from the galaxies with a flux larger than 0.5 mJy, we find that $\nu I_{\nu} ({\rm EBL _{12\mu m}}) > 0.50\pm 0.15 \, {\rm
nWm^{-2}sr^{-1}}$. An upper limit of $468 {\rm nWm^{-2}sr^{-1}}$ has been reported by Hauser et al. (1998) from DIRBE (COBE) measurements, which are hampered by the zodiacal light.
Conclusions
===========
We have performed a deep survey at 12$\mu$m using the CAM instrument on the ISO satellite. We have detected 50 objects to a 5$\sigma$ flux threshold of $\sim 500\mu$Jy. in a 0.1 deg$^2$ area, of which 13 appear to be stars on the basis of optical images and optical-IR colours. The remaining 37 objects appear to be galaxies. We have examined the source count statistics for this population and find evidence for evolution in this population, while for stars the counts are consistent with current galactic structure models and extrapolations of the optical luminosity functions to the mid-IR.
Our galaxy counts, when compared with the deep ISOCAM counts in the Hubble Deep Field using the LW3 15$\mu$m filter, also show evidence for significant effects from the complex mid-infrared features in the spectral energy distributions of galaxies.
It is a pleasure to thank Herve Aussel, David Elbaz, Matt Malkan and Jean-Loup Puget for helpful comments and contributions. The Digitised Sky Survey was produced at the STSCI under US Government Grant NAG W–2166. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The USNO-A survey was of considerable help, and we would like to express our thanks to all those who helped to produce it. DLC and ACB are supported by an ESO Fellowship and by the EC TMR Network programme, FMRX-CT96-0068.
Abraham, R.G., Tanvir, N.R., Santiago, B.X., Ellis, R.S., Glazebrook, K., van den Bergh, S., 1996, MNRAS, 279, L47
Aussel, H., Cesarsky, C. J., Elbaz, D. and Starck, J.-L., 1998, A&A, submitted
Bertin, E., Dennefeld, M., Moshir, M., 1997, A&A, 323, 685
Cesearsky, C.J., et al., 1994, The ISOCAM Observers Manual, ESA, Noordwijk.
Cesarsky, C.J., et al., 1996, A&A, 315, L32
Clements, D.L., Sutherland, W.J., Saunders, W., McMahon, R.G., Maddox, S., Efstathiou, G.P., Rowan-Robinson, M., 1996a, MNRAS, 279, 459
Clements, D.L., Sutherland, W.J., Saunders, W., McMahon, R.G., 1996b, MNRAS, 279, 477
Cowie, L.L., Gardner, J.P., Hu, E.M., Songaila, A., Hodapp, K-W., Wainscoat, R.J., 1994, ApJ, 434, 114
Davies et al., 1997, Icarus, 127, 251
Desert, F-X., Puget, J-L., Clements, D.L., Perault, M., Abergel, A., Bernard, J-P., Cesarsky, C.J., 1998, A&A, in press, Paper I
Elbaz et al., 1998, to appear in Proceedings of the Liege NGST Workshop, astro-ph/9807209
Fang et al., 1996, BAAS, 189, 5101
Fixsen, D.J., Dwek, E., Mather, J.C., Bennett, C.L., Shafer, R.A., ApJ., in press
Franceschini, A., de Zotti, G., Toffolatti, L., Mazzei, P., Danese, L., 1991, A&AS, 98, 285
Franceschini, A., Mazzei, P., de Zotti, G., Danese, L., ApJ., 427, 140
Franceschini, A., p. 509, in Extragalactic Astronomy in the Infrared, proceedings of the 17th Moriond Conference, ed. Mamon, G.A., Thuan, T.X., Van, J.T.T., pub. Edition Frontieres, Paris
Giavalisco, M., Steidel, C.C., Macchetto, F., 1996, ApJ., 470, 189
Gregorich, D.T., Neugebauer, G., Soifer, B.T., Gunn, J.E., Herter, T.L., 1995, AJ, 110, 259
Hacking, P., 1987, PhD Thesis
Hacking, P., Houck, J. R., 1987, ApJSS, 63, 311
Hauser, M. G., Kelsall, T., Leisawitz, D., & Weiland, J. L., 1997a, eds., [*COBE Diffuse Infrared Background Experiment Explanatory Supplement*]{}, version 2.1, COBE reference publication \#97-A (Greenbelt: NASA/GSFC), available in electronic form from the National Space Science Data Center
Hauser et al., 1997b, BAAS, 191, 910
Hauser et al., 1998, ApJ, in press, Astro-ph//9806167
Joseph, R.D., Wright, G.S., 1985, MNRAS, 214, 87
Kawara, K., et al., 1998, A&A, submitted.
Kessler, M.F., Steinz, J.A., Anderegg, M.E., et al. 1996, A&A, 315, L27
Klemola, A.R., Jones, B.F., Hanson, R.B., 1987, AJ, 94, 501
Lawrence, A., Rowan-Robinson, M., Leech, K., Jones, D.H.P., Wall, J.V., 1989, MNRAS, 240, 329
Lilly, S.J., Le Fevre, O., Hammer, F., Crampton, D., 1996, ApJ., 460, L1
Madau, P., Pozzetti, L., Dickinson, M., 1998, ApJ., 498, 106
Monet, D., et al., 1996, USNO-A Catalogue, US Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station
Murdoch, H.S., Crawford, D.F., Jauncy, D.L., 1973, ApJ., 183, 1
Okuda, H., in Proceedings of Astrophysics with Infrared Surveys, 1998, ed. Bicay, M., in press
Oliver, S.J., 1995, in Wide-Field Spectoscopy and the Distant Universe, eds. Maddox, S.J., & Aragon-Salamanca, pub. World Scientific
Oliver, S.J., et al., 1997, MNRAS, 289, 471
Puget, J-L., Abergerl, A., Bernard, J-P., Boulanger, F., Burton, W.B., Desert, F-X., Hartmann, D., 1996, A&A, 308, L5
Puget, J-L., et al, 1999, A&A, in press
Rowan-Robinson, M., Broadhurst, T., Oliver, S.J., Taylor, A.N., Lawrence, A., McMahon, R.G., Lonsdale, C.J., Hacking, P.B., Conrow, T., 1991, Nat., 352, 677
Rowan-Robinson et al., 1997, MNRAS, 289, 490
Rush, B., Malkan, M., Spinoglio, L., 1993, ApJS., 89, 1
Sanders, D.B., & Mirabel, I.F., ARAA, 34, 749
Saunders, W., Rowan-Robinson, M., Lawrence, A., Efstathiou, G., Kaiser, N., Ellis, R.S., Frenk, C.S., 1990, MNRAS, 242, 318
Serjeant, S., Lacy, M., Rawlings, S., King, L.J., Clements, D.L., 1995, MNRAS, 276, L31
Steidel, CC., Giavalisco, M., Pettini, M., Dickinson, M., Adelberger, KL., 1996, ApJ., 462, L17
Stockman, P., Mather, J., 1997, BAAS, 191, 5403
Sykes, M.V., Walker, R.G., 1992, Icarus, 95, 180
Werner, M.W., Bicay, M.D., 1997, BAAS, 191, 4207
Xu, C., Hacking, P.B., Fang, F., Shupe, D.L., Lonsdale, C.J., Lu, N.Y., Helou, G., ApJ., 508, 576
[^1]: Based on observations with ISO, an ESA project with instruments funded by ESA Member States (especially the PI countries: France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdon) and with the participation of ISAS and NASA
[^2]: Based on photographic data of the National Geographic Society – Palomar Observatory Sky Survey (NGS-POSS) obtained using the Oschin Telescope on Palomar Mountain. The NGS-POSS was funded by a grant from the National Geographic Society to the California Institute of Technology. The plates were processed into the present compressed digital form with their permission. The Digitized Sky Survey was produced at the Space Telescope Science Institute under US Government grant NAG W-2166.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Analyzing archival data from different telescopes, H$_2$O megamaser Seyfert 2s appeared to exhibit higher nuclear radio luminosities than non-masing Seyfert 2s (Zhang et al. 2012). This has been confirmed by our follow-up study on multi-band (11, 6, 3.6, 2, 1.3cm) radio properties of maser host Seyfert 2s, through systematic Effelsberg observations (Liu et al. 2017). The nuclear radio luminosity was supposed to be a suitable indicator to guide future AGN maser searches. Thus we performed a pilot survey with the Effelsberg telescope on H$_2$O maser emission toward a small sample of radio-bright Seyfert 2 galaxies with relatively higher redshift ($>$0.04). Our pilot survey led to one new megamaser source and one additional possible detection, which reflects our success in selecting H$_2$O megamaser candidates compared to previous observations (higher detection rate, larger distance). Our successful selection technique choosing Seyfert 2s with radio-bright nuclei may provide good guiding for future H$_2$O megamaser surveys. Therefore we are conducting a large systematic survey toward a big Seyfert 2 sample with such radio-bright nuclei. Detections of luminous H$_2$O masers at large distance (z$>$0.04) may hold the great potential to increase our knowledge on the central highly obscured but still very enigmatic regions of active Seyfert galaxies (Zhang et al. 2017).'
---
Introduction
============
H$_2$O megamasers are found to be mostly located in heavily obscured nuclear region of Seyfert 2s or LINER galaxies (Braatz et al. 1997, Zhang et al. 2006, Greenhill et al. 2008, Zhang et al. 2010). Due to their extremely high luminosities ($L_{\rm H_{2}O}>10\,L_{\odot}$, assuming isotropic radiation), the ultimate energy source of H$_2$O megamasers is believed to be an AGN, which is supported by all interferometrical studies of megamasers so far carried out (Lo 2005). It was proposed that the nuclear radio continuum may provide “seed” photons, which can be amplified by foreground maser clouds to produce strong megamaser emission (E.g., Braatz et al. 1997; Henkel et al. 1998; Herrnstein et al. 1998). In addition, the isotropic luminosity of the nuclear radio continuum is believed to be an indicator of AGN power (e.g., Diamond-Stanic et al. 2009). Therefore, maser emission is expected to be stronger in radio-bright nuclei. The first statistical study on this proposition from Braatz et al. (1997) supported this trend, but with limited statistical significance due to the small sample (among the 16 known megamaser sources at that time, only nine had the complementary radio data). Now, the situation has greatly improved, so that we can perform a systematic study on the radio properties of H$_2$O megamaser host galaxies.
Analysis and results
====================
As our first step, the radio continuum data of all published H$_2$O maser galaxies at that time (85 sources) and a complementary Seyfert sample devoid of detected maser emission were investigated and analyzed. Our analysis indicated that maser host Seyfert 2 galaxies have higher nuclear radio continuum luminosities (at 6cm and 20cm), exceeding those of the comparison Seyfert 2 sample by factors of order 5 (Figure1). This supports the previous proposition that the nuclear H$_2$O megamaser emission is correlated with the nuclear radio emission and the nuclear radio luminosity may be a suitable indicator to guide future AGN maser searches (Zhang et al. 2012).
However, the uncertainties of this initial analysis were still quite large. Measured data (at 20cm and 6cm) were mostly taken from different telescopes for both maser sources and non-masing sources. Even if data were taken from the same telescope, measurements were normally performed at different epochs. And there are only a few data at other radio bands for both samples (e.g., 3.6cm, 2.0cm). A more complete radio dataset was urgently needed. While an interferometric study would be a better choice, systematic studies of the lower resolution radio continuum with single-dish telescopes are still worthwhile, because they are not affected by missing flux.
As the second step, we therefore performed systematic Effelsberg multi-band radio continuum observations (11cm, 6.0cm, 3.6cm, 2.0cm and 1.3cm) within a tiny time span in January 2014 toward the H$_2$O megamaser Seyfert 2s and the control Seyfert 2 sample without detected maser emission. Our analysis shows that a difference in radio luminosity (at all bands) is statistically significant, i.e. that the maser Seyfert 2 galaxies tend to have higher radio luminosities by a factor of 2 to 3 than the non-masing ones, commonly reaching values above a critical threshold of 10$^{29}$ergs$^{-1}$Hz$^{-1}$ (Figure 2). The difference between maser and non-masing Seyfert 2s is supported by observations in each wavelength band (bottom panel in Figure 2), i.e., the mean flux density of maser Seyfert 2s is larger than those of the non-masing ones at each band, roughly by a factor of 2. In addition, the black hole mass and the accretion rate were estimated for our maser Seyfert 2s and non-masing Seyfert 2s, assuming the radio luminosity as an isotropic tracer of AGN power. It shows that the accretion rates of maser Seyfert 2s are nearly one order magnitude larger than those of non-masing Seyfert 2s (Liu et al. 2017). This may provide a possible connection between H$_2$O megamaser formation and AGN activity, as well as suitable constraints on future megamaser surveys.
{width="9cm"}
From previous analysis of archival radio data (Zhang et al. 2012) and systematic observations with the Effelsberg telescope (Liu et al. 2017), we found strong evidence for a scenario where H$_2$O megamasers locate in radio-bright Seyfert 2s. Nuclear radio luminosity is therefore supposedly a suitable indicator to guide future AGN maser searches. To test this, we conducted, as a third step, a pilot survey toward a small sample of Seyfert 2s with radio-bright nuclei, using the Effelsberg-100 m telescope. Our 18 targets were selected from a large SDSS-DR7 Seyfert 2 sample containing 4035 sources (0.04$<$z$<$0.1, Coldwell et al. 2013), with a 20cm luminosity threshold of 10$^{29}$ergs$^{-1}$Hz$^{-1}$ (Liu et al. 2017). Even though our survey was, due to the large distance of the targets, extremely shallow, it led to one new strong megamaser source (L$_{\rm H2O}$$>$1000L$_{\odot}$, Figure 3) and one additional tentative detection with an (isotropic) luminosity of several 100L$\,_{\odot}$, which reflects our success in selecting H$_2$O megamaser candidates compared to previous observations (Zhang et al. 2017). While our detection rate of 5.5% or 11% (the latter including a tentative detection) appears to be higher than in most other surveys (the uncertainty lies in the limited number of studied sources), the distance to our targets is also larger, thus making the success of this pilot survey particularly noteworthy. Our successful selection technique may provide good guiding for future H$_2$O megamaser surveys, i.e., Seyfert 2s with radio-bright nuclei.
Thus we will continue our H$_2$O megamaser survey toward that large Seyfert 2 sample, with our radio luminosity criterium of log$L$$>$29ergs$^{-1}$Hz$^{-1}$. More H$_2$O megamaser detections at a large distance (z$>$0.04) can be expected from such a large systematic survey of radio-bright Seyfert 2 galaxies. While presumably leading to a better determination of the upper (isotropic) luminosity limit of such masers, these will shed new light onto the central highly obscured but very enigmatic nuclear regions of active Seyfert galaxies.
Braatz, J.A., Wilson, A.S. & Henkel, C. 1997, *ApJS*, 110, 321 Coldwell, G.V., Gurovich, S., Díaz, T.J. 2013, *MNRAS*, 437, 1199 Greenhill, L. J., Tilak, A. & Madejski, G. 2008, *ApJ*, 686, L13 Henkel, C., Wang, Y.P., Falcke, H., Wilson, A.S. & Braatz, J.A. 1998, *A&A*, 335, 463 Herrnstein, J. R., Greenhill, L. J., Moran, J. M., et al. 1998, *ApJ*, 497, L69 Liu, Z.W., Zhang, J.S., Henkel, C. et al. 2017, *MNRAS*, 466, 1608 Lo, K. Y. 2005, *ARA&A*, 43, 625 Diamond-Stanic, A. M., Rieke, G. H., & Rigby, J. R. 2009, *ApJ*, 698, 623 Zhang, J. S., Henkel, C. Kadler, M. et al. 2006, *A&A*, 450, 933 Zhang, J. S., Henkel, C., Guo, Q., Wang, H.G. & Fan, J.H. 2010, *ApJ*, 708, 1528 Zhang, J. S., Henkel, C., Wang, J. & Guo, Q. 2012, *A&A*, 538, 152 Zhang, J. S., Liu, Z. W., Henkel, C., Wang, J. et al. 2017, *ApJL*, 836, L20
This work is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 11473007, 11590782). Thank the Effelsberg staff much for their kind help during our observations.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
On the night of Oct 31, 2015 two bright Southern Taurid fireballs occurred over Poland, being one of the most spectacular bolides of this shower in recent years. The first fireball - PF311015a Okonek - was detected by six video stations of Polish Fireball Network (PFN) and photographed by several bystanders, allowing for precise determination of the trajectory and orbit of the event. The PF311015a Okonek entered Earth’s atmosphere with the velocity of $33.2\pm0.1$ km/s and started to shine at height of $117.88 \pm 0.05$ km. The maximum brightness of $-16.0 \pm 0.4$ mag was reached at height of $82.5\pm0.1$ km. The trajectory of the fireball ended at height of $60.2\pm0.2$ km with terminal velocity of $30.2\pm1.0$ km/s.
The second fireball - PF311015b Ostrowite - was detected by six video stations of PFN. It started with velocity of $33.2\pm0.1$ km/s at height of $108.05 \pm 0.02$ km. The peak brightness of $-14.8 \pm 0.5$ mag was recorded at height of $82.2\pm0.1$ km. The terminal velocity was $31.8\pm0.5$ km/s and was observed at height of $57.86\pm0.03$ km.
The orbits of both fireballs are similar not only to orbits of Southern Taurids and comet 2P/Encke, but even closer resemblance was noticed for orbits of 2005 UR and 2005 TF50 asteroids. Especially the former object is interesting because of its close flyby during spectacular Taurid maximum in 2005. We carried out a further search to investigate the possible genetic relationship of Okonek and Ostrowite fireballs with both asteroids, that are considered to be associated with Taurid complex. Although, we could not have confirmed unequivocally the relation between fireballs and these objects, we showed that both asteroids could be associated, having the same origin in a disruption process that separates them.
author:
- |
A. Olech$^{1}$[^1], P. Żo[ł]{}dek$^2$, M. Wiśniewski$^{2,3}$, R. Rudawska$^4$, M. Bben$^2$, T. Krzyżanowski$^2$, M. Myszkiewicz$^2$, M. Stolarz$^2$, M. Gawroński$^5$, M. Gozdalski$^2$, T. Suchodolski$^6$, W. Wgrzyk$^2$ and Z. Tymiński$^7$\
$^{1}$Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Bartycka 18, 00-716 Warszawa, Poland\
$^{2}$Comets and Meteors Workshop, ul. Bartycka 18, 00-716 Warszawa, Poland\
$^{3}$ Central Office of Measures, ul. Elektoralna 2, 00-139 Warsaw, Poland\
$^{4}$ ESA European Space Research and Technology Centre, Noordwijk, The Netherlands\
$^{5}$ Toruń Centre for Astronomy, Faculty of Physics, Astronomy and Applied Informatics, N. Copernicus University,\
ul. Grudziadzka 5, 87-100 Toruń, Poland\
$^{6}$ Space Research Centre, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul. Bartycka 18A, 00-716 Warszawa, Poland\
$^{7}$ Narodowe Centrum Badań Jdrowych, Ośrodek Radioizotopów POLATOM, ul. So[ł]{}tana 7, 05-400 Otwock, Poland
date: 'Accepted 2016 March 15. Received 2016 February 29; in original form 2016 February 1'
title: 2015 Southern Taurid fireballs and asteroids 2005 UR and 2005 TF50
---
\[firstpage\]
meteorites, meteors, meteoroids, asteroids
Introduction
============
The Taurids are an annual meteor shower active in October and November with maximum Zenithal Hourly Rates of about 5. The orbit of the shower has low inclination and thus, due to the gravitational perturbations of planets, swarm of particles is diffuse and separated into two main branches i.e. Northern Taurids (NTA) and Southern Taurids (STA).
The parent body of Taurid complex is comet 2P/Encke (Whipple 1940), however both 2P/Encke and Taurids are believed to be remnants of a much larger object, which has disintegrated over the past 20000 to 30000 years (Asher et al. 1993, Babadzhanov et al. 2008). Recently, Porubčan et al. (2006) identified as many as 15 Taurid complex filaments and found possible association with 9 Near Earth Objects (NEOs). Most recently, Jopek (2011) identified as many as 14 parent bodies of the Taurids stream.
It has been widely recognized that the Taurid complex, despite its moderate activity, produces a great number of bright fireballs. Asher (1991) suggested that a swarm of Taurids being in 7:2 resonance with Jupiter produces occasional enhanced activity. It was later confirmed by Asher and Izumi (1998) who predicted observed swarm encounters in 1998, 2005 and 2008. In period 2009-2014 activity of Taurid shower was typical with some fireballs were observed (Madiedo et al. 2011, 2014). The return in 2005 was spectacular with both enhanced global activity and maximum rich in fireballs (Dubietis and Arlt, 2006). In 2008 the activity of the shower was lower but still it may be considered as enhanced (Jenniskens et al. 2008, Shrbený and Spurný 2012). According to the Asher’s model, the next swarm encounter year was expected in 2015.
Additionally, most recently, the Taurid shower was suspected to have ability to produce meteorites (Brown et al. 2013, Madiedo et al. 2014). On the other hand, Tubiana et al. (2015) found no spectroscopic evidence for a link between 2P/Encke, the Taurid complex NEOs and CM type carbonaceous chondrite meteorites which felt recently in Denmark and were suspected for origin from the Taurid-Encke complex. Moreover, there is still no consensus concerning origin of the complex while the spectral data of its largest objects do not support a common cometary origin (Popescu et al. 2014).
In this paper we report the results of observations and data reduction of two very bright Taurid fireballs which were detected on 2015 October 31 over Poland. Afterwards we discuss their connection with the asteroids 2005 UR and 2005 TF50, and comet 2P/Encke. This is the pilot study preceding more comprehensive analysis devoted to an enhanced fireball activity of 2015 Taurid meteor complex and its comparison to 2005 Taurid return.
Observations
============
The PFN is the project whose main goal is regularly monitoring the sky over Poland in order to detect bright fireballs occurring over the whole territory of the country (Olech et al. 2006, Żo[ł]{}dek et al. 2007, 2009, Wiśniewski et al. 2012). It is kept by amateur astronomers associated in Comets and Meteors Workshop (CMW) and coordinated by astronomers from Copernicus Astronomical Center in Warsaw, Poland. Currently, there are almost 30 fireball stations belonging to PFN that operate during each clear night. It total over 60 sensitive CCTV cameras with fast and wide angle lenses are used.
Code Site Longitude \[$^\circ$\] Latitude \[$^\circ$\] Elev. \[m\] Camera Lens
------- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- ------------- --------------------- ------------------------
PFN38 Podgórzyn 15.6817 E 50.8328 N 360 Tayama C3102-01A4 Computar 4mm f/1.2
PFN38 Podgórzyn 15.6817 E 50.8328 N 360 KPF 131HR Panasonic 4.5mm f/0.75
PFN43 Siedlce 22.2833 E 52.2015 N 152 Mintron MTV-23X11C Ernitec 4mm f/1.2
PFN48 Rzeszów 21.9220 E 50.0451 N 230 Tayama C3102-01A4 Computar 4mm f/1.2
PFN52 Stary Sielc 21.2923 E 52.7914 N 90 DMK23GX236 Tamron 2.4-6mm f/1.2
PFN61 Piwnice 18.5603 E 53.0951 N 85 Tayama C3102-01A4 Ernitec 4mm f/1.2
PFN67 Nieznaszyn 18.1849 E 50.2373 N 200 Mintron MTV-23 X11E Panasonic 4.5mm f/0.75
During last ten years typical setup of the PFN station consisted of 2-3 Tayama C3102-01A4 cameras equipped with 4 mm f/1.2 Computar or Ernitec lenses. Tayama C3102-01A4 is cheap CCTV camera with 1/3" Sony SuperHAD CCD detector working in PAL interlaced resolution with 25 frames per second. The field of view of one camera with 4 mm lens is $69.8\times55.0$ deg with scale of $\sim 10'$/pixel. This setup allows detection of the atmospheric entries of debris (both natural and artificial) with accuracy of trajectory determination below 300 meters.
Almost each station is equipped with a PC computer with Matrox Meteor II frame grabber. The signal from each camera is analyzed on-line. Our video stations use the [MetRec]{} software (Molau 1999) which automatically detects meteors in frames captured by Matrox Meteor II frame grabber. The frames containing meteors are stored into BMP files. Additionally, information about basic parameters of the event such as its time of appearance and $(x,y)$ coordinates on the frame are saved into [MetRec]{} INF files. In case of some new stations containing higher resolution cameras, [UFO Capture]{} software is used (SonotaCo 2009).
On the evening of 2015 October 31 at 18:05 UT a very bright fireball appeared over northwestern Poland. The International Meteor Organization (IMO) received almost 70 visual reports concerning this event from Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Poland and Sweden[^2]. Good weather conditions that night in central Europe and the high brightness of the fireball were the main factors for receiving so many reports. However, there are also two other reasons for it as well.
Firstly, the fireball appeared almost exactly at the moment of the close flyby of large 2015 TB145 asteroid. Such events attract not only the attention of astronomy amateurs but also general public, encouraging people for observations. What is more interesting, the asteroid was passing across the Ursa Major constellation at that time, which was exactly the same region of the sky where the fireball was visible for observers situated in central and southern Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia. Finally, the date of the appearance of the fireball was the date of the All Saints’ Eve. This is a public holiday in Poland, when in the evening people gather in cemeteries lighting the candles at the graves of their relatives. The scenery of candles after dusk creates nice landscapes which many people try to photograph. It is thus no surprise then that one of the most beautiful images of this fireball was captures in the cementary in Czernice Borowe, Poland by Aleksander and Grzegorz Zieleniecki. This image, kindly shared by the authors, was used for analysis in this work.
The fireball reached its maximum brightness over Okonek city, and therefore received designation PF311015a Okonek. It was observed by six regular PFN video stations, where from the PFN38 Podgórzyn station the fireball was recorded by two cameras. Basic properties of the stations that recorded the event are listed in Table 1. Figure 1 shows images of the fireball captured by the Podgórzyn and Rzeszów stations. Additionally, the bolide was accidentally photographed in Czernice Borowe (location of the former PFN22 station). Here the Nikon D3300 digital single-lens reflex camera with Nikkor AF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 lens was used. The lens was set at 18 mm focal length with relative aperture of f/3.5. The exposure time was 20 seconds with ISO equal to 800.
Five hours after the PF311015a Okonek appearance another very bright fireball appeared passed through the sky at 23:13 UT. It was only slightly fainter than Okonek fireball but due to the late hour (after midnight of local time) it was not observed by any bystanders. Fortunately, it was detected by six PFN stations which are listed in Table 2 and the images of the fireball captured by the Urzdów and Podgórzyn stations are shown in Figure 2. The maximum brightness of the meteor was observed over Ostrowite village and thus its designation is PF311015b Ostrowite.
Code Site Longitude \[$^\circ$\] Latitude \[$^\circ$\] Elev. \[m\] Camera Lens
------- ------------- ------------------------ ----------------------- ------------- -------------------- ------------------------
PFN20 Urzdów 22.1456 E 50.9947 N 210 Tayama C3102-01A1 Ernitec 4mm f/1.2
PFN38 Podgórzyn 15.6817 E 50.8328 N 360 Tayama C3102-01A4 Computar 4mm f/1.2
PFN38 Podgórzyn 15.6817 E 50.8328 N 360 KPF 131HR Panasonic 4.5mm f/0.75
PFN43 Siedlce 22.2833 E 52.2015 N 152 Mintron MTV-23X11C Ernitec 4mm f/1.2
PFN48 Rzeszów 21.9220 E 50.0451 N 230 Tayama C3102-01A4 Computar 4mm f/1.2
PFN52 Stary Sielc 21.2923 E 52.7914 N 90 Watec 902B Computar 2.6mm f/1.0
PFN57 Krotoszyn 17.4416 E 51.7018 N 150 Tayama C3102-01A4 Computar 4mm f/1.2
All analog video cameras contributing to this paper work in PAL interlaced resolution of $768\times 576$ pixels, with 25 frames per sec offering 0.04 sec temporal resolution. While, the digital camera DMK23GX236 used in PFN52 station has resolution of $1920\times 1200$ pixels and works with 20 frames per sec.
Data reduction
==============
The data from all stations, after a previous conversion, were further reduced astrometricaly by the [UFO Analyzer]{} program (SonotaCo 2009). Initially only automatic data were taken into account. However, during the further processing it became obvious that significant overexposures, the presence of the wake and a possible fragmentation after the flare caused quite serious errors concerning the correct position of the points of the phenomenon. The measurement precision improved noticeably when the bolide’s position was determined using UFO Analyzer astrometric solution with manual centroid measurement [UFO Analyzer]{}.
The trajectory and orbit of both fireballs was computed using [PyFN]{} software (Żo[ł]{}dek 2012). [PyFN]{} is written in Python with usage of SciPy module and CSPICE library. For the purpose of trajectory and orbit computation it uses the plane intersection method described by Ceplecha (1987). Moreover, [PyFN]{} accepts data in both [MetRec]{} (Molau 1999) and [UFOAnalyzer]{} (SonotaCo 2009) formats and allows for semi-automatic search for double-station meteors.
In case of photographic image recorded in Czernice Borowe the astrometry was performed using [Astro Record 3.0]{} software (de Lignie 1997), with the accuracy of the meteor path determination of 3 arcmin. The image was not used for brightness estimate due to the fact that the meteor was visible through thin cirrus clouds.
Results
=======
Brightness determination of the fireballs
-----------------------------------------
The photometry of both fireballs was not trivial because of the strong saturation observed. On every camera both fireballs looks like strongly overexposed bulbs of light. Video cameras in the northernmost stations were completly overexposed with whole image saturated. Only the most distant stations can be usable to any kind of photometric measurements. The best results has been obtained using PFN48 Rzeszów video recordings. Both fireballs were recorded completly and from the large distance. The Okonek fireball has been observed from the distance of 525 km (point of maximum brightness), the Ostrowite fireball from the distance of 380 km. From such large distance both fireballs appeared as overexposed objects with only slightly different brigtness. The same camera recorded also the Full Moon image and its brightness was used as a primary reference point.
Two independent methods has been applied to estimate the real brightness of fireballs. The first one was based on the measurements of the sky brightness during the fireball flight. These measurements has been compared with the sky brigtness caused by the Full Moon in the same camera. As a result we had observed maximum magnitude for Okonek fireball reaching $-12.5$ and $-12.3$ magnitude for the second fireball. Due to low sensitivity of the cameras used and severe light pollution in the PFN48 site the resulted lightcurve is incomplete and contains only brightest part of the fireball. The second method used several comparison objects recorded by cameras of different types with the same optics as used in PFN48 and working in similar sky conditions. The only available comparison objects were bright planets like Jupiter and Venus (magnitudes in the range $-2.5$ to $-4.5$) and the Moon in the different phases (magnitudes from $-8$ do $-12.6$). We used two sets of reference objects - one set recorded by the same camera configuration as for both fireballs and one set recorded by camera with two magnitude higher sensitivity. This second set can be treated as a set of reference objects which are brighter by two magnitude and it is helpfull to fill the gap between -4.5 and -8 magnitude objects. Some trial and error photometric tests led us to choose the best measure method. Good results has been obtained using aperture photometry on the images with overexposed pixel only visible (pixel with value below 255 on eight bit image has been rejected). Further refinements lowered reject value to 230. From such measurements the $I(m)$ function has been derived (see Figure 3). It is an exponential function empiricaly defined in the form:
$$I = A^{-0.45\cdot m}$$
where $I$ is intensity, $m$ magnitude and $A$ constant.
In case of our meaurements this function is valid for magnitude range from $-4$ to $-12$ and is a bit different for higher magnitudes.
This method has been used for both fireballs. The light curves has been determined. Measurements has been repeated using different sets of reference points, different results has been used to magnitude error determination. Maximum magnitudes measured using this method were $-12.4$ for Okonek fireball and $-11.9$ for Ostrowite fireball, respectively. These results are consistent with measuremets of the sky brightness mentioned before. Difference between two methods is less than 0.5 mag. Both fireballs observed from PFN48 Rzeszów, from the distance of hundreds kilometers, looked as very bright objects with brightness comparable to the Full Moon. Reduction to the standard absolute magnitude (fireball visible 100 km directly overhead) gives significantly higher brightness values. Resulting absolute brightness for Okonek fireball is $-16\pm0.4$ mag. The Ostrowite fireball was fainter and its absolute magnitude was $-14.8\pm0.5$. Both fireballs iluminated the southern parts of the country comparable to the Full Moon. In the north-western part of Poland these fireballs were observed as extremely bright objects which lit the sky with bright blue-greenish light.
Observational properties of the fireballs
-----------------------------------------
The PF311015a Okonek fireball appeared over Western Pomerania moving almost directly from east to west. The beginning of the meteor was recorded 117.88 km over the Radodzierz Lake. The entry velocity was $33.2 \pm 0.1$ km/s and was slightly higher than the mean velocity of Southern Taurids of 28 km/s[^3]. The peak brightness was observed at the height 82.5 km about 10 km east over Okonek city. The fireball travelled its 181.2 km luminous path in 5.62 seconds, ending at the height of 60.2 km over Z[ł]{}ocieniec. The basic characteristics of the PF311015a Okonek fireball are summarized in Table 3 and its luminous trajectory is shown in Figure 4.
[lccc]{}\
\
& [**Beginning**]{} & [**Max. light**]{} & [**Terminal**]{}\
Vel. \[km/s\] & $33.2\pm0.1$ & $33.0\pm1.0$ & $30.2\pm1.0$\
Height \[km\] & $117.88\pm0.05$ & $82.5\pm0.1$ & $60.2\pm0.2$\
Long. \[$^\circ$E\] & $18.602\pm0.001$ & $17.04\pm0.01$ & $16.020\pm0.002$\
Lat. \[$^\circ$N\] & $53.6292\pm0.0004$ & $53.57\pm0.01$ & $53.526\pm0.001$\
Abs. magn. & $-0.8\pm0.5$ & $-16.0\pm0.4$ & $-2.3\pm0.3$\
Slope \[$^\circ$\] & $19.31\pm0.05$ & $18.39\pm0.05$ & $17.78\pm0.05$\
Duration &\
Length &\
Stations &\
\
& [**Observed**]{} & [**Geocentric**]{} & [**Heliocentric**]{}\
RA \[$^\circ$\] & $50.10\pm0.08$ & $51.06\pm0.07$ & -\
Decl. \[$^\circ$\] & $17.10\pm0.06$ & $15.11\pm0.07$ & -\
Vel. \[km/s\] & $33.2\pm0.1$ & $31.0\pm0.1$ & $37.2\pm0.1$\
The PF311015a Okonek fireball appeared as a meteor with absolute magnitude of $-0.8\pm0.5$. The brightness was increasing slowly by about 2 mag throughout the first second of the flight. While during the next 1.5 seconds much more steep increase of brightness was observed, ending with plateau lasting about one second when the peak brightness reaching $-16.0\pm0.4$ mag was recorded. The plateau finished abruptly at around 3.8 second of the flight with steep and almost linear decrease of brightness. At the terminal point the brightness of the meteor was $-2.3\pm0.5$ mag. At the end of the plateau phase a bright persistent train appeared. It started to shine with absolute magnitude of $-15$, and it slowly faded to $-13$ mag during almost two seconds. After that moment its brightness started to decrease much faster. Figure 5 shows the light curve of the PF311015a Okonek fireball and its persistent train.
The PF311015b Ostrowite fireball appeared over the central Poland moving almost from south to north. It started its luminous path at the height of 108.05 km over place located about 5 km west of Konin. The entry velocity was $33.2 \pm 0.1$ km/s and was identical to the velocity of Okonek fireball. The peak brightness was observed at height of 82.2 km over the place located 5 km east of Ostrowite. The fireball travelled its 62.77 km luminous path in 2.0 seconds and ended at height 57.86 km with terminal velocity equal to $31.8 \pm 0.5$ km/s. The basic characteristics of the PF311015b Ostrowite fireball are summarized in Table 4, while its luminous trajectory is shown in Figure 4.
[lccc]{}\
\
& [**Beginning**]{} & [**Max. light**]{} & [**Terminal**]{}\
Vel. \[km/s\] & $33.2\pm0.1$ & $32.2\pm0.5$ & $31.8\pm0.5$\
Height \[km\] & $108.05\pm0.02$ & $82.2\pm0.1$ & $57.86\pm0.03$\
Long. \[$^\circ$E\] & $18.1654\pm0.0003$ & $18.11\pm0.01$ & $18.0685\pm0.0007$\
Lat. \[$^\circ$N\] & $52.2005\pm0.0002$ & $52.37\pm0.01$ & $52.5313\pm0.0004$\
Abs. magn. & $-0.3\pm1.2$ & $-14.8\pm0.5$ & $-3.6\pm0.4$\
Slope \[$^\circ$\] & $52.29\pm0.05$ & $53.12\pm0.05$ & $52.96\pm0.05$\
Duration &\
Length &\
Stations &\
\
& [**Observed**]{} & [**Geocentric**]{} & [**Heliocentric**]{}\
RA \[$^\circ$\] & $52.09\pm0.06$ & $51.45\pm0.06$ & -\
Decl. \[$^\circ$\] & $15.78\pm0.07$ & $14.61\pm0.06$ & -\
Vel. \[km/s\] & $33.2\pm0.1$ & $31.23\pm0.109$ & $37.37\pm0.06$\
The PF311015b Ostrowite fireball appeared as object with absolute magnitude of $-0.3\pm1.2$. During the first second of the flight its brightness was increasing almost linearly to the value of $-9$ mag. After that, within a period of about 0.2 seconds, the brightness of the fireball increased by a factor of 100, reaching the plateau phase lasting for about 0.5 seconds. During this plateau the maximum absolute magnitude of $-14.8\pm0.5$ was recorded. While starting from 1.7 second of the flight the sudden drop of brightness was observed. So that the luminous path ended after about 2 seconds of the flight, with he terminal magnitude equal to $-3.6\pm0.4$.
As in case of Okonek fireball, the bright persistent train was observed as well. It started to be visible just after the plateau phase with brightness of $-13$ mag, and within over one second it faded to $-3$ magnitude. The light curve of the PF311015b Ostrowite fireball and its persistent train is plotted in Figure 6.
Orbits of the fireballs
-----------------------
The orbital parameters of the Okonek and Ostrowite fireballs as computed from our observations are shown in Table 5. For comparison the orbital parameters of comet 2P/Encke are listed as well. The orbits of both fireballs are located almost in the ecliptic plane and have high eccentricity with perihelion distance slightly less than 0.3 a.u. The similarity of both orbits is evident with the Drummond criterion $D_D$ (Drummond 1981), and is equal to only 0.011.
--------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------
$1/a$ $e$ $q$ $\omega$ $\Omega$ $i$ P
\[1/AU\] \[AU\] \[deg\] \[deg\] \[deg\] \[years\]
PF311015a Okonek 0.4440(55) 0.8690(21) 0.2948(17) 120.8(2) 37.77623(1) 4.73(12) 3.379(73)
PF311015b Ostrowite 0.4408(50) 0.8720(17) 0.2903(15) 121.2(2) 37.98982(1) 5.636(51) 3.51(7)
2005 UR 0.4420(36) 0.8797(15) 0.2723(1) 141.03(14) 19.555(147) 6.972(26) 3.40(4)
2005 TF50 0.4401(5) 0.8689(3) 0.2978(3) 159.898(8) 0.666(23) 10.699(14) 3.425(6)
2P/Encke 0.45144(1) 0.84833(1) 0.33596(1) 186.546(1) 334.5682(1) 11.7815(1) 3.29698(1)
--------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------
Object 2P/Encke 2005 UR 2005 TF50 PF311015a Okonek PF 311015b Ostrowite
--------------------- ---------- --------- ----------- ------------------ ----------------------
2P/Encke - 0.119 0.072 0.093 0.099
2005 UR 0.119 - 0.052 0.044 0.036
2005 TF50 0.072 0.052 - 0.045 0.042
PF311015a Okonek 0.093 0.044 0.045 - 0.011
PF311015b Ostrowite 0.099 0.036 0.042 0.011 -
Comparison of the orbits of Okonek and Ostrowite fireballs to orbits of asteroids listed in Near Earth Objects - Dynamic Site (NEODyS-2)[^4] allowed us to select couple of asteroids with Drummond criterion $D_D<0.109$. Two of them are especially interesting.
The Apollo type 2005 TF50 asteroid was discovered on 2005 October 10 by M. Block at the Steward Observatory, Kitt Peak. The absolute magnitude of the object is 20.3 mag which indicates the size of 260-590 meters. Its Tisserand parameter has value of 2.933. 2005 TF50 was listed in Porubčan et al. (2006) as one of NEOs connected with 2P/Encke and Taurid complex meteor showers. It is close to 7:2 resonance with Jupiter - the same resonance that was suggested as a possible source of Taurid enhanced activity by Asher (1991). The Drummond criterion describing the similarity of the orbit of 2005 TF50 to orbits of Okonek and Ostrowite fireballs is 0.045 and 0.042, respectively.
The 2005 UR asteroid was discovered by Catalina Sky Survey on 2005 October 23. It belongs to the Apollo group and has a Tisserand parameter of 2.924. The absolute magnitude of the object is 21.6 mag which indicates the size of 140-320 meters. 2005 UR was not included in work of Porubčan et al. (2006) most probably due to the fact that paper was already written when the asteroid was discovered. On the other hand it was listed by Jopek (2011) as one of the parent bodies of the Taurid complex. The similarity of orbits of Okonek and Ostrowite fireballs to the orbit of 2005 UR is even more evident than in case of 2005 TF50 with Drummond criterion values 0.044 and 0.036, respectively.
The interesting fact about 2005 UR asteroid is its close approach to Earth on 2005 October 30 at 13:11 UT with the distance of 0.041 a.u. The time of the close passage is at exactly the same moment as outburst of fireball activity of 2005 Taurids (Dubietis and Arlt, 2006).
Table 6 lists the Drummond criterion $D_D$ values for PF311015a Okonek and PF311015b Ostrowite fireballs, 2005 UR and 2005 TF50 Near Earth Asteroids and comet 2P/Encke. Additionally, Figure 7 shows orbits of both fireballs in the inner Solar System together with the orbits of 2005 UR and 2005 TF50 asteroids and comet 2P/Encke.
Modeling
--------
A numerical integration of the orbital parameters backwards in time has been performed in order to test the link between the fireballs PF311015a Okonek and PF311015b Ostrowite, two NEOs: 2005 UR, 2005 TF50 and comet 2P/Encke. For the integrations of the asteroids and test particles representing fireball, the RADAU integrator in the Mercury software was used (Chambers 1999). The test particles means a series of clones of the radiant position and geocentric velocity of a fireball generated within the measurement uncertainties, that were later converted into orbital elements and propagated in the backward integration together with orbits of NEOs. We generated 100 massless clones of the fireballs individually.
The model of the Solar System used in integrations included: 8 planets, four asteroids (Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, and Hygiea), and the Moon as a separate body. Additionally, we included the radiation pressure here as well. The positions and velocities of the perturbing planets and the Moon were taken from the DE406 (Standish 1998). The initial orbital elements of asteroids 2005 UR and 2005 TF50 and comet 2P/Encke were taken from JPL solar system dynamics web site.[^5] Together with initial orbital elements of asteroids and comet, the test particles were integrated to the same epoch of the beginning of the integration. Next, the backward integration was continued for 5000 yr.
During the evolution the generated stream has been widely dispersed in longitude, therefore, we used Steel et al. (1991) criterion, $D_S$, instead of a conventional similarity functions (Southworth & Hawkins 1963, Drummond 1981, Jopek 1993). With the values being less than 0.15, the evolution of the $D_S$ criterion reveals a link between Okonek fireball and 2P/Encke, 2005 TF50, and 2005 UR, through 2300, 1600, and 1600 years, respectively (left panels in Figure 8). In case of Ostrowite fireball, the evolution of the $D_S$ criterion shows similarity through shorter period of times: 2000, 450, and 400 years with 2P/Encke, 2005 TF50, and 2005 UR, respectively (right panels of Figure 8).
If there is a link between two bodies then the value of the dissimilarity criterion is very low at the moment of their separation, and increases with time. In theory, analysing results of the backward integration, we start in a moment when some time passed since the separation. Therefore, we start with a higher value of the dissimilarity criterion, then it decreases reaching a minimum value (at the possible moment of the separation). And then it increases again because in the integration two bodies are still treated as separate objects, as if the separation did not occur – unless we tell the program to stop integration when a given condition is fulfilled. We would see more complex image when involved in a study are objects which undergo a stronger perturbation and are in resonance with a planet (particularly Jupiter). The distance of an asteroid from the Jupiter’s orbit, characterised by the semimajor axis and aphelion distance, influences the amplitudes and rates of changes of the perihelion distance ($q$), eccentricity ($e$), and inclination ($i$). Moreover, all of used by us in the study asteroids are close to 7:2 resonance with Jupiter. All of this has its reflection is amplitudes and rates of changes of the dissimilarity criterion as well. Thus, instead of a stable, linear decreasing in going back in time to the possible separation moment we observe sinusoidal curve.
Additional outcome of our work concerns the relation between asteroids themselves. Figure 9 shows the time evolution of semimajor axis ($a$), eccentricity ($e$), perihelion distance ($q$), inclination ($i$), argument of perihelion ($\omega$), and longitude of ascending node ($\Omega$) of NEAs and the comet. Our results show orbital similarity between 2005 TF50 and 2005 UR in the interval of almost 4000 years applying both $D_S$ and $D_{SH}$ (see Figure 10 for $D_S$ plot). The lower values are obtained around 2600 years, which corresponds with low values of $D_{S}$ and $D_{SH}$ when comparing asteroids’ orbit with orbit of 2P/Encke. This may suggest that around that time separation of both asteroids might have occurred.
We generated 100 clones of asteroids 2005 UR and 2005 TF50, using their orbital covariance matrix taken from the JPL Horizon. Analysing results of the backward integration of those objects and their clones shows, as expected, that an orbit calculated from a short data-arc span (6 days for 2005 UR) would produce orbits with higher dispersion in time than for a longer data-arc (26 days for 2005 TF50). However, the amplitudes and rates of changes of orbital elements of clones have similar range and pattern, especially for 2005 TF50, for which orbital uncertainties of their nominal orbit are smaller.
The current and past $D_S$ values for each NEO and 2P/Encke are not extremely low indicating that real separation of all these three bodies might took place 20000-30000 years ago in one catastrophic event which created the whole Taurid complex (Asher et al. 1993, Babadzhanov et al. 2008). Leaving for a while a connection with 2P/Encke comet, we can speculate about both NEOs and both fireballs origin. The orbits of 2005 UR and 2005 TF50 are very similar through a period of last 3600 years. Almost zero values of $D_S$ criterion are observed at moments of $-700$, $-1300 \div -1500$ and $-2700$ years (Figure 10). What is interesting is that the deep minimum of $D_S$ around the moment of $-1500$ years was obtained for each NEO-fireball orbit combination (see Figure 8). This epoch might be suspected as the time when larger body was disrupted creating both NEOs and meteoroids which caused the fireballs. Still we have take into account earlier minimum observed at epoch around $-400$ years. This is the first deep minimum of $D_S$ observed for all NEO-fireball combinations. In case of the disruption at that moment further backward integrations for earlier epochs have no physical sense.
Summary
=======
In this paper we presented an analysis of the multi-station observations of two bright Southern Taurid fireballs which occurred over Poland on 2015 October 31. Moreover, we investigated their connection with two NEOs and comet 2P/Encke. Our main conclusions are as follows:
- both meteors are similar with many aspects including brightness higher than Full Moon, shape of the light curve, entry velocity, persistent train and orbital parameters ($D_D$ of only 0.011),
- among over dozen of NEOs identified as possible parent bodies of Taurid complex two, namely 2005 UR and 2005 TF50, have orbits which are very similar to the orbits of observed fireballs (with $D_D<0.045$),
- similarity of orbits of both fireballs and 2005 UR asteroid is especially interesting due to the fact that the close flyby of this NEO was observed exactly during last high maximum of Taurid complex shower in 2005,
- the numerical backward integration of the orbital parameters of both fireballs and NEOs backwards in time, which has been performed in this work, indicates many similarities between orbits of these objects during past 5000 years. However, about 1500 years ago, $D_S$ criterion has close to zero values for each of NEO-fireball, NEO-NEO and fireball-fireball pair suggesting at that moment a disruption of a larger body might took place,
- although, we could not have confirmed unequivocally the relation between fireballs and 2005 UR and 2005 TF50, we showed that at least both asteroids could be associated, having the same origin in a disruption process that separates them.
The Taurid complex is certainly one of the most interesting objects in the Solar System. It is able to produce both impressive meteor maxima and extremely bright fireballs (Dubietis & Arlt 2006, Spurný 1994). Additionally, it can be connected with catastrophic events like Tunguska (Kresak 1978, Hartung 1993) and can affect the climate on Earth (Asher & Clube 1997). Accurate observations and analysis of all kind of bodies associated with the Taurid complex are then very a important task, demanding to continue and affecting the safety of our planet.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the NCN grant number 2013/09/B/ST9/02168.
[99]{} Asher, D.J., 1991, The Taurid meteoroid complex, PhD thesis, New College, Oxford. Asher, D.J., Clube S.V.M., Steel D.I., 1993, MNRAS, 264, 93 Asher, D.J., Clube S.V.M., 1997, Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, v. 69, Issue 1/2, p. 149-170 Asher, D.J., Izumi, K., 1998, MNRAS, 297, 23 Babadzhanov, P.B., Williams, I.P., Kokhirova, G.I., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 1436 Brown, P., Marchenko, V., Moser, D.E.. Weryk, R., Cooke, W., 2013, Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 48, 270 Ceplecha, Z., 1987 , Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, 38, 222 Chambers, J.E. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 793 Drummond, J.D., 1981, Icarus, 45, 545 Dubietis, A., Arlt, R., 2006, WGN, 34, 3 Hartung, J.B., 1993, Icarus, 104, 280 Jenniskens, P., Barentsen, G., Trigo-Rodriguez, J.M., Madiedo, J.M., Alonso-Azcate, J., Asher, D.J., Izumi, K., 2008, CBET No. 1584 Jopek, T.J., 1993, Icarus, 106, 603 Jopek, T.J., 2011, Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana, 82, 310 Kresak, L., 1978, Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia, Bulletin, vol. 29, no. 3, 1978, p. 129 de Lignie, M., 1997, Radiant, 19, 28 Madiedo, J.M., Toscano, F.M., Trigo-Rodriguez, J.M., 2011, EPSC-DPS Joint Meeting 2011, held 2-7 October 2011 in Nantes, France, p. 74 Madiedo, J.M, Ortiz, J.L, Trigo-Rodriguez, J.M., Dergham, J., Castro-Tirado, A.J., Cabrera-Cano, J., Pujols, P., 2014, Icarus, 231, 356 Molau, S., 1999, Meteoroids 1998, editors: W. J. Baggaley and V. Porubcan. Proceedings of the International Conference held at Tatranska Lomnica, Slovakia, August 17-21, 1998. Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, 1999., p.131 Olech, A. et. al, 2006, Proceedings of the International Meteor Conference, Oostmalle, Belgium, 15-18 September, Edt.: Bastiaens, L., Verbert, J., Wislez, J.-M., Verbeeck, C. International Meteor Organisation, p. 53 Popescu, M., Birlan, M., Nedelcu, D.A., Vaubaillon, J., Cristescu, C.P., 2014, A&A, 572, A106 Porubčan, V., Kronoş, L., Williams, I.P., 2006, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnaté Pleso, 36, 103 Shrbený, L., Spurný, P., 2012, Asteroids, Comets, Meteors 2012, Proceedings of the conference held May 16-20, 2012 in Niigata, Japan. LPI Contribution No. 1667 SonotaCo, 2009, WGN, 37, 55 Southworth, R.B., Hawkins, G.S., 1963, Smithson. Contr. Astrophys, 7, 261 Spurný, P., 1994, Planetary and Space Science, vol. 42, no. 2, p. 157 Standish, E. M., 1998, JPL IOM, 312.F - 98 - 048 Steel, D.I., Asher, D.J., Clube, S.V.M., 1991, MNRAS, 251, 632 Tubiana, C., Snodgrass, C., Michelsen, R., Haack, H., Bohnhardt, H., Fitzsimmons, A., Williams, I.P., 2015, A&A, 584, A97 Whipple, F., 1940, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 83, 711 Wiśniewski, M. et al., 2012, European Planetary Science Congress 2012, held 23-28 September, 2012 in Madrid, Spain. Żo[ł]{}dek, P., Olech, A., Wiśniewski, M., Kwinta, M., 2007, Earth, Moon and Planets, 100, 215 Żo[ł]{}dek, P. et al., 2009, WGN, 37, 161 Żo[ł]{}dek, P., 2012, Proceedings of the International Meteor Conference, Sibiu, Romania, 15-18 September, 2011 Eds.: Gyssens, M.; and Roggemans, P. p. 53
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: http://imo.net/node/1645
[^3]: Meteor Data Center:\
http://www.astro.amu.edu.pl/$\sim$jopek/MDC2007/
[^4]: http://newton.dm.unipi.it/neodys/index.php
[^5]: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $A$ be a set in a prime field $\mathbb{F}_p$. In this paper, we prove that $d\times d$ matrices with entries in $A$ determine almost $|A|^{3+\frac{1}{45}}$ distinct determinants and almost $|A|^{2-\frac{1}{6}}$ distinct permanents when $|A|$ is small enough.'
author:
- 'Doowon Koh[^1]'
- 'Thang Pham[^2]'
- 'Chun-Yen Shen [^3]'
- 'Le Anh Vinh [^4]'
title: On the determinants and permanents of matrices with restricted entries over prime fields
---
Introduction
============
Throughout the paper, let $q=p^r$ where $p$ is an odd prime and $r$ is a positive integer. Let $\mathbb{F}_q$ be a finite field with $q$ elements. The prime base field $\mathbb{F}_p$ of $\mathbb{F}_q$ may then be naturally identified with $\mathbb{Z}_p = \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$.
Let $M=[a_{ij}]$ be an $n \times n$ matrix. Two basic parameters of $M$ are its determinant $$\mbox{Det}(M) := \sum_{\sigma \in S_n} \mbox{sgn}(\sigma) \prod_{i = 1}^n a_{i\sigma(i)}$$ and its permanent $$\mbox{Per}(M) := \sum_{\sigma \in S_n} \prod_{i = 1}^n a_{i\sigma(i)},$$ where $S_n$ is the symmetric group on $n$ elements.
For a positive integer $d$, let ${M}_{d} (A)$ denote the set of $d \times d$ matrices with components in the set $A$. For a given $t$ in the field, let $D_d(A,t)$ and $P_d(A,t)$ be the number of matrices in ${M}_{d}(A)$ having determinant $t$ and permanent $t,$ respectively. Let $f_d(A)$ and $g_d(A)$ be the number of distinct determinants and distinct permanents determined by matrices in ${M}_d(A),$ respectively.
In [@igor], Ahmadi and Shparlinski studied some classes of matrices over the prime field $\mathbb{F}_p$ of $p$ elements with components in a given interval $$[- H, H] \subset [- (p - 1) / 2, (p - 1) / 2].$$ They proved some distribution results on the number of $d \times d$ matrices with entries in a given inteval having a fixed determinant. More precisely, they obtained that $$D_d([-H,H],t) = (1+o(1)) \frac{(2H+1)^{d^2}}{p}$$ if $t \in \mathbb{F}_p^*$ and $H \gg p^{3/4}$, which is asymptotically close to the expected value. In the case $d = 2$, the lower bound can be improved to $H \gg p^{1/2 + \epsilon}$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$. Recall that the notation $U=O(V)$ and $U \ll V$ are equivalent to the assertion that the inequality $|U| \leq cV$ holds for some constant $c>0$. Note that the implied constants in the symbols $O, o$ and $\ll$ may depend on integer parameter $d$. We also will use the notation $U \gtrsim V$ for the case $U\gg (\log U)^{-c} V$ for some positive constant $c$.
Covert et al. [@covert] studied this problem in a more general setting, namely, they proved that for any $t\in \mathbb{F}_q^*$ and $A\subset \mathbb{F}_q$, the number of matrices in $M_3(A)$ of determinant $t$ satisfies $$D_3(A,t) = (1+o(1)) \frac{|A|^9}{q}.$$ In [@vinh-det], the fourth listed author extended this result to higher dimensional cases. More precisely, he proved the following: $$D_d(A,t) = (1+o(1)) \frac{|A|^{d^2}}{q}$$ for any $t \in \mathbb{F}_q^*$ and $A \subset \mathbb{F}_q$ of cardinality $|A| \gg q^{\frac{d}{2d-1}}$.
Another important question is to ask for the number of distinct determinants $f_d(A)$ determined by matrices in ${M}_d(A)$. The authors of [@covert] showed that $f_4(A) = q$ whenever $|A| > \sqrt{q}$. Their result can also be extended to higher dimensions.
For the permanant, the fourth listed author [@vinht] obtained several results for the distribution of a given permanent and the number of distinct permanents determined by matrices in ${M}_d(A)$. More precisely, he showed that $g_d(A) = (1 + o(1))q$ if $A \subset \mathbb F_q$ with cardinality $|A| \gg q^{\frac{1}{2} + \frac{1}{2d-1}}$. Furthermore, if we restrict our study to matrices over the prime field $\mathbb{F}_p$ with components in a given interval $I := [a+1, a+b] \subset \mathbb{F}_p$, we obtain a stronger result $$D_d(I,t) = (1+o(1)) \frac{b^{d^2}}{p}$$ if $b \gg p^{1/2 + \epsilon}$ for any constant $\epsilon > 0$. We refer the reader to [@vinht] for more details.
The main purpose of this paper is to study the the number of distinct determinants and permanents determined by matrices in ${M}_d(A)$ when $A$ is a small subset of $\mathbb{F}_p$. More precisely, we have the following results for the number of distinct determinants.
\[thm-det1\] Let $A$ be a set in $\mathbb{F}_p$.
- If $ |A|\le p^{2/3},$ then we have $$f_2(A)\gg |A|^{3/2}.$$
- If $|A|\le p^{\frac{45 \times 2^{d/2}}{136 \times2^{d/2}-137}}$ and $d\ge 4$ even, we have $$f_d(A)\gtrsim |A|^{3+\frac{1}{45}-\frac{137}{45 \times 2^{d/2}}}.$$
\[thm-det2\] Let $A$ be a set in $\mathbb{F}_p$ and $d\ge 3$ odd.
- If $ |A|\le p^{4/7}$ and $d=3$, we have $$f_3(A)\gg |A|^{7/4}.$$
- If $|A|\le p^{\frac{45 \times 2^{(d-1)/2}}{136 \times2^{(d-1)/2}-137}}$ and $d\ge 5$ odd, we have $$f_d(A)\gtrsim |A|^{\frac{5}{2}+\frac{1}{90}-\frac{137}{45\times 2^{(d+1)/2}}}.$$
From the lower bounds of Theorems \[thm-det1\] and \[thm-det2\], we make the following conjecture.
For $A\subset \mathbb{F}_p$, suppose $d$ is large enough, we have $$f_d(A)\gtrsim \min\left\lbrace |A|^{4}, p\right\rbrace.$$
For the number of distinct permanents, we have the following results.
\[thm-2-per\] Let $A$ be a set in $\mathbb{F}_p$ with $|A|\le p^{2/3}$. We have $$g_2(A)\gg |A|^{3/2}.$$
\[thmper\] Let $A$ be a set in $\mathbb{F}_p$ with $|A|\le p^{1/2}$. For any integer $d\ge 3$, we have $$g_d(A) \gg |A|^{2-\frac{1}{6}-\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{2}{5}\right)^{d-2}} .$$
If $A$ is a set in an arbitrary finite field $\mathbb{F}_q$ where $q$ is an odd prime power, then it has been shown by Vinh [@vinht] that under the condition $|A|\ge q^{\frac{d}{2d-1}}$ the matrices in $M_d(A)$ determine a positive proportion of all permanents. The same threshold, i.e. $\frac{d}{2d-1}$, is indicated to be true for the Erdős distinct distances problem in $A^d$ over $\mathbb{F}_q^d$ (see [@hieu]). Recently, Pham, Vinh, and De Zeeuw [@vinhtt] showed that for $A\subset \mathbb{F}_p$, the number of distinct distances determined by points in $A^d$ is almost $|A|^2$ if the size of $A$ is not so large. Thus it seems reasonable to make the following conjecture.
For $A\subset \mathbb{F}_p$ and an integer $d\ge 2$, we have $$g_d(A)\ge \min\left\lbrace |A|^2, p\right\rbrace.$$
Recently, another question on determinants of matrices has been studied by Karabulut [@ye] by employing spectral graph theory techniques. More precisely, she showed that for a set $\mathcal{E}$ of $2\times 2$ matrices over $\mathbb{F}_p$, if $|\mathcal{E}|\gg p^{5/2}$, then for any $\lambda\in \mathbb{F}_p^*$ there exist two matrices $X, Y\in \mathcal{E}$ such that $\mbox{Det}(X-Y)=\lambda$. In this paper, we give a result on the case $\mathcal{E}=M_2(A)$ for some small set $A\subset \mathbb{F}_p$. For $A\subset\mathbb{F}_p$, we define $$F_2(A):=\left\lbrace \mbox{Det}(X-Y)\colon X, Y\in M_2(A)\right\rbrace, ~~G_2(A):=\left\lbrace \mbox{Per}(X-Y)\colon X, Y\in M_2(A)\right\rbrace.$$
\[m-dif\] For $A\subset \mathbb{F}_p$ with $|A|\le p^{9/16}$, we have $$|F_2(A)|, ~|G_2(A)| \gtrsim |A|^{\frac{7}{4}+\frac{1}{60}}.$$
Proofs of Theorems \[thm-det1\] and \[thm-det2\]
================================================
To prove our main theorems, we shall make use of the following lemmas.
\[t:lm\] For $A\subset \mathbb{F}_p$, we have $$|AA\pm AA|\gg \min \left\lbrace |A|^{3/2}, ~p\right\rbrace.$$
\[t:lm2\] Suppose that none of $B, C, D\subset \mathbb{F}_p$ is the same as $\{0\}.$ Then we have $$~~|B(C-D)|\gg \min \left\lbrace |B|^{1/2}|C|^{1/2}|D|^{1/2}, ~ p\right\rbrace$$
\[t:lm4\] For $A\subset \mathbb{F}_p$, we have $$|(A-A)(A-A)|\gtrsim \min\{|A|^{3/2+1/90},~ p\}$$
\[lm11\] For $A\subset \mathbb{F}_p$ with $|A|\le p^{45/68}$ and $d\ge 4$ even, we have $$f_d(A)\gtrsim \min\left\lbrace f_{d-2}(A)^{1/2}|A|^{3/2+1/90}, ~p\right\rbrace.$$
We may assume that $|A|\ge 2.$ Let $X_d$ be the set of distinct determinants of matrices in $M_d(A)$. Let $M$ be a $d\times d$ matrix in $M_d(A)$ with the following form $$M=\begin{bmatrix}
a_{11} & a_{12} & a_{33} & \dots & a_{3d-1}& a_{3d} \\
a_{21} & a_{22} & a_{43} & \dots & a_{4d-1} & a_{4d}\\
u_1&u_2&a_{33} & \dots & a_{3d-1}& a_{3d}\\
v_1&v_2&a_{43} & \dots & a_{4d-1} & a_{4d}\\
a_{51} & a_{52} & a_{53} & \dots & a_{5d-1}& a_{5d} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{d-11} & a_{d-12} & a_{d-13} & \dots & a_{d-1d-1}& a_{d-1d}\\
a_{d1} & a_{d2} & a_{d3} & \dots & a_{dd-1}& a_{dd}\\
\end{bmatrix}.$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Det}(M)&=\left| \begin{matrix}
a_{11}-u_1 & a_{12}-u_2 & 0 & \dots & 0& 0 \\
a_{21}-v_1 & a_{22}-v_2 & 0 & \dots & 0 & 0\\
u_1&u_2&a_{33} & \dots & a_{3d-1}& a_{3d}\\
v_1&v_2&a_{43} & \dots & a_{4d-1} & a_{4d}\\
a_{51} & a_{52} & a_{53} & \dots & a_{5d-1}& a_{5d} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{d-11} & a_{d-12} & a_{d-13} & \dots & a_{d-1d-1}& a_{d-1d}\\
a_{d1} & a_{d2} & a_{d3} & \dots & a_{dd-1}& a_{dd}\\
\end{matrix}\right|\\
&=\left| \begin{matrix}
a_{11}-u_1&a_{12}-u_2\\
a_{21}-v_1&a_{22}-v_2
\end{matrix}\right|\cdot \left| \begin{matrix}
a_{33} & \dots & a_{3d-1}& a_{3d}\\
a_{43} & \dots & a_{4d-1} & a_{4d}\\
a_{53} & \dots & a_{5d-1}& a_{5d} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
a_{d-13} & \dots & a_{d-1d-1}& a_{d-1d}\\
a_{d3} & \dots & a_{dd-1}& a_{dd}\\
\end{matrix}\right|.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $$X_{d-2}\cdot \left((A-A)(A-A)-(A-A)(A-A)\right)\subset X_d.$$ Using Lemmas \[t:lm2\] and \[t:lm4\], we see that $$\label{Xdformula} f_d(A) \gtrsim \min\left\{ f_{d-2}(A)^{1/2} \min\{ |A|^{\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{90}},~p\},~p\right\}.$$ Thus the lemma follows from the assumption that $|A|\le p^{45/68}$ which implies that $\min\{ |A|^{\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{90}},~p\} =|A|^{\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{90}}.$
Let $M$ be a $2\times 2$ matrix in $M_2(A)$ of the following form $$M=
\begin{bmatrix}
a&b\\
c&d\\
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Then we have $\mathtt{det(M)}=ad-bc$. This implies that $f_2(A)=|AA-AA|$. Thus the first part of Theorem \[thm-det1\] follows from Lemma \[t:lm\].
In order to prove the second part of Theorem \[thm-det1\], we use induction on $d\ge 4$ even. In the base case when $d=4,$ the statement follows by combining with the first part of Theorem \[thm-det1\]. Suppose the statement holds for $d-2\ge 4.$ We now show that it also holds for $d$. Indeed, from Lemma \[lm11\], we see that if $|A|\le p^{45/68},$ then $$f_d(A)\gtrsim \min\left\lbrace f_{d-2}(A)^{1/2}|A|^{3/2+1/90}, ~p\right\rbrace.$$ By induction hypothesis, it follows that if $|A|\le p^{\frac{45 \times 2^{(d-2)/2}}{136 \times2^{(d-2)/2}-137}},$ then $$f_{d-2}(A)\gtrsim |A|^{3+\frac{1}{45}-\frac{137}{45 \times 2^{(d-2)/2}}}.$$ By the above two inequalities, we see that if $|A|\le p^{\frac{45 \times 2^{(d-2)/2}}{136 \times2^{(d-2)/2}-137}},$ then $$f_d(A)\gtrsim \min\left\lbrace |A|^{3+\frac{1}{45}-\frac{137}{45 \times 2^{d/2}}}, ~p\right\rbrace.$$ By a direct comparison, this clearly implies that if $|A|\le p^{\frac{45 \times 2^{d/2}}{136 \times2^{d/2}-137}},$ then $$f_d(A)\gtrsim \min\left\lbrace |A|^{3+\frac{1}{45}-\frac{137}{45 \times 2^{d/2}}}, ~p\right\rbrace = |A|^{3+\frac{1}{45}-\frac{137}{45 \times 2^{d/2}}}.$$ Hence the proof of the theorem is complete.
In order to prove Theorem \[thm-det2\], we need the following result.
\[t:lm3\] Let $A$ be a set in $\mathbb{F}_p$ and $d\ge 3$ odd. We have $$f_d(A)\gg \min \left\lbrace f_{d-1}(A)^{1/2}|A|,~ p\right\rbrace.$$
We may assume that $|A|\ge 2,$ because the statement of the lemma is obvious for $|A|=1.$ Hence, we are able to invoke Lemma \[t:lm2\]. Let $X_d$ be the set of distinct determinants of matrices in $M_d(A)$. Let $M$ be a $d\times d$ matrix in $M_d(A)$ of the following form $$M=\begin{bmatrix}
a_{11} & a_{12} & a_{13} & \dots & a_{1d-1}& a_{11} \\
a_{21} & a_{22} & a_{23} & \dots & a_{2d-1} & a_{21}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{d-11} & a_{d-12} & a_{d-13} & \dots & a_{d-1d-1}& a_{d-11}\\
x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} & \dots & x_{d-1}& x_{d}
\end{bmatrix}.$$ We expands the last low. Then the basic properties of determinants yield $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{Det}(M)=&(-1)^{d+1}x_1 \left|\begin{matrix}
a_{12} & a_{13} & \dots & a_{1d-1}& a_{11} \\
a_{22} & a_{23} & \dots & a_{2d-1} & a_{21}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
a_{d-12} & a_{d-13} & \dots & a_{d-1d-1}& a_{d-11}
\end{matrix}\right|\\
&+x_d \left|\begin{matrix}
a_{11} & a_{12} & a_{13} & \dots & a_{1d-1}\\
a_{21} & a_{22} & a_{23} & \dots & a_{2d-1}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots \\
a_{d-11} & a_{d-12} & a_{d-13} & \dots & a_{d-1d-1}
\end{matrix}\right|\\
=&(x_d-x_1)\left|\begin{matrix}
a_{11} & a_{12} & a_{13} & \dots & a_{1d-1}\\
a_{21} & a_{22} & a_{23} & \dots & a_{2d-1}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \ddots \\
a_{d-11} & a_{d-12} & a_{d-13} & \dots & a_{d-1d-1}
\end{matrix}\right|.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $(A-A)X_{d-1}\subset X_d.$ Hence, the lemma follows immediately from Lemma \[t:lm2\].
Let $d\ge 3$ odd. Then $d-1$ is even. Thus combining Theorem \[thm-det1\] and Lemma \[t:lm3\], we see that
- if $|A|\le p^{2/3}$ we have $$f_3(A)\gg \min\{f_2(A)^{1/2} |A|,~p\} \gg \min\{|A|^{7/4},~p\},$$
- if $|A|\le p^{\frac{45 \times 2^{(d-1)/2}}{136 \times2^{(d-1)/2}-137}}$ and $d\ge 5$ odd, then we have $$f_d(A)\gg \min\{f_{d-1}(A)^{1/2} |A|,~p\}\gtrsim \min\{ |A|^{\frac{5}{2}+\frac{1}{90}-\frac{137}{45\times 2^{(d+1)/2}}},~p\}$$
Since $ p^{4/7} < p^{2/3},$ the statement $(\mbox{i})$ implies that if $|A|\le p^{4/7},$ then $f_3(A)\gg \min\{|A|^{7/4},~p\}=|A|^{7/4},$ which completes the proof of the first part of Theorem \[thm-det2\].
To prove the second part of Theorem \[thm-det2\], first observe that $$\min\left\{ |A|^{\frac{5}{2}+\frac{1}{90}-\frac{137}{45\times 2^{(d+1)/2}}},~p\right\}=|A|^{\frac{5}{2}+\frac{1}{90}-\frac{137}{45\times 2^{(d+1)/2}}}\quad \mbox{for}\quad |A|\le p^{\frac{45\times 2^{(d+1)/2}} {113 \times 2^{(d+1)/2}-137}},$$ and $$p^{\frac{45 \times 2^{(d-1)/2}}{136 \times2^{(d-1)/2}-137}} \le p^{\frac{45\times 2^{(d+1)/2}} {113 \times 2^{(d+1)/2}-137}} \quad \mbox{for odd}~~d\ge 5.$$ The statement of the second part of Theorem \[thm-det2\] follows by these observations and the statement above.
Proofs of Theorems \[thm-2-per\] and \[thmper\]
===============================================
Let $M$ be a $2\times 2$ matrix in $M_2(A)$ of the following form $$M=
\begin{bmatrix}
a&b\\
c&d\\
\end{bmatrix}.$$ Then we have $\mbox{Per}(M)=ad+bc$. This implies that $$g_2(A)\gg |AA+AA|\gg \min\{ |A|^{3/2}, ~p\},$$ where the second inequality follows from Lemma \[t:lm\]. Thus if $|A|\le q^{2/3}$, then $g_2(A)\gg |A|^{3/2}.$ This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm-2-per\].
In order to prove Theorem \[thmper\], we need the following lemmas.
\[lienthuoc\] Let $P_1, P_2\subset \mathbb{F}_p$ with $|P_1|\le |P_2|,$ and let $\mathcal{L}$ denote a finite set of lines in $\mathbb{F}_p^2.$ Assume that $|P_1||P_2|^2\le |\mathcal{L}|^3$ and $|P_1| |\mathcal{L}|\ll p^2.$ Then the number of incidences between $P_1\times P_2$ and lines in $\mathcal{L}$, denoted by $I(P_1\times P_2, \mathcal{L})$, satisfies $$I(P_1\times P_2, \mathcal{L})\ll |P_1|^{3/4}|P_2|^{1/2}|\mathcal{L}|^{3/4}+|\mathcal{L}|.$$
\[bridge\] For $A, B, C \subset \mathbb{F}_p$ with $|B|, |C|\ge |A|$ and $|A|\le p^{1/2}$, we have $$|A+B||AC|\gg |A|^{8/5}|B|^{2/5}|C|^{2/5}.$$
To prove this lemma, we follow the arguments of Stevens and de Zeeuw in [@frank Corollary 9]. Suppose that $$\label{assM}|A+B|\le |AC|.$$ Since the case $|A+B|\ge |AC|$ can be handled in a similar way, we only provide the proof in the case when holds.\
Set $\mathcal{P}:=(A+B)\times (AC)$. Let $\mathcal{L}$ be the set of lines defined by the equations $y=c(x-b)$ with $c\in C$ and $b\in B$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $0\notin C.$ Then we have $|\mathcal{P}|=|A+B||AC|$ and $|\mathcal{L}|=|B||C|$. It is clear that the number of incidences between $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{L}$ is at least $|A||B||C|,$ because each line $y=c(x-b)$ for $(c,b)\in C\times B$ contains the points of the form $(a+b, ac)\in \mathcal{P}$ for all $a\in A.$ In order words, we have $$\label{incidencelow}
|A||B||C| \le I(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{L}).$$
In order to find an upper bound of $I(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{L}),$ we now apply Lemma \[lienthuoc\] with $P_1=A+B, ~ P_2=AC,$ and $|\mathcal{L}|=|B||C|,$ but we first need to check its conditions $$\label{con2} |A+B||AC|^2\le |B|^3|C|^3 \quad \mbox{and}\quad |A+B||B||C| \ll p^2.$$
Assumet that $|A+B||AC|^2> |B|^3|C|^3,$ which is the case when the first condition in does not hold. Then we have $|A+B|^2|AC|^2> |B|^3|C|^3$, which implies that $$|A+B||AC|>|B|^{3/2}|C|^{3/2} \ge|A|^{11/5}|B|^{2/5}|C|^{2/5} > |A|^{8/5}|B|^{2/5}|C|^{2/5},$$ where the second inequality above follows from the assumption of Lemma \[bridge\] that $|B|, |C|\ge |A|.$ Thus, to complete the proof of Lemma \[bridge\], we may assume that $|A+B||AC|^2\le |B|^3|C|^3,$ which is the first condition in .
Next, we shall show that we may assume the second condition in to prove Lemma \[bridge\]. Since $|A+B||AC|\ge |B||C|,$ we see that if $|B||C|> |A|^{8/5}|B|^{2/5}|C|^{2/5}$, then the conclusion of Lemma \[bridge\] holds. We also see that the conclusion of Lemma \[bridge\] holds if $|A+B|> |A|^{4/5}|B|^{1/5}|C|^{1/5}$, as we have assumed that $|AC|\ge |A+B|$ in . Hence, to prove Lemma \[bridge\], we may assume that $|B||C|\le |A|^{8/5}|B|^{2/5}|C|^{2/5}$ (namely, $|B||C|\le |A|^{8/3}$) and $|A+B|\le |A|^{4/5}|B|^{1/5}|C|^{1/5}$. These conditions imply that $$|A+B||B||C|\ll |A|^{4/5}|B|^{6/5}|C|^{6/5}\ll |A|^{20/5}\ll p^2,$$ where the last inequality follows from the assumption of Lemma \[bridge\] that $|A|\le p^{1/2}$. Therefore, to prove Lemma \[bridge\], we may assume the second condition in .
In conclusion, by and , we are able to apply Lemma \[lienthuoc\] so that we obtain that $$|A||B||C|\le I(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{L})\ll |A+B|^{3/4}|AC|^{1/2}|B|^{3/4}|C|^{3/4} + |B||C|,$$ where we recall that the first inequality is given in . This leads to the following $$|A||B|^{1/4}|C|^{1/4} \ll |A+B|^{3/4} |AC|^{1/2}.$$ By , the above inequality implies that $$|A+B||AC|\gg |A|^{8/5}|B|^{2/5}|C|^{2/5},$$ which completes the proof of Lemma \[bridge\].
\[per-chinh\] Let $A$ be a set in $\mathbb{F}_p$ with $|A|\le p^{1/2}$. Then, for any integer $d\ge 2$, we have $$|A^d||dA|\gg |A|^{\frac{8}{3}-\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{2}{5}\right)^{d-1}},$$ where $A^d=A\cdots A ~(d ~\mbox{times})$, and $dA=A+\cdots+A~ (d\,\mbox{ times}).$
We prove this lemma by induction on $d$. The base case $d=2$ follows immediately from Lemma \[bridge\] with $B=C=A$. Suppose that the statement holds for $d-1\ge 2.$ We now show that it also holds for $d$. Indeed, from Lemma \[bridge\] we see that $$|A^d||dA|\gg |A|^{8/5}(|A^{d-1}||(d-1)A|)^{2/5}.$$ By induction hypothesis, we obtain $$|A^{d-1}||(d-1)A|\gg |A|^{\frac{8}{3}-\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{2}{5}\right)^{d-2}},$$ This implies that $$|A^d||dA|\gg |A|^{8/5}(|A^{d-1}||(d-1)A|)^{2/5}\gg |A|^{\frac{8}{3}-\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{2}{5}\right)^{d-1}},$$ which concludes the proof of the lemma.
We are now ready to give a proof of Theorem \[thmper\].
Let $M$ be a $d\times d$ matrix in $M_d(A)$ of the following form $$\begin{bmatrix}
x_1 & x_1 & x_1 & \dots & x_1& x_1 \\
x_2 & x_2 & x_2 & \dots & x_2 & x_2\\
x_3 & x_3 & x_3 & \dots & x_3& x_3 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\
x_{d-1} & x_{d-1} & x_{d-1} & \dots & x_{d-1}& x_{d-1}\\
x_{d1} & x_{d2} & x_{d3} & \dots & x_{dd-1}& x_{dd}\\
\end{bmatrix}.$$ We have $\mbox{Per}(M)=(d-1)! (x_1\cdots x_{d-1})(x_{d1}+\cdots+x_{dd})$. This implies that $$g_d(A)\ge |A^{d-1}\cdot\left((d-1)A+A\right)|.$$ From Lemma \[t:lm2\], we have $$g_d(A)\ge |A^{d-1}\cdot((d-1)A+A)| \gg \min\left\{|A|^{1/2}\left(|A^{d-1}||(d-1)A|\right)^{1/2},~p\right\}.$$
From Lemma \[per-chinh\] for $d-1,$ the above inequality implies that $$\begin{aligned}
g_d(A) &\gg \min \left\{ |A|^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(|A|^{\frac{8}{3}-\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{2}{5}\right)^{d-2}}\right)^{1/2},~p\right\}\\
&=\min\left\{|A|^{2-\frac{1}{6}-\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{2}{5}\right)^{d-2} } ,~p\right\}=|A|^{2-\frac{1}{6}-\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{2}{5}\right)^{d-2} },\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows by the assumption of Theorem \[thmper\] that $|A|\le p^{1/2}.$ Thus the proof of Theorem \[thmper\] is complete.
Proof of Theorem \[m-dif\]
==========================
To prove Theorem \[m-dif\], we make use of the following lemmas.
\[m-dif1\] For $X, B\subset \mathbb{F}_p$ with $|X|\ge |B|$. We have $$|X\pm B\cdot B|\gg \min\left\lbrace |X|^{1/2}|B|, p\right\rbrace.$$
\[m-dif2\] For $A\subset \mathbb{F}_p$ with $|A|\le p^{9/16}$, we have $$|A-A|^{18}|AA|^9 \gtrsim |A|^{32}.$$
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[m-dif\].
It is clear that $$F_2(A)=(A-A)(A-A)-(A-A)(A-A).$$ Suppose $|A-A|\ge |A|^{1+\epsilon}$ where $\epsilon=1/90.$ It follows from Lemmas \[m-dif1\] and \[t:lm4\] with $X=(A-A)(A-A)$ and $B=(A-A)$ that for $|A|\le p^{9/16}$, $$|F_2(A)|\gtrsim |A|^{\frac{7}{4}+\frac{1}{180}+\epsilon},$$ and we are done. Thus we can assume that $|A-A|\le |A|^{1+\epsilon}$. Let $a$ be an arbitrary element in $A.$ Then we have $$|A-A|=|(A-a)-(A-a)|\le |A|^{1+\epsilon}.$$ Lemma \[m-dif2\] gives us that for $|A|\le p^{9/16},$ $$|(A-a)(A-a)|\gtrsim |A|^{\frac{14}{9}-2\epsilon}.$$ Thus, if we apply Lemma \[m-dif1\] with $X=(A-a)(A-a)$ and $B=(A-A)$, then we are able to obtain the following $$|(A-a)(A-a)-(A-A)(A-A)|\gtrsim |A|^{1+\frac{7}{9}-\epsilon}\gtrsim |A|^{\frac{7}{4}+\frac{3}{180}},$$ where we used the condition that $|A|\le p^{9/16}.$
The same argument also works for the case of $G_2(A)$. Thus we leave the remaining details to the reader. This concludes the proof of the theorem.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
D. Koh was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology(NRF-2015R1A1A1A05001374). T. Pham was supported by Swiss National Science Foundation grant P2ELP2175050. C-Y Shen was supported in part by MOST, through grant 104-2628-M-002-015 -MY4. The authors would like to thank Frank De Zeeuw for useful discussions.
[00]{}
O. Ahmadi and I. E. Shparlinski, *Distribution of matrices with restricted entries over finite fields*, Indag. Math., **18** (2007), 327–337.
D. Covert, D. Hart, A. Iosevich, D. Koh and M. Rudnev, *Generalized incidence theorems, homogeneous forms and sum-product estimates in finite fields*, *European Journal of Combinatorics*, **31**(1) (2010), 306–319. A. Iosevich, O. Roche-Newton, M. Rudnev, *On discrete values of bilinear forms*, arXiv :1512.02670 (2015). D. D. Hieu, L. A. Vinh, *On distance sets and product sets in vector spaces over finite rings*, Michigan Math. J **62** (2013). D. Hart and A. Iosevich, *Sums and products in finite fields: an integral geometric viewpoint*, *Contemp. Math.*, **464** (2008). D. Hart, A. Iosevich, D. Koh and M. Rudnev, *Averages over hyperplanes, sum-product theory in finite fields, and the Erdös-Falconer distance conjecture*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., **363** (2011) 3255–3275. Y. D. Karabulut, *Cayley Digraphs of Matrix Rings over Finite Fields*, arXiv:1710.08872, (2017). B. Murphy, G. Petridis, O. Roche-Newton, M. Rudnev, I. D. Shkredov, *New results on sum-product type growth over fields*, arXiv 1702.01003. O. Roche-Newton, M. Rudnev, I. D. Shkredov, *New sum-product type estimates over finite fields*, Advances in Mathematics **293** (2016): 589–605. T. Pham, L. A. Vinh, F. de Zeeuw, *Three-variable expanding polynomials and higher-dimensional distinct distances*, accepted in Combinatorica, 2017. I. E. Shparlinski, *On the solvability of bilinear equations in finite fields*, Glasg. Math. J., **50** (2008), 523–529. S. Stevens, F. de Zeeuw, *An improved point-line incidence bound over arbitrary fields*, Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, **49** (5) (2017): 842–858. I. E. Shparlinski, Artithmetic and Geometric Progressions in Productsets over Finite Fields, *Bull. Aust. Math. Soc.*, **78** (2008), 357–364. L. A. Vinh, *Distribution of determinant of matrices with restricted entries over finite fields*, Journal of Combinatorics and Number Theory, **1**(3), 203–212 (2010), (also published as a book chapter in Frontiers of Combinatorics and Number Theory, Vol 1). L. A. Vinh, *Singular matrices with restricted entries in vector spaces over finite fields*, Discrete Mathematics, **312**(2), 413–418. L. A. Vinh, *Spectra of product graphs and permanents of matrices over finite rings*, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, **267**(2) 2014, 479–487. L. A. Vinh, *On the permanents of matrices with restricted entries over finite fields*, SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, **26**(3) (2012), 997–1007.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, Chungbuk National University. Email: [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, UCSD. Email: [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: Department of Mathematics, National Taiwan University. Email: [[email protected]]{}
[^4]: Department of Mathematics, Vietnam National University. Email: [[email protected] ]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Giulia Albonico,'
- Yvonne Geyer
- '& Lionel Mason'
bibliography:
- '../twistor-bib.bib'
title: Recursion and worldsheet formulae for 6d superamplitudes
---
Introduction
============
Worldsheet approaches to scattering amplitudes generate perhaps the most compact and mathematically structured formulae for tree-level S-matrices and loop integrands available. These formulations cannot at this stage be obtained from space-time action formulations. The first such formulae for field theory amplitudes (as opposed to conventional string theory amplitudes) arose from the twistor strings of Witten [@Witten:2003nn], Berkovits [@Berkovits:2004hg] and Skinner [@Skinner:2013xp]. These give rise to remarkable worldsheet formulae for tree-level super Yang-Mills [@Roiban:2004yf; @Roiban:2004ka] and gravity [@Cachazo:2012kg] in four dimensions. These formulae were extended by Cachazo, He and Yuan (CHY) [@Cachazo:2013hca] to tree formulae for gravity and Yang-Mills amplitudes in all dimensions together with a variety of further theories [@Cachazo:2014dia] including D-branes and Born-Infeld theories, but without fermions or supersymmetry.
The CHY formulae are based on the *scattering equations*. These are equations for $n$ points on the Riemann sphere arising from the $n$ null momenta taking part in a scattering process. They were first discovered in conventional string theory at high energy [@Gross:1987ar], and were then seen to arise also from string theories in the space of complex null geodesics, ambitwistor space [@Mason:2013sva] in an RNS formulation. This was followed by a fully supersymmetric pure spinor formulation in 10 dimensions [@Berkovits:2013xba] but which does not lead to explicit formulae for amplitudes. Although the original RNS forms of ambitwistor string theories contain supersymmetry and fermions in their Ramond sectors, as do the pure spinor formulations more directly, it has been difficult to obtain explicit formulae for such amplitudes with arbitrary numbers of fermions. As such they don’t directly make contact with the original twistor-string formulae by dimensional reduction.
A framework was subsequently developed in six dimensions [@Cachazo:2018hqa; @Heydeman:2017yww] that obtained formulae analogous to those in four dimensions [@Roiban:2004yf; @Roiban:2004ka; @Cachazo:2012kg] derived from the original twistor-string, where moduli of maps from the worldsheet to chiral spin space in six-dimensions are integrated out against delta functions. Although these authors were able to obtain amplitude formulae for a variety of theories in this way, there were a number of awkwardnesses. In particular the formulae distinguish between even and odd numbers of particles, and thus become quite awkward for odd numbers of particles in gauge and gravity theories, even when such distinctions are not natural as for gauge and gravity theories. Although a number of persuasive checks were made, there has been no attempt at a systematic proof of factorization or recursion for these formulae. The possible origins from some string-inspired model are also obscure.
Subsequently the last two named authors of this paper introduced a distinct approach [@Geyer:2018xgb] based on extending the scattering equations to incorporate polarization data. These *polarized scattering equations* have a geometric origin in string theories in six-dimensional ambitwistor space expressed in twistorial coordinates (although complete worldsheet theories that give rise to interesting worldsheet formulae remain lacking). They were used to obtain compact formulae for amplitudes for a full range of six-dimensional theories, now without any awkward distinction between even and odd numbers of particles for gauge and gravity theories. These formulae differed from those of [@Cachazo:2018hqa; @Heydeman:2017yww] both in the underlying form of the scattering equations, and also provided a number of new integrand structures. These included 6-dimensional analogues of the formulae of [@Geyer:2014fka] that provided a more efficient and compact version of the RSVW and Cachazo-Skinner formulae for gauge and gravity theories, as well as formulae for D5 and M5-branes all expressed naturally in new supersymmetry representations. There were also more controversial formulae for *Gerbe* multiplets with $(2,0)$ supersymmetry that were analogous to gauge theory amplitudes and with $(3,1)$ and $(4,0)$ supersymmetry that have some analogy with Gerbe-like gravity amplitudes.
In this article we give an improved and more detailed analysis of the formulae of [@Geyer:2018xgb]. We shift the supersymmetry representation in such a way as to maintain the same simple exponential structure but so that it no longer depends on the solutions to the polarized scattering equations. We present manifestly permutation invariant expressions for the brane integrands, as well as direct computations for three and four point amplitudes, which we compare to known answers previously obtained by recursion [@Cheung:2009dc; @Huang:2010rn]. For the polarized scattering equations we give a deeper analysis, showing that generically there is a unique solution for each solution to the conventional scattering equations: we prove that, although they are superficially expressed as nonlinear equations, the solutions can be obtained by normalizing solutions to a system of linear equations. As a further check on the formulae ,we derive the symmetry reductions to five dimensions giving formulae for the same variety of theories there with maximal supersymmetry. We also show that the controversial $(0,2)$, $(3,1)$ and $(4,0)$ formulae for interacting gerbes reduce to standard gauge and gravity formulae in 5d. Reducing further to 4d we land directly on the 4d ambitwistor string formulae of [@Geyer:2014fka]. Our treatment gives new insights there, giving an interpretation of the 4d refined scattering equations introduced there as also being polarized scattering equations. We also give a proof via 6d of the relation between the CHY measure in 4d with the 4d refined/polarized scattering equations measure.
Our main result consists of a proof of factorization for all our gauge, gravity and brane formulae. We also introduce a new spinorial realization of BCFW recursion adapted to 6d for gauge and gravity that therefore leads to a full proof of our formulae. Somewhat surprisingly, despite their poor power counting at large momenta, our brane formulae have no boundary contribution for large BCFW shifts.
The paper is structured as follows. In §\[sec:review\] we give an extended introduction. This contains a review of the formulae of CHY and the original scattering equations, the four dimensional formulae of [@Geyer:2014fka]. We structure this four-dimensional discussion to highlight that these formulae were also based on 4d polarized scattering equations (as are the closely related RSVW formulae [@Roiban:2004yf] based on the original twistor-string). The review goes on to define the ingredients and details of the six-dimensional formulae of [@Geyer:2018xgb] with some improvements and updates to include for example $(2,0)$-supergravities and statements of the main results. In §\[sec:PSE\] the polarized scattering equations and measure are studied in more detail. It is shown that given a solution to the original scattering equations, there exists generically a unique solution to the polarized scattering equations which can be obtained essentially by solving linear equations and then normalizing. The associated measures are also shown to reduce to the CHY measure. Section \[sec:integrands\] goes on to prove basic properties of the integrands we use, permutation invariance (see also appendix \[sec:perm\]), invariance under supersymmetry and compatibility of the supersymmetry factors with the reduced determinants. In §\[sec:low-point\] the three and four point amplitudes are computed from the new formulae and shown to agree with the standard answers for the corresponding theories. Section \[sec:dim-red\] gives the symmetry reductions to give new formulae in five dimension, and then to the standard known formulae of [@Geyer:2014fka] in four dimensions, giving new insights into the relations between CHY and 4d refined/polarized scattering equations measures there.
The full proof of the gauge and gravity formulae by BCFW recursion is given in section \[sec:BCFW\]. Along the way we prove factorization for all non-controversial formulae. Our BCFW shifts are different from those of other authors so we give a brief comparison in Appendix \[sec:BCFW\_Cliff+Donal\]. To give a practical example we use our BCFW shift to derive the four point formulae in appendix \[sec:3-4points\].
Finally in §\[sec:discussion\] we discuss further issues and directions. These include a brief discussion of the Grassmannian approach of [@Cachazo:2018hqa] and its use in [@Schwarz:2019aat] to obtain a correspondence between the formulae studied in this paper and those of [@Cachazo:2018hqa]. This leads to some brief remarks concerning analogues of the momentum amplituhedron of [@Damgaard:2019ztj] in 6d. There is also some discussion of ambitwistor worldsheet models and the controversial formulae for Gerbe theories with $(2,0)$, $(3,1)$ and $(4,0)$ supersymmetry.
Review and extended summary of results {#sec:review}
======================================
We start with a review of the CHY formulae [@Cachazo:2013hca] for gauge and gravity theories with a brief mention of those for other theories [@Cachazo:2014nsa]. We further give an introduction to the 4d refined/polarized scattering equation formulae of [@Geyer:2014fka] in such as a way as to bring out the analogy with the formulae that come later in 6d as the scattering equations there were extended to include an extra scaling per point that incorporates the polarization data.[^1] This extended introduction then introduces the six-dimensional spinor-helicity formalism [@Cheung:2009dc], polarized scattering equations, measures and integrands that underlie the formulae for the various different theories, and then summarizes the amplitude formulae and other main results of the paper.
Review of CHY
-------------
For a scattering process involving $n$ null momenta $k_i$, the scattering equations arise from a meromorphic vector-valued function $$P(\sigma)_\mu=\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{k_{i\mu}}{\sigma-\sigma_i}\, ,\label{P-def}$$ where $\sigma\in{\mathbb{C}}$ is a coordinate on the Riemann sphere ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$. When momentum is conserved, $P(\sigma)_\mu$ naturally transforms as a 1-form on ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$ under Möbius transforms. Equivalently, $P(\sigma)$ has weight $-2$ in homogeneous coordinates and is a section of the line bundle ${\mathcal{O}}(-2)$ on ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$. The scattering equations are then $$\mathrm{Res}_{\sigma_i} \frac{P^2(\sigma)}2=k_i\cdot P(\sigma_i)=\sum_j\frac{k_i\cdot k_j}{\sigma_{ij}}=0\, , \qquad \sigma_{ij}=\sigma_i-\sigma_j. \label{SE}$$ The scattering equations imply that $P^2(\sigma)$ is global and holomorphic, but it must then vanish as there are no global one-forms squared on ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$, so $P(\sigma)_\mu$ is therefore null for all $\sigma$.
The scattering equations then underpin the CHY formulae for massless scattering amplitudes in the form $$\mathcal{M}_n=\int_{\mathfrak{M}_{0,n}}\!\! d\mu_n^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{CHY}$}}}}\,\mathcal{I}\, ,$$ where the CHY measure is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:CHY-measure}
\int {\mathcal{I}}\; d\mu_n^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{CHY}$}}}}&=\delta^d\left(\sum_{i=1}^n k_i\right)\int {\mathcal{I}}\;\frac{\prod_{i=1}^n \delta(k_i\cdot P(\sigma_i)) d\sigma_i}{\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})\times {\mathbb{C}}^3)}\nonumber \\&
=\delta^d\left(\sum_i k_i\right) \int{\mathcal{I}}\;|lmn||pqr|\prod_{i\neq p,q,r} \bar \delta (k_i\cdot P(\sigma_i)) \prod_{j\neq l,m,n} d\sigma_j
\\&
=\delta^d\left(\sum_i k_i\right) \sum{\mathcal{I}}\; \frac{|lmn||pqr|}{\det \Phi_{lmn}^{pqr}}\, .\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Here, the Jacobians for the gauge-fixing and solving the scattering equations are given by $$|pqr|:=\sigma_{pq} \sigma_{qr} \sigma_{rp}\, , \qquad \Phi_{ij}:= \frac{ {\partial}k_i\cdot P(\sigma_i)}{{\partial}\sigma_j},$$ and the superscript $pqr$ denotes the removal of the corresponding rows and subscript $lmn$ the corresponding columns. It is standard that is permutation invariant [@Cachazo:2013hca]. The integration is over $\mathfrak{M}_{0,n}$, the space of $n$ marked points on the Riemann sphere, having divided by the volume of the Möbius transformations SL$(2,\mathbb{C})$ in the Faddeev-Popov sense. (The second ${\mathbb{C}}^3$ factor is removed by removing the $pqr$ delta functions in the product and replacing them with a further factor of $|pqr|$). The delta functions are understood as complex delta functions that localize the integral to a sum over the $(n-3)!$ solutions to the scattering equations of residues given by the integrand ${\mathcal{I}}$ divided by the given Jacobian.
The integrands denoted ${\mathcal{I}}$ vary from theory to theory. They are usually a product of two factors ${\mathcal{I}}={\mathcal{I}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^{\mathrm{h}}{\mathcal{I}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^\mathrm{h}$ with each “half-integrand” $\mathcal{I}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}^{\mathrm{h}}$ transforming under Möbius transformations as a 1-form in each $\sigma_i$. In the original CHY formulae, two possibilities for these half-intgrands were discussed. The first was a Parke-Taylor factor that depends on a permutation $\rho$ $$\mathrm{PT}(\rho)=\prod_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{\sigma_{\rho(i)\, \rho(i+1)}}\, .$$ The second was the CHY Pfaffian ${\mathrm{Pf}}'(M)$ where $M$ is the skew matrix that depends on polarization vectors $e_{i\mu}$ associated to each null momenta $k_{i\mu}$ $$M=\begin{pmatrix}
A&C\\-C^T&B
\end{pmatrix}\, , \quad A_{ij}=\frac{k_i\cdot k_j}{\sigma_{ij}}\, , \quad B_{ij}=\frac{e_i\cdot e_j}{\sigma_{ij}}\, , \quad C_{ij}=\begin{cases} \frac{k_i\cdot e_j}{\sigma_{ij}}\,,\qquad i\neq j\\
\sum_l \frac{k_i\cdot e_l}{\sigma_{li}}\, , \quad i=j\, .\end{cases}$$ On the support of the scattering equations, the matrices $M$ have a two-dimensional kernel, and so the Pfaffian ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}M$ vanishes. One can however define a non-trivial reduced Pfaffian by deleting two rows and columns, say $i$ and $j$, and quotienting by the corresponding generators of the kernel, $${\mathrm{Pf}}'(M):=\frac{1}{\sigma_{ij}}{\mathrm{Pf}}(M_{[ij]}).$$ This reduced Pfaffian is invariant under which rows and columns are removed. We then obtain
\[eq:CHY\_ampl\] $$\begin{aligned}
& \text{Yang-Mills:} && \int\mathrm{PT}(\alpha)\;{\mathrm{Pf}}'(M) \,d\mu_{n}^{\mathrm{CHY}}
\\
& \text{Gravity:} && \int{\mathrm{Pf}}'(M){\mathrm{Pf}}'(\tilde M)\,d\mu_{n}^{\mathrm{CHY}}\,,
\end{aligned}$$
There are many related formulae. Biadjoint scalar amplitudes are constructed from a product of two Parke-Taylors and further integrands for Einstein-Yang-Mills, DBI, and other massless theories in [@Cachazo:2014nsa; @Casali:2015vta].
The refined/polarized scattering equations in 4d {#sec:intro-4d}
------------------------------------------------
In four dimensions, polarization data can be presented in terms of spinor-helicity variables. A null momentum $k_\mu$, $\mu=1,\ldots, d$, is expressed for $d=4$ in terms of two-component spinors $k_{\alpha\dot \alpha}=\kappa_\alpha\tilde \kappa_{\dot \alpha}$, $\alpha=1,2$, $\dot \alpha= \dot 1, \dot 2$. We will use the conventional angle and square bracket notation to denote undotted and dotted spinor contractions $$\langle\epsilon_i\epsilon_j\rangle:=\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}\epsilon_i^\alpha\epsilon_j^\beta\, , \qquad [\tilde\epsilon_i\tilde \epsilon_j]= \varepsilon_{\dot \alpha\dot \beta}\tilde{\epsilon}_i^{\dot \alpha}\tilde \epsilon^{\dot \beta}_j\, .$$ We will, for the most part use complexified polarization data as we will take our Maxwell 2-forms to be simple and null, although momenta can be taken to be real. So the little group is the ${\mathbb{C}}^*$ subgroup of the complexified Lorentz group that preserves the momentum and acts by rescaling $\kappa_\alpha$ and $\tilde \kappa_{\dot \alpha}$. We take polarization data for a Maxwell field or gluon to be a null vector $e_\mu$ that is null and orthogonal to $k_\mu$. Null simple 2-forms are then either self-dual or anti-self-dual given by $F_{\mu\nu}=e_{[\mu}k_{\nu]}$ with $F_{\alpha\dot\alpha \beta \dot \beta}=\epsilon_{\alpha}\epsilon_{\beta}\varepsilon_{\dot \alpha \dot\beta}$ or its conjugate in terms of spinor-helicity data $\epsilon_\alpha=\epsilon\kappa_\alpha$ or $\tilde\epsilon_{\dot\alpha}=\tilde \epsilon \tilde{\kappa}_{\dot \alpha}$ respectively. Thus, polarization simply associates a scale to either $\kappa_\alpha$ or $\tilde \kappa_{\dot \alpha}$.
In order to *polarize* the scattering equations, we can seek global meromorphic $\lambda(\sigma)_\alpha$ and $\tilde\lambda(\sigma)_{\dot \alpha}$ such that $$P(\sigma)_{\alpha\dot\alpha}=\lambda(\sigma)_\alpha\tilde\lambda(\sigma)_{\dot \alpha}\, .\label{P-fact}$$ The weights of $\lambda(\sigma)_\alpha$ and $\tilde\lambda(\sigma)_{\dot \alpha}$ must add up to $-2$ to give $P$ and we will take them each to take values in ${\mathcal{O}}(-1)$. In 4d we have the freedom to let them take values in different line bundles $\lambda_\alpha\in\Omega^0(\Sigma,\mathcal{L})$, $\tilde \lambda_{\dot \alpha}\in\Omega^0(\Sigma, \tilde{\mathcal{L}})$ such that $\mathcal{L}\otimes \tilde{\mathcal{L}}\cong K_\Sigma$. While this set-up emerges naturally from the original twistor-string and related models [@Cachazo:2013gna; @Skinner:2013xp; @Adamo:2014yya], the higher dimensional analogues of will only make sense when both spinors take values in $\mathcal{O}(-1)$, and so the 4d ambitwistor-string model [@Geyer:2014fka] provides the more natural starting point.
Amplitudes in the 4d ambitwistor string are localized on scattering equations that are refined by MHV degree as follows. Take $k$ gluons $i=1,\ldots,k$ to have negative helicity polarization $\epsilon_{i\alpha}=\epsilon_i \kappa_{i\alpha}$ and $p=k+1,\ldots ,n$ positive with polarization data $\tilde\epsilon_{i\dot \alpha}=\tilde\epsilon_i\tilde{\kappa}_{i\dot\alpha}$. The equations then incorporate the polarization data via the following ansätze for $\lambda(\sigma)_\alpha$ and $\tilde\lambda(\sigma)_{\dot \alpha}$; $$\lambda(\sigma)_\alpha=\sum_{i=1}^k\frac{u_i\epsilon_{i\alpha}}{\sigma-\sigma_i}\, , \qquad \tilde\lambda(\sigma)_{\dot \alpha}=\sum_{p=k+1}^n\frac{u_i\tilde\epsilon_{i\dot\alpha}}{\sigma-\sigma_i}\, ,\label{lambda-def-4d}$$ where the $\sigma_i$ and $u_i$ are together determined by the polarized scattering equations $$u_p\lambda(\sigma_p)_\alpha=\frac{\kappa_{p\alpha}}{\tilde\epsilon_p}\, ,\quad p=k+1,\ldots n-k, \qquad u_i\tilde\lambda(\sigma_i)_{\dot \alpha}= \frac{\tilde{\kappa}_{i\dot\alpha}}{\epsilon_i}\,, \quad i=1,\ldots,k\, .
\label{polscatt-4d}$$ It is easy to see that the $\sigma_i$ satisfy the original scattering equations. In [@Geyer:2014fka], these equations were incorporated into a measure $$d\mu_{n,k}^{4d}= \prod_{i=1}^k \delta^2
\left(u_i\tilde\lambda(\sigma_i)_{\dot\alpha}-\frac{\tilde\kappa_{i\dot\alpha}}{\epsilon_i}\right)
\prod_{p=k+1}^n \delta^2\left(u_p\lambda(\sigma_p)_\alpha-\frac{\kappa_{p\alpha}}{\tilde\epsilon_p}\right)
\frac{\prod_{j=1}^n d \sigma_j d u_j /u_j}{\mathrm{Vol}(\mathrm{GL}(2,\mathbb{C}))}$$ where the GL$(2,\mathbb{C})$ extends the SL$(2,\mathbb{C})$ Möbius invariance to include the little group ${\mathbb{C}}^*=\mathrm{GL}(1)$ generated by $$\sum_{i\leq k} u_i{\partial}/{\partial}u_i -\sum_{p>k} u_p{\partial}/{\partial}u_p.$$ The quotient by GL$(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ removes the first three $d\sigma_i$ and one $du_i$ whilst introducing a factor of $\sigma_{12}\sigma_{23}\sigma_{13}$ but no delta functions are removed. The four-momentum conserving delta functions, do not need to be inserted manually, as they are implied by the delta functions. This measure is related to the CHY measure by $$\prod_{i,p}\epsilon_i\tilde\epsilon_p \int d \mu_{n,k}^{4d}\,\,{\mathcal{I}}^{4d} =\int d \mu_n^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{CHY}$}}}}\, \det{}'H^k\,{\mathcal{I}}^{4d}\, .\label{4d-measures}$$ Although this is clear from an indirect general argument as described in §\[sec:4d-massless\], we also give a detailed proof there via 6d. Here the symmetric matrix $H^k$ is defined on each MHV sector by $$\label{eq:Hodges}
H_{ij}^k=\begin{cases} \frac{\langle\epsilon_i \epsilon_j\rangle}{\sigma_{ij}} , \quad i,j\leq k\\
\frac{[\tilde\epsilon_i \tilde \epsilon_j]}{\sigma_{ij}} , \quad i,j >k ,
\end{cases} \quad \mbox{for $i\neq j$, }\quad H_{ii}^k=\begin{cases} -\frac{\langle \epsilon_i \lambda(\sigma_i)\rangle }{u_i}\, , \quad i\leq k \\ -\frac{[\tilde \epsilon_i \tilde\lambda(\sigma_i)]}{u_i}\, , \quad i>k\, ,\end{cases}$$ with vanishing entries otherwise. It follows straightforwardly from that $H$ has a two-dimensional kernel spanned by the vectors $(u_1, \ldots ,u_k,0,\ldots ,0)$ and $( 0,\ldots, 0,u_{k+1},\ldots ,u_n)$. Its reduced determinant is defined by $$\det{}'H^k:=\frac{\det H^k{}_{[ij]}^{[lm]}}{u_iu_ju_lu_m}$$ where $H_{[ij]}^{[lm]}$ is the matrix with rows $i,j$ and columns $l,m$ removed with $l\leq k< m $, $i\leq k <j$. We remark that $\det{}'H^k$ is supported on the sectors appropriate to N$^{k-2}$MHV degree[^2] [@Zhang:2016rzb]. The full $(n-3)!$ set of solutions to the scattering equations break up into the N$^{k-2}$MHV sectors with $k=2,\ldots ,n-2$ with Eulerian number[^3] $A(n-3,k-2)$ in each sector.
This reduced determinant plays a dual role in that it agrees with the CHY Pfaffian ${\mathrm{Pf}}'(M)$ when the polarization data is restricted to the appropriate MHV degree. Thus, because already essentially contains one CHY Pfaffian, the integrand for Yang-Mills formula is simply the Parke-Taylor factor and the one for gravity contains one additional copy of $\det{}'(H)$.
These formulae directly extend to incorporate supersymmetry either by using chiral or anti-chiral supermomenta. For super-Yang-Mills with $\mathcal{N}= 4$ supersymmetries, our supermultiplets will be either chiral or antichiral with the supermultiplet given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:4d-multiplet}
(F_{\alpha\beta},\psi_{\alpha {{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}},\Phi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{J}$}}}},\psi^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}_{\dot \alpha},\tilde F_{\dot\alpha\dot\beta})&=\left(\epsilon_\alpha\epsilon_\beta,\epsilon_\alpha q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}, q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{J}$}}}, \frac{\tilde\kappa_{\dot\alpha}}{\epsilon}q^{3{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}, \frac{\tilde\kappa_{\dot\alpha}\tilde\kappa_{\dot\beta}}{\epsilon^2}q^4\right){\mathrm{e}}^{ik\cdot x}\nonumber
\\
&=\left(\tilde q^4\frac{\kappa_\alpha\kappa_\beta}{\tilde\varepsilon^2},\frac{\kappa_\alpha}{\tilde\epsilon} \tilde q^3_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}},{\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle 2}}\varepsilon_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{IJKL}$}} \tilde q^{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{K}$}}\tilde q^{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{L}$}}, \tilde\epsilon_{\dot\alpha}\tilde q^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}, \tilde\epsilon_{\dot\alpha}\tilde\epsilon_{\dot\beta}\right){\mathrm{e}}^{ik\cdot x}\end{aligned}$$ respectively where $q^{3{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}=\varepsilon^{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{IJKL}$}}q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{J}$}}}q_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{K}$}}q_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{L}$}}/6$ and $q^4=q^{3{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}/4$ etc.. These are obtained from each other by $\epsilon=1/\tilde \epsilon$ and fermionic Fourier transform from $q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}$ to $\tilde q^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}$. At $\mathcal{N}=4$ these multiplets are the same. For $\mathcal{N}<4$ we can define them in an obvious way so as to be complementary.
To obtain supersymmetric formulae at N$^{k-2}$MHV, we partition $ \{1,\ldots,n\}=Y\cup \bar Y$ with $|Y|=k$ and particles $i\in Y$ in the first representation and $i\in \bar Y$ in the second and introduce the supersymmetry factor ${\mathrm{e}}^{F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{N}$}}}^k}$ with $$F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{N}$}}}^k=\sum_{i\in Y , j\in \bar Y}\frac{u_iu_j}{\sigma_i-\sigma_j}q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}} \tilde{q}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}_j\, .$$ We now obtain the following supersymmetric 4d amplitude formulae
\[eq:4d\_ampl\] $$\begin{aligned}
& \text{Super Yang-Mills:} && \int\mathrm{PT}(\alpha)\;e^{F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{N}$}}}^k}\,d\mu_{n,k}^{4d}
\\
& \text{Supergravity:} && \int\det{}'H^k\;e^{F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{N}$}}}^k}\,d\mu_{n,k}^{4d}\,,
\end{aligned}$$
with $\mathcal{N}\leq 4$ for Yang-Mills theory and $\mathcal{N}\leq 8$ for gravity.
Polarized scattering equations framework in 6 dimensions
--------------------------------------------------------
We here recall basic definitions from [@Geyer:2018xgb].
#### Spinor helicity in 6d:
In six dimensions, vectors transform in the antisymmetric representation of $\mathrm{SL}(4,{\mathbb{C}})$, the spin group of the Lorentz group $\mathrm{Spin}(6,{\mathbb{C}})$. Thus a 6-momentum can be expressed as $k^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=k^{[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}=\gamma_\mu^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}k^\mu$, where $A, B=0,\ldots , 3$ are spinor indices and $\gamma_\mu^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$ are antisymmetric $4\times4$ Pauli matrices, the chiral constituents of the $\gamma$-matrices satisfying the Clifford algebra. The inner product of vectors is defined via the totally skew, $\mathrm{SL}(4)$-invariant tensor ${\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle 2}}\varepsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}$, which is also used to raise and lower skew pairs of spinor indices.
For massless particles, the little group is given by $\mathrm{Spin}(4,{\mathbb{C}})\cong\mathrm{SL}(2)\times\mathrm{SL}(2)$. Since null momenta $k^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$ with $k^2=k^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}k^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}\varepsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}=0$ are of rank two due to the antisymmetry of the spinor indices, the on-shell condition can be solved by chiral (or antichiral) spinors [@Cheung:2009dc], $$k^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}= \varepsilon ^{\dot a\dot b} \kappa_{\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\kappa_{\dot b}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\equiv\left[\kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\right]\,,\qquad k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}= \kappa^{ a}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\kappa^{b}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\varepsilon_{ a b}\equiv\left\langle\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\right\rangle\,.\label{eq:momenta}$$ Here, $a=0,1$, $\dot a=\dot 0, \dot 1$ are the corresponding $\mathrm{SL}(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ little group spinor indices, and we have introduced the four-dimensional notation $\langle\cdot,\cdot \rangle$ and $[\cdot,\cdot]$ brackets now used to denote little group contractions. Polarization data is made up of representations of the little group. A Dirac particle has polarization data $\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=\epsilon_a\kappa^a_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$. A Maxwell field strength is represented by $F^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}$, with $F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=0$ because the Lie algebra of the Lorentz group is $\mathfrak{sl}(4)$. For a momentum eigenstate, with a null polarization vector orthogonal to $k$, we find $$F^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}=\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\,.\label{eq:F}$$ The Maxwell equations require $k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=0=k^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}$, so that all polarization data is encoded in little group spinors $\epsilon_a$ and $\epsilon_{\dot a}$ with[^4] $$\label{eq:pol}
\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=\epsilon_{\dot a}\kappa^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\dot a}\, , \qquad \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=\epsilon_a\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\, .$$
#### 6D polarized scattering equations:
Now in 6d, we can seek a spinor-helicity factorization for $P(\sigma)$ over ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$ $$P_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}^a= {\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle 2}}\varepsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}\lambda^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}_{\dot a}\lambda^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}\dot a}\, .$$ The scattering equation $k_i\cdot P(\sigma_i)=0$ implies $k_i\cdot P=\mathrm{det} (\kappa^a_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}},\lambda^b_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}})=0$. This determinant vanishes iff there exists non zero $(u^a_i,v^a_i)$ defined up to scale so that $${\mathcal{E}}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}:=u_{ia}\lambda^a_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(\sigma_i) -v_{ia}\kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a=0\, .
\label{6dSE+}$$ This is scale invariant in $u$ and $v$, so we can normalize $$\langle v_i\epsilon_i\rangle=1\, .\label{SE-norm}$$ We introduce an analogue of for $\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}(\sigma)$ $$\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}(\sigma)=\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{u_{ia}\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}}{\sigma-\sigma_i}\, .\label{lambda-def}$$ Together, , and will constitute the *polarized scattering equations*. One motivation for this latter formula arises from a heuristic twistorial ambitwistor-string model that was presented in [@Geyer:2018xgb].
These provide our 6D polarized version of the 4d polarized scattering equation as equations on the $(\sigma_i, u_{ia}, v_{ia})$ that determine the $(u_{ia},v_{ia})$ on the support of a solution $\sigma_i$ to the ordinary scattering scattering equations. More explicitly we can write $${\mathcal{E}}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}:=\sum_j \frac{\langle u_i u_j\rangle \epsilon_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}}{\sigma_{ij}}-\langle v_i \kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} \rangle=0\, .\label{polscatt}$$ We can eliminate the $v_i$ from these equations by skewing with $\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ to get $$\epsilon_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\mathcal{E}}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]i}:=\sum_j \frac{\langle u_i u_j\rangle \epsilon_{j[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}]i}}{\sigma_{ij}}-k_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=0\, ,\label{polscatt-k}$$ which follows from the normalization condition on $v_i$. Although these are 6 equations, skewing with $\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}$ vanishes identically by construction and there are only three independent equations per point that serve to determine the $u_{ia}$ and $\sigma_i$. Summing this version of the equations over $i$, the first double sum vanishes being antisymmetric over $i,j$, leaving the sum of momentum showing that these equations imply momentum conservation.
Although as presented, the equations for $u_{ia}$ appear nonlinear, later we will see that they are underpinned by linear equations, and, in proposition \[unique\], that there exists a unique solution to these equations for each solution $\sigma_i$ to the unpolarized scattering equation.[^5]
#### Integral formulae:
Our integral formulae for amplitudes all take the form $${\mathcal{A}}_n=\int \mathcal{I}_n {\, \mathrm{d}}\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}\label{eq:form_amplitude}$$ where the integrands $\mathcal{I}_n$ are theory specific and will be specified in due course. We define the measure based on the chiral 6D polarized scattering equations by $${\, \mathrm{d}}\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}= \frac{\prod_{i=1}^n \delta^4\Big({\mathcal{E}}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\Big) \delta\big(\langle v_i \varepsilon_i \rangle -1 \big)\; {\, \mathrm{d}}\sigma_i\,{\, \mathrm{d}}^2 u_i\,{\, \mathrm{d}}^2 v_i}{\mathrm{vol}\; \mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_\sigma \times \mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_+}\,. \label{measure6d}$$ Here the two copies of SL(2) are the Möbius transformations on $\sigma$ and the little group on the little $a$ index and the division by their volumes are understood in the usual Faddeev-Popov sense. We will however see that this measure is equal to the CHY measure in §\[CHY=pol\].
Supersymmetry in 6d {#sec:susy}
-------------------
Here we review supersymmetry representations in 6d, in particular that in [@Geyer:2018xgb]. That representation depends on individual solutions to the scattering equations, so we introduce a variant that maintains the same simple structure, but that is global.
Supersymmetry representations in 6 dimensions have been explored in the context of scattering ampitudes by a number of authors [@Cheung:2009dc; @Dennen:2009vk; @Huang:2010rn]. In six dimensions, $(N,\tilde N)$-supersymmetry possesses an $\mathrm{Sp}(N)\times\mathrm{Sp}(\tilde N)$ R-symmetry group for which we introduce indices $I=1,\ldots , 2N,$ and $\dot I=\dot 1, \ldots,\dot {2\tilde N}$. On momentum eigenstates with momentum $k_{AB}$, the supersymmetry generators $Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$ and $Q^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}$ satisfy, temporarily suppressing the particle index $i$ for readability, $$\{Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}},Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\}=k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}} \, \Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}},\quad\{Q^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot {{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}},Q^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{\dot {{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\}=k^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}} \, \Omega_{\dot {{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\dot {{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}$$ where $\Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}$ and $\Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}$ are the R-symmetry symplectic metrics. The supersymmetry generators thus reduce to the little group as $$Q_{A I}=\kappa_A^a Q_{aI}\,,\qquad Q^{A}_{\dot I}=\kappa^A_{\dot a} Q_{\dot I}^{\dot a}$$ where we now have $$\{Q_{aI},Q_{bJ}\}=\varepsilon_{ab}\Omega_{IJ}\, , \qquad
\{Q_{\dot a\dot I},Q_{\dot b\dot J}\}=\varepsilon_{\dot a\dot b}\Omega_{\dot I\dot J}\,. \label{LG-Q}$$
#### Super Yang-Mills.
A key example is $(1,1)$ super Yang-Mills theory. The linearized ‘super-Maxwell’ multiplet is $${\mathscr{F}}:=(F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}, \,\psi^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}},\,\tilde\psi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}},\, \phi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}})\, ,\label{eq:supermaxwell-mult}$$ consisting of a 2-form curvature $F^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$, spinors of each chirality $\psi^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}$ and $\tilde \psi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}$ and four scalars $\phi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}$. On momentum eigenstates with null momentum $k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$, $Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}$ acts on this multiplet by $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}{\mathscr{F}}&=&(k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\psi^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}},\, \Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}, \,k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\phi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}, \,\Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}} \tilde \psi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}})\, .\end{aligned}$$ To construct a supersymmetry representation, we need to choose half of the $Q_{a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$ as anticommuting supermomenta. The possibilities discussed in the literature [@Cheung:2009dc; @Dennen:2009vk; @Huang:2010rn] focus on halving either the $I$ or the $a$-indices manifesting only full little-group or only R-symmetry respectively. The former was used successfully implemented in recent work on 6d scattering amplitudes for a variety of theories [@Cachazo:2018hqa; @Heydeman:2017yww]. However, the latter is more natural from the perspective of the ambitwistor string [@Bandos:2014lja], and will be the formulation we work with here. The two approaches are of course related by appropriate Grassmann Fourier transforms and we discuss the details of the R-symmetry breaking approach and its correspondence with the little group breaking approach used in this section in §\[sec:susy-factor\].
For amplitudes in the representation based on the polarized scattering equations, there is a natural choice of supermomenta that manifests the full R-symmetry, because the polarized scattering equations provide a natural basis $(\epsilon_a, v_a)$ of the little group space for each particle so that $\epsilon^aQ_{a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}^\mathrm{pol}$ anti-commute. They can therefore be represented as Fermionic variables $$q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}:=\epsilon^aQ_{a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}^\mathrm{pol}.\label{eq:superm}$$ This allows us to write the supersymmetry generators as $$Q_{a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}^\mathrm{pol}=\left( v_a q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}+\epsilon_a \Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\right)\,,\qquad \tilde Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}^{\mathrm{pol}\,\dot a}=\left( v^{\dot a} \tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}} +\epsilon^{\dot a} \tilde\Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tilde{q}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}}\right)\, .\label{eq:def_susy-gen_v1}$$ The full super Yang-Mills multiplet is then obtained from the pure gluon state ${\mathscr{F}}(0,0)=(\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}},0,0,0)$ as $${\mathscr{F}}_{\mathrm{pol}}(q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}},\tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}})=\left((\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}+ q^2\langle v \kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\rangle)(\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}+ \tilde q^2 \langle v \kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\rangle),\right. \left. q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}(\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}+\tilde q^2 \langle v \kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\rangle),\, \tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}(\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}+q^2 \langle v \kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\rangle),\, q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}\right)\, .$$ This gives a representation of the anti-commutation relations such that the $(1,1)$-super-Yang-Mills superfield becomes $$\Phi^{\mathrm{R}}_{\mathrm{pol}} =g^{{\epsilon\tilde\epsilon}}+q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\,\psi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\tilde\epsilon}+\tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}} \,\tilde\psi^{\epsilon {{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}+q^2 g^{v\tilde\epsilon}+\tilde q^2 g^{\epsilon\tilde v}+q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}} \,\phi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}+\dots +q^2\tilde q^2\,g^{v\tilde v}\,.\label{fieldR_v}$$ where $g^{{\epsilon\tilde\epsilon}}= \epsilon_a\tilde \epsilon_{\dot a} \,g^{a\dot a}$ is the gluon with polarization $\epsilon_a\tilde \epsilon_{\dot a} $ etc. This explicit form of the multiplet highlights one of the peculiar features of this supersymmetry representation: Since the supersymmetry generators depend via $v$ on the individual solutions to the polarized scattering equations, so do all states in the bottom half of the multiplet, e.g. $g^{v\tilde v}$ or $g^{v\tilde\epsilon}$. The supersymmetry representation is thus dynamic, not just particle-specific, and varies with the solution to the scattering equations, i.e., $v_{ia}$ is not specified in advance, but depends on the momenta and polarization data and an individual solution to the scattering equations. While any issues associated to this peculiarity can be easily avoided by only calculating amplitudes with external states at the top of the multiplet,[^6] we prefer to work with a global supersymmetry representation that can be introduced as follows.
#### The new representation.
Instead of using the basis $(\epsilon_a, v_a)$ of the little group introduced by the polarized scattering equations (which depends on the solutions to the scattering equations), let us choose a global basis for each particle $$\left(\epsilon_{ia},\xi_{ia}\right)\,,\qquad\qquad\text{ with } \;{\langle}\xi_i \epsilon_i{\rangle}=1\,.$$ Using this basis, $\epsilon^aQ_{a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$ again anti-commute, and can be represented by Grassmann viariables $q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}=\epsilon^aQ_{a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$. However, the supersymmetry generators are now globally defined, $$Q_{a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}=\left( \xi_a q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}+\epsilon_a \Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\right)\,,\qquad \tilde Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}^{\dot a}=\left( \xi^{\dot a} \tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}} +\epsilon^{\dot a} \tilde\Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tilde{q}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}}\right)\, .\label{eq:def_susy-gen}$$ Note that due to the normalization condition ${\langle}v\epsilon{\rangle}=1$, we know that $v_a$ and $\xi_a$ are related by $$\label{eq:v_xi}
v_a = \xi_a +{\langle}\xi v{\rangle}\epsilon_a\,.$$ This implies that the supersymmetry generators $Q_{a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}^\mathrm{pol}$ and $Q_{a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$ are *not* related by a linear transformation of the respective supermomenta $q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}$. Returning to the example of super Yang-Mills, the multiplet now takes the form $${\mathscr{F}}(q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}},\tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}})=\left((\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}+ q^2\langle \xi \kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\rangle)(\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}+ \tilde q^2 \langle \xi \kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\rangle),\right. \left. q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}(\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}+\tilde q^2 \langle \xi \kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\rangle),\, \tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}(\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}+q^2 \langle \xi \kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\rangle),\, q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}\right)\, ,$$ and the $(1,1)$-super-Yang-Mills superfield becomes $$\Phi^{\mathrm{R}} =g^{{\epsilon\tilde\epsilon}}+q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\,\psi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\tilde\epsilon}+\tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}} \,\tilde\psi^{\epsilon {{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}+q^2 g^{\xi\tilde\epsilon}+\tilde q^2 g^{\epsilon\tilde \xi}+q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}} \,\phi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}+\dots +q^2\tilde q^2\,g^{\xi\tilde \xi}\,.\label{fieldR}$$ where as above $g^{{\epsilon\tilde\epsilon}}= \epsilon_a\tilde \epsilon_{\dot a} \,g^{a\dot a}$ denotes the gluon with polarization $\epsilon_a\tilde \epsilon_{\dot a} $. By construction, this representation is now global and independent of the solution to the polarized scattering equations. Of course, this global definition comes at the expense of having to introduce an additional reference spinor $\xi_a$, whereas the dynamic representation $\Phi^{\mathrm{R}}_\mathrm{pol}$ only depends on a single choice of polarization spinor.\
For the most part hereon, we will work in the global R-symmetry preserving representation $\Phi^{\mathrm{R}}$. However, it is easy to convert our formulae to the little-group preserving representation: for this we break up $Q_{aI}=(Q^l_a,Q_{al},)$ with $l=1,\ldots,N$ so that $\Omega_{IJ}=\begin{pmatrix}
0&\delta^l_m\\-\delta^m_l&0
\end{pmatrix}$ and introduce supermomenta $\eta_{al}$ so that $$Q_{aI}=\left(\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\eta^a_l},\eta_{al}\right)\, .\label{eq:little-gp-pres}$$ We explain the correspondence in more detail in \[sec:susy-factor\] and give the alternative formulae below.
Integrands {#sec:int_intro}
----------
Supersymmetry determines the full super-amplitude from the amplitudes involving only the top of the multiplet. We will see in §\[sec:susy-factor\] that superysmmetry implies that the total dependence on the supermomenta is encoded in the exponential factor ${\mathrm{e}}^{F}$, with $F=F_{\scalebox{0.7}{$N$}}+\tilde{F}_{\scalebox{0.7}{$\tilde N$}}$ where
\[SUSY-factor\] $$\begin{aligned}
&F_{\scalebox{0.7}{$N$}}=F_{\scalebox{0.7}{$N$}}^\mathrm{pol}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n {\langle}\xi_i v_i{\rangle}\,q_i^2 \,,&&
F_{\scalebox{0.7}{$N$}}^\mathrm{pol} = \sum_{i<j}
\frac{ \langle u_i u_j\rangle}{\sigma_{ij}} q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_j^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\,,\\
&\tilde{F}_{\scalebox{0.7}{$\tilde N$}}=\tilde{F}_{\scalebox{0.7}{$\tilde N$}}^\mathrm{pol}- \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n \left[ \xi_i v_i\right]\, \tilde q_i^2 \,,&&
\tilde{F}_{\scalebox{0.7}{$\tilde N$}}^\mathrm{pol}=\sum_{i<j} \frac{ [ \tilde u_i \tilde u_j] }{\sigma_{ij}}
\tilde{q}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}\tilde{q}_j^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}} &&
\,.
\end{aligned}$$
For $\mathcal{N}=(1,1)$ super Yang-Mills for example, we take the exponential factor $\exp F^{\mathrm{YM}}=\exp (F_1+\tilde{F}_1)$. In the dynamic R-symmetry preserving representations discussed in [@Geyer:2018xgb], we only keep the interaction terms in the exponential, $e^{F^\mathrm{pol}}$ with $F=F_{\scalebox{0.7}{$N$}}^\mathrm{pol}+\tilde{F}_{\scalebox{0.7}{$\tilde N$}}^\mathrm{pol}$. Alternatively, we can Fourier transform in half the fermionic variables to make contact with the little-group-preserving representation of Refs. [@Heydeman:2017yww; @Cachazo:2018hqa] as given in . To do so, we choose an explicit off-diagonal representation for the R-symmetry metric, decompose the fermionic variables $q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}= \left(q^l,{\langle}\epsilon \eta_l{\rangle}\right)$ according to this representation, and Fourier transform one of these half-dimensional fermionic subspaces, $$\label{eq:delta-rep}
\int \prod_{i=1}^n d^Nq_i^l \; \prod_je^{-q_j^l{\langle}\xi_j\eta_{j l}{\rangle}}\;e^{F_N}=\prod_{i}\delta^{0|N}\left( \sum_{j}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}{\langle}\epsilon_j \eta_{jl}{\rangle}-{\langle}v_i\eta_{il}{\rangle}\right)\,.$$ On the right, we have relabeled $q_{l}=\eta_{\epsilon l}:={\langle}\epsilon \eta_l{\rangle}$, and grouped the fermionic variables into a little-group spinor $\eta_a^l$. In this representation, the fermionic delta-functions take the same form as the polarized scattering equations with $\eta_{al}$ replacing $\kappa_{aA}$, and we define ${\, \mathrm{d}}\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}|N+\tilde N}$ to be the measure obtained by combining the fermionic delta functions into ${\, \mathrm{d}}\mu^\mathrm{pol}_n$.
In general, given a scattering amplitude of the form for the top states of the multiplet of an $\mathcal{N}=(N,\tilde N)$ theory, the fully supersymmetric amplitude is given by
\[eq:ampl\_susy\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{A}_n=\int {\, \mathrm{d}}\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}\,\mathcal{I}_n\;e^{F_N+\tilde F_{\tilde N}} && \text{R-symmetry}\\
& \mathcal{A}_n=\int {\, \mathrm{d}}\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}|N+\tilde N}\,\mathcal{I}_n && \text{little-group symmetry}\,.
\end{aligned}$$
This gives our formulae for superamplitudes from the formulae for the top states of the supermultiplets. We show in §\[sec:susy-factor\] that these are correctly supersymmetric.
For the ambidextrous spin one contribution, define an $n\times n$ matrix $H$ by $$H_{ij} =\begin{cases}\frac{\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_j}{\sigma_{ij}} \qquad i\neq j\\
e_i\cdot P(\sigma_i) \, , \qquad i=j\label{eq:def1_H_ii}
\end{cases}$$ where $e_i$ is the null polarization vector and $P(\sigma
)$ is as defined in . We can define $H_{ii}$ equivalently by $$\label{eq:def2_H_ii}
\lambda_{a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}(\sigma_i)\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_i=-u_{ia} H_{ii} \, , \quad \lambda^{\dot a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}(\sigma_i) \epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}=-u_i^{\dot a} H_{ii} \,.$$ See §\[YM-int\] for details.
On the polarized scattering equations, the determinant $\det H$ vanishes because $H$ has co-rank 2 due to $$\label{eq:co-rank}
\sum_i u_{ia} H_{ij}=\lambda_{a {{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} (\sigma_j)\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_j +u_{ja} H_{jj}=0\, .$$ The first term follows from the definition of $\lambda_{a {{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} $ and the second equality from . Similarly, $\sum_j H_{ij} u_{j\dot a}=0$. These identities nevertheless imply that $H$ has a well defined reduced determinant $$\begin{aligned}
\det{}'H: =\frac{\det(H^{[i_1i_2]}_{[j_1j_2]})}{\langle u_{i_1} u_{i_2}\rangle [u_{j_1} u_{j_2}]}\,.\label{gendet2}\end{aligned}$$ Here $H^{[i_1j_1]}_{[i_2j_3]}$ denotes the matrix $H$ with the rows $i_1,\,i_2$ and columns $j_1,\,j_2$ deleted, and $\det{}'H$ is well-defined in the sense that the is invariant under permutations of particle labels, and thus independent of the choice of $i_{1,2},\,j_{1,2}$, see §\[YM-int\] for the proof.
The reduced determinant $\det{}'H$ is manifestly gauge invariant in all particles, carries $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_\sigma$ weight $-2$, as expected for a half-integrand $\mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{spin-1}}$ and is equally valid for even and odd numbers of external particles. On the support of the polarized scattering equations, it is verified using factorization in §\[sec:factorization\] that $\det{}'H$ is equal to the CHY half-integrand ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'M$.
Another important building block, relevant for the D5 and M5 theory, is the skew matrix $A$, familiar from the CHY formulae [@Cachazo:2013hca; @Cachazo:2014xea], with $$A_{ij}=\frac{k_i\cdot k_j}{\sigma_{ij}}\,.$$ Again, the Pfaffian $\mathrm{Pf} A$ vanishes on the scattering equations , but the reduced Pfaffian $\mathrm{Pf}'A=\frac{(-1)^{i+j}}{\sigma_{ij}}\mathrm{Pf} A^{ij}_{ij}$ is well-defined and non-zero for even numbers of particles [@Cachazo:2013hca; @Cachazo:2014xea].
The final ingredients are constructed from $(\sigma_i, u_{ia}, \tilde u_{i\dot a})$, and are only needed for M5-branes. These only lead to amplitudes with even numbers of particles. We present a formulation pointed out by [@Schwarz:2019aat] using [@Roehrig:2017wvh], giving a useful alternative formulation to that in [@Geyer:2018xgb], the connections to which we discuss in §\[sec:M5-integrands\]. Define the family of matrices $U^{(a,b)}$ by $$U^{(a,b)}_{ij}=\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}^a\left[ \tilde u_i\tilde u_j\right]^b}{\sigma_{ij}}\,.\label{Uab}$$ In fact we will only need $U^{(2,0)}$ and $U^{(0,2)}$ although for even numbers of particles we have the identity $$\label{eq:detH=pfA}
\det{}'H= \frac{{\mathrm{Pf}}'\,A}{{\mathrm{Pf}}\, U^{(1,1)}}\, ,$$ allowing for the use of $U^{(1,1)}$ according to taste.
With these ingredients, we have the following integrands of various supersymmetric theories as follows
\[eq:integrands\] $$\begin{aligned}
& \text{(1,1)-Super Yang-Mills:} && \mathrm{PT}(\alpha)\;\det{}'H\;e^{F_1+\tilde{F}_1} \label{eq:int_sYM}\\
& \text{(2,2)-Supergravity:} && \det{}'H\;\det{}'\tilde H\;e^{F_2+\tilde{F}_2}\\
& \text{(1,1)-D5-branes:} && \det{}'A\;\det{}'H\;e^{F_1+\tilde{F}_1} \\
& \text{(2,0)-M5-branes:} && \det{}'A\;\frac{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A}{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)}}\;e^{F_2}
\end{aligned}$$
The resulting superamplitudes are $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_\sigma\times \mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_\pm$ invariant, the super Yang-Mills and supergravity amplitudes are gauge invariant, and the supergravity amplitudes are permutation invariant. We also see colour-kinematics duality expressed in the form of the super Yang-Mills and supergravity amplitudes. The M5 amplitudes are manifestly chiral.
The main result of this paper, expressed and proved in detail in §\[sec:BCFW\], is:
\[thm:BCFW\] The amplitude formulae with integrands all factorize correctly. There exists good BCFW shifts for the gauge and gravity formulae so that their equivalence with the corresponding tree-level S-matrices is guaranteed by recursion and the three-point examples of §\[sec:low-point\].
We will see later explicitly that these formulae all correctly reproduce the known three- and four- point amplitudes. We will see further that the supergravity and super Yang-Mills amplitudes reduce to the four-dimensional expressions given in terms of the four-dimensional polarized scattering equations above.
The double copy and Gerbe-theories.
-----------------------------------
As remarked in [@Geyer:2018xgb], our half-integrands provide a double-copy matrix of theories, in much the same way as those obtained in [@Cachazo:2014xea; @Casali:2015vta] in the CHY and RNS ambitwistor-string framework. These all provide nodes in the web of theories of [@Bern:2019prr], which contain the theories described above but also give formulae for theories that are not obviously well-defined. For example, combining the M5 half-integrand ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A\,\det X\, e^{F_2}/{\mathrm{Pf}}\, U^{(2,0)}$ with a Parke-Taylor factor leads to a formula with a non-abelian current algebra and $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ supersymmetry, see \[tabletheories\]. These $(2,0)$-theories all contain *Gerbes* in their linear multiplets, i.e. closed self-dual 3-forms that are given by symmetric spinors $B_{AB}$ in spinors. The gravitational analogues have spinors $\psi^A_{BCD}$ for $(3,1)$ and $\psi_{ABCD}$ for $(4,0)$ in their linear multiplets.
[|l|llll|]{} & PT & $\det{}'A$ & $\det{}'H \;e^{F_1+\tilde{F}_1}$ & $\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A}{{\mathrm{Pf}}\, U^{(2,0)}}\; e^{F_2}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
PT & Bi-adjoint scalar & NLSM & $\mathcal{N}=(1,1)$ sYM & $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$\det{}'A$ &&Galileon& $\mathcal{N}=(1,1)$ D5 & $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ M5\
$\det{}'H \;e^{F_1+\tilde{F}_1}$ &&&$\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ sugra& $\mathcal{N}=(3,1)$\
$\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A}{{\mathrm{Pf}}\, U^{(2,0)}}\; e^{F_2}$ &&&& $\mathcal{N}=(4,0)$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
These formulae in the right-hand column are not obviously defined for an odd number of particles. The M5 theory is not expected to have amplitudes for odd numbers of particles, but that is already guaranteed by the $\det{}' A$ factor which, being the determinant of a skew matrix, automatically vanishes for odd $n$. However, for the other factor we have no analogue of to provide a meaning for odd $n$. As observed in [@Cachazo:2018hqa] for a similar construction, it is not easy to argue that this formula describes amplitudes in the $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ theory arising from coincident M5-branes since that theory lacks a perturbative parameter and thus has no S-matrix.[^7] The formulae are however well-defined and manifestly chiral and supersymmetric, and we give further discussion of these in §\[sec:discussion\].
#### Further theories, (2,0) supergravity.
Our matrix in table \[tabletheories\] can be extended further using the half-integrands from [@Cachazo:2014xea; @Casali:2015vta] to give potentially supersymmetric 6d versions of the theories discussed there. Further half-integrands in [@Azevedo:2017lkz; @Azevedo:2018dgo] will give further potentially supersymmetric formulae for the higher order theories treated there.
This larger matrix will by no means be exhaustive and many further theories can be constructed by stripping out some of the supersymmetry and adjoining fewer or more fields than are present in the maximally supersymmetric multiplet. This yields further half-integrands and theories. In many settings the correct couplings will then be ensured from the original supersymmetric theory. We give an example that follows the analysis of Heydeman et al. [@Heydeman:2018dje]. In the context of their 6d framework, they extract all chiral $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ 6d supergravity amplitudes together with the abelian $(2,0)$ tensor multiplets from the known formulae for $\mathcal{N}=(2,2)$ supergravity. The number of tensor multiplets can then be changed with impunity. If there are 21 of them, this leads to anomaly cancellation and a correspondence with a K3 reduction of type IIB string theory.
The $(2,2)$ supergravity multiplet can be regarded as the tensor product of the $(2,0)$ multiplet with the $(0,2)$ multiplet. The latter consists of fields $(B^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}},\Psi^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}},\phi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}})$ with $\phi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}=0$ so that there are only 5 scalars. This can be truncated to throw out the $\Psi^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}$ and the number of scalars can be reduced or increased. In the tensor product with the $(2,0)$ multiplet, the scalars correspond to $(2,0)$ abelian tensor multiplets. With just one flavour of $(2,0)$ abelian tensor multiplet embedded into the $(2,2)$ multiplet (together with the $(2,0)$ gravity), integrating out the $(0,2)$ part of the supersymmetry from the $(2,2)$ formula yields, with $m$ abelian multiplets and $n$ graviton multiplets $$\mathcal{M}_{n+m}^{(2,0)}=\int {\, \mathrm{d}}\mu_{n+m}^{\mathrm{pol}}\;\det{}'H\det{}'\tilde H\; \det U^{(0,1)}_m \;e^{F_2}\,. \label{(2,0)-grav}$$ where $U^{(0,1)}_m$ is the $m\times m$ matrix of whose particle indices are those for the $m$ abelian tensor multiplets. If we now wish to have an arbitrary number of flavours of abelian tensor multiplets, we can extend $U_m^{(0,1)}$ to $$\mathcal{U}_{ij}^{(0,1)}=\frac{[ \tilde u_i\tilde u_j] \delta_{f_if_j}}{\sigma_{ij}}$$ into which the flavour vectors of the $m$ abelian tensor multiplets can be contracted before taking the determinant in .
We remark that this formula superficially contains more polarization data than expected for the $m$ abelian tensor multiplets as it contains an $\epsilon^A$ in addition to the $\epsilon_A$ for each tensor multiplet, coming from the $(n+m)\times (n+m)$ reduced determinant $\det'H$. However, it will be seen in §\[sec:multiplet\] that these expressions are independent of the spurious $\epsilon^A$ as they should be.
Polarized scattering equations and measure {#sec:PSE}
==========================================
In this section we prove various statements made in the introduction. We first give an alternative form of the scattering equations that manifests that the scattering equations imply momentum conservation. In §\[sec:unique\] we prove the existence and uniqueness for solutions to the polarized scattering equations given an initial solution to the scattering equations. Underlying this is a linear formulation of the polarized scattering equations that we make explicit in §\[lin-SE\]. This is not used explicitly in what follows and can be omitted by a casual reader. The final subsection §\[sec:reltoCHYmeasure\] proves that the polarized scattering equations measure is equivalent to the standard CHY measure.
We first recall the form of the polarized scattering equations in which we eliminate the $v_{ia}$ by skew-symmetrizing the $i$th polarized scattering equation with $\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ to obtain $$\epsilon_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}]}{\mathcal{E}}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]i}= \epsilon_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\langle u_i\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}(\sigma_i)\rangle+k_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=
\sum_j \frac{\langle u_{i},u_j\rangle \epsilon_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]j}}{\sigma_{i}-\sigma_j}-k_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\, .
\label{polscatt-k0}$$ These leads to
We have the identity $$K_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}:=\sum_i k_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=\sum_i\epsilon_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}]}{\mathcal{E}}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]i}\, .
\label{total-mom}$$ Thus if ${\mathcal{E}}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}=0$ then momentum conservation $K_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=\sum_i k_i=0$ follows.
[**Proof:**]{} This follows from $$\sum_{i,j} \frac{u_{ij} \epsilon_{j[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]i}}{\sigma_{ij}}=0\, ,$$ as the argument of the double sum is skew symmetric in $i,j$.$\Box$\
We also wish to know that $\lambda_{a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ provides a spinor-helicity decomposition of $P(\sigma)$.
\[6dCons\] On the support of the polarized scattering equations $$\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}(\sigma)\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}^a(\sigma)=P_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}(\sigma):=\sum_i\frac{k_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}}{\sigma-\sigma_i}$$
[**Proof:**]{} We have $$\lambda_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^a(\sigma)\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}^a(\sigma)=\sum_{ij}\frac{ u_{ia}u_{j}^a \epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} \epsilon_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}}{(\sigma\,\sigma_i)(\sigma\sigma_j)}\, .$$ There are no double poles because $u_{ia}u_{i}^a=0$. The residue of the LHS at $\sigma_i$ is $$\mathrm{Res}_{\sigma_i} \lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}(\sigma)\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}^a (\sigma)=\epsilon_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\sum_{j}\frac{u_{ia}u_{j}^a \epsilon_{j|{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}}{(\sigma_i \sigma_j)}=\epsilon_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} u_{ia} \lambda(\sigma_i)_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}^a\, .$$ The polarized scattering equations reduces the RHS of this to $$\mathrm{Res}_{\sigma_i} \lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}(\sigma)\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}^a (\sigma)=\epsilon_{ic}\kappa_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^c\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]i}^b v_{ib}= \langle v_i \epsilon_i\rangle\kappa_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}|a}\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]i}^a=:k_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}} \,,$$ as desired.$\Box$\
When the scattering equations are not imposed, although the residue of Res$_{\sigma_i}P(\sigma)$ is no longer $k_i$, there is nevertheless an alpha-plane that contains both $P(\sigma_i)$ and $k_i$.
Linear form of equations, and existence and uniqueness of solutions {#sec:unique}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection we prove existence and uniqueness using algebreo-geometric arguments. We define the bundle over ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$ in which $\lambda_{aA}$, $a=0,1$, takes its values to show that it is a rank-two bundle with canonically defined skew form, and so generically has a pair of sections that can be normalized.
We work with bundles on ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$ which will be direct sums of line bundles ${\mathcal{O}}(n)$ whose sections can be represented in terms of homogeneous functions of degree $n$ in terms of homogeneous coordinates $\sigma_{\alpha}$, $\alpha=0,1$ on ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$ with skew inner product $(\sigma_i \sigma_j):=\sigma_{i0}\sigma_{j1}-\sigma_{i1}\sigma_{j0}$. We prove:
\[unique\] For each solution $\{\sigma_i\}$ to the scattering equations and compatible polarization data in general position, there exists a unique solution to the polarized scattering equations , and up to a global action of $SL(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ on the little-group index.
[**Proof:**]{} Let $P^{AB}(\sigma)$ arise from the given solution to the scattering equations as the spinor form of . To remove the poles, define $\Pi(\sigma)^{AB}:=P^{AB}\prod (\sigma\sigma_i)$ which is now holomorphic object of weight $n-2$ on ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$ and is a null 6-vector so as a skew matrix has rank 2 on ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$ (for momentum and $\sigma_i$ in general position it will be vanishing on ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$).
We require $\lambda_{aA}P^{AB}=0$ for $a=0,1$ so to study solutions to this equation, define the rank-2 bundle $E= \ker P \subset {\mathbb{S}}_A$ on ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$ where ${\mathbb{S}}_A$ is the rank four trivial bundle of spinors over ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$. To calculate the number of sections we wish to compute the degree of this bundle. To do so consider the short exact sequence $$0\longrightarrow E\longrightarrow {\mathbb{S}}_A \longrightarrow E^0(n-2)\longrightarrow 0\,,$$ where the second map is multiplication by $\Pi(\sigma)^{AB}$ and $E^0(n-2)\subset {\mathbb{S}}^A(n-2)$ is the annihilator of $E$ twisted by ${\mathcal{O}}(n-2)$, that being the weight of $\Pi^{AB}$. In such a short exact sequence the degree of $\S_A$ is the sum of that of $E$ and $E^0(n-2)$ since the degree is the winding number of the determinant of the patching function, and the maps of the exact sequence determine these up to upper triangular terms that dont contribute to the determinant. Since ${\mathbb{S}}_A$ is trivial, it has degree 0, so we find $$\deg E + \deg E^0 + 2(n-2)=0\,.$$ Because $E^0=({\mathbb{S}}/E)^*$ and ${\mathbb{S}}$ is trivial, we have $\deg E^0=\deg E$ so this gives $\deg E=2-n$.
Now $\Lambda_{aA}:=\lambda_{aA}\prod(\sigma\sigma_i)$ is a section of $E(n-1)$ which by the above has degree $n$. Our $\Lambda_{aA}$ is subject to the $n$ conditions, one at each marked point, as we impose $\Lambda_{aA}|_{\sigma=\sigma_j}\propto\epsilon_{jA}$. This has the effect of defining a subbundle with a reduction of degree by 1 at each marked point, so the total degree is now zero. Thus this subbundle therefore has degree zero. For data in general position, it will therefore be trivial with a two-dimensional family of sections spanned by $\Lambda_{aA}$, $a=0,1$. These can be normalized because $\Lambda_{0[A}\Lambda_{1B]}=f\Pi_{AB}$ where $f$ is a holomorphic function of the sphere of weight $n$. The conditions on $\Lambda_{aA}$ at $\sigma_i$ imply that $f$ vanishes at each $\sigma_i$ so $f=c\prod_i(\sigma\, \sigma_i)$ and we can normalize our sections so that $c=1$ reducing the freedom in the choiced of frame $\Lambda_{aA}$ to SL$(2)$. On dividing through by $\prod_i(\sigma\, \sigma_i)^2$ we obtain $P_{AB}=\lambda_{aA}\lambda^a_B\, .$ $\Box$\
For the non-chiral theories that we are considering, we will need both chiralities of spinors satisfying polarized scattering equations i.e, we can also define $$\lambda_{\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(\sigma):=\sum_i \frac{u_{i\dot a}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_i}{\sigma-\sigma_i}\, , \qquad u_{i\dot a}\lambda^{\dot a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}(\sigma_i) =v_{i\dot a}\kappa_i^{\dot a {{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\, .
\label{6dSE-}$$
### An explicit linear version of the polarized scattering equations {#lin-SE}
This is not essential to the logical structure of the paper and can be omitted by the casual reader. However, the above argument is rather abstract and it is helpful to see explicitly at least the underlying linearity of the problem of solving the polarized scattering equations. However we have not been able to give explicit versions of all the algebreo geometric proofs above.
According to the above, we are trying to find a pair of solutions $\lambda_{a{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$, $a=1,2$ to the equations $$P(\sigma)^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\lambda_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}(\sigma)=0 \,, \label{pol-lam}$$ where $\lambda_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(\sigma)$ has projective weight $-1$ in $\sigma$ and $P$ weight $-2$. The argument above gives $\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\prod(\sigma\sigma_i)$ as a section of $E(n-1)$ which has degree $n$ and rank 2 so generically has $n+2$ global sections. To make this more explicit, make the ansatz[^8] $$\lambda_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=\sum_i\frac{u_{ia_i}\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^{a_i}}{(\sigma\sigma_i)}\, ,$$ which removes double poles from . Given that the total weight of is negative, it will be satisfied if the residues at its poles vanish. The vanishing of the residue at $\sigma_i$ yields $$k_i^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\sum_j \frac{\kappa_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}^{a_j}}{\sigma_{ij}} u_{a_jj}+ P(\sigma_i)^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}^{a_i}u_{a_ii}=0 \,. \label{pol-lam-res}$$ Now define $p_i^{a\dot a}$ after solving the CHY scattering equations by $$P^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}(\sigma_i)\kappa^a_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} = \kappa_{i\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}p_i^{a\dot a}\, . \label{piaa}$$ This makes sense at $\sigma_i$ as $\kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a$ annihilates the pole, and a second contraction with $\kappa^{b}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$ leads to zero as it gives $k_i\cdot P$, so it must be a multiple of $\kappa_{i\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}$. We can understand this also by considering the 2-form $P(\sigma_i)\wedge k_i$ which in spinors gives, using the above, $$P(\sigma_i)_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}k^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}_i=P(\sigma_i)^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}k_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}=p^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\, , \qquad p_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}=\kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}\kappa_{\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}p_i^{a\dot a}\, .$$ We can now see for example that $$e_i\cdot P(\sigma_i)=[ \epsilon_i |p_i | \epsilon_i \rangle\, ,\label{edotp}$$ using $e_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=\epsilon_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\tilde\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]i}$ where $\tilde\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\kappa^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}_i=\epsilon_i^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}$. Following Cheung and O’Connell [@Cheung:2009dc], we further define $$\kappa_{ij}^{\dot a a}:=\kappa^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\dot a}_i\kappa_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\,,$$ that relate the $ij$-particles little group indices.
With this notation we see that can be written as $\kappa_{i\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ multiplied by $$\sum_{a,j}H^{\dot{a}a_j}_{ij}u_{a_jj}=0,\qquad \qquad H^{\dot{a}a}_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
\frac{\kappa_{ij}^{\dot{a} a}}{\sigma_{ij}}&\quad i\neq j\\
p_i^{a\dot{a}}&\quad i=j\,.
\end{cases} \label{new-u-eq}$$ The discussion of the previous subsection implies that generically these equations have $n+2$ solutions. These equations reduce to the original polarized scattering equations if we supplement them with $n$ further equations ${\langle}\epsilon_ju_{j}{\rangle}=0$, since we will then have $u_{a_jj}=\epsilon_{ja_j}u_j$ as in the original ansatz . We then expect to find a pair of linearly independent solutions $u_{ia}$, with $a=1,2$ now global little group indices, so that we now have $$u^a_{a_ii}=\epsilon_{ia_i}u_i^a.\label{uaiai}$$ In order to normalize these solutions, observe that for a pair of solutions $\lambda_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^1, \lambda^2_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ to , we must have that $$\lambda_{[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^1 \lambda^2_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}=f P_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}} \label{P-lambda}$$ for some meromorphic function $f$ on ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$ with poles at the $\sigma_i$. However, when we impose , the double poles in vanish and $f$ must be constant, so we can normalize the pair of solutions $u_i^a$ so that the coefficient is $1$. The full $n+2$-dimensional space of solutions also has a volume form determined by .
In general are $2n$-equations on $2n$-unknowns, so we must have $n+2$ relations to agree with the discussion of the previous subsection and to allow us to impose these extra $n$ conditions. The relations follow from the original equation and the nilpotency $P^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}P_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}=0$ that follows from the original scattering equations. This leads to the nilpotency $$\sum_{ja} H_{ji}^{a\dot a} H_{jk}{}_a^{\dot b}=0\, .$$ This can be checked explicitly using a Schouten identity. We can use this nilpotency to generate solutions $$\lambda_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(\sigma)= P(\sigma)_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}} W^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}(\sigma)\, , \qquad W(\sigma)^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=\sum_i \frac{\kappa_{i\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}w^{\dot a }_i}{(\sigma\sigma_i)}$$ where the $W^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}$ has weight 1 in $\sigma$ so $w_{\dot ai}$ has weight 1 in $\sigma_i$ and 2 in $\sigma$. The ansatz guarantees no double poles in $\lambda_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ and by taking residues we obtain[^9] $$u^a_{i}=\sum_{\dot a,j}H^{a\dot a}_{ij}w_{\dot a j}\, .$$
The equivalence of measures {#sec:reltoCHYmeasure}
---------------------------
\[CHY=pol\] We first show that $$\bar\delta(k\cdot P)=\int d^{2}u\, d^{2}v \,\delta^{4}( {\mathcal{E}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}})\delta(\langle\epsilon v\rangle-1)\, , \qquad \text{with }\,{\mathcal{E}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}:=\langle u\lambda_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\rangle -\langle v\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\rangle\, .\label{6dSE-delta+}$$ After integrating out the four components of $(u_a,v_b)$, we are left with a single delta-function on both sides of the equation. It is easy to see that they have the same support as the latter delta function on the left implies that $v_a\neq0$, but this can only be true when $(\lambda_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^a,\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^b)$ have rank less than four, which happens iff $\varepsilon^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}\lambda_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^0\lambda_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}^1\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}^0\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}^1:=k\cdot P=0$. Furthermore the weights in $\lambda_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^a$ and $\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^a$ are $-2$ on both sides. A systematic proof uses a basis with $\epsilon_a=(0,1)$, $\kappa^0_{3}=\kappa^1_{4}=1$ and all other components zero. This allows us to integrate out the $v^a$ directly against the delta functions reducing the right side to $$\int d^{2}u \,\delta( u_{a}\lambda^a_0)\,\delta( u_{a}\lambda^a_1)\,\delta(u_a\lambda^a_3- 1)=\delta(\langle\lambda_0\, \lambda_1\rangle) \, ,$$ where the latter equality follows by direct calculation integrating out the $u_a$; this gives in this basis.
The CHY measure is defined to be $$d\mu_n^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{CHY}$}}}}:= \delta^6\left(K\right) \frac{\prod_{i=1}^n \bar \delta (k_i\cdot P(\sigma_i)) d\sigma_i}{\mathrm{Vol} (\mathrm{SL}(2,{\mathbb{C}})_\sigma \times {\mathbb{C}}^3)}= \delta^6\left(K\right) (\sigma_{12} \sigma_{23}\sigma_{31})^2\prod_{i=4}^n \bar \delta (k_i\cdot P(\sigma_i)) d\sigma_i\, ,$$ where $K=\sum_i k_i$, the volume of SL$(2,{\mathbb{C}})_\sigma$ quotients by the Möbius invariance of $\sigma$, and the ${\mathbb{C}}^3$ is a symmetry of the ambitwistor string whose quotient removes the linearly dependent scattering equations delta functions.
\[prop:measures\] We have $$d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}:= \int \frac{\prod_{i=1}^n d^{2}u_i\, d^{2}v_i \, d \sigma_i \,\delta^{4}( {\mathcal{E}}_{iA} )\delta(\langle\epsilon_i v_i\rangle-1)}{\mathrm{Vol} ( \mathrm{SL}(2,{\mathbb{C}})_\sigma\times \mathrm{SL}(2,{\mathbb{C}})_u)}= d\mu_n^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{CHY}$}}}}\, ,$$ where SL$(2,{\mathbb{C}})_\sigma$ denotes Möbius invariance of $\sigma$ as above in the CHY measure, the SL$(2,{\mathbb{C}})_u$ is acting on the little group index of $u_a$, and the integrals are over the $(u_i,v_i)$ variables.
[**Proof:**]{} We first reduce the SL$(2,{\mathbb{C}})_\sigma$ factor fixing $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2,\sigma_3)$ to be constant with the standard $$\frac{\prod_i d\sigma_i}{\mathrm{Vol}\; \mathrm{SL}(2,{\mathbb{C}})_\sigma}=\sigma_{12}\sigma_{13}\sigma_{23} \prod_{i\geq 4} d\sigma_i\, .$$ Similarly Faddeev-Popov gauge fixing[^10] SL$(2,{\mathbb{C}})_u$ by $$\label{eq:u_gauge}
u^a_1=(1,0),\qquad u^a_2=(0,u_{12}), \qquad u_3^a=\left(-\frac{u_{23}}{u_{12}},u_{13}\right)\, ,$$ so that $u_{ij}=\langle u_iu_j\rangle $ for $i<j\leq 3$ yields $$\frac{\prod_id^2u_i}{\mathrm{Vol}\; SL(2)_u}=du_{12} d u_{13} du_{23} \prod_{i=3}^n d^2u_i\, ,$$ On the support of the delta functions $\prod_{i>3}\delta^4({\mathcal{E}}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}})$ we can write, using , $$K_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=\left(\sum_{i=1}^3 \epsilon_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\mathcal{E}}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}\right)\, .
\label{total-mom-pol-scatt}$$ We can trivially perform one of each of the $v_i$ integrals against the $\delta(\langle v_i\epsilon_i\rangle-1)$ delta functions by choosing a basis of the little group spin space for each $i$ so that $\epsilon_{ia}=(1,0)$ fixing $v_i^a=(v_i,1)$.
Choosing a basis of spin space consisting of $\{\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}, \epsilon_{0{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\}$ with $i=1,2,3$ and $\epsilon_{0{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ chosen so that $\langle 0123\rangle=1$, and dual basis $\tilde\epsilon_i^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$, $i=,0,\ldots ,3$ we find via $$K_{0i}={\mathcal{E}}_{i0}\, , \qquad K_{ij}={\mathcal{E}}_{[ij]}\, ,$$ so that these polarized scattering equations can be replaced by $\delta^6(K)$. The remaining scattering equations in $\prod_{i=1}^3 \delta^4({\mathcal{E}}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}})$ are, for $i,j=1,\ldots,3$, $${\mathcal{E}}_{(ij)}=\begin{cases}
\frac{u_{ij}}{\sigma_{ij}} + \ldots\, \qquad i\neq j\,\\
v_i+\ldots \, , \qquad \; \, i=j\,
\end{cases}$$ where the $\ldots$ denotes terms involving $i,j> 3$. Thus we can integrate out $du_{ij}$ and $dv_i$ against these remaining polarized scattering equation delta functions $\delta({\mathcal{E}}_{(ij)})$ for $i,j \leq 3$ yielding an extra numerator factor of $\sigma_{12}\sigma_{23}\sigma_{13}$.
Finally we can use to replace the remaining polarized scattering equations delta functions by standard ones thus yielding the desired formula.$\Box$
Integrands {#sec:integrands}
==========
In this section, we discuss the integrands $\mathcal{I}_n$ and the supersymmetry representation in more detail. We first show that the spin-one contribution $\det{}'H$ is permutation invariant, and that it is equivalent to the CHY pfaffian ${\mathrm{Pf}}'M$ in providing the correct dependence on the spin-one polarization data. We move on to giving further details of the supersymmetry factors and of the ingredients required for brane theories. Finally, we prove crucial properties such as linearity of the spin-one contribution in the polarization data, and the compatibility of the reduced determinant with the supersymmetry representation.
The kinematic reduced determinant det’H. {#YM-int}
----------------------------------------
For our ambidextrous spin one contribution, recall that we defined an $n\times n$ matrix $H$ by $$H_{ij} =\begin{cases}\frac{\epsilon_{iA}\epsilon^A_j}{\sigma_{ij}} & i\neq j\\
e_i\cdot P(\sigma_i) \, , & i=j\label{eq:def1_H_ii1}
\end{cases} \,,$$ where $e_i$ is the null polarization vector above and $P(\sigma
)$ is as defined in . We first prove the equivalence between this definition of $H_{ii}$ and that in . In order to use the vector representation of the polarization vector, we introduce a spinor $\tilde \epsilon_A$ so that $\epsilon^A=k^{AB}\tilde\epsilon_B$. Then the polarization vector is $e_{AB}=\epsilon_{[A}\tilde\epsilon_{B]}$. The equivalent definition of $H_{ii}$ is $$\label{eq:def2_H_ii1}
\lambda_{aA}(\sigma_i)\epsilon^A_i=-u_{ia} H_{ii} \, , \quad \lambda^{\dot aA}(\sigma_i) \epsilon_{iA}=-u_i^{\dot a} H_{ii} \,.$$ The left side is a multiple of $u_{ia}$ (or $u_i^{\dot a} $) due to the scattering equation and the identity $k^{AB} \kappa_{A}^a=0$. Starting from the second last formula we obtain the first from $$e_i\cdot P(\sigma_i)= \epsilon^{[A}\tilde\epsilon^{B]}\lambda_{aA}(\sigma_i)\lambda^a_B(\sigma_i)=-H_{ii} \tilde \epsilon^{B}u_a\lambda^a_B(\sigma_i)=-H_{ii} \tilde \epsilon^{B}v_a\kappa^a_B=-H_{ii}\, . \label{Hii-id}$$ This then, being neither chiral nor antichiral justifies the equivalence.\
The matrix $H_{ij}$ is not full rank because $$\sum_i u_{ia} H_{ij}=\lambda_{a A} (\sigma_j)\epsilon^A_j +u_{ja} H_{jj}=0\, ,$$ and so, as above, we define the generalized determinant $$\begin{aligned}
\det{}'(H):&=\frac{\det(H^{[ij]})}{\langle u_i u_j\rangle [u_i u_j]}
\label{gendet1}
=\frac{\det(H^{[i_1i_2]}_{[j_1j_2]})}{\langle u_{i_1} u_{i_2}\rangle [u_{j_1} u_{j_2}]}$$ where $H^{[ij]}$ denotes the matrix $H$ with the $ij$ rows and columns deleted and $H^{[i_1i_2]}_{[j_1j_2]}$ the matrix with the with rows $i_1,i_2$ and columns $j_1,j_2$ removed. These are well-defined as
The generalized determinant defined above is permutation invariant. \[lemma:perm-inv\]
[**Proof:**]{} We can extend the argument of appendix A of [@Cachazo:2012pz] on such generalized determinants as follows.
Consider an $n\times n$ matrix $H_{i}^{j}$ with a $p$-dimensional kernel and cokernel, i.e., that satisfies $\sum_i w^{i}_aH_{i}^{j}=0$ and $\sum_j H_{i}^{j}\tilde w_{j}^b=0$ where $a,b=1,\ldots,p$. We must also assume that there are volume $p$-forms on these kernels, $\langle w_1\ldots w_p\rangle$ and $[\tilde w_1,\ldots\tilde w_p]$. Our reduced determinant can be understood as the determinant of the exact sequence $$0\rightarrow {\mathbb{C}}^p\stackrel{\tilde w}{ \rightarrow }{\mathbb{C}}^n\stackrel{H}{\rightarrow} {\mathbb{C}}^n\stackrel{w}{\rightarrow} {\mathbb{C}}^p\rightarrow 0\, .$$ To make this explicit, note that we have $$\varepsilon_{j_{1}\ldots j_n}\varepsilon^{i_1\ldots i_n}H_{i_{p+1}}^{j_{p+1}}\ldots H_{i_{n}}^{j_{n}}\langle w_1\ldots w_p\rangle\langle \tilde w^1\ldots \tilde w^p\rangle=\det{}'(H) w^{[i_{1}}_{1}\ldots w_{p}^{i_p]} \tilde{w}^{1}_{[j_1}\ldots \tilde{w}^{p}_{j_p]} \label{red-det}$$ for some $\det' (H)$. This formula follows because skew symmetrizing a free index on the left with a $w_r$ or $\tilde w_r$ vanishes as it dualizes via the $\varepsilon$ to contraction with $H_i^j$. Thus it must be a multiple of the right hand side as defined. The definitions , then follow by taking components of this definition in the case $p=2$ on the $i_{1}, i_2, j_{1}, j_2$ indices. In our context the natural volume form on the kernel is defined on the 2-dimensional space of $u_{ia_i}=u_i \epsilon_{a_i}$ by the $f$ on the right hand side of but for our polarized scattering equation framework, the normalizations are such that this is 1 so the bracketed terms on the left of reduce to unity in .$\Box$\
Note that the first term on the left side of is simply the $p^{\mathrm{th}}$ derivative of $\det{H}$ where we have to relax the scattering equations and momentum conservation to make the determinant not identically zero. The CHY matrix is also non-degenerate away from the support of the scattering equations and momentum conservation. We have
The determinant is related to the full CHY Paffian by $\det(H)=\mathrm{Pf} \,M$.
[**Proof:**]{} We use the form of the CHY Pfaffian due to Lam & Yao [@Lam:2016tlk]. They show that the full Pfaffian of $M$ can be expanded into a sum over the permutations $\rho\in S_n$ of the particle labels, $$\text{Pf}\big( M\big) =\sum_{\rho\in S_n}{\mathrm{sgn}}(\rho)M_I ... M_J\,,\label{full-Pfaff}$$ where each term has been decomposed into the disjoint cycles $I=(i_1\dots i_I)$, $J=(j_1\dots j_J)$ of the permutation $\rho$. The terms in this cycle expansion are given by $$\begin{aligned}
M_I =\begin{cases} \frac{ {\mathrm{tr}}(F_{i_1}...F_{i_I})}{\sigma_I} & \text{if }|I|>1\,, \\ C_{ii} & \text{if } I=\{i\}\,,\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and $\sigma_I=\big(\sigma_{i_1i_2}\dots\sigma_{i_Ii_1}\big)^{-1}$ denotes the Parke-Taylor factor associated to the cycle.
Euler’s formula for the determinant of $H$ similarly gives $$\begin{aligned}
\det(H)&=\sum_{\rho \in S_{n}}{\mathrm{sgn}}(\rho)H_I ... H_J\end{aligned}$$ where the terms $H_I$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
H_I = H_{i_1i_2}...H_{i_Ii_1}=\begin{cases} \frac{ {\mathrm{tr}}(F_{i_1}...F_{i_I})}{\sigma_I} & \text{if }|I|>1\,, \\ H_{ii} & \text{if } I=\{i\}\,,\end{cases}
\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here the trace over the $F$s is taken in the spin representation and we have $C_{ii}=H_{ii}$ hence the equivalence.$\Box$\
This result provides some circumstantial evidence that ${\mathrm{Pf}}'M=\det'H$ on the support of the scattering equations, but we do not have a direct proof. We prove this only indirectly via factorization in §\[sec:factorization\]. Our $\det'H$ can therefore be used as a half-integrand in place of ${\mathrm{Pf}}'(M)$ in the theories as described in [@Cachazo:2014xea] to give full integrands
\[eq:integrands\_2\] $$\begin{aligned}
& \text{Yang-Mills:} && \mathrm{PT}(\alpha)\;\det{}'H\\
& \text{Gravity:} && \det{}'H\;\det{}'\tilde H\\
& \text{D5-branes:} && \det{}'A\;\det{}'H\, .
\end{aligned}$$
The supersymmetry factors and transform to little-group preserving representation {#sec:susy-factor}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we show that the supersymmetry factors ${\mathrm{e}}^{F_N}$, with
$$\begin{aligned}
&F_{\scalebox{0.7}{$N$}}=F_{\scalebox{0.7}{$N$}}^\mathrm{pol}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n {\langle}\xi_i v_i{\rangle}\,q_i^2 \,,&&
F_{\scalebox{0.7}{$N$}}^\mathrm{pol} = \sum_{i<j}
\frac{ \langle u_i u_j\rangle}{\sigma_{ij}} q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_j^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\,,\\
&\tilde{F}_{\scalebox{0.7}{$\tilde N$}}=\tilde{F}_{\scalebox{0.7}{$\tilde N$}}^\mathrm{pol}- \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n \left[ \xi_i v_i\right]\, \tilde q_i^2 \,,&&
\tilde{F}_{\scalebox{0.7}{$\tilde N$}}^\mathrm{pol}=\sum_{i<j} \frac{ [ \tilde u_i \tilde u_j] }{\sigma_{ij}}
\tilde{q}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}\tilde{q}_j^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}} &&
\,.
\end{aligned}$$
are invariant under supersymmetry. The full supersymmetry generator for $n$ particles is defined by the sum $Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}=\sum_{i=1}^n Q_i{}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$ for each particle as defined by , $$Q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}= {\langle}\xi_i \kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}} +\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\, \Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}}\,,\qquad \tilde Q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}= \left[\xi_i \kappa^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}_i\right] \tilde q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}} +\epsilon_i^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\, \tilde\Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tilde{q}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}}\, .$$ Superamplitudes must be supersymetrically invariant and so are annihilated by the total $Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$ and indeed this determines the amplitude for the whole multiplet from the amplitudes involving only the top of the multiplets.
It is easily verified that the supersymmetry factors give an amplitude that is supersymetrically invariant, since $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}} \,e^{F_N}&=\left(\sum_i \Big(\langle \xi_i\kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\rangle+{\langle}\xi_i v_i{\rangle}\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\Big) \,q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}-\sum_{i,j}\frac{\langle u_i u_j\rangle\,\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}}{\sigma_{ij}}q_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\right)e^{F_N}\nonumber\\
&=\left(\sum_i \langle v_i\kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\rangle \,q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}-\sum_{i,j}\frac{\langle u_i u_j\rangle\,\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}}{\sigma_{ij}}q_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\right)e^{F_N}=0\,,\end{aligned}$$ and similarly $Q^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}} \,e^{F}=0$. Here, the second equality follows from $v_i = \xi_i +{\langle}\xi_i v_i{\rangle}\epsilon_i$, and the sum vanishes on the support of the polarized scattering equations. Conversely, given an integrand $\mathcal{I}_n$ for the top states of a multiplet, is the unique supersymmetric completion using the supersymmetry representation , as can be verified using supersymmetric Ward identities.
#### The little-group preserving supersymmetry representation.
In six dimensions, amplitudes can alternatively be written in a supersymmetry representation that breaks R-symmetry, but preserves little group symmetry. We construct this representation by choosing an $\mathcal{N}$-dimensional subspace on which $\Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}$ vanishes indexed by $l,m=1\ldots \mathcal{N}$ so that $a^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}=(a^l,a_l)$ with $\Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}a^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}b^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}=a^lb_l-b^la_l$. Then $$Q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}=(Q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^l,Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}l})=\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^a(Q_a^l,Q_{al})$$ satisfying $$\{Q_a^l,Q_b^m\}=0=\{Q_{al},Q_{bm}\}\, , \qquad \{Q_{al},Q_b^m\}=\epsilon_{ab}\delta^m_l\, , \label{Q_LG}$$ with similar relations for $Q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}=(Q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}l}, Q^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{l}) =\kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}(Q^{\dot a l},Q^{\dot a}_l)$. Thus we can introduce supermomenta $\eta_{la}$ as fermionic eigenvalues of $Q_{la}$ so that our supermomentum eigenstates satisfy $$Q_{la}\phi=\eta_{la}\phi\, , \qquad Q^{la}\phi =\frac{{\partial}\phi}{{\partial}\eta_{la}}\,,\qquad\tilde Q_{l\dot a}\phi=\tilde \eta_{l\dot a}\phi\, , \qquad \tilde Q^{l\dot a}\phi =\frac{{\partial}\phi}{{\partial}\tilde \eta_{l\dot a}}\,.$$ This clearly gives a representation of . For $\mathcal{N}=(1,1)$ super Yang-Mills, we can replace the $l$-index by ‘1’ when $l=1$ is an upper index and ‘2’ when $l$ is a lower index to find $$\label{eq:multiplet_LG}
\Phi^{\mathrm{LG}} = \phi^{1\dot 1} + \eta_a\psi^{a\dot 1}+\tilde\eta_{\dot a}\tilde\psi^{1\dot a}+\eta_a\tilde\eta_{\dot a} A^{a\dot a}+\eta^2 \phi^{2\dot 1}+\tilde\eta^2\phi^{1\dot 2}+\dots +\eta^2\tilde\eta^2\phi^{2\dot 2}\,,$$ for the R-symmetry breaking representation.[^11]
#### Fermionic Fourier transform.
The sets of supermomenta from the $R$-symmetry preserving representing are related to those above by decomposing $q_I=(q_l,q^l)$ and observing that the definitions allow us to identify $$\eta_{1l}:=\eta_{\epsilon l}=\epsilon^a\eta_{al}=q_l\, , \qquad \eta_{2l}:=\eta_{\xi l}=\xi^a\eta_{al}= \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}q^l}\, .$$ The latter relation implies a fermionic half-Fourier transform on the supermultiplets written for general $(N,\tilde N)$ as $$\Phi^{\mathrm{R}} = \int d^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$N$}}}}\!\eta_2 \,d^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\tilde N$}}}}\!\tilde\eta_{\dot 2}\,e^{q^l \eta_{2l}}e^{\tilde q^l\tilde\eta_{\dot2 l}}\,
\Phi^{\mathrm{LG}}\Bigg|_{\substack{\eta_{1l}= q_l \\ \tilde\eta_{\dot 1l}=\tilde q_l}}\,,\qquad
\Phi^{\mathrm{LG}} = \int d^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$N$}}}}\!q\, d^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\tilde N$}}}}\!\tilde q\,e^{-q^l \eta_{\xi l}}e^{-\tilde q^l\tilde\eta_{\tilde \xi l}}\,
\Phi^{\mathrm{R}}\Bigg|_{\substack{q_l=\eta_{\epsilon l} \\ \tilde q_l=\tilde\eta_{\tilde \epsilon l}}}\,. \label{Ferm-half-Fourier}$$ As discussed in \[sec:int\_intro\], we can implement the fermionic half-Fourier transform at the level of the amplitudes. Starting from the exponential (R-symmetry preserving) representation, we find that the supersymmetry factors turn into delta-functions that mimic the polarized scattering equations, $$\label{eq:Delta_susy}
\int \prod_{i=1}^n d^Nq_i^l \; \prod_je^{-q_j^l\eta_{\xi l}}\;e^{F_N}=\prod_{i}\delta^{0|N}\left( \sum_{j}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}{\langle}\epsilon_j \eta_{jl}{\rangle}-{\langle}v_i\eta_{il}{\rangle}\right)=:\Delta^{0|N}_n\,.$$ In this representation, it is convenient to include the fermionic delta-functions in the definition of the measure, $d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}|N+\tilde N}= d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}\Delta_n^{0|N}\tilde{\Delta}_n^{0|\tilde N}$. We remark that in this delta-function representation of the superamplitude, all components are monomials in the Grassmann variables $\eta$, and the all-gluon amplitude sits in the middle of the multiplet . It is straightforward to check that we recover the integrand $\det{}'H$ of the gluon amplitude in the top state by extracting the component proportional to $\prod_i {\langle}v_i\eta_i{\rangle}[\tilde v_i\tilde \eta_i]$.\
We can also verify directly that the supersymmetry factors $\Delta_n^{0|{{\scalebox{0.6}{$N$}}}}$ are invariant under supersymmetry, and that superamplitudes in the delta-function representation are annihilated by the supersymmetry generator $Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$, defined as before by the sum $Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}=\sum_{i=1}^n Q_{i\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$. This is particularly easy to see for the multiplicative operator $Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}l}$, which vanishes on the support of the polarized scattering equations, $$Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}l}\, \Delta_n^{0|N} = \sum_{i=1}^n \kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\eta_{ila}\, \Delta^{0|N}_n = \sum_{i,j}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}\Big(-{\langle}\epsilon_i\eta_{il}{\rangle}\epsilon_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}+{\langle}\epsilon_j\eta_{jl}{\rangle}\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\Big)\Delta^{0|N}_n=0\,.$$ Here we have used both the support of the polarized scattering equations and their fermionic analogues, and the last equality holds because the argument of the sum in $i$ and $j$ is skew symmetric. The remaining supersymmetry generators annihilate the superamplitude by a similar argument, $$Q^l_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\, \Delta_n^{0|N} = \sum_{i=1}^n \kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta_{il}^a}\Delta^{0|N}_n = \sum_{i,j}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}\left(-\epsilon_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\mathcal{E}_j^F+\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\mathcal{E}_i^F\right)\Delta_{n\,[i_lj_l]}^{0|N}=0\,,$$ where $\mathcal{E}_i^F$ denote the fermionic delta-functions, and $\Delta_{n\,[i_lj_l]}^{0|N}$ is the usual product , but with the delta-functions $\mathcal{E}_{il}^F,\mathcal{E}_{jl}^F$ removed. The sum vanishes again by the skew-symmetry of its argument.
M5 and D5 theories {#sec:M5-integrands}
------------------
We first recall the ingredients for D5 and M5-branes. These are supersymmetric theories that share a scalar sector with Lagrangian of the form $L\sim \sqrt{-\det(\eta_{\mu\nu} +k\sum_r{\partial}_\mu\phi^r{\partial}_\nu\phi^r)}$. For D5 branes $r=1,\ldots ,4$ and for M5 branes $r=1,\ldots ,5$ thought of as transverse coordinates to 6d worldvolumes in 10d or 11d respectively. D5-branes are naturally completed with $(1,1)$-supersymmetry, and M5 with $(2,0)$-supersymmetry. In the case of D5-branes, the linearised multiplet then coincides with the $(1,1)$ super-Maxwell multiplet . The Lagrangian for the bosonic parts of the multiplet extends the Born-Infeld action to give $$L\sim \sqrt{-\det(\eta_{\mu\nu} +k\sum_3 {\partial}_\mu\phi^r{\partial}_\nu\phi^r +\kappa F_{\mu\nu})}.$$ For M5 branes, the $(2,0)$ supermultiplet is $(G_{AB},\psi_{IA}, \phi_{IJ})$ with $\phi_{IJ}=\phi_{[IJ]}$ and $\phi_{IJ}\Omega^{IJ}=0$. Here the spinor $G_{AB}=G_{(AB)}$ corresponds to a self-dual 3-form whose linearized equations are that it should be closed (and hence co-closed by self-duality). Such a field is known as a Gerbe, often thought of as a curvature associated to a 2-form potential $B_A^B$. See [@Schwarz:2020emu] for a modern review.
There are CHY formulae [@Cachazo:2014xea] for the bosonic brane theories with any number of scalars, and further including the Born-Infeld contribution. As in [@Geyer:2018xgb], we follow the strategy in [@Heydeman:2017yww] that obtains full superamplitudes for D5 and M5 theories by incorporating supersymmetry factors on top of these CHY formulae for scalar amplitudes. This makes use of the fact that both theories share an SU$(2)$ subsector of the scalars. The full supersymmetric amplitudes can then be reconstructed from the known scalar amplitudes in this sector by applying supersymmetry. We go on to explain their relationship with the half-integrands given in the introduction.
#### The D5 integrand.
The bosonic part of this is well-known from [@Cachazo:2014xea] in the original CHY-format, where it takes the form $\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{D5}}=\det{}'A\,{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'M$. Substituting the spin-one half-integrand in the 6d spinor-helicity formalism, and inserting the correct supersymmetry factors immediately gives the 6d integrand $$\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{D5}}=\det{}'A\;\det{}'H\; e^{F_1+\tilde F_1} \,,$$ of the full superamplitudes. We can now extract the shared subsector of scalar amplitudes from this D5 integrand by a suitable integration over the super momenta $q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}$, $\tilde q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot I$}}}}$. For an all-scalar amplitude where we scatter generic scalars $\phi_i^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}_i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}_i}$, the integrand takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:D5_scalar_generic}
\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{D5}}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}_1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}_1\dots {{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}_n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}_n}&=\int \prod_{i=1}^n d^2\! q_i\,d^2\!\tilde{q}_i \,q_i^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}_i}\,\tilde{q}_i^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}_i}\;\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{D5}}=\det{}'A\;\det{}'H\;\left({\mathrm{Pf}\,}\mathcal{U}\right)^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}_1\dots {{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}_n}\;({\mathrm{Pf}\,}\tilde{\mathcal{U}})^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}_1\dots {{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}_n}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\mathcal{U}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{U}}$ are $n\times n$ matrices carrying the R-symmetry indices of the scalars, with entries $$\label{eq:def_Ufull}
\mathcal{U}_{ij}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}_i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}_j}=\frac{\langle u_iu_j\rangle}{\sigma_{ij}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}_i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}_j}\,,\qquad \tilde{\mathcal{U}}_{ij}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}_i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}_j}=\frac{[\tilde{u}_i\tilde{u}_j]}{\sigma_{ij}} \Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}_i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}_j}\,,$$ and ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}\mathcal{U}$ and ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}\tilde{\mathcal{U}}$ are defined by specifying the R-symmetry indices, and then taking the Pfaffian as usual. To construct the M5 integrand, we further have to restrict this amplitude to the shared SU$(2)$ scalar subsector between M5 and D5 theory, which is the subspace of non-self-interacting scalars of the respective theories. This sector can be constructed along similar lines to the discussion in §\[sec:susy-factor\]. Let us choose again an $\mathcal{N}$-dimensional subspace of the supersymmetry generators on which the metric $\Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}$ vanishes, indexed by $a^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}=(a^l,a_l)$ with $\Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}a^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}b^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}=a^lb_l-b^la_l$. From this we can directly construct two non-self-interacting scalar subsectors, $Y=\{\phi^{l\dot l}\}$ and $\overline{Y}=\{\phi_{l\dot l}\}$ for D5, and $Y=\{\phi^{lm}\}$ and $\overline{Y}=\{\phi_{lm}\}$ for M5. Any other non-self-interacting subsector is related to $Y$ and $\overline{Y}$ by an SU$(2)$ transformation. Note that each of the non-self-interacting subsectors contains exactly one scalar state; this is obvious for D5, where $\phi^{l\dot l}=\phi^{1\dot 1}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}}$ and $\phi_{l\dot l}=\phi^{2\dot 2}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}}$ in the notation of the last section, and for M5 theory this follows from the antisymmetry constraint on the scalar indices, $\phi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}=-\phi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$. Moreover, amplitudes in this SU$(2)$ subsector are non-trivial, as long as $n/2$ of the scalars are in $Y$, and the other $n/2$ in $\overline{Y}$. This is most easily seen in the R-symmetry breaking representation, where the multiplets take the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}}_{\mathrm{D5}} &= \phi^{1\dot 1}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}} + \eta_a\psi^{a\dot 1}+\tilde\eta_{\dot a}\tilde\psi^{1\dot a}+\eta_a\tilde\eta_{\dot a} A^{a\dot a}+\eta^2 \phi^{2\dot 1}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}}+\tilde\eta^2\phi^{1\dot 2}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}}+\dots +\eta^2\tilde\eta^2\phi^{2\dot 2}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}}\,,\\
\Phi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}}_{\mathrm{M5}} &= \phi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}} + \eta_{al}\psi^{al}+\varepsilon^{lm}\eta_{al}\eta_{bm}\; B^{ab}+\eta_{al}\eta^{a}_m\, \phi^{lm}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}+(\eta^3)^{al}\,\tilde\psi_{al} +\eta^4\,\tilde\phi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}\,,
\end{aligned}$$
with $\phi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}=\phi^{lm}$, $\tilde\phi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}=\phi_{lm}$ and $\phi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}^{lm}=\varepsilon^{mn}\phi^l{}_n$ in the M5 multiplet. In this representation, amplitudes are monomials of degree $2n$ in the fermionic variables, so scalar amplitudes from the SU$(2)$ subsector are generically non-trivial when $n/2$ particles are in $\overline{Y}$, as claimed above.
Using this construction, we can restrict the generic scalar amplitudes of to the SU$(2)$ subsector with $|Y|=|\overline{Y}|=n/2$. The matrices $\mathcal{U}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{U}}$ then take the form $$\label{eq:reduced_U}
\mathcal{U}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & U_Y\\ -U_Y^T & 0\end{pmatrix}\,,\qquad \tilde{\mathcal{U}}=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \tilde{U}_Y\\ -\tilde{U}_Y^T & 0\end{pmatrix}\,,$$ where $U_Y$ and $\tilde{U}_Y$ are $n/2\times n/2$ matrices with entries $U_Y{}_{ip}=U^{(1,0)}_{ip}$ and $\tilde U_Y{}_{ip}=U^{(0,1)}_{ip}$ for for $i\in Y$ and $p\in\overline{Y}$. In this SU$(2)$ scalar subsector, the scalar D5 amplitudes are thus given by $$\label{eq:D5_scalar}
\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{D5}}^{\mathrm{SU}(2)}=\det{}'A\;\det{}'H\;\det U_Y\;\det\tilde{U}_Y\,.$$ We can compare this to the same scalar subsector in the CHY formalism [@Cachazo:2014xea], where the integrand is given by $\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{D5}}^{\mathrm{SU}(2)}=({\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A)^3 \det X_Y$. Here, $X_Y$ is an $n/2\times n/2$ matrix with entries $X_Y{}_{ip}=\sigma_{ip}^{-1}$, again with for $i\in Y$ and $p\in\overline{Y}$. This gives the identity $$\label{eq:pfA_vs_detH}
\frac{\det X_Y}{\det U_Y\,\det \tilde U_Y}\;{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A=\det{}'H\, .$$
#### The M5 integrand.
As discussed above, the scalar amplitudes are the same in both the M5 and D5 theory. Supersymmetry then uniquely determines the M5 integrand $\mathcal{I}_n^{\mathrm{M5}}$ from this SU$(2)$ scalar subsector as follows. Consider the following generic ansatz for the M5 superamplitude, $$\mathcal{A}_n^{\mathrm{M5}}=\int d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}} \;\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{M5}}\,e^{F_2}\,.$$ By integrating over suitable supermomenta $q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}$, we can again extract the SU$(2)$ scalar sector, and a similar calculation to the above D5 case gives $$\label{eq:SU2_M5}
\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{M5}}^{\mathrm{SU}(2)}=\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{M5}}\;\det{}^2 U_Y\,.$$ There is no contribution of the local terms $-\frac{1}{2}\sum_i{\langle}\xi_iv_i{\rangle}q_i^2\subset F_2$ in the exponential because the scalars obey $\Omega_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\phi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}=0$. As discussed above, the amplitudes in the SU$(2)$ scalar subsector have to agree with the D5 case , which uniquely determines the M5 integrand to be $$\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{M5}}=\det{}'A\,\det{}'H \, \frac{\det \tilde U_Y}{\det U_Y}=\left({\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A\right)^3\frac{\det X_Y}{\det{}^2 U_Y}\,,$$ where the second equality follows from .\
While this gives a valid formula for the M5 integrand, it obscures the permutation invariance of the Gerbe amplitudes, because the integrand superficially seems to depend on $Y$. However, it turns out that all of the combinations $$\label{eq:ratios}
\frac{\det \tilde U_Y}{\det U_Y}\,, \qquad \frac{\det X_Y}{\det{}^2 U_Y}\,,\qquad \frac{\det X_Y}{\det U_Y\, \det \tilde U_Y}\,,$$ are in fact permutation invariant, and in particular independent of the choice of $Y$. This can be made manifest, as pointed out in [@Schwarz:2019aat], by using results first derived in [@Roehrig:2017wvh] relating the above ratios to Pfaffians of a family of matrices $U^{(a,b)}$, defined as before by $$U^{(a,b)}_{ij}=\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}^a\left[ \tilde u_i\tilde u_j\right]^b}{\sigma_{ij}}\,.$$ The main theorem we will need here, derived in [@Roehrig:2017wvh], gives a fundamental identity for the splitting of the Pfaffian ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(a,b)}$ into two determinants, $$\label{eq:lemma_Kai}
{\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(a,b)} = \frac{\det U_{Y_1}^{(a_1,b_1)}}{V_{Y_1}V_{\overline{Y}_1}}\frac{\det U_{Y_2}^{(a_2,b_2)}}{V_{Y_2}V_{\overline{Y}_2}}V\,,\qquad \text{with }\,a=a_1+a_2\,,\;b=b_1+b_2\,.$$ Here, $V$ denotes the Vandermonde determinant, and $V_{Y_{1,2}}$ are the Vandermonde determinants for the subsets $Y_{1,2}$ etc. Ref. [@Roehrig:2017wvh] further proves that each of the factors $\det U_{Y_1}^{(a_1,b_1)}/V_{Y_1}V_{\overline{Y}_1}$ are invariant under the full $S_{n}$ permutation group, despite only manifesting permutation invariance on the subgroup $S_{n/2}\times S_{n/2}\times \mathbb{Z}_2$. The only further identity we will need is for $\det X_Y$, which can be expressed as $$\det X_Y = \frac{V_Y^2 V_{\overline Y}^2}{V}\,.$$ If we choose $Y_1=Y_2=Y$ in , we thus find that $$\label{eq:lemma_kai_v2}
{\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(a,b)} = \frac{\det U_{Y}^{(a_1,b_1)}\det U_{Y}^{(a_2,b_2)}}{\det X_Y}\,.$$ This gives manifestly permutation invariant formulae for all of the ratios in , $${\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)}=\frac{\det{}^2 U_Y}{\det X_Y}\,,\qquad {\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(1,1)}=\frac{\det U_Y\, \det \tilde U_Y}{\det X_Y}\,,$$ from which we deduce the following manifestly permutation invariant representation fo the M5 half-integrand, as well as the following relation between the reduced determinant $\det{}'H$ and $\det{}'A$, $$\label{eq:M5_half-int}
\mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{h}}_{\mathrm{M5}}=\frac{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A}{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)}}\,,\qquad \det{}'H=\frac{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A}{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(1,1)}}\,.$$ In particular, the full M5 superamplitude takes the form $$\mathcal{A}_n^{\mathrm{M5}}=\int d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}} \;\det{}'A\;\frac{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A}{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)}}\,e^{F_2}\,.$$ This integrand now manifests $\mathcal{N}=(2,0)$ supersymmetry and is manifestly chiral and permutation invariant. We note that all dependence on the polarization data is encoded by the Pfaffian ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}U^{(2,0)}$, an argument similar to the one presented in §\[sec:poldata\] guarantees that the amplitude is indeed linear. While the integrand is guaranteed to be correct by construction (supersymmetry and agreement with the SU$(2)$ scalar subsector of D5 theory), we verify in §\[sec:dim-red\] that both M5 and D5 amplitudes agree upon dimensional reduction to five dimensions as an additional check.
Consistency of the reduced determinant with the supersymmetry representation {#sec:multiplet}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our gauge (and gravity) formulae in effect give two different representations of bosonic amplitudes with gluons coming from different parts of the multiplets. One comes from simply substituting gluon polarizations from different parts of the multiplet in the kinematic integrand $\det{}'H$ and the other from expanding out the supersymmetry factors. In this subsection we show that these give the same formulae.
When a subset $I$ of the particles are in states at the bottom of the (chiral part of the) supersymmetry multipet, the integrals over the supercharges lead to the integrand $$\label{eq:I=UH}
\mathcal{I}_n^{\mathrm{h}}=\det U^I\det{}'H\;e^{F^{\bar{I}}+\tilde F}\,,$$ where $U^I_{ij} = U^{(1,0)}_{ij}$ and the superscripts indicate the restriction to the subsets $I$ and $\bar I$ respectively. On the other hand, for *any* choice of polarization data, the integrand for gluons (gravitons) takes the form of a reduced determinant, $$\label{eq:I=hatH}
\mathcal{I}_n^{v_{i_1}\dots v_{i_{\scalebox{0.5}{$|I|$}}}}=\det{}' H^I\;e^{F^{\bar{I}}+\tilde F}\,,\qquad\qquad\text{with }\;\;
H^I_{ij} = \begin{cases}
H_{ij} & i\notin I\\
\frac{{\langle}\xi_i\kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}\epsilon_j^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\sigma_{ij}} & i\in I\,,
\end{cases}$$ where $ H^I$ is defined with polarization spinors ${\langle}\xi_i \kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}$ instead of $\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ for $i\in I$. For the supersymmetry to be compatible with the representation of the integrand, the two prescriptions for the amplitude must agree, $\mathcal{I}_n^{\mathrm{h}}=\mathcal{I}_n^{\xi_{i_1}\dots \xi_{i_{\scalebox{0.5}{$|I|$}}}}$.
#### A lemma on reduced determinants.
To prove the equivalence of and , the general strategy will be to first identify the relation between $H$ and $H^I$. To draw conclusions about the behaviour of their reduced determinants though, we will need a few results discussed in appendix A of [@Cachazo:2012pz], which we review here for convenience.
In contrast to regular determinants, it does not make sense to ask how a reduced determinant behaves under the addition of an arbitrary vector to a row or column of $H$, because this will in general spoil the linearity relations among its rows and columns. On the other hand, we *can* define a new reduced determinant by multiplication with an invertible $n\times n$ matrix $U$, since this leaves the (full) determinant $\det H=\det \hat H=0$ unaffected, $$\label{eq:HU_transf}
\hat H{}_i^j:= U_i^k\,H_k^j\,.$$ Since the kernel and co-kernel of $H$ are spanned by $w$ and $\tilde w$,[^12] the kernel of $\hat H = UH$ is $\hat w=U^{-1}w$. To be explicit, $\hat H$ and $\hat w$ satisfy relations analogous to , $$\sum_i \hat w{}_a^i \hat H{}_i^j=0\,,\qquad
\sum_j \tilde w_j^b \hat H{}_i^j=0\,,\qquad\qquad\text{for } \hat w_a^i=\left(U^{-1}\right)^i_k\, w_a^k\,.$$ We can thus define a reduced determinant $\det{}' \hat H$ as in by $$\label{eq:detH'}
\varepsilon^{i_1 i_2\dots i_n}\varepsilon_{j_1j_2\dots j_n} \hat H{}_{i_{p+1}}^{j_{p+1}}\dots \hat H{}_{i_n}^{j_n}\, {\langle}\hat w_1\dots \hat w_p{\rangle}\left[\tilde w^1\dots \tilde w^p \right]
=\det{}' \hat H\,\, \hat w^{[i_1}_1\dots \hat w^{i_p]}_p\,\, \tilde w_{[j_1}^1\dots \tilde w_{j_p]}^p \,.$$ Let us multiply this equation by $p$ facors of $U$. On the right-hand-side, this cancels the factors of $U^{-1}$ from the kernel $ \hat w^{[i_1}_1\dots \hat w_p^{i_p]}$, whereas on the left, it combines with the $(n-p)$ factors from $\hat H=UH$ to $\det U$. Putting this all together, we arrive at the following lemma [@Cachazo:2012pz]:
\[lemma:red-det\] Under multiplication by an invertible matrix $U$, the reduced determinant of a matrix $\hat H{} := U\,H$ behaves as $$\det{}'\hat H=\det U \det{}'H\,,$$ with the reduced determinant defined using the kernel $\hat w=U^{-1} w$.
This implies in particular that the usual row- and column operations leave the reduced determinant unaffected, $\det{}'\hat H=\det{}'H$, due to $\det U=1$. Also, we will later need a special case of this, when $\hat H$ is related to $H$ by adding linear combination of rows to one of the rows, e.g. row $1$, $$\label{eq:lin_transf}
\hat H_1^j:= H_1^j+\alpha_1^k H_k^j\,,$$ with coefficients $\alpha_1^k$. This is the special case $U_i^k = \delta_i^k+\delta_i^1\alpha_1^k$, with $\alpha_1^1=0$ for convenience. In this case, $\det U=1$ and we find $(U^{-1})^i_k=\delta^i_k -\delta^1_k\alpha_1^i$, so in particular $$\hat w_a^i=w_a^i-\alpha_n^i w_a^n\,.$$ This gives the following special case:
\[lemma:red-det-2\] Adding a linear combination of rows (columns) to another row (column) does not change the value of the reduced determinant, $$\det{}'\hat H=\det{}'H\,,\qquad\text{for }\hat H{}_i^j:= H_i^j+\alpha_i^k H_k^j\,.$$
#### Equivalence of the reduced determinants.
now allows us to prove the compatibility of the supersymmetry representation with the reduced determinant. We first note that on the support of the polarized scattering equations, $H^I$ and $H$ are related via $$\begin{aligned}
H^I_{ij} &= \sum_{k\neq i}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_k{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ik}}\frac{\epsilon_{k{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_j^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\sigma_{ij}} -{\langle}\xi_i v_i{\rangle}\frac{\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_j^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\sigma_{ij}}\nonumber \\
&= \sum_{k\neq i}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_k{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ik}}H_{kj}-\frac1{\sigma_{ij}}\underbrace{\sum_{k\neq i}{\langle}u_i u_k{\rangle}H_{kj}}_{=0} -{\langle}\xi_i v_i{\rangle}\,H_{ij}=:\sum_k U^{I}_{ik} H_{kj}\,,
\end{aligned}$$ for $i\in I$. In the second equality, the middle term vanishes because $u$ spans the kernel of $H$, and we use the last equality to define $U^{I}$. Now let us split this sum into contributions from $k\in I$ and $k\notin I$, $$\label{eq:v_hatH-final}
\hat H^I_{ij} = \sum_{k\in I}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_k{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ik}}H_{kj}+\sum_{l\notin I}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_l{\rangle}}{\sigma_{il}}H_{lj}\simeq \sum_{k\in I}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_k{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ik}}H_{kj}\,.$$ Contributions from the latter term vanish since they are multiples of other rows of $\hat H^I$ (namely $\hat H^I_{lj}$), so only the first term contributes. We will write this as $\hat H^I{}_i^j=U_I{}_{i}^kH_k^j$. Combining the above result with $H_{ij}^I=H_{ij}$ for $i\notin I$, we thus have $$\begin{aligned}
&H^I=U^IH\,,&& \text{with }\;\;U_{ij}^I=\begin{cases}U_{ij}^{(1,0)} & i\neq j\,,\,i\in I \\
-{\langle}\xi_i v_i{\rangle}& i=j\in I\\
\delta_{ij} & i\notin I\,. \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\det U^I$ is generically non-zero, and \[lemma:red-det\] gives directly that $$\label{eq:det_hatH=UH}
\det{}'H^I = \det U^I\det{}'H\,,$$ confirming the equivalence of the two prescriptions.
Linearity in the polarization data {#sec:poldata}
----------------------------------
As another important check on the amplitudes , we verify that they are multilinear in the polarization data. This is of course a mandatatory requirement for amplitudes, but is not manifest in the integrands for gauge and gravity theories because the reduced determinants depend on the $u$-variables and these can potentially depend in a complicated way on the polarization data via the polarized scattering equations. We first observe that linearity is manifest for amplitudes with two external scalars and $n-2$ gluons. Given the supersymmetry of the formulae this provides strong circumstantial evidence. Then we show explicitly that the reduced determinant is linear on the support of the polarized scattering equations and go on to the full superamplitude.
### Linearity from supersymmetry {#sec:lin_from_susy}
Linearity of the gluon states is most easily seen from the mixed amplitudes with two external scalars, e.g. $j=1,2$, and $n-2$ gluons. In this case, we can choose to reduce the determinant $\det{}'H$ on the scalar states, giving $$\mathcal{A}^{\phi_1\phi_2\epsilon_3\tilde\epsilon_3\dots}=\int d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}\; \frac{1}{\sigma_{12}^2}\det H^{[12]}_{[12]}\; \mathrm{PT}(\alpha)\,.$$ The integrand is then manifestly independent of $\{u_{i},v_{i}\}$ as well as $\epsilon_{1,2}$, and only depends on the punctures $\sigma_i$ and the polarization of the gluons. Due to the invariance of the measure established by \[prop:measures\], the ‘polarization’ spinors of the scalars $\epsilon_{1,2}$ are choices of reference spinors. For the gluons on the other hand, the integrand is now manifestly linear in $\epsilon_i$. Supersymmetry then guarantees that linearity extends to the all-gluon amplitude.
The consistency between the supersymmetry representation and the reduced determinant discussed in the last section further guarantees that the argument above holds for gluons both at the top and the bottom of the multiplet; we simply replace $H$ by $H^I$. For gravity and brane-amplitudes, the argument is completely analogous, and follows again from the multilinearity of the amplitude $\mathcal{M}^{\phi_1\phi_2\epsilon_3\tilde\epsilon_3\dots}$ with two scalars and $n-2$ gravitons.
### Linearity for non-supersymmetric amplitudes.
We now study the dependence of the reduced determinant on the polarization data directly by expanding the spinors $\epsilon^a$ in a basis. This gives the desired linearity for pure Yang-Mills and gravity directly, where the above supersymmetry argument seems excessive, but can equally be applied to supersymmetric theories. We first discuss (chiral) linearity for gluons, but the proof extends straightforwardly to linearity in the anti-chiral polarization data, as well as (bi-)linearity for gravity amplitudes.
Consider the amplitude $A^{\epsilon_1}$ or the superamplitude $\mathcal{A}^{ \epsilon_1}$, where one of the particles is a gluon with polarization $ \epsilon_1$, and all other particles are in arbitrary states. We can expand $\epsilon_1$ in an (arbitrarily chosen) polarization basis $\zeta^a_1,\zeta^a_2$ via $$\epsilon^a_1 = \alpha_1 \zeta^a_1 +\alpha_2\zeta^a_2\,,\qquad \qquad \text{with }\,{\langle}\zeta_2\zeta_1{\rangle}=1\,.$$ It will be helpful to think of this new basis $(\zeta_1,\zeta_2=:\xi_1^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}})$ as playing a similar role to $(\epsilon_1,\xi_1)$, both in the polarized scattering equations and in the integrands. To prove linearity of the (super-) amplitudes in the polarization, we then have to show that amplitudes in the two different bases are related via $$\label{eq:ampl_lin_pol}
A^{\epsilon_1} = \alpha_1\, A^{\zeta_1}+\alpha_2\,A^{\zeta_2}\,,$$ where the amplitudes $A^{\epsilon_1}$ and $A^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_r$}}}}$ are respectively given by $$A^{\epsilon_1}= \int d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}\det{}' H\; \mathrm{PT}(\alpha)\,,\quad A^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_r$}}}}=\int d\mu_{n}^{\mathrm{pol},{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_r$}}}} \det{}' H^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_r$}}}}\; \mathrm{PT}(\alpha)\,,$$ and the superscripts $\zeta_r$ indicate that the respective quantities are defined using the polarization $\zeta_r$. For the measure, \[prop:measures\] guarantees that $ d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}= d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol},{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_r$}}}}$, but the integration variables $ u_i^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_r$}}}}=u_i(\zeta_r)$ defined by $ d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol},{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_r$}}}}$ enter into the definition of the reduced determinant $\det{}'H^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_r$}}}}$. Since the measure and the Parke-Taylor factors are invariant under changes of polarization, the linearity relation for the amplitude is equivalent to linearity of the spin-one contribution; $$\det{}'H = \alpha_1\det{}'H^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}}+\alpha_2\det{}'H^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{2}$}}}}\,,$$ where the (implicit) map between $\{u_i,v_i\}$ on the left-hand side and $\{u_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_r$}}},v_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_r$}}}\}$ on the right hand side is determined by the polarized scattering equations.
\[prop:cov\] For $\epsilon^a_1 = \alpha_1 \zeta^a_1 +\alpha_2\zeta^a_2$ expand also $ v_1^a=\beta_1\zeta_1^a+\beta_2\zeta_2^a$ so that ${\langle}\epsilon_1 v_1{\rangle}=1$ gives $\alpha_1\beta_2-\alpha_2\beta_1=1$. Then we have that $\{u_i,v_i\}$ and $\{u_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_r$}}},v_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_r$}}}\}$ are related by
\[eq:uv\_full\_change\] $$\begin{aligned}
&v_1^a=\beta_2\, v_1^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\,a} && u_1^a=\beta_2\, u_1^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\,a} \label{eq:uv_change_1}\\
& v_i^a = v_i^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\,a} +\alpha_2\beta_2\, \frac{{\langle}u_1^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}} u_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}{\rangle}^2}{\sigma_{1i}^2}\epsilon_i^a &&
u_i^a = u_i^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\,a} -\alpha_2\beta_2 \frac{{\langle}u_1^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}} u_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}{\rangle}}{\sigma_{1i}} u_1^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\,a}\,,
\end{aligned}$$
with identical expressions for $\{u_i,v_i\}$ in terms of $\{u_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{2}$}}},v_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{2}$}}}\}$.
[ [**Proof:**]{} ]{}First note that the punctures $\sigma_i$ are unaffected so we omit the superscripts here. First write $\epsilon_1^a=( \zeta_1^a+ \alpha_2v_1^a)/\beta_2 $. Using this, the polarized scattering equations $\mathcal{E}_i$ can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}&= \sum_{j\neq 1}\frac{{\langle}u_1u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{1j}}\epsilon_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}-{\langle}v_1\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}\\
\mathcal{E}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}&= \sum_{j\neq 1,i}\underbrace{\left(\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}+\frac{\alpha_2}{\beta_2} \frac{{\langle}u_1 u_i{\rangle}}{\sigma_{1i}}\frac{{\langle}u_1 u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{1j}}\right)}_{\stackrel{!}{=}\frac{{\langle}u_i^{\scalebox{0.5}{$\zeta_1$}} u_j^{\scalebox{0.5}{$\zeta_1$}} {\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}}\epsilon_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}+\frac{1}{\beta_2}\frac{{\langle}u_1 u_i{\rangle}}{\sigma_{1i}}{\langle}\zeta_1\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}-\underbrace{\left({\langle}v_i\kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}-\frac{\alpha_2}{\beta_2} \frac{{\langle}u_1 u_i{\rangle}^2}{\sigma_{1i}^2}\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right)}_{\stackrel{!}{=}{\langle}v_i^{\scalebox{0.5}{$\zeta_1$}} \kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} {\rangle}}\,. \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ It is now simple to map this to the polarized scattering equations $\mathcal{E}_i^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}}$ via the change of variables .$\Box$\
As an aside, although Proposition \[prop:measures\] implies that the measures are unchanged, it is easily checked directly that $d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}=d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol},{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}}$: the rescaling gives an overall factor of $\beta_2^{-4}$ coming from the scattering equation $\delta( \mathcal{E}_1) =\beta_2^{-4}\delta(\mathcal{E}_1^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}})$, which exactly compensates the factor from $d^2u_1 d^2 v_1 = \beta_2^{4}\, d^2 u_1^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}} d^2 v_1^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}$. The remaining part of the measure is invariant under the linear shift in $\alpha_2\beta_2$, and thus the polarized measure is invariant under the choice of polarization data.
With the above definitions $$\det{}'H = \alpha_1\det{}'H^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}}+\alpha_2\det{}'H^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{2}$}}}}\,.$$
[ [**Proof:**]{} ]{}For each solution to the scattering equations, the above correspondence maps the reduced determinant by $$\label{eq:det'H=binvdet'H1}
\det{}'H = \frac{1}{{\langle}u_1 u_i{\rangle}\,\left[ \tilde u_1 \tilde u_i\right]}\det H^{[1i]}_{[1i]} =\frac{1}{\beta_2}\det{}'H^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}}\,.$$ Here, we have reduced on particle 1 for convenience, and used the fact that the diagonal entries $H_{ii}$ for $i\neq 1$ are independent of the polarization $\epsilon_1$ by . Similarly, the map from $\{u_i,v_i\}$ to $\{u_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{2}$}}},v_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{2}$}}}\}$ induced by the polarized scattering equations gives $$\label{eq:det'H=binvdet'H2}
\det{}'H =-\frac{1}{\beta_1}\det{}'H^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{2}$}}}}\,.$$ Note that $\beta_{1,2}$ depend on the solutions to the polarized scattering equations, so the relations and between the reduced determinants only hold on individual solutions to the scattering equations, and do not lead to an analogous relation for the amplitudes. However, by combining the two expression we get the following linearity relation $$\det{}'H = \left(\alpha_1\beta_2-\alpha_2\beta_1\right)\det{}'H = \alpha_1\det{}'H^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}}+\alpha_2\det{}'H^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{2}$}}}}\,,$$ as required. This is now independent of the solutions to the scattering equations, and thus lifts to the full amplitudes, confirming . $\Box$
#### Superamplitudes.
The above analysis extends straightforwardly to superamplitudes to give checks on the supersymmetry factors. As before, we take particle 1 to be a gluon, though we do not restrict its position in the multiplet in the supersymmetric case. In the top state, its polarization is $\epsilon_1=\alpha_1\zeta_1+\alpha_2\zeta_2$ as above, and in the bottom state we choose the polarization $$\xi_1=\alpha_1^\xi\zeta_1+\alpha_2^\xi\zeta_2\,,$$ with constant $\alpha_{1,2}^\xi$ such that $\alpha_1\alpha_2^\xi - \alpha_2\alpha_1^\xi=1$ due to the normalization condition ${\langle}\epsilon_1 \xi_1{\rangle}=1$.
As indicated above, in the supersymmetric case it will be helpful to treat the basis spinors $(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)$ as the new basis for the multiplet of particle 1. In the explicit change of variables given in \[prop:cov\], $\zeta_1$ plays the rôle of the original $\epsilon_1$, and $\zeta_2$ provides the additional polarization spinor to parametrize the full mutiplet, i.e. $\xi_1^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}}=\zeta_2$.[^13] Using this choice, we can verify by expanding out both sides and using the relation between $\{u_i,v_i\}$ and $\{u_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}},v_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\}$ from \[prop:cov\] that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eFhat}
\int d^2\! q_1\, q_1^2\, e^{F} =
\int d^2\! q_1^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\, \beta_2\,\left(\alpha_1 \big(q_1^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\big)^2+\alpha_2\right)\, e^{F^{{\scalebox{0.5}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ The superscript $\zeta_1$ again indicates that the supersymmetry factor is defined with the multiplet parametrized by the polarization $\zeta_1$, as well as the variables $u_i^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}$. Similarly, for gluon states at the bottom of the multiplet, we find $$\int d^2\! q_1\, e^{F} = \int d^2\! q_1^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\, \beta_2\,\left(\alpha_1^\xi\ \big(q_1^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\big)^2+\alpha^\xi_2\right)\, e^{F^{{\scalebox{0.5}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}} \,.$$ Combining this with the result for the reduced determinant $\det{}'H=\beta_2^{-1}\det{}'H^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}$, we find the expected linearity relations for supersymmetric integrands with one gluon, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lin_susy-int}
\det{}'H\,\int d^2\! q_1\, q_1^2\, e^{F} &=\det{}'H^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\,\int d^2\! q_1^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\, \left(\alpha_1 \big(q_1^{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}\big)^2+\alpha_2\right)\, e^{F^{{\scalebox{0.5}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and similarly for the gluon at the bottom of the multiplet with polarization $\xi_1$. The simplicity of this relation is due to our choice of $\xi_1^{{{\scalebox{0.8}{$\zeta_{1}$}}}}=\zeta_2$: using this, as well as the results from §\[sec:multiplet\], the second term on the right gives indeed the amplitude for a gluon with polarization $\zeta_2$ with a proportionality factor of $\alpha_2$. As in the bosonic case, the final linearity relation is independent of the solution to the polarized scattering equations, and thus lifts to the full superamplitude, $$\mathcal{A}^{\epsilon_1} = \alpha_1\, {\mathcal{A}}^{\zeta_1}+\alpha_2\,{\mathcal{A}}^{\zeta_2}\,,\qquad\qquad \mathcal{A}^{\xi_1} = \alpha_1^\xi\, {\mathcal{A}}^{\zeta_1}+\alpha_2^\xi\,{\mathcal{A}}^{\zeta_2}\,.$$
The three and four-point amplitudes {#sec:low-point}
===================================
In this section, we discuss the three-particle and four-particle amplitudes in our polarized scattering equations formalism , and compare them to previous results available in the literature, e.g. [@Cheung:2009dc]. We first focus on the three-particle amplitudes that will serve as the seed amplitudes for the BCFW recursion relation of \[sec:BCFW\]. Since the configuration of three momenta is highly degenerate, we include a treatment of the four-particle case for further illustration.\
For the calculations below, two general observations will be helpful. First, for low numbers of external particles, the most useful formulation of the scattering equations arise from , obtained by skew-symmetrizing the $i$th polarized scattering equation with $\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ to give $$\sum_j \frac{\langle u_iu_{j}\rangle \epsilon_{j[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]i}}{\sigma_{ij}}=K_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\, .\label{SE-k}$$ This can be skewed with further polarization spinors to obtain formulae for $u_{ij}:=\langle u_iu_j\rangle/\sigma_{ij}$. We will use this below to construct explicit solutions to the polarized scattering equations, both for three and four particles.
After solving the polarized scattering equations and simplifying the integrands on these solutions, amplitudes are expressed in the form $A^{\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_1\dots\epsilon_n\tilde\epsilon_n}$, with all little group indices contracted linearly into the polarization spinors $\epsilon_i^a$ and $\tilde \epsilon_i^{\dot a}$. To compare our results to the formulae obtained in e.g. [@Cheung:2009dc], we thus have to convert between our polarized formalism and the standard, little-group covariant spinor-helicity formalism, where amplitudes $A_n^{a_1\dot a_1\dots a_n\dot a_n}$ carry the little group indices of the scattered particles. Using that the amplitudes are linear in the polarization spinors $\epsilon_i^a$ and $\tilde \epsilon_i^{\dot a}$ as shown in §\[sec:poldata\], the two formalisms are related via $$\label{eq:pol_vs_sh}
A^{\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_1\dots\epsilon_n\tilde\epsilon_n} = \prod_i \epsilon_{i a_i}\tilde\epsilon_{i\dot a_i}\dots A_n^{a_1\dot a_1\dots a_n\dot a_n}\,.$$
Three-point amplitudes {#sec:3pt}
----------------------
We now compute the three particle case to compare to the Yang-Mills result given in [@Cheung:2009dc]. This case is somewhat degenerate as momentum conservation implies that the three null momenta are also mutually orthogonal. In Lorentz signature they would of necessity be proportional, which would be too degenerate to calculate with. We therefore allow complex momenta so that they span a null two-plane. This can be expressed by the non-vanishing $2-$form that is given in spinors by $$\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}:=(k_1\wedge k_2)_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=-(k_1\wedge k_3)_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=(k_2\wedge k_3)_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\,.$$ The spinors $\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ and $\kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ are defined up to an overall scale and its inverse and are orthogonal to each momentum.
We can represent each momentum $k_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$ as a line in the projective spin space ${\mathbb{CP}}^3$ through the two spinors $\kappa_{ia{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ for $a=1,2$. That each line contains $\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ means that they are concurrent and that they are orthogonal to $\kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ means that they are co-planar as in the diagram \[fig:3pt\].
To compare to the results of [@Cheung:2009dc], we introduce little group spinors $m_i^a$, $\tilde m_i^{\dot a}$ for each $i$ $$\label{defkappa}
\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=m_i^a\kappa_{ia{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\, , \qquad \kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=\tilde{m}_i^{\dot a}\kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{i\dot a}\, .$$ These are defined in [@Cheung:2009dc] equivalently by $$\label{Cheungm}
\kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}\kappa_{j\dot{b}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=m_{ia}\tm _{j\dot{b}}\,.$$ As in [@Cheung:2009dc], we further introduce spinors $w_i, \tw_i$ normalized against $m_i$, $\tilde m_i$ such that $$\label{Cheungw}
m_{ia}w_i^{a}=1\, , \qquad \tm_{i\dot a}\tw^{\dot a}_i=1\,.$$ This normalization does not fully fix $w_i, \tw_i$, since we have the further freedom to add on terms proportional to $m_i, \tilde m_i$. We can partially fix this redundancy $w_{ia}\rightarrow w_{ia} + c_i m_{ia}$ by the condition $$\label{momcons}
w_1^a\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}+w_2^a\kappa_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}+w_3^a\kappa_{3{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}=0\,,$$ which imposes co-linearity of the three points ${\langle}w_i \kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}$ on the lines $k_i$ and reduces the redundancy to shifts satisfying $c_1+c_2+c_3=0$.\
In what follows we will compute the three gluon amplitude from the general formula (\[eq:ampl\_susy\]) in Yang Mills theory. For three particles the $\sigma_i$ can be fixed to $(0,1,\infty)$ and the formula reduces to $$\label{amp}
A_3=\detp H|_*=\frac{\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_2^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{U_{23}\tilde U_{13}}\,,$$ evaluated on the solution to the polarized scattering equations, as indicated by the star. Note that the Jacobian from solving the polarized scattering equations is trivial due to \[prop:measures\]. Having gauge fixed three of the $u$ variables as in §\[sec:reltoCHYmeasure\], we only need to solve the polarized scattering equations for the three $U_{ij}:=U_{ij}^{(1,0)}={\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}/\sigma_{ij}$, with $U_{ij}=U_{ji}$ for $i\neq j$, $$\label{3ptSE}
U_{12}\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}+ U_{13}\epsilon_{3{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}={\langle}v_1\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}\,,\quad \mbox{ and cyclic, }$$ together with the normalization conditions $ {\langle}v_i\epsilon_{i}{\rangle}=1$. These three scattering equations equations define lines in the plane spanned by the three momenta in the projective spin space as in the diagram \[fig:3pt\].\
\[fig:3pt\]
In order to solve the polarized scattering equations we use the $\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ as a basis of the plane in the projective spin space orthogonal to $\kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ to write $$\label{3pk}
\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=\sum_ia_i\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}
$$ Using the normalization $\langle v_i\epsilon_i \rangle=1$, we can further expand $v_i$ in the polarization basis $\epsilon_i, m_i$; $$v_{ia}=\frac{1}{\langle m_i\epsilon_i \rangle} \left(\langle m_i v_i\rangle \epsilon_{ia}+m_{ia}\right)\,,$$ and solve the system to obtain $$U_{ij}=\dfrac{a_i}{\langle m_j\epsilon_j\rangle}=\dfrac{a_j}{\langle m_i\epsilon_i \rangle}\, , \qquad \langle m_i v_i\rangle=a_i\, .
$$ To compare to [@Cheung:2009dc], we can similarly decompose $$w_i=-\dfrac{1}{{\langle}\epsilon_im_i{\rangle}}\epsilon_i+\dfrac{{\langle}\epsilon_i w_i{\rangle}}{{\langle}\epsilon_im_i{\rangle}}m_i,$$ and impose the condition (\[momcons\]) to obtain: $$\hspace{15pt}a_i=\dfrac{\prod_{k\neq i}{\langle}\epsilon_km_k{\rangle}}{{\langle}\epsilon_1m_1{\rangle}{\langle}\epsilon_2m_2{\rangle}{\langle}\epsilon_3w_3{\rangle}+\mathrm{cyc.}}$$ The scattering equations for spinors in the antifundamental representation are solved entirely analogously and together we obtain from (\[amp\]) the three point amplitude as $$A_3=\Big({\langle}\epsilon_1m_1{\rangle}{\langle}\epsilon_2m_2{\rangle}{\langle}\epsilon_3w_3{\rangle}+\mathrm{cyc.}\Big)\Big({\langle}\te_1\tm_1{\rangle}{\langle}\te_2\tm_2{\rangle}{\langle}\te_3\tw_3{\rangle}+\mathrm{cyc.}\Big)\,, \label{eq:3pt-fin}$$ where we have used that $\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_2^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}={\langle}\epsilon_1m_1{\rangle}[\epsilon_2 \tm_2]$ from . This is precisely the result in [@Cheung:2009dc], contracted into the polarization spinors as discussed around .
Four-point Yang-Mills amplitudes {#sec:4pt}
--------------------------------
To illustrate these techniques in a slightly more generic setting, consider next the four-gluon amplitude in Yang-Mills theory. As before, we can fix three of the marked points on the sphere, e.g. $\sigma_1,\sigma_2$ and $\sigma_4$, so that the solution to the scattering equation in homogeneous coordinates is $$\label{solSE}
\sigma_1=[(1,0)]\hspace{5pt}\sigma_2=[(1,1)]\hspace{5pt}\sigma_3=[(1,-\frac{s_{13}}{s_{12}})]\hspace{5pt}\sigma_4=[(0,1)]\,.$$ From the measure, we thus pick up the CHY Jacobian $|\Phi|_{\scalebox{0.6}{$[i_1i_2i_3]$}}^{\scalebox{0.6}{$[j_1j_2j_3]$}}:=|\partial \mathcal{E}_i/\partial\sigma_j|_{\scalebox{0.6}{$[i_1i_2i_3]$}}^{\scalebox{0.6}{$[j_1j_2j_3]$}}$ as well as the usual Fadeev-Popov factors $(\sigma_{i_1i_2}\sigma_{i_2i_3}\sigma_{i_3i_1})$ and $(\sigma_{j_1j_2}\sigma_{j_2j_3}\sigma_{j_3j_1})$ due to the equality between the polarized measure and the usual CHY measure established in \[prop:measures\]. Combining this with the four-particle Yang-Mills integrand gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{amp4}
A_4^{\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_1\dots\epsilon_4\tilde\epsilon_4}&=\frac{(\sigma_{i_1i_2}\sigma_{i_2i_3}\sigma_{i_3i_1})(\sigma_{j_1j_2}\sigma_{j_2j_3}\sigma_{j_3j_1})}{\det \Phi_{\scalebox{0.6}{$[i_1i_2i_3]$}}^{\scalebox{0.6}{$[j_1j_2j_3]$}}}\; \mathrm{PT}(1234)\,\detp H\bigg|_*&\nonumber \\
&=\frac{\sigma_{12}^2(\sigma_{13}\sigma_{34}\sigma_{41})(\sigma_{23}\sigma_{34}\sigma_{42})}{s_{12}}\;\mathrm{PT}(1234)\,\frac{H_{13}H_{24}-H_{14}H_{23}}{{\langle}u_{3}u_4{\rangle}\,[\tu_{1}\tu_2]}\bigg|_*\\
&=\frac{1}{{\langle}u_{3}u_4{\rangle}\,[\tu_{1}\tu_2]}\frac{\sigma_{12}\sigma_{34}}{s_{12}}\bigg(\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_3\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_4-\frac{\sigma_{31}\sigma_{42}}{\sigma_{41}\sigma_{32}}\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_4\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_3\bigg)\bigg|_*\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $*$ again denotes evaluation on the (single) solution to the polarized scattering equations. Using , the amplitude then becomes $$A_4^{\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_1\dots\epsilon_4\tilde\epsilon_4}=-\frac{1}{s_{12}U_{34}\tilde U_{12}}\bigg(\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_3\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_4+\frac{s_{13}}{s_{14}}\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_3\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_4\bigg)\bigg|_*,$$ evaluated on the solution to the scattering equations. At four points there are $8-3$ independent variables $u_i^a$ and we can take them to be $U_{ij}={\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}/\sigma_{ij}=U_{ji}$, $i\neq j$, with the extra relation $${\langle}u_{i}u_j{\rangle}{\langle}u_{k}u_l{\rangle}+ \big(\mbox{ cyc } jkl\big) =0,$$ given by the Schouten identity. The skewed form of the scattering equations give $$\label{SE4}
\sum_{j\neq i} U_{ij}\epsilon_{j[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}=k_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\, ,$$ In order to solve for $U_{34}$ we contract this for $i=3$ with $\varepsilon^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}$ to obtain $$\label{u34}
U_{34}=-\frac{{\langle}k_312{\rangle}}{{\langle}1234{\rangle}},$$ where we define $${\langle}1234{\rangle}=\varepsilon^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_{3{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\epsilon_{4{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}\, , \qquad {\langle}k_3 12{\rangle}=\varepsilon^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}k_{3{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}\, .$$ Similarly we obtain, using square brackets for 4-brackets of upper-indexed quantities, $$\tilde U_{12}=-\frac{[k_134]}{[1234]}.$$ Using these we can solve for the $v_{ia}$ to give $$\label{eq:sol_v_4pt}
v_{1a}=\frac{{\langle}\kappa_{1a}234{\rangle}}{{\langle}1234{\rangle}}\, ,$$ and so on.
The resulting expression for $A_4$ can be simplified by expanding the product of upper and lower $\varepsilon$ tensors as skew product of Kronecker deltas. Consider the quantity $${\langle}k_312{\rangle}[k_134]=4\,\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}\epsilon_3^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}\, k_{3{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\,k_1^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\epsilon_{4}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}+2k_1\cdot k_3(\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_4\,\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_3-\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_3\,\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_4).$$ The first term can be rewritten using using momentum conservation as $$\begin{aligned}
k_{3{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\,k_1^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\kappa_{4\dot{a}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\kappa_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}a}&=
-k_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}k_1^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\kappa_{4\dot{a}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\kappa_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}a}=
-\frac{1}{2}\,\kappa_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}\kappa_{4\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\;k_1\cdot k_2\,,\end{aligned}$$ such that ${\langle}k_312{\rangle}[k_134]$ is proportional to the numerator of the amplitude, $${\langle}k_312{\rangle}[k_134]=s_{14}\left(\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_3\,\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_4+\frac{s_{13}}{s_{14}}\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_4\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_3\right)\,.$$ The amplitude then agrees with the result of [@Cheung:2009dc], $$\label{fourpoint}
A_4^{\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_1\dots\epsilon_4\tilde\epsilon_4}=\frac{{\langle}1234{\rangle}[1234]}{s_{12}s_{14}}\,,$$ upon the usual identification .\
As discussed in \[sec:susy\], the supersymmetry representation we use breaks little group symmetry so that little group multiplets are spread in different degrees in the superfield expansion (\[fieldR\]) in terms of supermomenta. All above expressions are for gluons in the top state $g^{\epsilon\tilde\epsilon}$, but the calculations extend directly to other amplitudes as well. As we have seen in \[sec:multiplet\], amplitudes for gluons appearing at order $q^2$ in the multiplet can be calculated either from the supersymmetry representation, or by replacing $\epsilon_i\rightarrow \xi_i$ in the integrand. At four points, this can be seen explicitly: consider first the amplitude $A_4(g^{\epsilon_1\tilde{\epsilon}_1}g^{\epsilon_2\tilde{\epsilon}_2}g^{\xi_3\tilde{\epsilon}_3}g^{\xi_4\tilde{\epsilon}_4})$ obtained from the supersymmetry representation, $$A_4(g^{\epsilon_1\tilde{\epsilon}_1}g^{\epsilon_2\tilde{\epsilon}_2}g^{\xi_3\tilde{\epsilon}_3}g^{\xi_4\tilde{\epsilon}_4})=A_4^{\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_1\dots\epsilon_4\tilde\epsilon_4}
\;\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{\scalebox{0.6}{$KL$}}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_3^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_3^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_4^{\scalebox{0.6}{$K$}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_4^{\scalebox{0.6}{$K$}}}\;e^{F+\tilde F}\bigg|_*\bigg|_{q_i=0}\,.$$ The only non-vanishing term comes from the $F^2$ in the expansion of the exponential, and gives an extra factor of $\det U^{\{34\}} = -U_{34}^2+{\langle}\xi_3 v_3{\rangle}\,{\langle}\xi_4v_4{\rangle}$ in the amplitude. When we evaluate this on the solutions to the polarized scattering equations we obtain, using and , $$\det U^{\{34\}}\bigg|_*=\frac{1}{{\langle}1234{\rangle}^2}\Big({\langle}\xi_3\, 312{\rangle}\,{\langle}\xi_4\, 412{\rangle}- {\langle}\xi_3\, 124{\rangle}\,{\langle}\xi_4\, 123{\rangle}\Big)=\frac{{\langle}12\, \xi_3\xi_4 {\rangle}}{{\langle}1234{\rangle}}\,.$$ Here we have used $k_{i\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}} = \xi_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{i|{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}$ in the first equality, as well as the notation $\xi_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}:={\langle}\xi_i\kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}$, and the last equality follows from a Schouten identity in the two-dimensional space defined by $\varepsilon^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\epsilon_{2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}$. Using the result for the amplitude where all gluons are in the top state, we thus find $$A_4(g^{\epsilon_1\tilde{\epsilon}_1}g^{\epsilon_2\tilde{\epsilon}_2}g^{\xi_3\tilde{\epsilon}_3}g^{\xi_4\tilde{\epsilon}_4})=\frac{{\langle}12\,\xi_3\xi_4{\rangle}[1234]}{s_{12}s_{14}}.$$ This clearly agrees with the result from the integrand $\det{}' H_{I}$ for $I=\{3,4\}$, i.e. by replacing $\epsilon_{ia}$ by $\xi_{ia}$ for $i=3,4$ in . Similar conjugate formulae apply for amplitudes with a pair of external particles in the $g^{\epsilon\tilde \xi}$ states.
Other theories
--------------
The Yang-Mills calculations extend directly to the other theories expressed as integrals over the polarized scattering equations. For any theory that admits the representation , the four point amplitude for the top states of the supersymmetry multiplet has the form: $$A_4=\frac{1}{\detp{\Phi}\,}{\mathcal{I}}^{\mathrm{h}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,{\mathcal{I}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^{\mathrm{h}}\bigg|_*\,,$$ where the $*$ indicates that the formula is evaluated on the solutions to the polarized scattering equations. Having solved the polarized scattering equations at four point, , it is now an easy task to evaluate the amplitude for other theories than Yang-Mills . We have already discussed the Jacobian, $$\frac{1}{\detp{\Phi}}=\frac{(\sigma_{i_1i_2}\sigma_{i_2i_3}\sigma_{i_3i_1})(\sigma_{j_1j_2}\sigma_{j_2j_3}\sigma_{j_3j_1})}{\det \Phi_{\scalebox{0.6}{$[i_1i_2i_3]$}}^{\scalebox{0.6}{$[j_1j_2j_3]$}}}=-\frac{s_{12}^4}{s_{12}s_{13}s_{14}}$$ The main ingredients that appear in the half integrands evaluated on such solutions are as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{ingredients}
&\mathrm{PT}(1234)=-\frac{s_{12}}{s_{14}} &
&\detp{H}={\langle}1234{\rangle}[1234]\frac{s_{12}^2}{s_{12}s_{13}s_{14}} \\
&{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}U^{(1,1)} = \frac{s_{13}s_{14}}{{\langle}1234{\rangle}\,[1234]} &
&{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}U^{(2,0)} = \frac{s_{13}s_{14}}{{\langle}1234{\rangle}^2}\\
&\mathrm{Pf}^\prime A=s_{12}\,. &&
$$
It is then straightforward to calculate all four-particle amplitudes for the theories we have discussed. In $(2,2)$ supergravity, for all particles in the top state, we obtain: $$\label{sugra}
M_4^{\mathrm{grav}}=\frac{{\langle}1234{\rangle}^2[1234]^2}{s_{12}s_{13}s_{14}}\,,$$ which corresponds to the result in [@Dennen:2009vk; @Cachazo:2018hqa] and reproduces the KLT relation. For the brane theories we have $$\begin{aligned}
&A_4^{\mathrm{D5}}={\langle}1234{\rangle}[1234]\,,\\
&A_4^{\mathrm{M5}}={\langle}1234{\rangle}^2\,,\end{aligned}$$ agreeing with [@Heydeman:2017yww]. As expected these give the same result on reducing to four or five dimensions where fundamental and anti-fundamental spinors are identified, see \[sec:dim-red\].
The more exotic and controversial formulae in \[tabletheories\], obtained by double-copying the above integrands. When combining the M$5$ half integrand with a Parke Taylor factor, we get $$A_4^{(2,0)-\mathrm{PT}}= \frac{{\langle}1234{\rangle}^2}{s_{12}s_{14}}\,.\label{4pt-02-PT}$$ As expected, the formula is chiral, and has the same reduction to 5d as the Yang-Mills amplitude. We can also look at the formulae for other ‘double copied’ theories in table \[tabletheories\]: $$\begin{aligned}
&A_4^{(3,1)}=\frac{{\langle}1234{\rangle}^3[1234]}{s_{12}s_{13}s_{14}}\label{31}\\
&A_4^{(4,0)}=\frac{{\langle}1234{\rangle}^4}{s_{12}s_{13}s_{14}}\,.\label{40}\end{aligned}$$ We note that - give the same result as the gravity amplitudes upon reduction to four and five dimensions. However, in six dimensions, as remarked in [@Huang:2010rn; @Cachazo:2018hqa], the formulae are more problematic as soft limits to three-point amplitudes are not obviously well defined. This is because the $\kappa_A$ and $\kappa^A$ of each have a scaling ambiguity that cancels in $\kappa_A\kappa^B$. This means that the two factors of are not individually invariantly defined, so they cant be individually squared to give an invariant three-point amplitudes for gerbe theories. Thus it seems unlikely that these formulae can be interpreted as tree-level S-matrices in the normal sense.
Fermionic amplitudes
--------------------
We can also evaluate amplitudes involving the fermionic sector. We will show here how this works for the scattering of two gluons with two gluini in $(1,1)$ super Yang-Mills, but the results can be adapted easily to supergravity and the brane theories.\
Consider the four particle amplitude $A_4(g_1^{\epsilon\tilde{\epsilon}},g_2^{\epsilon\tilde{\epsilon}},\psi_3^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\tilde{\epsilon}},\psi_4^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}\tilde{\epsilon}})$ for two gluons and two gluini, obtained in our supersymmetry representation by extracting the fermionic components as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
A_4(g_1^{\epsilon\tilde{\epsilon}},g_2^{\epsilon\tilde{\epsilon}},\psi_3^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\tilde{\epsilon}},\psi_4^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}\tilde{\epsilon}})&=\frac{{\langle}1234{\rangle}[1234]}{s_{12}s_{14}}\frac{\partial}{\partial q^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}_3}\frac{\partial}{\partial q^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}_4}(1+F_1+\tilde{F}_1+...)\bigg|_{q_i=\tilde{q}_i=0}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{{\langle}1234{\rangle}[1234]}{s_{12}s_{14}}U_{34}\Omega_{IJ}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the solution to the polarized scattering equations (\[u34\]) we obtain, $$\label{4ptgluini}
A_4(g_1^{\epsilon\tilde{\epsilon}},g_2^{\epsilon\tilde{\epsilon}},\psi_3^{I\tilde{\epsilon}},\psi_4^{J\tilde{\epsilon}})=\frac{{\langle}12k_3{\rangle}[1234]}{s_{12}s_{14}}\Omega_{IJ}$$ We can compare this to the amplitude representation of [@Dennen:2009vk] in the little-group preserving supersymmetry representation; $$A_4^{\mathrm{susy}}=\frac{\delta^4(\sum q)\delta^4(\sum \tilde{q})}{s_{12}s_{14}}\,,$$ where the supercharges are $q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}={\varepsilon^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}}\kappa_{\dot{a}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\tilde{\eta}_{\dot{b}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}$ and $q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}=\varepsilon_{ab}\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^{a}\eta^{b{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$. The amplitude $A_4(g^{a\dot{a}}_1,g^{b\dot{b}}_2,\psi^{\dot c }_3,\psi^{\dot d}_4)$ is now the following coefficient of the Grassmann variables $\eta$ and $\tilde \eta$, $$\begin{aligned}
A_4(g^{a\dot{a}}_1,g^{b\dot{b}}_2,\psi^{\dot c }_3,\psi^{\dot d}_4)&=\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta^a_1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tilde{\eta}^{\dot a}_1}\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta^b_2}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tilde{\eta}^{\dot b}_2}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tilde{\eta}^{\dot c}_3}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tilde{\eta}^{\dot d}_4}\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta^{e}_4}\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta^{g}_4}\;\varepsilon^{eg}\;
\frac{\delta^4(\sum q)\delta^4(\sum \tilde{q})}{s_{12}s_{14}}\bigg|_{\eta_i=\tilde\eta_i=0}\nonumber\\
&=\frac{{\langle}1_a2_bk_3{\rangle}\, [1_{\dot a}2_{\dot b}3_{\dot c}4_{\dot d}]}{s_{12}s_{14}}\end{aligned}$$ This agrees with our result after contraction into the external polarization states.
Dimensional reduction {#sec:dim-red}
=====================
As an additional check on our formulae, we examine their behaviour under dimensional reduction. When we reduce D5 and M5 amplitudes to 5d, both expressions are expected to agree there. Similarly when we reduce our (controversial) $(0,2)$ formula with the Parke-Taylor, the formulae agree with those of the reduced $(1,1)$ super Yang-Mills formula. Similarly the reduced $(3,1)$ and $(0,4)$ formulae also agree with the reduced $(2,2)$ supergravity formulae. When $(1,1)$ super Yang-Mills and $(2,2)$ super gravity theories are reduced to 5d, we see that our supersymmetry representation naturally extends the R-symmetry to Sp$(2)$ and Sp$(4)$ respectively.
We further reduce the super Yang-Mills and supergravity to the 4d massless case, where we recover the 4d version of the polarized scattering equations reviewed in \[sec:intro-4d\]. The main new feature of the 4d massless case is the emergence of (MHV) sectors for the amplitude, whereas neither the 4d massive nor the higher dimensional amplitudes split into sectors. We will see below that the dimensional reduction gives rise to a unified formula for all sectors, with the separation into different MHV sectors appearing naturally from different classes of solutions to the 6d polarized scattering equations. The reduction to massive 4d kinematics, and in particular the Coulomb branch in super Yang-Mills, has already been discussed in previous work [@Geyer:2018xgb], and we refer the interested reader to that paper, as well as [@Cachazo:2018hqa] for related topics in the little-group preserving supersymmetry representation.
Dimensional reduction to 5d
---------------------------
On reduction to 5d, the sixth direction is represented as a skew spinor that we will denote $\Omega_{AB}$ so that a five vector $k_{AB}$ must satisfy $k_{AB}\Omega^{AB}=0$. In 5d spinor indices can now be raised and lowered with $\Omega_{AB}$ and its inverse. This reduces the spin group from SL$(4,{\mathbb{C}})$ to Spin$(5)=\rm{Sp}(2)$.
Starting with a theory in 6d with $(N,\tilde N)$-supersymmetry, we can lower the supersymmetry generator spinor index $\tilde Q_{A\dot I}=\Omega_{BA} Q^B_{\dot I}$ so that now in 5d we can write $Q_{A{\mathcal{I}}}=(Q_{AI},\tilde Q_{A\dot I})$ where ${\mathcal{I}}=1, \ldots, 2{\mathcal{N}}$ where ${\mathcal{N}}=N+\tilde N$. We can define the skew form $\Omega_{{\mathcal{I}},{\mathcal{J}}}=\Omega_{IJ}\oplus \Omega_{\dot I\dot J}$ and with this the R-symmetry has the possibility of extending from Sp$(N)\times \rm{Sp}(\tilde{N})$ to Sp$(N+\tilde N)$. Thus we see that reduction of theories with $(1,1)$ and $(0,2)$-supersymmetry in 6d can naturally reduce to theories with identical supersymmetry in 5d if there is nothing in the spectrum to break the increased R-symmetry. This is typically the case in the massless sectors of the reduced theories (although differences will generally be seen in Kaluza-Klein massive modes).
#### 5d spinor helicity and scattering equations from 6d.
In 5d, the massless little group will be Spin$(3,{\mathbb{C}})=\rm{Sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ rather then Spin$(4)=\mathrm{Sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})\times \mathrm{Sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})$. Given a 5d massless momentum $k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$, we can introduce the spinor helicity frame $\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^a$ satisfying $$k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^a\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}^b\varepsilon_{ab}\,, \qquad k\cdot \Omega=0 \label{eq:kappa_5d}$$ But we can now raise the indices with $\Omega^{AB}$ to obtain $\kappa^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}$ providing also the $\kappa^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\dot a}$ thus identifying the dotted little group in $6d$ with the undotted one. Now $\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a$ transforms in the fundamental representation of Spin$(5,\mathbb{C})\cong\mathrm{Sp}(4,\mathbb{C})$, and $a$ labels the little group for massless particles, Spin$(3,\mathbb{C})\cong\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$.
Spin one polarization data are 2-forms given in 5d by symmetric spinors $F_{AB}=F_{(AB)}$ satisfying $k^{AB}F_{BC}=0$. Thus they arise from little group spinors $\epsilon_{ab}=\epsilon_{(ab)}$ with $F_{AB}=\kappa_A^a\kappa_B^b\epsilon_{ab}$ and we can take $\epsilon_{ab}=\epsilon_a\epsilon_b$. When reduced from 6d, we therefore identify both the 6d $\epsilon_{\dot a}$ and $\epsilon_a$ with the $5d$ $\epsilon_a$s. This therefore becomes the same polarization data as one obtained from the symmetry reduction of the 6d Gerbe field.
The chiral polarized scattering equations reduce straightforwardly, with the $u$’s, $\epsilon$’s and $v$’s now all transforming in the 5d little group. However, the same is true for the anti-fundamental scattering equations, where the $\tilde u$’s etc now transform under the *same* SL$(2,\mathbb{C})$, i.e. $\tilde u_i^{\dot a}\rightarrow\tilde u_i^a$. Moreover, we have seen that we should take $\tilde \epsilon_i=\epsilon_i$ after reduction. Thus the fundamental and anti-fundamental scattering equations are identified $$\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_i^{5d \,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}=\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\mathcal{E}_{i\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\bigg|_{\substack{u\rightarrow\tilde u\\ v\rightarrow \tilde v}}\,.$$ We therefore have the same equations for both $(u_i,v_i)$ and $(\tilde u_i,\tilde v_i)$. By the uniqueness of the solution ensured by \[unique\], we have $$\label{eq:u=tilde u}
\tilde u_i^a= u_i^a\,,\qquad \tilde v_i^a=v_i^a\,.$$
We can implement the reduction from 6d amplitude formulae to 5d via a projection operator $$\Pi_{6\rightarrow5}=\int\prod_{i=1}^n {\, \mathrm{d}}k_{i}\cdot \Omega\prod_{j=1}^{n-1}\delta\left(k_{j}\cdot \Omega\right)\,.$$ The second product goes only up to $n-1$ so that the $n$th integral can absorb the sixth component of the momentum-conserving delta-function. The resulting formula then has the correct count of variables vs symmetries and delta-functions, and leading to the required $\delta^5$ for momentum conservation. We therefore define $$d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol},5d}=\Pi_{6\rightarrow5},d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}\,.$$ The polarized measure $d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol},5d}$ in 5d thus has none of the subtleties of the 6d case, and all constraints are manifestly imposed via delta-functions.
#### Dimensional reduction of the integrands and formulae.
Upon reduction, the spin-one matrix $H^{6d}_{ij}\rightarrow H_{ij}^{5d}$ becomes symmetric as $\epsilon_i=\tilde\epsilon_i$ gives $$H_{ij}^{5d}=\frac{\epsilon_i^A\epsilon_j^B\Omega_{AB}}{ \sigma_{ij}}\, , \qquad i\neq j.$$ This is sufficient to give Yang-Mills with integrand $\det'H^{5d} \,\mathrm{PT}$ and gravity with $(\det'H^{5d})^2$.
The dimensional reduction of the supersymmetry factors proceeds along the same lines, driven again by the equality . We find
$$\begin{aligned}
F_N\Big|_{5d}&= \frac1{2}\sum_{i,j}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n{\langle}\xi_iv_i{\rangle}q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\,,\\
\tilde F_{\tilde N}\Big|_{5d} &= \frac1{2}\sum_{i,j}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}\tilde q_{i\dot {{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\tilde q_{j\dot {{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\tilde \Omega^{\dot{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\dot{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}
-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n{\langle}\xi_iv_i{\rangle}q_{i\dot {{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\tilde q_{j\dot {{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\tilde \Omega^{\dot{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\dot{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$
For $\mathcal{N}=(1,1)$ supersymmetry, we can thus naturally combine the fermionic variables $q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}} = (q_{il},\tilde q_{i\dot l})$ into $\mathcal{N}=2$ supermomenta, with the symplectic metric $\Omega=\mathrm{diag}(\Omega,\tilde\Omega)$ composed of the $N=1$, $\tilde N=1$ metrics in 6d. This manifests that $$F_1+\tilde F_1\Big|_{5d}=F_2^{5d}\,,\qquad F_2\Big|_{5d}=F_2^{5d}\,.$$ Thus for maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills we obtain the integrand ${\mathrm{e}}^{F_2^{5d}}\det' H^{5d} \,\mathrm{PT}$. Similarly, the 6d $(2,2)$-supersymmetry factor reduces to $F_4^{5d}$ giving the maximal supergravity integrand ${\mathrm{e}}^{F_4^{5d}} \det' (H^{5d})^2$.
Finally, for the brane integrands, we first note that from $u_i=\tilde u_i$, that $U^{(a,b)}$ reduces to $U^{(m)}$ $$U^{(m)}_{ij}:=\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}^m}{\sigma_{ij}}\,,$$ with $a+b=m$. Further, from , we find $$\det{}'H^{5d}=\frac{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A}{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2)}}\,,$$ On the other hand, the M5 integrand reduces to the same expression due to the equality between $u_i$ and $\tilde u_i$, $$\frac{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}' A}{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)}_{5d}}= \frac{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A}{{\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2)}}=\det{}'H\,,\label{Pf-det}$$ This in particular gives a nontrivial meaning to the right hand side for odd particle number in 5d, and the D5 and M5 integrands become the same. With both the integrands and the supersymmetry factors agreeing among M5 and D5, we conclude that both theories give the same amplitudes when reduced to 5d.
The above reductions imply that the integrands of the $(0,2)$-PT theory reduced to 5d now makes sense for both even and odd numbers of particles, and agrees with the reduction of maximal super Yang-Mills. Similarly the 5d reductions of $(1,3)$ and $(0,4)$ theories make sense for both odd and even numbers of particles and agree with the 5d maximal supergravity formulae.
Dimensional reduction to 4d {#sec:4d-massless}
---------------------------
The 6d formalism similarly allows for a natural embedding of both 4d massive and massless kinematics. On reduction, the 6d spin spaces each reduce to the sum of the dotted and undotted spin spaces so $\epsilon_A=(\epsilon_\alpha,\epsilon_{\dot \alpha})$. The massive little group in 4d is Spin$(3,{\mathbb{C}})=\mathrm{Sl}(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ and we can choose the 6d little group frames so that both SL$(2,\mathbb{C})$-factors align with the massive 4d little group, $$\label{eq:red_massive_4d}
\kappa_{A}^a=\begin{pmatrix}\kappa_{\alpha}^0&\tilde\kappa^{\dot \alpha\, 0}\\ \kappa^1_{\alpha} & \tilde\kappa^{\dot\alpha\, 1}\end{pmatrix}\,,\qquad \kappa_{\dot a}^A=\begin{pmatrix}\kappa_{0}^\alpha &\kappa_{1}^\alpha\\ \tilde\kappa_{\dot\alpha\,0} & \tilde\kappa_{\dot\alpha\,1}\end{pmatrix}\,.$$ Here, $a=0,1$ denote the 4d massive little group indices. Massive momenta, as well as the mass $m$, are constructed via $$k_{\alpha\dot\alpha}=\kappa_{\alpha a}\tilde\kappa_{\dot\alpha b}\epsilon^{ab}\,,\qquad \kappa_{\alpha a}\kappa_{\beta b}\epsilon^{ab} = M\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}\,,\qquad \tilde\kappa_{\dot\alpha a}\tilde\kappa_{\dot\beta b}\varepsilon^{ab} = \tilde M\epsilon_{\dot\alpha\dot\beta}\,.$$ with $M=\tilde M$ and $M^2=m^2$. For more details of the reduction to the Coulomb branch, see [@Geyer:2018xgb; @Cachazo:2018hqa].
From hereon we focus on the reduction to massless kinematics. When $M=\tilde M=0$, the two spinors become proportional, and following already from the reduction to 5d, we can identify the dotted and undotted little groups. We choose a little-group frame with $\kappa_{\alpha}^0 = \tilde\kappa_{\dot\alpha}^1=0$ so $$\label{eq:kappa_4d_m=0}
\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^a = \begin{blockarray}{c@{}cc@{\hspace{0pt}}cl}
& {\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\alpha}$}} & {\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\dot\alpha}$}} & & \\
\begin{block}{(c@{\hspace{0pt}}cc@{\hspace{0pt}}c)l}
& 0 & \tilde\kappa^{\dot\alpha} &&{\mbox{$\scriptstyle{a=0}$}} \\
& \kappa_{\alpha}& 0 &&{\mbox{$\scriptstyle{a=1}$}} \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}\,,\qquad\qquad
\kappa_{\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=\begin{blockarray}{c@{}cc@{\hspace{-4pt}}cl}
& {\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\dot a =\dot 0}$}} & {\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\dot a=\dot 1}$}} & & \\
\begin{block}{(c@{\hspace{0pt}}cc@{\hspace{0pt}}c)l}
& \kappa^{\alpha} &0 &&{\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\alpha}$}} \\
& 0& -\tilde\kappa_{\dot \alpha} &&{\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\dot\alpha}$}} \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}\,.
\iffalse
\kappa_{A}^a=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & \tilde\kappa^{\dot\alpha} \\ \kappa_{\alpha}& 0\end{pmatrix}\,,\qquad \kappa_{\dot a}^A=\begin{pmatrix}0 &\kappa^\alpha\\ \tilde\kappa_{\dot\alpha} & 0\end{pmatrix}\,.\fi$$ With this, the polarization data and 2-forms reduce as $$\epsilon_A=(\epsilon_1\kappa_\alpha, \tilde \epsilon_0 \tilde \kappa_{\dot \alpha})\, , \qquad \epsilon_A\epsilon^B \rightarrow \epsilon_1^2\kappa_\alpha\kappa_\beta\varepsilon_{\dot\alpha\dot\beta}+\epsilon_0^2 \tilde \kappa_{\dot \alpha}\kappa_{\dot\beta}\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta}\,. \label{eq;pol-red4}$$ We see that the two components of $\epsilon_{ia}$ are naturally distinguished by helicity.
#### Scattering equations.
When reduced to the four-dimensional massless case as in , the polarized scattering equations become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:full_SE_4d_m=0}
\mathcal{E}_{i\alpha} &= \sum_j\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}\epsilon_{j\,1} \kappa_{j\alpha} - v_{i\,1}\kappa_{i\alpha} \,,&
\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_i{}^{\dot\alpha} &= \sum_j\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}\epsilon_{j\,0} \tilde\kappa_{j}{}^{\dot\alpha} - v_{j\,0} \tilde\kappa_{i}{}^{\dot\alpha}\,.\end{aligned}$$ At this stage, the scattering equations have a unified form valid for all MHV sectors simultaneously. They can be reduced to the 4d polarized scattering equations refined by MHV sector by dividing the external particles into two sets with $k$ and $n-k$ particles respectively, corresponding to positive and negative helicities. This determines the $\epsilon_{ia}$ up to scale from . With this we can embed the massless 4d polarized scattering equations into with the following consequent choices for the $u_{ia}$ and $v_{ia}$
\[eq:sols\_red\_4d\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\epsilon_{ia} = (0,\epsilon_i) &&
\xi_{ia}=v_{ia}=-\frac{1}{\epsilon_i}(1,0) &&u_{ia} = (u_i,0) && i\in -\,, \\
& \epsilon_{pa} = (\tilde\epsilon_p,0) &&\xi_{pa}=v_{pa}=\frac{1}{\tilde \epsilon_p}(0,1) && u_{pa} = (0,u_p) && p\in +\,.\label{eq:4d-red}\end{aligned}$$
This assignment automatically solves the scattering equations ${\mathcal{E}}_{i\alpha}=0$ for $i\in -$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{p\dot\alpha}=0$ for $p\in +$. Thus the remaining polarized scattering equations reduce to the refined scattering equations for the N$^{\mathrm{k-2}}$MHV sector
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{E}_{p\alpha} &= \sum_{i\in -}\frac{u_p u_i}{\sigma_{pi}}\, \epsilon_{i\alpha} - \frac{1}{\tilde\epsilon_p}\kappa_{p\alpha}=u_p\lambda_\alpha(\sigma_p)-\frac{1}{\tilde\epsilon_p} \kappa_{p\alpha} \,,\\
\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_i{}^{\dot\alpha} &= \sum_{p\in +}\frac{u_iu_p}{\sigma_{ip}} \,\tilde\epsilon_{p}{}^{\dot\alpha} - \frac1{\epsilon_i} \tilde\kappa_{i}{}^{\dot\alpha} = u_i\,\tilde\lambda^{\dot\alpha}(\sigma_i) -\frac1{\epsilon_i} \tilde\kappa_i{}^{\dot\alpha}\,,\end{aligned}$$
where we have written $$\epsilon_{i\alpha}=\epsilon_{i1}\kappa_\alpha,\quad \mbox{ for }i\in-, \quad\mbox{ and }\quad\tilde{\epsilon}_{p\dot\alpha}=\tilde\epsilon_{p0}\tilde\kappa_{p\dot\alpha}\, .$$ Thus the 4d refined scattering equations are clearly a subset of the solutions to the dimensionally reduced polarized scattering equations for the given choice of polarization data. Conversely, these are indeed all solutions, since the refined scattering equations have $A(n-3,k-2)$ solutions, where $A$ denotes the Eulerian number. Summing over all sectors, the ansatz these give the full $(n-3)!$ solutions of the polarized scattering equations. We will also see below that any division not lining up with the particle helicities has vanishing contribution.
#### The reduced determinants.
To study the reduction of $\det' H$ in terms of the 4d data above, note that $\epsilon_i \sim (0,1)$ for negative helicity particles, and $\epsilon_p \sim (1,0)$ for positive helicities. Thus the entries in the $H$ become $H^k$ with $$H^k_{ij}: = \frac{{\langle}\epsilon_i\epsilon_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}\,,\qquad H^k_{pq}: = \frac{\left[\tilde\epsilon_p\tilde\epsilon_q\right]}{\sigma_{pq}}\,,\qquad H_{ip}=H_{pi}=0\,.$$ for $i,j\in -$ and $p,q\in +$. This agrees with the Hodges matrix as reviewed in §\[sec:intro-4d\]. In particular, the relations among its entries become the row- and column relations described in [@Geyer:2014fka]: $$\label{eq:rels_H_4d}
\sum_{j\in -} u_jH_{ij}^k =0\,,\qquad \sum_{q\in +}u_qH^k_{pq}=0\,.$$
We can now understand how the polarized scattering equations restrict to the correct MHV sector for a given configuration of particle helicities. To see this, we need to show that if the split in into $-$ and $+$ does not line up with the helicities of the respective particles, the contribution to the amplitude vanishes. But since the integrand is always formulated for the correct MHV sector due to our discussion above, this is just the familiar result of Ref. [@Zhang:2016rzb] that the reduced determinant vanishes when evaluated on scattering equations refined to a different sector.
#### Measure.
To obtain the correct measure on reduction to 4d, we have to include the appropriate delta-function restricting the kinematics to 4d. A convenient choice is $$\Pi_{4d}:=\int \prod_{i=1}^n {\, \mathrm{d}}k_{i,12}{\, \mathrm{d}}k_{i,34} \!\!\prod_{\substack{j,l=1\\j\neq 1,\,l\neq n}}^{n}\hspace{-7pt}\delta\left(k_{j,12}\right)\,\delta\left(k_{l,34}\right)\,,$$ since it reproduces the reduction to $\kappa$ given in . Note that although we integrate over all $n$ momenta, only $n-1$ delta-functions are included, the remaining constraints follow from momentum conservation.
It follows from general considerations that we should have
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:red_measure_4d}
d\mu_{n,k}^{4d}
\;\prod_{i,p}\epsilon_i\tilde \epsilon_p
=\det{}'H^k\;\Pi_{4d}\;d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}
$$
so that $d\mu_n^{4d}$ gives $\det{}'H^k$ as Jacobian relative to the $d\mu^{\mathrm{pol}}=d\mu^{\mathrm{CHY}}$ on the solutions refined to the given MHV sector. In particular $\det{}'H^k$ vanishes on the other MHV sectors.
The general considerations arise from comparing the CHY gauge and gravity formulae of to the corresponding 4d ambitwistor string formulae of . The first step to notice is that the the gauge theory formulae of and are identified if we have $$d\mu_{n,k}^{4d}={\mathrm{Pf}}'(M)d\mu_n^{\mathrm{CHY}}.$$ Then the fact that the gauge and gravity formulae for CHY are related by exchanging the Parke-Taylor factor for ${\mathrm{Pf}}'(M)$, whereas for the 4d ambitwistor-string one exchanges the Parke-Taylor for $\det{}'H^k$ suggests that in the $k$th MHV sector $${\mathrm{Pf}}'(M)=\det{}'H^k.$$ This was shown explicitly in [@Zhang:2016rzb; @Roehrig:2017wvh]. Finally recall that the measure $d\mu^{\mathrm{pol}}_n$ was shown to be equivalent to the CHY measure in §\[sec:reltoCHYmeasure\] and putting this together suggests the lemma. We now prove this explicitly, albeit via 6d.
[ [**Proof:**]{} ]{}We have seen above that the 6d polarized scattering equations reduce to the 4d version and so have the correct support restricted to the given MHV sector. To calculate the Jacobian, consider a fixed MHV sector, corresponding to the solutions to the polarized scattering equations. We first fix part of the SL$(2,\mathbb{C})_u$ invariance by setting $u_{1\,1}=u_{n\,0}=0$ for $1\in -$ and $n\in +$, giving a contribution to the Jacobian of $u_1u_n$. Similarly, we use the corresponding scattering equations $\mathcal{E}_{1\,1}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{n}{}^{\dot 0}$ to solve for $k_{n,12}$ and $k_{n,34}$, introducing a Jacobian of $\epsilon_{1\,0}\tilde\epsilon_n^{\dot 1}$. We used to solve the polarized scattering equations that dont survive in the 4d measure or framework
\[eq:SE\_to\_solve\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{E}_{i\alpha} :=
\sum_{j\in -}\frac{{\langle}u_iu_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}} \epsilon_{j\alpha}
- v_{i\,1}\kappa_{i\alpha}=0\,,\\
&\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_p^{\dot\alpha}\,:=
\sum_{q\in +}\frac{{\langle}u_pu_q{\rangle}}{\sigma_{pq}} \tilde \epsilon_{q\dot\alpha} \;
- v_{p\,0}\tilde\kappa_p^{\dot\alpha}=0\,,
\end{aligned}$$
for the variables $u_{i\,1}$, $u_{p\,0}$, $v_{i\,1}$ and $v_{p\,0}$ (using the normalization conditions to fix the other components of $v$). This gives a further Jacobian that we denote $J_{\mathrm{pol}}$ so that we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{4d}\;d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}} =
\int d\mu_{n,k}^{4d}\;J_{\mathrm{pol}}\,u_1 u_n\,\epsilon_{1\,0}\,\tilde\epsilon_n^{\dot 1}\prod_{i=1}^n u_i\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the extra factor of $\prod_{i=1}^n u_i$ cancels its inverse explicitly in the definition of the measure $d\mu_n^{4d}$. The Jacobian matrix whose determinant $J_{\mathrm{pol}}$ arises from solving the polarized scattering equations has a block-diagonal form due to $$\frac{ \partial \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_p^{\dot\alpha}}{\partial v_{i\,1}} = \frac{ \partial \tilde{\mathcal{E}}_p^{\dot\alpha}}{\partial u_{i\,1}} = 0\,,\qquad \frac{ \partial \mathcal{E}_{i\alpha}}{\partial v_{p\,0}} = \frac{ \partial \mathcal{E}_{i\alpha}}{\partial u_{p\,0}} = 0\,,$$ on the solutions , so we have $J_{\mathrm{pol}}=J^-J^+$, with $J^-$ and $J^+$ the determinants of the respective block matrices. On the solutions , the entries of the matrix with determinant $J^-$ are given by $$\label{eq:dE/dv-}
\frac{ \partial \mathcal{E}_{i\alpha}}{\partial v_{j\,1}} = -\delta_{ij}\kappa_{i\alpha}\,,\qquad \frac{ \partial \mathcal{E}_{i\alpha}}{\partial u_{j\,1}} = \begin{cases}-u_i\frac{\epsilon_{j\alpha}}{\sigma_{ij}}\,,\qquad i\neq j \\
\sum_{k\in -, k\neq i} u_k \frac{\epsilon_{k\alpha}}{\sigma_{ik}} \,, \quad i=j.\end{cases}$$ The Jacobian $J^-$ is the determinant of this $(2k-1)\times (2k-1)$ matrix (as we have already dealt with $u_{11}$). To simplify this, introduce the index notation $\mathcal{E}^-_{2i-1} \equiv \mathcal{E}_{i,\alpha=0}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{2i}^-\equiv \mathcal{E}_{i,\alpha=1}$ so that the Jacobian $J^-$ is given by $$J^- = \varepsilon^{a_1\dots a_{2k-1}}\frac{\partial \mathcal{E}^-_{a_1}}{\partial v_{1\,1}}\dots \frac{\partial \mathcal{E}^-_{a_k}}{\partial v_{k\,1}}\frac{\partial \mathcal{E}^-_{a_{k+1}}}{\partial u_{2\,1}}\dots \frac{\partial \mathcal{E}^-_{a_{2k-1}}}{\partial u_{k\,1}}$$ The first equation in gives $
\frac{\partial \mathcal{E}^-_{a}}{\partial v_{i\,1}} = \delta^{2i-1}_{a}\kappa_{i\,0} +\delta^{2i}_{a}\kappa_{i\,1}
$ so monomials in the expansion of the determinant with ${\partial}{\mathcal{E}}_{2i-1}/{\partial}v_{i1}$ must multiply some ${\partial}{\mathcal{E}}_{2i}/{\partial}u_{i 1}$ and similarly ${\partial}{\mathcal{E}}_{2i}/{\partial}v_{i1}$ must multiply some ${\partial}{\mathcal{E}}_{2i-1}/{\partial}u_{i 1}$ with the opposite sign leading to a contraction on the spinor index. Thus the sum collapses to one over half the indices, and after some re-ordering of the terms and relabelling of the indices, we find $$J^-=\kappa_{10}\;\varepsilon^{i_2 \dots i_{k-1}}\left(\kappa_{i_2}^{\alpha_2} \frac{\partial\mathcal{E}_{i_2\alpha_2}}{\partial u_{2\,1}} \right)\dots \left(\kappa_{i_k}^{\alpha_k} \frac{\partial\mathcal{E}_{i_k\alpha_k}}{\partial u_{k\,1}} \right) = \kappa_{10}\prod_{\substack{i\in -\\i\neq 1}}\frac{u_i}{\epsilon_i}\;\det\,H_-^{k\, [1]} =u_1\,\epsilon_{10}\prod_{i\in -} \frac{u_i}{\epsilon_i}
\;\det{}'H^k_-\,.$$ In the second equality, we have used to see that contraction into the respective $\kappa_i$ reproduces the entries of $H_-$, and the last equality holds due to the reduction relations for the reduced determinant. Similarly, $$J^+= \frac{u_n\,\tilde\epsilon_{n}{}^{\dot 1}\prod_{q\in +} u_q}{\prod_{p\in +} \tilde\epsilon_p}\;\det{}'H_+\,.$$ The extra factors $\epsilon_{1\,0}\tilde\epsilon_n^{\dot 1}$ thus cancel against the Jacobian from integrating out $k_{1,12}$ and $k_{n,34}$, the factors of $u$ cancel against the measure and partial gauge fixing, and we indeed are left with .$\Box$
As a corollary we briefly mention that for momenta in four dimensions, the $(n-3)!$ solutions to the scattering equations can be refined by MHV degree $k$ with Eulerian number[^14] $A( n-3,k-2)$ in the $k$th sector [@Cachazo:2012da; @Roiban:2004yf]. The above relation between measures gives
The 4d measure $d\mu^{4d}_{n,k}$ is supported on the $A( n-3,k-2)$ solutions to the scattering equations in the $k$th sector.
[ [**Proof:**]{} ]{}This follows from the fact that $\det{}'H^k$ is supported on the $k$th sector. To see this, define the matrices $H^\pm$ by $$H^+_{ij}=\frac{{\langle}\epsilon_i\epsilon_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}\, , \qquad H^-_{ij}=\frac{[ \epsilon_i\epsilon_j]}{\sigma_{ij}} \, , \qquad i\neq j\, , \qquad H_{ii}^\pm=e_i\cdot P(\sigma_i)\, .$$ On the one hand, minors of these appear as the blocks in $H^k$. On the other hand, as explained in [@Geyer:2016nsh], these are gauge fixed versions of the $n\times n$ matrices appearing in the Cachazo-Skinner gravity twistor-string-like formulae [@Cachazo:2012pz; @Cachazo:2012kg]. In those papers it is shown that at degree $k-1$ in the twistor-string, appropriate to MHV degree $k-2$, these matrices have ranks $k-1$ and $n-k-1$ respectively. Thus $\det{}'H^k$ will vanish because one or other block will have insufficient rank when restricted to the inappropriate MHV sector. $\Box$
#### Supersymmetry.
The reduction of the supersymmetry generators $Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}I}$ and $\tilde Q_{\dot I}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ on the solutions in 4d give $$\begin{aligned}
- \text{ helicity}: && Q_{\alpha }^I = \epsilon_\alpha \,\frac{\partial}{\partial q_I}\,,&& Q^{\dot\alpha}_I = \frac1{\epsilon}\tilde\kappa^{\dot\alpha}q_I\,, \qquad\tilde Q_{\alpha }^{\dot I} = \epsilon_\alpha\,\frac{\partial}{\partial \tilde q_{\dot I}} \,,&& \tilde Q^{\dot\alpha}_{\dot I} = \frac1{\epsilon}\tilde\kappa^{\dot\alpha}\tilde q_{\dot I}\,,
\end{aligned}$$ for negative helicity particles. where we have raised the Sp$(N)$ R-symmetry indices with the symplectic metric $\Omega$, i.e. $Q_{\alpha I}=\Omega_{IJ}Q_{\alpha }^J$ and $\tilde Q_{\alpha \dot I}=\Omega_{\dot I\dot J}Q_{\alpha }^{\dot J}$. Similarly, for positive helicity, $$\begin{aligned}
+ \text{ helicity}: && Q_{\alpha}^I =\frac1{\tilde\epsilon} \kappa_\alpha q^I \,,&& Q^{\dot\alpha}_I = \tilde\epsilon^{\dot\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial q^I}\,, \qquad\tilde Q_{\alpha}^{\dot I} = \frac1{\tilde\epsilon}\kappa_\alpha \tilde q^{\dot I} \,,&& \tilde Q^{\dot\alpha}_{\dot I} = \tilde\epsilon^{\dot\alpha}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial \tilde q^{\dot I}}\,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $q^I=\Omega^{IJ}q_J$ etc. The index placement is chosen to manifest the embedding of Sp$(N)\times\mathrm{Sp}(\tilde{N})$ into the bigger 4d SU$(\mathcal{N})$ R-symmetry group. We can make this explicit by introducing $q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}= (q_I,\tilde q_{\dot I})$ and $\tilde q^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}= (q^I,\tilde q^{\dot I})$, where $\mathcal{I}=1,\dots,\mathcal{N}=N+\tilde N$ is the SU$(\mathcal{N})$ R-symmetry index in 4d. The supersymmetry generators then become
\[eq:susy-gens-4d\] $$\begin{aligned}
- \text{ helicity}: &&Q_{\alpha }^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}= \epsilon_\alpha\frac{\partial}{\partial q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}} \,,&& Q^{\dot\alpha}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}} = \frac1{\epsilon}\tilde\kappa^{\dot\alpha} q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}} \,, \\
+\text{ helicity}: &&Q_{\alpha}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}= \frac1{\tilde\epsilon}\kappa_\alpha \tilde q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}\,,&& Q^{\dot\alpha}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}} = \tilde\epsilon^{\dot\alpha}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tilde q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}}\,,
\end{aligned}$$
and the supersymmetry multiplet takes the familiar form ,
$$\begin{aligned}
&\Phi_- = A^{--} + q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}\psi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}_- +\hspace{23pt} q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{J}$}}}}\phi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{J}$}}}}+(q^3)^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}\psi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}^++q^4 A^{++}\,,\\
& \Phi_+ = A^{++} + \tilde q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}\psi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}^+ + \varepsilon_{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{IJKL}$}}\tilde q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}\tilde q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{J}$}}}}\phi^{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{KL}$}}+(\tilde q^3)_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}\psi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}_-+\tilde q^4 A^{--}\,.
\end{aligned}$$
Here $q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}$ and $\tilde q^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}$ are conjugate supermomenta, related by a fermionic Fourier transform and $\epsilon\leftrightarrow \tilde\epsilon^{-1}$.
When implementing this reduction in the amplitude, only terms containing one particle of each helicity survive in the exponential supersymmetry factors due to the form of the solutions to the 4d scattering equations, $$F_N +\tilde F_{\tilde N}\Big|_{4d} = \sum_{\substack{i\in -\\ p\in +}}\frac{ u_i u_p}{\sigma_{ip}}q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}}\,q_p^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{I}$}}}=:F_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{N}$}}}}^k\,.$$ In particular, all local terms of the form ${\langle}\xi_i v_i{\rangle}q_i^2$ vanish due to $\xi_i^a =v_i^a$. As reviewed in \[sec:intro-4d\], this is one of the standard supersymmetry representations in 4d, sometimes referred to as the link representation [@He:2012er].
Combining the above results, we find that the 6d amplitudes for super Yang-Mills and supergravity reduce correctly to the 4d amplitudes . The reduced determinant in the numerator cancels against the Jacobian from the measure, and we have $$\mathcal{A}_n\Big|_{4d} = \Pi_{4d}\;\int d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}} \;\det{}'H \,\mathcal{I}_n^{\mathrm{h}}\;e^{F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$N$}}}+\tilde F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\tilde N$}}}}=\sum_k\int d\mu_{n,k}^{4d} \;\,\prod_{i,p} \epsilon_i\tilde \epsilon_p\;\mathcal{I}_n^{\mathrm{h}}\;e^{F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathcal{N}$}}}}=\mathcal{A}_n^{4d}\,,$$ with $\mathcal{I}_n^{\mathrm{h}} = \mathrm{PT}(\alpha)$ for super-Yang-Mills, $\mathcal{I}_n^{\mathrm{h}} =\det{}'H$ for supergravity, and $\mathcal{I}_n^{\mathrm{h}} =\det{}'A$ for Born-Infeld.
Super-BCFW in 6d {#sec:BCFW}
================
In this section, we give a proof of the gravity and Yang-Mills formulae using BCFW recursion [@Britto:2004ap; @Britto:2005fq], c.f. \[thm:BCFW\]. This is a powerful on-shell tool that has been used to prove a variety of explicit amplitude representations. This technique has two main ingredients. The first is to introduce a deformation of the formula for the amplitude depending on a complex parameter $z$, and to use complex analysis to reconstruct the amplitude in terms of its residues at poles in $z$. The second key ingredient in the argument is the factorization property of amplitudes. We know from the Feynman diagram representation of amplitudes that they are multilinear in the polarization vectors and rational in the momenta. The only poles arise from propagators, so that they can only arise along *factorization channels*, where partial sums of the momenta go on shell. At tree-level, factorization is the statement that the residues at such poles are tree amplitudes on each side of the propagator. This then allows us to identify the residues in $z$ in terms of lower point amplitudes, setting up the recursion. In the following we give more details of the generalities of this argument. In §\[sec:BCFW-shift\] we introduce the complex shift adapted to our formulae. In §\[sec:factorization\] we prove that our formulae factorize correctly; this includes also our brane formulae giving a key check on these also. In §\[sec:bdy\] we show that there is no pole as the deformation parameter is taken to infinity in our formulae, completing the BCFW recursion proof of our supersymmetric gauge and gravity formulae .
BCFW shifts are generally based on the following one-parameter deformation of the external momenta, $$\label{eq:BCFW_shift_momenta_vector}
\hat k_{1\mu}=k_{1\mu}+z\,q_{\mu}\,,\qquad
\hat{k}_{n\mu}=k_{n\mu}-z\,q_{\mu}\,,$$ with $q^2=q\cdot k_1=q\cdot k_n=0$. Cauchy’s theorem applied to ${\mathcal{A}}/z$ then gives an equality between the original undeformed amplitude at $z=0$ and the sum over all other residues at the possible factorisation channels of the amplitude and at $\infty$. If $$\label{eq:bdy_BCFW}
\lim_{z\rightarrow \infty}\mathcal{A}(z)=0\,,$$ we say that there are no boundary terms at $z=\infty$. The residue theorem then expresses the amplitude at $z=0$ as a sum over products of lower point amplitudes $\mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}+1}$ arising at and $\mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}+1}$, with $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}+1$ and $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}+1=(n-n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})+1$ particles respectively, but at shifted values of $z$ $$\label{eq:BCFW}
\mathcal{A}_n = \sum_{L,R}\mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}+1}\left(z_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\right)\, \frac{1}{k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^2}\,\mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}+1}\left(z_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\right)\,.$$ The sum runs over partitions of the $n$ particles into two sets $L$ and $R$, with one of the deformed momenta in each subset, $1\in L$ and $n\in R$. In the propagator, $k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}=\sum_{i\in L}k_i$ denotes the (undeformed, off-shell) momentum, whereas the amplitudes are evaluated on the on-shell deformed momentum $\hat k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}=\sum_{i\in L}k_i+ z_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,q$ with $z_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}=-k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^2 / 2q\cdot k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$. See also \[fig:BCFW\] for a diagrammatic represenation of the recursion. For particles transforming in non-trivial representations of the little group, the BCFW shift has to be extended to the polarization vectors as well [@ArkaniHamed:2008yf], and the boundary terms vanish if the shift vector $q_\mu$ is chosen to align with the polarization vector of one of the shifted particles, $q_\mu = e_{1\,\mu}$. In this case the sum over partitions in the BCFW recursion relation also includes a sum over a complete set of propagating states, labeled for example by their polarization data for gluons or gravitons.
The recursion has been a useful tool to prove novel amplitude representations. In particular, it guarantees that any expression satisfying factorization[^15] and the boundary condition is a representation of the amplitude. In §\[sec:BCFW-shift\] we adapt the shift to our formulae, in §\[sec:factorization\], we show that our amplitudes factorize correctly, and in §\[sec:bdy\] we verify that our boundary terms vanish.
The BCFW shift for 6d spinors {#sec:BCFW-shift}
-----------------------------
The higher dimensional BCFW-shifts discussed in the literature (e.g. [@ArkaniHamed:2008yf; @Cheung:2009dc; @Boels:2012ie]) are ambidextrous, and this makes it difficult to verify that the boundary terms vanish. We need to adapt to the spinor-helicity formalism in 6d. Such shifts were introduced in Ref. [@Cheung:2009dc], but, as discussed in appendix \[sec:BCFW\_Cliff+Donal\], this does not sit naturally within the framework of the chiral scattering equations. We therefore introduce a novel BCFW shift to start the recursion in the 6d spinor-helicity formalism. Our shift vector $q_\mu$ does not coincide with the polarization vector $e_{1\,\mu}$, but is instead related to the chiral polarization data of both shifted particles $1$ and $n$.
#### Fundamental spinors.
We choose instead the following chiral BCFW shift, dependent on the (chiral) polarization data of the shifted particles: $$\label{eq:BCFW_shift}
\hat{\kappa}_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a=\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a+ z\, \epsilon_1^a\, \epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,,\qquad
\hat{\kappa}_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a=\kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a+ z \,\epsilon_n^a\,\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,.$$ This shift evidently leaves the polarization spinors $\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ invariant, but shifts the spinors $\langle v_1\kappa_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\rangle$ and $\langle v_n\kappa_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\rangle$ featuring in the polarized scattering equations by a term proportional to the polarization spinor of the other particle,
$$\begin{aligned}
& \left\langle v_1\hat\kappa_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle= \left\langle v_1\kappa_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle + z \epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,,
&&\hat{ \epsilon}_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}=\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,, \\
& \left\langle v_n\hat\kappa_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle=\left\langle v_n\kappa_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} \right\rangle+ z \epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,,
&&\hat{ \epsilon}_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}=\epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,.
\end{aligned}$$
The invariance of the polarization spinors $\epsilon_{1,n}$ ensures that the shift is well-defined, in the sense that the ‘shift-spinors’ $\delta\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\equiv \epsilon_1^a\, \epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ and $\delta\kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\equiv \epsilon_n^a\, \epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ are themselves unaffected. This mirrors the usual BCFW shift, where the vector $q_\mu$ does *not* transform. It is easily seen that the spinorial deformation is indeed a valid vectorial BCFW shift . However, in contrast to the usual construction the shift vector $q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$ is composed of the polarization spinors of *both* particles 1 and $n$, $$\label{eq:BCFW_shift_q}
q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}= 2\epsilon_{n\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}\,.$$ It is clear that the shift preserves momentum conservation from the vector representation , and it preserves Maxwell’s equations by construction. Since the shift vector $q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$ is constructed from the polarization spinors of both particles, it is not only orthogonal to the momenta of the shifted particles, $q^2=q\cdot k_1=q\cdot k_n=0$, but also to their polarization vectors $e_{1}$ and $e_n$, $q\cdot e_1=q\cdot e_n=0$. We will verify in §\[sec:bdy\] that this defines a ‘good’ BCFW shift, in the sense that the boundary terms vanish for Yang-Mills theory and gravity. We discuss the comparison with shifts of other authors in \[sec:BCFW\_Cliff+Donal\].
#### Anti-fundamental spinors.
We will see that the chiral BCFW shift ties in well with the polarized scattering equations. However, for ambidextrous theories such as super Yang-Mills or supergravity however, the shift for spinors in the anti-fundamental representation plays an equally important role. The anti-fundamental shift $$\label{eq:BCFW_shift_momenta_antichiral}
\hat k_{1}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=k_{1}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}+z\,q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\,,\qquad
\hat{k}_{n}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=k_{n}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}-z\,q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\,,$$ is of course related to the chiral one via $q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}= \varepsilon^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}} q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}$, but this does not fully determine the shift of the anti-chiral spinors $\hat\kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}$. We will use this freedom to choose a BCFW shift where both deformations $\delta\kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{1\dot a}$ and $\delta\kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{n\dot a}$ are proportional to the *same* spinor $\tilde\epsilon^A$, [^16]
\[eq:BCFW\_antichiral\] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat\kappa_{1}{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a} & = \kappa_{1}{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}-z\,\tilde \epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\left(\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\kappa_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{\dot a}\right)\,,\\
\hat\kappa_{n}{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a} & = \kappa_{n}{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}-z\,\tilde \epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\left(\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\kappa_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{\dot a}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$
The spinor $\tilde\epsilon^A$ is constructed such that it is a valid choice for $\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_1= \tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ and $\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_n= \tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$, $$\label{eq:def_tilde_epsilon_anti_v1}
\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=\epsilon_{1\,a} \kappa_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}\,\left(\kappa_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{\dot a}\,\kappa_1{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}^a\right)^{-1}+
\epsilon_{n\,a} \kappa_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}\,\left(\kappa_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{\dot a}\,\kappa_n{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}^a\right)^{-1}\,.$$ The first term corresponds to the canonical choice for $\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_1$, constructed in complete analogy to , where we have chosen the reference spinor $\kappa_{*}=\kappa_{n}$. The second term is similarly the canonical choice for $\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_n$ with reference spinor $\kappa_{*}=\kappa_{1}$. Due to this choice of reference spinor, the second term is proportional to $\kappa_{1\,\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$, and is thus pure gauge for particle 1. An analogous argument shows that the first term is pure gauge for particle $n$. Thus we can choose $\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_1= \tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ and $\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_n= \tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$, and we have the useful relations $$\label{eq:useful_rel_tilde_epsilon}
\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\,\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a=\epsilon_1^a\,,\qquad \tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\,\kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a=\epsilon_n^a\,.$$ The anti-fundamental BCFW deformation then leads to the standard shift for the momenta, but where the shift vector $q$ is again determined by the chiral polarization spinors of both shifted particles, $$q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=2\tilde\epsilon^{[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}k_1^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}
=-2\tilde\epsilon^{[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}k_n^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\,.$$ The latter equality follows from the definition of $\tilde \epsilon^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ and the relations .[^17] Using the same identities, it is also readily verified that $q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$ indeed satisfies $q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\varepsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}=q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$D$}}}}$ as claimed above.\
While not manifest in , the ‘shift-spinors’ (defined by $\hat\kappa_{1,n} {}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}=\kappa_{1,n} {}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}+\delta\kappa_{1,n} {}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}$) $$\delta\kappa_{1} {}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}=-\tilde \epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\left(\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\kappa_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{\dot a}\right)\qquad \text{and}\qquad \delta\kappa_{n} {}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}=-\tilde \epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\left(\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\kappa_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{\dot a}\right)\,,$$ are themselves invariant under the BCFW deformation. To see this, let us focus on $\delta\kappa_{1} {}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}$, and recall that $\epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$ is unaffected by the shift. Then $\left(\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\kappa_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{\dot a}\right)$ does not transform because $\tilde \epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ is orthogonal to $\epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ as we have seen in , so the only deformation can come from $\tilde \epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ itself. To see how $\tilde \epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ behaves under BCFW, it is useful to rewrite its definition as $$\label{eq:def_tilde_epsilon_v2}
\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=-\frac{1}{k_1\cdot k_n}\left(k_n^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}+k_1^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\right)\,.$$ In this form, the relations are manifest, and it is clear that it transforms at most linearly in $z$ because the denominator is invariant due to $q\cdot k_1=q\cdot k_n=0$. However, neither of the polarization spinors $\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$ and $\epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$ transform, and $$q^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}} = \tilde\epsilon^{[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}k_1^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=0\,.$$ Therefore $ \tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ as well as the shift-spinors $\delta\kappa_{1} {}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}$ and $\delta\kappa_{n} {}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}$ are invariant under the BCFW deformation, and the shift is well-defined.\
#### Shifting the supermomenta.
In the R-symmetry preserving supersymmetry representation, the supershift is *not* implemented via a linear shift in the fermionic variables, but rather by a multiplicative exponential factor $$\label{eq:shift-ferm-fact}
\mathcal{I}_n\rightarrow\hat{\mathcal{I}}_n\,\exp\left(-z\,q_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\right)\,.$$ This is clearly the fermionic Fourier transform of the standard linear super-BCFW shift in the little-group preserving representation, see e.g. Ref. [@Boels:2012ie]. As expected, the Fourier Transform interchanges linear shifts of the variables in $z$ with a multiplication by an exponential factor.
To see this explicitly, consider the amplitude in the little-group preserving representation of \[eq:ampl\_susy\], obtained from the R-symmetry representation via a fermionic half-Fourier transform as discussed in \[sec:susy-factor\], $$\int \prod_{i=1}^n d^Nq_i^l \; \prod_je^{-q_j^l\eta_{\xi l}}\;e^{F_N}\Bigg|_{q_l=\eta_{\epsilon l}}=\prod_{i}\delta^{0|N}\left( \sum_{j}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}{\langle}\epsilon_j \eta_{j}^l{\rangle}-{\langle}v_i\eta_{i}^l{\rangle}\right)\,.$$ On the right, we have grouped the fermionic variables into a little-group spinor $\eta_a^l$, with $\eta_{i \epsilon }^l = {\langle}\epsilon_i \eta_i^l{\rangle}$ and $\eta_{\xi i}^l = {\langle}\xi_i \eta_i^l{\rangle}$. In this representation, the fermionic BCFW-shift mirrors the shift in the chiral spinors, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:shift_eta}
\hat{\eta}_1^{la}&= \eta_1^{la} +z\,\epsilon_1^a {\langle}\epsilon_n \eta_n^l{\rangle}&
\hat{\eta}_n^{la}&= \eta_n^{la} +z\,\epsilon_n^a {\langle}\epsilon_1 \eta_1^l{\rangle}$$ Our discussion from the polarized scattering equations is then directly applicable to the fermionic case: only ${\langle}v_{1,n}\hat\eta_{1,n}{\rangle}$ are shifted, while ${\langle}\epsilon_{1,n}\hat\eta_{1,n}{\rangle}$ remain invariant. In particular, all $z$-dependence resides in the delta-functions $$\delta^{0|N}\left( \sum_{j}\frac{{\langle}u_1u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{1j}}{\langle}\epsilon_j \eta_{j}^l{\rangle}-{\langle}v_1\eta_{1}^l{\rangle}-z {\langle}\epsilon_n\eta_{n}^l{\rangle}\right)\;\delta^{0|N}\left( \sum_{j}\frac{{\langle}u_n u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{nj}}{\langle}\epsilon_j \eta_{j}^l{\rangle}-{\langle}v_n\eta_{n}^l{\rangle}-z {\langle}\epsilon_1\eta_{1}^l{\rangle}\right)$$ We can then transform back to the R-symmetry preserving representation, where the $z$-dependent terms combine to give the exponential of , while the other terms give back the usual supersymmetry factor $e^F$. [^18] We thus conclude that the BCFW shift amounts to the insertion of an exponential factor $\exp\left(-z\,q_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\right)$ in the integrand of the exponential supersymmetry representation. Due to the chiral nature of the spinorial shift, it is only necessary to shift the chiral supermomenta, so *no* corresponding factor $\exp\big(-z\,\tilde q_{1\dot {{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\tilde q_{n\dot {{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\tilde \Omega^{\dot {{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\dot {{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\big)$ appears in the integrand.
#### Reduction to 4d.
Under dimensional reduction, the 6d shift reduces to the well-known BCFW shift in four dimensions. To see this, consider the case where the particles $1$ and $n$ have negative and positive helicity respectively. In the conventions of \[sec:4d-massless\], this can be embedded into 6d via $$\begin{aligned}
& \epsilon_{1a}=(0,\epsilon_1)\,, &&\epsilon_{na}=(\tilde{\epsilon}_n,0)\,.
$$ The six-dimensional shift for fundamental spinors then reduces straightforwardly to the usual BCFW shift in four dimensions, $$\begin{aligned}
&\hat\kappa_{1\,A}^a=
\begin{pmatrix}0 & \tilde \kappa_{1}^{\dot \alpha} \\ \kappa_{1\alpha} & 0\end{pmatrix}+ z \epsilon_1\tilde{\epsilon}_n \begin{pmatrix}0 & \tilde{\kappa}_{n}^{\dot\alpha} \\ 0& 0\end{pmatrix}\,,
& \hat\kappa_{n\,A}^a=
\begin{pmatrix}0 & \tilde \kappa_{n}^{\dot \alpha} \\ \kappa_{n\alpha} & 0\end{pmatrix}-z\epsilon_1\tilde{\epsilon}_n\begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 \\ \kappa_{1\alpha} & 0\end{pmatrix}\,,\end{aligned}$$ up to the manifest scale $\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_n$ in the polarization data, which could be absorbed into $z$. The shift vector $q_{\alpha\dot\alpha}=\epsilon_{1\alpha}\tilde\epsilon_{n\dot \alpha}$ again agrees with the usual choice up to the polarization-dependent scale $\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_n$. Proving that the shift of the anti-fundamental spinors gives the same results is a little more involved due to $\delta\kappa_{1,n}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\sim\tilde \epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ (rather than $\delta\kappa_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\sim\tilde\epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ and $\delta\kappa_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\sim\tilde\epsilon_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ respectively). Using the definition for $\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$, we find $$\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}= \left(+\frac{\tilde \epsilon_n\,\kappa_1^\alpha}{{\langle}1n {\rangle}},\;\;-\frac{\epsilon_1\,\tilde \kappa_{n\dot\alpha}}{\left[ 1n \right]}\right)^T\,,\qquad
\epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}= \left(0,\;\,-\tilde\epsilon_n\,\left[1n\right]\right)\,, \qquad
\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\kappa_{n\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}= \left(\epsilon_a\,{\langle}1n{\rangle},\;\,-0\right)\,.$$ Inserting this into then leads to the following shift for the anti-fundamental spinors; $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:4d-BCFW-shift}
&\hat\kappa_{1\,\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}= \begin{pmatrix} \kappa_1^\alpha & 0\\ 0 & -\tilde\kappa_{1\dot\alpha}\end{pmatrix}
+z\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_n \begin{pmatrix}0 & \frac{\tilde\epsilon_n[1n]}{\epsilon_1{\langle}1n{\rangle}}\kappa_1^\alpha \\ 0 & -\tilde \kappa_{n\dot\alpha}\end{pmatrix} \,,&
&\hat \kappa_{1n\,\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}= \begin{pmatrix} \kappa_n^\alpha & 0\\ 0 & -\tilde\kappa_{n\dot\alpha}\end{pmatrix}
-z\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_n \begin{pmatrix}\kappa_1^\alpha & 0 \\ -\frac{\epsilon_1{\langle}1n{\rangle}}{\tilde\epsilon_n[1n]}\tilde \kappa_{n\dot\alpha} &0\end{pmatrix}\,.
\end{aligned}$$ To see that this gives the same four-dimensional shift, note that the off-diagonal entries are proportional to $\kappa_1^\alpha$ and $\tilde\kappa_{n\dot \alpha}$ respectively, so they can be absorbed into a ($z$-dependent) 6d little group transformation of $\kappa_{1\,\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ and $\kappa_{n\,\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$. Moreover, since one of the off-diagonal terms always vanishes, this little group transformation leaves the diagonal entries unaffected, and we get[^19]
$$\begin{aligned}
&\hat\kappa_{1\,\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\simeq U_{\dot a}^{\dot b}\hat\kappa_{1\,\dot b}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}= \begin{pmatrix} \kappa_1^\alpha & 0\\ 0 & -\tilde\kappa_{1\dot\alpha}\end{pmatrix}
+z\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_n \begin{pmatrix}0 & 0 \\ 0 & -\tilde \kappa_{n\dot\alpha}\end{pmatrix} \,,\\
&\hat\kappa_{n\,\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\simeq U_{\dot a}^{\dot b}\hat\kappa_{n\,\dot b}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}= \begin{pmatrix} \kappa_n^\alpha & 0\\ 0 & -\tilde\kappa_{n\dot\alpha}\end{pmatrix}
-z\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_n \begin{pmatrix}\kappa_1^\alpha & 0 \\ 0 &0\end{pmatrix}\,,
\end{aligned}$$
in agreement with our result from the chiral spinors . Above, we have used $\simeq$ to indicate that the relations hold up to a 6d little-group rotation. We emphasize that the need for this additional little-group rotation to bring $\hat\kappa_{1,n}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ into diagonal form was expected from the embedding of 4d kinematics into 6d, see §\[sec:4d-massless\]: even after restricting to 4d massless kinematics, $\kappa^\alpha_{\dot a}$ are only required to be proportional, in general an additional little-group rotation is needed to bring it into the diagonalized form of .
Factorization {#sec:factorization}
-------------
For scattering-equations-based amplitude representations, it is well-known that factorization of the momenta arises from factorization of the of the moduli-space $\mathfrak{M}_{0,n}$ of $n$-points on the Riemann-sphere modulo Mobius transformations [@Dolan:2013isa]. The boundary ${\partial}\mathfrak{M}_{0,n}$ of $\mathfrak{M}_{0,n}$ consists of loci where a collection of points $\sigma_i$ for $i\in L$ come together at a point. This is understood geometrically as a limit where the Riemann surface $\Sigma={\mathbb{CP}}^1$ decomposes into two ${\mathbb{CP}}^1$s, $\Sigma_L$ and $\Sigma_R$ joined at a node, with the $\sigma_i$, $i\in L$ on $\Sigma_L$ and the rest on $\Sigma_R$. We denote by $ \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}_{0,n}$ the Deligne-Mumford compactification of the moduli space of marked Riemann surfaces [@Deligne:1969], obtained by including such nodal surfaces of genus zero, with arbitrarily many components and nodes, but with at least 3 marked points/nodes on each component.
Singularities in the integrand $\mathcal{I}_n$ for any theory only depend on the kinematic data via polynomials. All poles in the formula stem from those in the $\sigma_{ij}$ and ${\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}$ which come from the boundary of the moduli space $\partial \mathfrak{M}_{0,n}^{\mathrm{pol}}$. Here the moduli space $ \mathfrak{M}_{0,n}^{\mathrm{pol}}$ encodes the locations of the punctures $\sigma_i$ as well as the values for $u_i,\,v_i$, modulo the symmetry group $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_\sigma\times\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_u$. However, the additional boundary components in $ \mathfrak{M}_{0,n}^{\mathrm{pol}}$ correspond to spurious singularities involving the polarization data as seen for example in and other formulae in §\[sec:low-point\]. But, for super Yang-Mills and supergravity theories, we have proven linearity of $\det{}'H$ in the polarization data in §\[sec:poldata\]. Thus, all poles of the integrand originate from boundaries of the moduli space of the Riemann sphere $\partial \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}_{0,n}\subset \partial \mathfrak{M}_{0,n}^{\mathrm{pol}}$.
At tree level, $\partial \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}_{0,n}$ is the union of components $\partial_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}} \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}_{0,n}$ that correspond to separating degenerations that split the sphere $\Sigma$ into two components, $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ partitioning the punctures into $L\cup R$, with $R$ the complement of $L$ so $n=n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}+n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, $$\label{eq:dM}
\partial_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}} \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}_{0,n}\simeq \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}_{0,n_L+1}\times\widehat{\mathfrak{M}}_{0,n_R+1}\,.$$ The component $\partial_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}} \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}_{0,n}$ can be parametrized by gluing two Riemann spheres $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ as follows. Choose a marked point on each sphere, $\sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\in \Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ and $x_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\in\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$, and remove the disks $|\sigma-\sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}|<\varepsilon^{1/2}$ and $|x-x_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}|<\varepsilon^{1/2}$, where $\varepsilon$ is the parameter governing the degeneration. Then we can form a single Riemann surface by identifying, $$\label{eq:param_dM}
\left(x-x_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}\right)\left(\sigma-\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\right)=\varepsilon \,.$$ The component $\partial_{L,R} \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}_{0,n}$ corresponds to the limiting case $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$. Often we simplify this degeneration by choosing $x_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}=\infty$, where becomes $$\sigma=\sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}+\varepsilon \tilde x,,\qquad\quad\text{with } \tilde x=x^{-1}\,.$$
Let us briefly review how factorization works in the CHY formalism.
Suppose that the marked points $\sigma_i$ satisfy the scattering equations $$\label{eq:SE_CHY_v2}
\mathcal{E}_i:=\sum_{j\neq i} \frac{k_i\cdot k_j}{\sigma_{ij}}=0\,,$$ then $\{\sigma_i\}\in \partial_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}} \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}_{0,n}$ implies $k_L^2=0$ where $k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}=-\sum_{i\in L}k_i$.
\[lem:CHY-fact\] [ [**Proof:**]{} ]{}This follows by inserting into the following combination of the scattering equations $$\label{eq:SE_null_mom}
0=\sum_{i\in L}\sigma_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\mathcal{E}_i=\sum_{i,j\in L}\tilde x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}\frac{k_i\cdot k_j}{ \tilde x_{ij}}=\frac12\sum_{i,j\in L} k_i\cdot k_j=\frac{1}{4}k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^2\,,$$ where the second equality holds to order $O(\varepsilon)$ as the denominator is $O(1)$ for $j\in R$. $\Box$
Thus, in the degeneration limit $k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ is null, and the propagator goes on-shell. The scattering equations further ensure that the CHY measure $d\mu_n^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{CHY}$}}}}$ mirrors the behaviour of the moduli space at the boundary [@Dolan:2013isa; @Geyer:2015jch], $$d\mu_n^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{CHY}$}}}}=\frac{\varepsilon^{2\left(n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}-1\right)}}{\prod_{i\in L}x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^4}\frac{d\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}\,\delta\left(k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^2 - \varepsilon\mathcal{F}\right)\;d\mu_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{CHY}$}}}}\;d\mu_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{CHY}$}}}}\,.$$ Each ‘half integrand’ $\mathcal{I}_n$ for Yang-Mills theory and gravity – either a Pfaffian or a Parke-Taylor factor – also factorizes into two subamplitudes, linked by a sum over states in the internal propagator, $$\label{eq:fact_int}
\mathcal{I}_n^{\mathrm{h}} = \varepsilon^{-\left(n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}-1\right)}\prod_{i\in L}x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^2\,\;\sum_{\mathrm{states}}\mathcal{I}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\mathrm{h}} \,\mathcal{I}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}^{\mathrm{h}} \,.$$ Combining the measure and the integrand, we see that gravity and Yang-Mills amplitudes in the CHY-representation factorize correctly, in accordance with .
In the rest of this section, we will follow a similar strategy to the one outlined above for the CHY formalism, and first establish the map between the polarized scattering equations and factorization channels. Based on this, we determine how the measure $d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}$ behaves on the boundary of the moduli space. In line with the equivalence between the polarized measure and the CHY measure established in \[sec:reltoCHYmeasure\], we find $$\label{eq:fact_pol-measure}
d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}= \frac{\varepsilon^{2\left(n_L-1\right)}}{\prod_{i\in L}x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^4}\frac{d\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}\,\frac{d^8\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^a}{\mathrm{vol}\,\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})}\;d\mu_{n_L+1}^{\mathrm{pol}}\;d\mu_{n_R+1}^{\mathrm{pol}}\,.$$ The delta-functions $\delta\left(k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^2 - \varepsilon\mathcal{F}\right)$ enforcing that $\varepsilon\sim k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^2\sim k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^2$ are part of the momentum conservation contained in the polarized measure. Finally, we show that the integrands obey , and that the sum over states is encoded in a suitable superspace integral, $$\sum_{\mathrm{states}}\mathcal{I}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\mathrm{h}} \,\mathcal{I}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}^{\mathrm{h}} =\int d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\; \mathcal{I}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\mathrm{h}} \,\mathcal{I}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}^{\mathrm{h}}\;\left({\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}^{N}\,e^{i{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}{\rangle}^{-1} \,q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}}\right)\,.$$ The formulae based on the polarized scattering equations thus factorize as expected for super Yang-Mills and supergravity amplitudes.
### Polarized scattering equations and measure {#sec:fact_SE}
#### Factorisation of the polarized scattering equations.
We wish to find an analogue of lemma \[lem:CHY-fact\] for the factorization properties of the polarized scattering equations. We have
Define $\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a:=\sum_{i\in L}u_i^a\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$. Factorization $\{\sigma_i\}\in \partial_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}} \widehat{\mathfrak{M}}_{0,n}$ and the polarized scattering equations then implies the factorization $$\label{eq:def_epsilon_R_final}
\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a:=\sum_{i\in L}u_i^a\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}=u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,.$$
[ [**Proof:**]{} ]{}We consider the form $$\epsilon_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\mathcal{E}}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}:=\sum_j \frac{\langle u_i u_j\rangle \epsilon_{j[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}]}}{\sigma_{ij}}-k_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=0\, ,\label{polscatt-k1}$$ and by analogy with consider the sum $$\label{eq:def_epsilon_L_deriv}
0=\sum_{i\in L}\sigma_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\epsilon_{i[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\mathcal{E}}_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}=\sum_{i,j\in L} \tilde x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}\frac{\langle u_i u_j\rangle \epsilon_{j[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}]}}{\tilde x_{ij}} =\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j\in L}\langle u_i u_j\rangle \epsilon_{j[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}]}\equiv \left\langle\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}\right\rangle\, .$$ Again, the second equality holds to order $O(\epsilon)$ in the degeneration parameter, and in the last equality, we have introduced the spinor $\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a:=\sum_{i\in L}u_i^a\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$. The relation tells us that $\langle\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]} \rangle=O(\varepsilon)$, so to leading order in $\varepsilon$, $\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a$ factorizes into an SL$(4)$ spinor and a little group spinor, $ \epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a=u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ for some $u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a, \epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ as desired. $\Box$
In the degeneration limit, the original worldsheet spinor $\lambda(\sigma)$ defined as $$\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a(\sigma)=\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{u_i^a\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}}{\sigma-\sigma_i} \,,$$thus induces a spinor $\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})}(\sigma)$ on the sphere $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, with $$\label{eq:def_lambda_R}
\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{}^a(\sigma)=\sum_{p\in R} \frac{u_p^a\epsilon_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}}{\sigma-\sigma_p} + \frac{u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}}{\sigma-\sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}} \,,\qquad\text{where }u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}=\sum_{i\in L}u_i^a\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\, .$$
By an extension of the same argument, $\lambda(\sigma)$ also induces a spinor $\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})}(\sigma)$ on the sphere $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$, which can be seen as follows. Since $\lambda(\sigma)$ is a worldsheet spinor, the combination $\lambda(\sigma)\sqrt{d\sigma}$ is invariant under the inversion $(\sigma-\sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})(x-x_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})=\varepsilon$, $$\lambda_A^a(\sigma)\sqrt{d\sigma}=\lambda_A^a(x)\sqrt{dx} \, ,\qquad\text{with }\,\, \lambda_A^a(x)=\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{w_i^a\,\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}}{x-x_i}\,,$$ where $w_i^a$ denote the little group spinors in the coordinates $x$. The invariance of $\lambda_A^a(\sigma)\sqrt{d\sigma}$ then implies that the $u_i$ transform as worldsheet spinors of the local bundle at the marked point $\sigma_i$, $$\label{eq:uw}
\frac{u_i^a\,\sqrt{d \sigma}}{\sigma-\sigma_i}=\frac{w_i^a\,\sqrt{d x}}{x-x_i}\qquad\text{and thus }\,\, u_i^a=\frac{i\varepsilon^{1/2} }{x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}}w_i^a\, .$$ At this stage, the same reasoning as above ensures that $\lambda(x)$ descends to $\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})}(x)$ on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ with $$\label{eq:def_lambda_L}
\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{}^a(x)= \sum_{i\in L} \frac{w_i^a\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}}{x-x_i} + \frac{w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^a \epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}}{x-x_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}} \, , \qquad \text{where }\,\, w^a_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}=\sum_{p\in R} w_p^a \epsilon_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\, .$$
In the CHY amplitude representation, the relation makes it clear that the scattering equations map the boundary of the moduli space to a factorization channel of the amplitude. To see this from , note that momentum conservation on each subsphere (encoded in the polarized scattering equations) gives $$\label{eq:k_L_in_spinors}
k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=-\sum_{p\in R} k_p{}_{\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\sum_{p\in R}\frac{\left\langle u_pu_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\right\rangle}{\sigma_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}}\epsilon_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}\,,$$ where we have used the form of the polarized scattering equations on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, $$\epsilon_{p[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\mathcal{E}_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})}=\sum_{q\in R}\frac{\left\langle u_pu_q\right\rangle}{\sigma_{pq}}\epsilon_{p[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{q{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}+\frac{\left\langle u_pu_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\right\rangle}{\sigma_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}-k_p{}_{\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=0\,,$$ and the first term does not contribute due to the antisymmetry in the SL$(4)$ spinor index. The relations guarantees that to leading order in the degeneration parameter $\varepsilon$, the internal momentum $k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ is on-shell, $k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^2=O(\varepsilon)$, and the boundary of the moduli space indeed corresponds to a factorization channel of the amplitude. The same reasoning can also be applied to the momentum $k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ on the sphere $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$, $$k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=-\sum_{i\in L} k_i{}_{\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=\sum_{\substack{i\in L\\p\in R}}\frac{\left\langle w_i w_p\right\rangle}{x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}}\epsilon_{p[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}=\sum_{\substack{ i\in L\\p\in R}} \frac{\left\langle u_i u_p\right\rangle}{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}}\epsilon_{p[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}=-k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\,,$$ so $k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ goes on-shell as $\varepsilon\rightarrow 0$ and $k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}=-k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, as expected for a factorization channel. Here, the second identity follows again from the polarized scattering equations on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$, the third from the degeneration relations for $u_p$ and $w_i$, and the last from the definition of $\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ and the relation for $k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$.\
#### The scaling weights in $\varepsilon$.
Before proceeding further, it is helpful to take a closer look at the scaling in the parameter $\varepsilon$ in the degeneration limit $\varepsilon\ll 1$. Near the boundary of the moduli space, a marked point $i$ lies on the sphere $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ if $x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}\sim 1$ is of order one, and similarly a point $p$ lies on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ if $\sigma_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\sim 1$. Using the parametrization of the degeneration, this gives immediately
\[eq:x\_sigma\_OoM\] $$\begin{aligned}
& i\in L: && x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}\sim 1\,, \qquad \sigma_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\sim\varepsilon\,,\\
& p\in R: && x_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}\sim \varepsilon\,, \qquad \sigma_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\sim 1\,.
\end{aligned}$$
As a direct consequence, the separation $x_{ij}\sim 1$ of two marked points $i,j$ that lie on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ is of order one in the degeneration limit (and $\sigma_{pq}\sim 1$ for $p,q$ on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$). Using \[unique\] on the spheres $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, we can also infer the scaling of little-group invariants constructed from $u$’s and $w$’s. implies that there only exist solutions to the polarized scattering equations if all terms in ${\langle}w_i\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(x_i){\rangle}$ and ${\langle}u_p\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(\sigma_p){\rangle}$ remain of order one. For points $i,j\in L$ and $p,q\in R$, this means
$$\begin{aligned}
& i, j\in L: && {\langle}w_i w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}\sim 1\,, \qquad {\langle}w_i w_j {\rangle}\sim 1\,,\\
& p,q\in R: && {\langle}u_p u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}\sim 1 \,, \qquad \,\,{\langle}u_p u_q {\rangle}\sim 1 \,,
\end{aligned}$$
and the order of all other contractions follows from the relation between $u$ and $w$ and .[^20] We can further use the definitions of $u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ and $w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ to derive the order of the remaining spinor brackets: from the dominant balance in ${\langle}u_i u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$, ${\langle}w_p w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$, ${\langle}u_p u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ and ${\langle}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$, we find respectively $$\begin{aligned}
i\in L\,,\;p\in R\,:\qquad\qquad {\left\langle}u_i u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\right\rangle}\sim \varepsilon\,, \qquad
{\left\langle}w_p w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\right\rangle}\sim \varepsilon\,, \qquad {\left\langle}u_i u_p {\right\rangle}\sim 1\,,\qquad {\left\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\right\rangle}\sim \varepsilon^{1/2} \,.
\end{aligned}$$ Summarizing the above discussion, we have seen that both the worldsheet spinor $\lambda(\sigma)\sqrt{d\sigma}$ and the polarized scattering equations descend to the subspheres, with leading terms of order one throughout the degeneration, $$\prod_{i=1}^n \delta^4\left( \mathcal{E}_i\right) = \prod_{i\in L} \delta^4\left( \mathcal{E}_i^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})}\right)\prod_{p\in R} \delta^4\left( \mathcal{E}_p^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})}\right)$$ where the scattering equations on the subspheres $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ are given by the usual construction,
$$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{E}_i^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})}=\left\langle w_{i}\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(x_i) \right\rangle-\left\langle v_i \kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle && i\in L \,,\\
& \mathcal{E}_p^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})}=\left\langle u_{p}\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(\sigma_p) \right\rangle-\left\langle v_p \kappa_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle && p\in R\,.\end{aligned}$$
We stress that in contrast to the CHY formalism, the polarized scattering equations do *not* contribute powers of the degeneration parameter $\varepsilon$ to the measure. As we will see below, the factor of $\epsilon^{2\left(n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}-1\right)-1}$ instead comes entirely from the integration over the variables $(\sigma_i,u_i)$.
#### Factorization of the measure.
Armed with the insights on how the polarized scattering equations behave on the boundary of the moduli space, let us now take a closer look at the measure. The degeneration of the measure $d^{n-3}\sigma$ on the sphere is entirely analogous to the CHY case, but it provides a good introduction and we will review it here for completeness.
For any values of the degeneration parameter, Möbius invariance on the sphere allows us to fix three marked points, two of which we choose to lie on one subsphere in the limit $\varepsilon\ll1$, $\sigma_{p_1},\sigma_{p_2}\in \Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, and one on the other, $x_{i_1}\in \Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$.[^21] At the boundary of the moduli space, we have the further freedom to fix the junction points $\sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, $x_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ of the two spheres, as well as one additional point $\sigma_{i_2}$ on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$. To leading order in $\varepsilon$, the Jacobian $J^{\text{m\"ob}}$ for this gauge fixing becomes the Jacobian $J^{\text{m\"ob}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ for gauging $\{\sigma_{p_1},\sigma_{p_2},\sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\}\subset\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, [^22] $$J^{\text{m\"ob}}=\sigma_{i_1 p_1} \sigma_{p_1 p_2}\sigma_{p_2 i_1}=\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p_1} \sigma_{ p_1 p_2}\sigma_{ p_2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}=J^{\text{m\"ob}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\,.$$ Together with the differentials $\prod_{p\in R}d\sigma_p$, which descend directly to $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, this Jacobian gives the usual Möbius invariant measure on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$. For the punctures $\sigma_i$ with $i\in L$ on the other hand, we find from $$d\sigma_i=-\frac{\varepsilon}{x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^2}\,dx_i\,,\qquad\qquad d\sigma_{i_2}=\frac{x_{i_1 i_2}}{x_{i_1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}x_{ i_2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}}\, d\varepsilon\,.$$ Combining these factors gives both the correct differentials and the Jacobian $J^{\text{m\"ob}}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ for the measure on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ after gauge-fixing $\{x_{i_1},x_{i_2},x_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\}$. Putting this all together, the measure on the moduli space of marked Riemann spheres factorizes as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^n d\sigma_i}{\mathrm{vol} \,\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})}
& = \frac{\varepsilon^{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}-2}d\varepsilon}{\prod_{i\in L}x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^2} \,\, \Bigg(\left(x_{ i_1 i_2}x_{ i_2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}x_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}i_1}\right)\hspace{-8pt}\prod_{\substack{i\in L\\ i\neq i_1, i_2}} dx_i \Bigg)\,\,\Bigg(\left(\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p_1} \sigma_{p_1 p_2}\sigma_{p_2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\right)\hspace{-8pt}\prod_{\substack{p\in R\\ p\neq p_1, p_2}} d\sigma_p\Bigg)\\
&= \frac{\varepsilon^{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}-2}d\varepsilon}{\prod_{i\in L}x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^2}\,\, \frac{dx_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\prod_{i\in L} dx_i}{\mathrm{vol} \,\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}} \,\,\frac{d\sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\prod_{p\in R} d\sigma_p}{\mathrm{vol} \,\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\end{aligned}$$
Consider next the part of the measure dependent on $v$. By the same argument as above, \[unique\] ensures that all $v_i$ for $i=1,\dots,n$ remain of order one throughout the degeneration. The part of the measure involving $v$’s, including the delta-functions encoding the normalization, thus factorize directly into the contributions on each subsphere, $$\label{eq:fact_v}
\prod_{i=1}^n d^2 v_i\,\delta\Big({\langle}v_i\epsilon_i{\rangle}-1\Big)= \prod_{i\in L} d^2 v_i\,\delta\Big({\langle}v_i\epsilon_i{\rangle}-1\Big)\; \prod_{p\in R} d^2v_p\,\delta\Big({\langle}v_p\epsilon_p{\rangle}-1\Big)\,.$$ In contrast to the measure $d^{n-3}\sigma$ for the punctures however, the right hand side of does not yet give the full $v$-dependence of the measure on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, because we are missing the contributions $v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ from the junction points. We will see later how these extra variables are defined and in what form they appear in the amplitude.\
For the $u$-dependent part of the measure, it will again be convenient to first work with a gauge-fixed measure, and restore gauge invariance on each sphere $\Sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}$ after factorization. In the same manner as for the punctures $\sigma_{i}$, we gauge the SL$(2,\mathbb{C})_u$ by fixing two moduli on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ and one on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ (c.f. ) $$u_{p_1 a} = \left(1\,,\;0\right)\,,\qquad {\langle}u_{i_1} u_*{\rangle}=0\,,\qquad\qquad \text{for }p_1\in R\,,\;i_1\in L\,,$$ where $u_*$ is an arbitrarily chosen reference spinor. For convenience, let us also introduce $u_*^\perp$, normalized such that ${\langle}u_* u_*^\perp{\rangle}=1$. The usual Faddeev-Popov procedure gives the Jacobian $
J^u={\left\langle}u_{ i_1} u_{p_1} {\right\rangle}\,{\left\langle}u_{p_1}u_*{\right\rangle}$, and thus the $u$-part of the measure becomes $$\label{eq:measure_u}
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^n d^2u_i}{\mathrm{vol} \,\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_u}=
\frac{\varepsilon^{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}}{\prod_{i\in L}x_{iR}^2} {\left\langle}w_{ i_1} u_{p_1} {\right\rangle}\,{\left\langle}u_{p_1}u_*{\right\rangle}\Biggl(d{\langle}w_{i_1} u_*^\perp{\rangle}\prod_{\substack{i\in L\\ i\neq i_1}}d^2 w_i \Biggr)
\Biggl( \prod_{p\in R}d^2 u_p \Biggr)\,,$$ where we used that the $u_i$ transform as worldsheet spinors of the local bundles at $\sigma_i$, see . As was the case for the marked points $\sigma_i$, this does not fully fix the SL$(2,\mathbb{C})$ gauge on each component sphere at the boundary of the moduli space, and we have the further freedom to fix both of the ‘junction moduli’ $w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ on $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$, as well as one component of $u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\in \Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$. As above, the right side is not yet in a recognizably factorized form, but misses components of the Jacobians for gauge-fixing on the subspheres, as well as the measure for one of the junction moduli $d{\langle}u_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\, u_*^\perp{\rangle}$.
For a full factorization of the measure, we are also still missing the delta-functions enforcing the polarized scattering equations on the junction points, as well as an integral over the internal momentum in the propagator, $d^6k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}=d^8 \kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a / \mathrm{vol}\,\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$. We introduce these, as well as all missing factors discussed above, by inserting a conveniently chosen factor of 1, [^23] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:measure_1=}
1=\varepsilon^{-1} \int \frac{d^8\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}{\mathrm{vol}\, \mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})}\, &d{\langle}u_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\, u_*^\perp{\rangle}\,d^2 v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,d^2v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\,\,\, {\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}{\langle}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\, u_*{\rangle}\,\,\delta\left({\left\langle}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\right\rangle}-1\right)\,\delta\left({\left\langle}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\right\rangle}-1 \right) \\
& \delta^4\left( \left\langle w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(x_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})\right\rangle-\left\langle v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle\right)\,\delta^4\left( \left\langle u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(\sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})\right\rangle-i\left\langle v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle\right)\,.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The spinors $\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ encode the intermediate momentum $k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}=-k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, with [^24] $$k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}={\left\langle}\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}} {\right\rangle}\,, \qquad k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}= -k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}={\langle}(i\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}})(i\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}) {\rangle}=: {\langle}\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}} {\rangle}\,,$$ and the integral fully localizes on the normalization conditions for $v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, as well as the delta-functions enforcing the scattering equations at the node
\[eq:SE\_at\_node\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\langle w_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(x_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}) \right\rangle= \sum_{i\in L} \frac{\left\langle w_i w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\right\rangle}{x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}}\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}={\left\langle}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\right\rangle}\,,\\
& \left\langle u_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(\sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}) \right\rangle = \sum_{p\in R} \frac{\left\langle u_p u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\right\rangle}{\sigma_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}}\epsilon_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}=\left\langle v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle=i{\left\langle}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\right\rangle}\,.\end{aligned}$$
The little group-spinors $\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}^a$ relate $\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a$ to the previously defined are defined objects $\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ and $\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ via $\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}a}\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a=\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ and $\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}a}\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a=\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$. By directly comparing to the definitions and of $\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ and $\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(\sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}){\right\rangle}=-i\varepsilon^{-1/2} \,{\left\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\right\rangle}\epsilon{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,, &&
{\left\langle}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\lambda^{({{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}(x_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}){\right\rangle}=-i\varepsilon^{-1/2} \,{\left\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\right\rangle}\epsilon{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ so that the nodal scattering equations are indeed consistent with our previous definitions. Note that despite the factors of $\varepsilon^{-1/2}$, the right side is of order one due to ${\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}\sim \varepsilon^{1/2}$. The nodal scattering equations thus imply that the variables $(\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})$ and $(\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}},v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})$ are related by $$\label{eq:v_L=e_R}
v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^a =\varepsilon^{-1/2}{\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a\,,\qquad v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a =-\varepsilon^{-1/2}{\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^a\,,$$ and so the integration over $v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ should be understood as an integration over the polarization choices of the particle running through the cut propagator.
We can now combine the elaborate factor of 1 in with the remaining part of the measure as follows. It evidently provides the missing factors for the $v$-dependent part of the measure and the polarized scattering equations to factorize correctly, as well as the missing measure $d{\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}u_*^\perp{\rangle}$ for the $u$-dependent part. Using a Schouten identity and dropping terms of subleading order in $\varepsilon$, we can further combine the factors ${\langle}w_{i_1} u_{p_1} {\rangle}{\langle}u_{p_1} u_*{\rangle}$ from the measure and ${\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}{\langle}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}u_*{\rangle}$ from to give the missing Jacobians for gauge-fixing the $u$’s and $w$’s on $\Sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}$, $${\langle}w_{i_1} w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}{\langle}u_{p_1} u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}{\langle}u_{p_1} u_*{\rangle}{\langle}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}u_*{\rangle}= J^u_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}} J^w_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}} \,.$$ Combining everything, the $u$-part of the measure factorizes with the expected degeneration factor $$\varepsilon^{-1} {\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}{\langle}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}u_*{\rangle}\, d{\langle}u_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}} u_*^\perp{\rangle}\,
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^n d^2u_i}{\mathrm{vol} \,\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_u}
=
\frac{\varepsilon^{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}-1}}{\prod_{i\in L}x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^2}\,\,\frac{d^2 w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\prod_{i\in {{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}d^2w_i}{\mathrm{vol} \,\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_w^{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}} \,\frac{d^2 u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\prod_{p\in R}^n d^2u_p}{\mathrm{vol} \,\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})_u^{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}} \,,$$ and so the polarized measure $d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}$ indeed factorizes as , $$d\mu_n^{\mathrm{pol}}= \frac{\varepsilon^{2\left(n_L-1\right)}}{\prod_{i\in L}x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^4}\frac{d\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}\,\frac{d^8\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^a}{\mathrm{vol}\,\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})}\;d\mu_{n_L+1}^{\mathrm{pol}}\;d\mu_{n_R+1}^{\mathrm{pol}}\,.$$
### Factorization of the integrands {#sec:fact-integrands}
#### Parke-Taylor factors and the reduced determinants.
The Parke-Taylor factors factorize as usual; when all punctures $i\in L$ are consecutive in the colour-ordering $\alpha$, then $$\mathrm{PT}(\alpha) = \varepsilon^{-\left(n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}-1\right)}\prod_{i\in L} x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^2\;\, \mathrm{PT}(\alpha_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}) \mathrm{PT}(\alpha_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})\, ,$$ where $\mathrm{PT}(\alpha_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})$ denotes the Parke-Taylor factor on the $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$, with the ordering $\alpha_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}=\alpha\big|_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\cup {x_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}$. If the marked points $i\in L$ do not appear in a consecutive order in $\alpha$, the pole is of lower order of $\varepsilon$, and there is no factorization in this channel.\
The factorization of the reduced determinant is similarly straightforward. On the boundary of the moduli space, its components are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&H_{ij}=\frac{x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}}{\varepsilon}\frac{\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_j^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{x_{ij}} \,,& &H_{ip}=\frac{\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_p^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}}\,,& H_{pi}=\frac{\epsilon_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_i^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\sigma_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}}\,,& &H_{pq}=\frac{\epsilon_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_q^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\sigma_{pq}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Due to the permutation invariance of the reduced determinant, we can make a convenient choice and remove one row and column from each side, $i_1, i_2\in L$ and $p_1, p_2\in R$, $$\det{}' H = \frac{\det H^{[i_1 p_1]}_{[i_2 p_2]}}{{\langle}u_{i_1} u_{p_1}{\rangle}[\tilde u_{i_2}\tilde u_{p_2}]}=\varepsilon^{-n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}\prod_{i\in L}x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^2\,\,\frac{\det H_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{}^{[i_1 {{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]}_{[i_2 {{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]}\,\det H_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{}^{[p_1 {{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]}_{[p_2 {{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]}}{{\langle}w_{i_1} u_{p_1}{\rangle}[\tilde w_{i_2}\tilde u_{p_2}]}\,.$$ In the last step, we have identified the leading term in $\varepsilon$ as determinants of $H_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $H_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ respectively, with the rows and columns associated to $x_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $\sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ removed. Using the Schouten identity ${\langle}w_{i_1} u_{p_1} {\rangle}{\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}= {\langle}w_{i_1} w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}{\langle}u_{p_1} u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}$ (to leading order in $\varepsilon$), as well as the relations , the reduced determinant becomes $$\label{eq:fact_detH}
\det{}' H =\varepsilon^{-\left(n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}-1\right)}\frac{1}{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}[ \tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]} \, \prod_{i\in L} x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^2 \,\, \det{}'H_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,\det{}'H_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\,.$$ To see that this is the correct factorization behaviour for the bosonic case, let us compare to the sum over states. To implement this sum in our framework, we introduce again a global basis for the little group space of the internal particle. With $\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^a$ and $\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a$ as defined above, it is natural to choose the other basis elements (on each component sphere) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:def_xi_L}
\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^a=\frac{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a}{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}}\,,\qquad\qquad \xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a=\frac{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^a}{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ i.e. we choose the same basis $(\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})$ (up to normalization constants) for both the left and the right component sphere. Consider now the amplitude $A_n:=A_n^{\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_1\dots}$ with all external particles in states at the top of the multiplet.[^25] Then the sum over states reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sum_states_bos_prelim}
\sum_{\mathrm{states}}A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}
&=\varepsilon_{ab} \varepsilon_{\dot a \dot b}\,A^{a\dot a}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1} A^{b\dot b}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}
=\xi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}[a}\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}| b]} \, \tilde \xi_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}[\dot a}\tilde \epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}| \dot b]} \,A^{a\dot a}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1} A^{b\dot b}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1} \\
& = \frac{A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}} A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}^{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}\tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}} }{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}[ \tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]}
+\frac{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}}{[ \tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]} A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}} A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}^{\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}\tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}
+\frac{[ \tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]}{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}} A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\tilde \xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}} A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}^{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}\tilde \xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}
+\frac{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}}{[ \tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]} A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\tilde \xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}} A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}^{\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}\tilde \xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In the second equality, we have used the definition of the little group basis choice for the internal particle, and contracted the polarization data back into the amplitudes. While this does not yet look reminiscent of the factorization property , let us take a closer look at the amplitudes $A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\tilde\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}$ etc., arising from contracting $\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ or $\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ in the respective subamplitudes. Using either the supersymmetry representation or the results of §\[sec:multiplet\], the (half-) integrand of these amplitudes is given by[^26] $\det{}'H\,{\langle}\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}$. However, due to , $v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^a = \xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^a$, and so all of these amplitudes vanish, $$A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\tilde\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}=A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\tilde\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}=A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\tilde\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}} = 0\,,$$ and similarly for $A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}$. The sum over states thus simplifies drastically, and only the first term contributes, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sum_states_bos}
\sum_{\mathrm{states}}A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}
&=\frac1{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}[ \tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]}A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}} A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}^{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}\tilde \epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the reduced determinant indeed factorizes as expected for gluon amplitudes, c.f. .
#### The sum over states in the supersymmetry representation.
Before discussing factorization of the full supersymmetric amplitudes, let us first derive an expression for the sum over states as an integral over the fermionic variables of propagating particle. For readability, we focus on the chiral case below, all statements extend straightforwardly to $\mathcal{N}=(N,\tilde N)$ supersymmetry. In general, these fermionic integrals take the form $$\label{eq:susy-fact_general}
\mathcal{A}_n = \frac1{k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^2}\int d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\; \mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1} \mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}\;G(q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})\,$$ where $G(q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})$ is a ‘gluing factor’ for the internal propagator that depends on the choice of supersymmetry representation, and is determined – up to an overall normalization– by supersymmetric invariance. This can be seen as follows. The left hand side of vanishes under the full supersymmetry generator $Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$. Using further that $$Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}} \mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1} = -Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\, {{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}} \mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}\,,
\qquad
Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}} \mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1} = -Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}} \mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}\,,
\qquad
Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}} \,G(q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}) = 0\,,$$ due to the supersymmetric invariance of the amplitudes on the right, we find that $G$ has to satisfy $$\label{eq:cond_G}
0=\int d^{4N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}d^{4N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\; \Big(\big(Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1} \big) \mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}+\mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1} \big(Q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}\big)\Big) \;G(q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})\,.$$ Using the explicit form of the supersymmetry representation , we can easily verify that this is solved by[^27] $$\label{eq:gluing-factor-susy}
G(q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}) = \big|G(0,0)\big|\exp\left(\frac{ i\, q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}} q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}}{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}}\right)\,.$$ To further fix the normalization $\big|G(0,0)\big|$, we compare the factorization for external gluons from to the sum over states . In the notation $A_n:=A_n^{\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_1\dots}$, the fermionic integrals give $$\label{eq:sum-states-from-int}
A_n=\,\frac1{k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^2}\big|G(0,0)\big|\left( \frac1{ {\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}^{2N}}\, A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}} A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}^{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}} +\dots+A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}} A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}^{\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\right)\,,$$ where we used $A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}$ to indicate that the particle flowing through the on-shell propagator is in the top state of the chiral supersymmetry multiplet, parametrized by $\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$. For the terms $A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}} $ with the propagating particle at the bottom of the multiplet, we have used the consistency of the integrands with the supersymmetry representation, see §\[sec:multiplet\].[^28] By matching to the sum over states , the normalization is given by $$\big|G(0,0)\big| = {\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}^N\,,$$ and the fermionic integral representing the sum over states in the R-symmetry preserving supersymmetry representation takes the form $$\label{eq:susy-ampl-fact}
\mathcal{A}_n = \frac{1}{k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^2}\int d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\; \mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1} \mathcal{A}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}\;\left({\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}^{N}\,e^{i{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}{\rangle}^{-1} \,q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}}\right)\,.$$
#### Factorization of the supersymmetry factors.
Given that the measure and the integrands factorize correctly, we can isolate the supersymmetry factors in the relation . To prove that the superamplitudes factorize correctly, we thus need to show that at the boundary of the moduli space $$\label{eq:susy-fact}
e^{F}\Big|_{\partial\mathfrak{M}} \stackrel{!}{=}{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}^{2N} \int d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\; e^{F_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+F_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}\;e^{i{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}{\rangle}^{-1} \,q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}}\,,$$ Our strategy will be to first calculate the left side of this equation, and then simplify the right to see that they match. On the left, the parametrization of $(\sigma_i,u_i)$ on the boundary gives $$\label{eq:F_fact-form}
F\Big|_{\partial\mathfrak{M}}=\underbrace{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j\in L} \frac{\left\langle w_i w_j\right\rangle}{x_{ij}}q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}}_{:=\hat F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}+\underbrace{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{p,q\in R} \frac{\left\langle u_p u_q\right\rangle}{\sigma_{pq}}q_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{q{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}}_{:=\hat F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}+\sum_{\substack{i\in L\\ p\in R}} \frac{\left\langle u_p u_i\right\rangle}{\sigma_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}}q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\,.$$ Here, we have introduced the factors $\hat F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $\hat F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ for later convenience.[^29] On the right hand side, we can integrate out $q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fact_susy_intermediate}
{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}^{2N}& e^{\hat F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}+\hat F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\int d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\; \prod_I \delta\!\left( i {\langle}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}\, q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}+ \sum_{p\in R}\frac{{\langle}u_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}u_{p}{\rangle}}{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}}q_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\right)\;\exp\left(\sum_{i\in L}\frac{{\langle}w_i w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}}{x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}}q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\right)\nonumber\\
&=e^{\hat F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}+\hat F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\exp\left(-\varepsilon^{-1/2}{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}\sum_{\substack{i\in L\\p
\in R}}\frac{{\langle}u_i w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}{\langle}u_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}u_{p}{\rangle}}{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}}q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where, we have used that $\exp({\langle}\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^2)=1$ due to $v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}=\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$. To simplify the exponent in the last line, we use a Schouten identity and the relations for the polarization spinors of the propagating particle to obtain to leading order $${\langle}u_i w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}{\langle}u_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}u_{p}{\rangle}=-{\langle}u_i u_p{\rangle}{\langle}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}u_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}{\rangle}+{\langle}u_i u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}{\langle}u_{p} w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}= -\varepsilon^{1/2}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_p{\rangle}}{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}}+O\left(\varepsilon^{3/2}\right)\,.$$ The exponent thus agrees with , and so our formulae factorize as expected of amplitudes in super Yang-Mills theory and supergravity.\
As an aside, we give an alternative way of deriving the factorization of the supersymmetry factors that mirrors the bosonic discussion of the polarized scattering equations more closely. First, note that the delta-functions in the first line of can be solved in analogy to the bosonic case by
$$\begin{aligned}
u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a\, q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}&=\sum_{i\in L}u_i^a\, q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}+\theta_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}^a\,,&&{\langle}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\theta_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}{\rangle}=0\,,\\
w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^a\, q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}&=\sum_{p\in R}w_p^a\, q_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}+\theta_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}^a\,,&&{\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\theta_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}{\rangle}=0\,.\end{aligned}$$
Here the $2N$ conditions imposed by the delta-functions have been replaced by $4N$ constraints, but supplemented by $2N$ degrees of freedom encoded in $\theta_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $\theta_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$. We can now solve the constraints ${\langle}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\theta_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}{\rangle}=0$ by taking $\theta_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}^a = \alpha_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\, w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^a\theta_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}$, and similarly for $\theta_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$. For convenience, we have defined $\theta_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ to be of order one, and kept a normalization factor $\alpha_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ explicit. Contracting the resulting relations into $u_i$ (or $w_p$ respectively) gives the dominant balance $\alpha_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}= \varepsilon^{1/2}$, and so we are left with $$\begin{aligned}
u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a\, q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}&=\sum_{i\in L}u_i^a\, q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}+\varepsilon^{1/2}\,w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^a\theta_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\,,\qquad
w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^a\, q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}=\sum_{p\in R}w_p^a\, q_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}+\varepsilon^{1/2}\,u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}^a\theta_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ on support of the delta-functions. The exponent then directly gives the correct factorization .
#### Factorization of ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A$ and the M5 half-integrand ${\mathcal{I}}_{\mathrm{M5}}^{\mathrm{h}}$.
While the brane theories are not known to satisfy a BCFW recursion, the above treatment of the intergands can be extended easily to prove that the M5 and D5 amplitudes factorize correctly. It would be interesting to extend this to a full soft recursion as introduced in [@Cheung:2015ota], but this is beyond the scope of this paper.\
Let us first consider the Pfaffian ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A$. On a boundary $\partial_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\mathfrak{M}_{0,n}$, the matrix entries become $$A_{ij} = \frac{x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}}{\varepsilon}\,\frac{k_i\cdot k_j}{x_{ij}}\,,\qquad A_{ip} = \frac{k_i\cdot k_p}{\sigma_{Rp}}\,,\qquad A_{ip} = \frac{k_p\cdot k_q}{\sigma_{pq}}\,.$$ If $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$, $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ are odd (so the subamplitudes ${\mathcal{A}}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}$ have an even number of particles), it is convenient to define ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A$ by reducing on $i\in L$, $p\in R$. Since the block-matrix proportional to $\varepsilon^{-1}$ is of even rank $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}-1$, the reduced Pfaffian then factorizes as $${\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A = \frac{(-1)^{i+p}}{\sigma_{ip}}{\mathrm{Pf}\,}A^{[ip]}=\varepsilon^{-\frac{1}{2}\left(n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}-1\right)}\prod_{j\in L}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}\;{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}' A_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\;{\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}' A_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\,.$$ Here, the powercounting of $\varepsilon$ is due to the removed row and column $i\in L$.
On the other hand, if $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$, $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ are even, i.e. we are studying factorization channels into subamplitudes with an odd number of particles, it is still convenient to reduce on $i\in L$, $p\in R$ to avoid leading-order cancellations. In contrast to the odd case however, the factorization now involves a sum over states as shown in [@Dolan:2013isa], and the leading order term gives ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A \sim \varepsilon^{-\left(\frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}{2}-1\right)}$. For amplitudes with half-integrand $\mathcal{I}_n^{\mathrm{h}}=\det{}'A$, there are thus no factorization channels with odd-point subamplitudes, and for $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ even, we indeed find $$\det{}'A = \varepsilon^{-\left(n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}-1\right)}\prod_{j\in L}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^2\;\det{}' A_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\;\det{}' A_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\,,$$ as expected for half-integrands.\
The calculation of the factorization of ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)}$ featuring in the M5 half-integrand is more involved due to the structure of its entries, and we have delegated the discussion to appendix \[sec:fact\_U\]. The final property for odd $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ however is very compact, $${\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)} =\varepsilon^{\frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}- 1}{2}}\, \frac{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}^2}{\prod_{j\in L}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}} \, {\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,{\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\,,$$ and gives the following factorization of the M5 half-integrand, $$\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{M5}}^{\mathrm{h}} = \varepsilon^{-\left(n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}- 1\right)}\frac{\prod_{j\in L}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^2}{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}^2}\;\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{M5},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^{\mathrm{h}} \,\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{M5},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}^{\mathrm{h}} \,.\label{eq:fact_M5}$$ Repeating the arguments used in the factorization of the reduced determinant $\det{}'H$, the only non-vanishing contribution to sum over states comes from the top of the multiplet, in agreement with . We thus conclude that the brane amplitudes also factorize correctly.\
As discussed above, for the brane theories factorization into odd-point subamplitudes is ruled out by the presence of $\det{}'A$ in the integrand. On the other hand, the novel formulae in the web of theories in \[tabletheories\] are composed of $\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{M5}}^{\mathrm{h}}$ with another half-integrand that supports factorization channels with odd-particle subamplitudes (such as the Parke-Taylor factor for the $(2,0)-$PT formulae). From this perspective, we would also like to study the factorization of $\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{M5}}^{\mathrm{h}}$ for even $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$. A straightforward counting shows that in that case ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)}\sim \varepsilon^{\frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}{2}}$, so $\mathcal{I}_{\mathrm{M5}}^{\mathrm{h}}$ does give a non-zero contribution to factorization channels with even $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$. While it would be interesting to pursue this further to gain some insights into the $(2,0)-$PT formulae, or construct odd-particle versions, this is beyond the scope of this paper.
Boundary terms {#sec:bdy}
--------------
As we have seen in §\[sec:factorization\] and §\[sec:3pt\], the formulae based on the polarized scattering equations factorize correctly, and reproduce the correct three-particle Yang-Mills and gravity amplitudes. To demonstrate that they satisfy the BCFW recursion relation – and are thus representations of the tree-level amplitude – we still need to show that the boundary terms in the BCFW recursion relation vanish, $$\lim_{z\rightarrow \infty}\mathcal{A}(z)=0\,.$$ We will follow a similar strategy to the one employed in the discussion of factorization, and discuss first how the polarized scattering equations and the measure behave under the BCFW deformation and ,
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\kappa}_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a&=\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a+ z\, \epsilon_1^a\, \epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,,
& \hat\kappa_{1}{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a} & = \kappa_{1}{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}-z\,\tilde \epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\left(\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\kappa_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{\dot a}\right)\,,\\
\hat{\kappa}_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a&=\kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a+ z \,\epsilon_n^a\,\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,, &
\hat\kappa_{n}{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a} & = \kappa_{n}{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{\dot a}-z\,\tilde \epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\left(\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\kappa_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{\dot a}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$
As expected from the equivalence of the polarized measure $d\mu^{\mathrm{pol}}_n$ and the CHY-measure $d\mu^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{CHY}$}}}}_n$, we find that the measure scales as $z^{-2}$, $$\lim_{z\rightarrow \infty}d\mu^{\mathrm{pol}}_n=z^{-2}d\tilde\mu^{\mathrm{pol}}_n\,,$$ and thus only integrands scaling at most as $\mathcal{I}_n\sim z$ as $z\rightarrow\infty$ can give vanishing boundary terms. In the case of super Yang-Mills theory and supergravity, we find that $e^{F+\tilde F}\sim z^0$, and $\det'{}H\sim z^0$ while $\mathrm{PT}(\alpha)\sim z$ for colour-ordered partial amplitudes where the shifted particles 1 and $n$ are adjacent, and $\mathrm{PT}(\alpha)\sim z^0$ otherwise. Putting this together, the supergravity and super Yang-Mills expressions scale as $$\mathcal{M}(z)\sim z^{-2}\,,\qquad\qquad \mathcal{A}(z)\sim z^{-1}\,,$$ in the large-$z$ limit, so the boundary terms vanish in both cases. We conclude that the formulae based on the polarized scattering equations satisfy the BCFW recursion relation, and thus give representations of the respective tree-level amplitudes.
### The polarized scattering equations
#### Polarized scattering equations and measure.
A crucial feature of the BCFW deformation of the fundamental spinors is that it leaves the polarization spinors $\epsilon_{1,n}$ of the shifted particles invariant. The polarized scattering equations are thus unaffected for all particles $i\neq 1,n$, and become
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_i& = \sum_j \frac{\left\langle u_i u_j\right \rangle}{\sigma_{ij}}\epsilon_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} -\left\langle v_i\kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle
\,, \\
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_1& = \sum_{j\neq n} \frac{\left\langle u_1 u_j\right \rangle}{\sigma_{1j}}\epsilon_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} -\left\langle v_1\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle + \left(\frac{\left\langle u_1 u_n\right\rangle}{\sigma_{1n}} - z \right)\epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,, \\
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_n& = \sum_{j\neq 1} \frac{\left\langle u_n u_j\right \rangle}{\sigma_{nj}}\epsilon_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} -\left\langle v_n\kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle + \left(\frac{\left\langle u_1 u_n\right\rangle}{\sigma_{1n}} - z \right)\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,.
\end{aligned}$$
In the large-$z$ limit, the scattering equations $\mathcal{E}_1$ and $\mathcal{E}_n$ require that $\sigma_{1n}\sim z^{-1}$ while $\left\langle u_1 u_n\right\rangle\sim 1$ remains of order one. We can refine this dominant balance by explicitly solving for the difference $\sigma_{n1}=z^{-1}\langle u_n u_1\rangle$ to leading order, which suggests the following change of variables: $$\label{eq:dom_bal_sigma}
\sigma_{n}= \sigma_1+z^{-1} \langle u_n u_1\rangle + z^{-2}y_n\,,$$ The shifted polarized scattering equations are indeed manifestly independent of $z$ when expressed in terms of the variables $\sigma_1$ and $y_n$,[^30]
\[eq:shifted\_pol\_SE\] $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_i& = \sum_{j\neq 1,n} \frac{\left\langle u_i u_j\right \rangle}{\sigma_{ij}}\epsilon_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} +\frac{1}{\sigma_{i1}}\big(\left\langle u_i u_1\right \rangle\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}+\left\langle u_i u_n\right \rangle\epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\big) -\left\langle v_i\kappa_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle
\,, \\
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_1& = \sum_{j\neq n} \frac{\left\langle u_1 u_j\right \rangle}{\sigma_{1j}}\epsilon_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} -\left\langle v_1\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle + \frac{y_n}{\left\langle u_1 u_n\right \rangle^2}\,\epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,, \\
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_n& = \sum_{j\neq 1} \frac{\left\langle u_n u_j\right \rangle}{\sigma_{1j}}\epsilon_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} -\left\langle v_n\kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\right\rangle + \frac{y_n}{\left\langle u_1 u_n\right \rangle^2}\,\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,.
\end{aligned}$$
Let us define a new polarized measure $d\tilde \mu^{\mathrm{pol}}_n$ in analogy to , but now using the $z$-independent scattering equations as well as the new variable $y_n$ specifying the marked point $\sigma_n$. Then the shifted measure $d\hat{\mu}^{\mathrm{pol}}_n$ obeys $$\lim_{z\rightarrow \infty}d\hat{\mu}^{\mathrm{pol}}_n=z^{-2}d\tilde\mu^{\mathrm{pol}}_n\,,$$ due to $d\sigma_n=z^{-2}\,dy_n$. This makes is clear that only theories with integrands scaling at most as $\mathcal{I}_n\sim z$ for large $z$ will have vanishing boundary terms in the BCFW recursion relation.
#### Anti-chiral scattering equations.
While the anti-chiral equivalent to the polarized scattering equations does not play a prominent role in the amplitude expressions, we will need the behaviour of the variables $\tilde u_i^{\dot a}$ to determine the scaling behaviour of the integrands. On support of the chiral polarized scattering equations, the marked points $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_n$ factorize in the large-$z$ limit, $$\sigma_{n}= \sigma_1+z^{-1} \langle u_n u_1\rangle + z^{-2}y_n\,.$$ Using this, the anti-chiral scattering equations are given to order $\mathcal{O}(z)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_i\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(z)} &= -z\left( \frac{[\tilde u_i\tilde u_1]}{\sigma_{i1}}\left(\epsilon_n{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, \epsilon_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\right)
+ \frac{[\tilde u_i\tilde u_n]}{\sigma_{i1}}\left(\epsilon_1{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, \epsilon_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\right) \right)\tilde\epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\\
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_1\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(z)} &=z \frac{[\tilde u_1\tilde u_n]}{\langle u_1 u_n\rangle}\epsilon_n^A +z\,y_n \frac{[\tilde u_1\tilde u_n]}{\langle u_1 u_n\rangle^2} \left(\epsilon_1{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, \epsilon_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\right) \tilde\epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}-z^2 \frac{[\tilde u_1\tilde u_n]}{\langle u_1 u_n\rangle} \left(\epsilon_1{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, \epsilon_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\right) \tilde\epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}+z \left(\epsilon_n{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, [v_1\kappa_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}]\right) \tilde\epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\\
\hat{ \mathcal{E}}_n\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(z)} &=z \frac{[\tilde u_n\tilde u_1]}{\langle u_n u_1\rangle}\epsilon_1^A+z\,y_n \frac{[\tilde u_n\tilde u_1]}{\langle u_n u_1\rangle^2} \left(\epsilon_n{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, \epsilon_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\right) \tilde\epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}-z^2 \frac{[\tilde u_n\tilde u_1]}{\langle u_n u_1\rangle} \left(\epsilon_n{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, \epsilon_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\right) \tilde\epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}+z \left(\epsilon_1{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, [v_n\kappa_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}]\right) \tilde\epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Due to the terms proportional to $z^2$ as well as the different spinors in $\hat{ \mathcal{E}}_1$ and $\hat{ \mathcal{E}}_n$, the only dominant balance for this set of equations is $[\tilde u_1\tilde u_n]\sim z^{-1}$. We will parametrize this balance by $$\tilde u_n^{\dot a} = \frac{[\tilde w_n \tilde u_n]}{[\tilde w_n \tilde u_1]}\tilde u_1^{\dot a} +z^{-1} \tilde w_n^{\dot a}\,.$$ Using this, the anti-chiral polarized scattering equations simplify to
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_i\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(z)} &= -z\frac{[\tilde u_i\tilde u_1]}{\sigma_{i1}}\left( \left(\epsilon_n{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, \epsilon_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\right)
+\frac{[\tilde w_n \tilde u_n]}{[\tilde w_n \tilde u_1]}\left(\epsilon_1{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, \epsilon_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\right) \right)\tilde\epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\,,\\
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_1\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(z)} &=z\left( -\frac{[\tilde u_1\tilde w_n]}{\langle u_1 u_n\rangle} \left(\epsilon_1{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, \epsilon_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\right) + \left(\epsilon_n{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, [v_1\kappa_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}]\right) \right)\tilde\epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\label{eq:anti-chiral-BCFW_E1} \\
\hat{\mathcal{E}}_n\Big|_{\mathcal{O}(z)} &=z \left(-\frac{[\tilde u_1\tilde w_n]}{\langle u_1 u_n\rangle} \left(\epsilon_n{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, \epsilon_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\right) + \left(\epsilon_1{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, [v_n\kappa_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}]\right)\right) \tilde\epsilon ^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\label{eq:anti-chiral-BCFW_En}\end{aligned}$$
Together with the normalization condition $[v_1 \epsilon_1]=1$, the leading order of $\hat{\mathcal{E}}_1$ determines $v_{1}$ to order one; in other words we can set $v_{1}=v^*_{1}+z^{-1}\tilde v_{1}$ where $\mathcal{E}_1\big|_{\mathcal{O}(z)}(v_1^*)=0$, and similarly for $v_n$. All remaining scattering equations $\hat{\mathcal{E}}_i$ are solved to leading order by $$\label{eq:tilde_u_n_large-z}
\tilde u_n^{\dot a} =- \frac{\left(\epsilon_n{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\, \epsilon_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\right) }{\left(\epsilon_1{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\, \epsilon_n{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\right) }\tilde u_1^{\dot a} +z^{-1} \tilde w_n^{\dot a}\,.$$ Changing variables to $\{\sigma_i,\tilde u_i^{\dot a},v_i^{\dot a}\}$ for $i\neq 1,n$ and $\{\sigma_1, \tilde u_1^{\dot a},\tilde v_1^{\dot a}\}$ and $\{ y_n, \tilde w_n^{\dot a},\tilde v_n^{\dot a}\}$ thus renders the anti-chiral scattering equations manifestly independent of $z$ as $z\gg 1$.
### Supersymmetry
As discussed in \[sec:BCFW-shift\], in the R-symmetry preserving supersymmetry representation the supershift is implemented via multiplication by an exponential factor $$\label{eq:shift-ferm-fact_v2}
e^{F+\tilde F}\rightarrow e^{\hat F+\tilde F}=e^{F-z\,q_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}}\,e^{\tilde F}\,,$$ rather than a linear shift in the fermionic variables. From the solutions to the antifundamental polarized scattering equations , it is easily checked that $\tilde F$ remains of order one in the limit $z\rightarrow \infty$, so the only $z$-dependent term is proportional to ${\langle}u_1 u_n{\rangle}/\sigma_{1n} -z$. On the support of the polarized scattering equations , this combination remains of order one, and as a consequence, so does $\hat F$; $$\hat F =\frac1{2}\sum_{\substack{i,j\\i,j\neq n}}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}+\sum_{i\neq 1}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_n{\rangle}}{\sigma_{i1}}q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}+\frac{y_n}{{\langle}u_1 u_n{\rangle}^2}q_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}q_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\Omega^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$J$}}}}\,.$$ The supersymmetry factors are thus of order one in the large-$z$-limit, $e^{F+\tilde F}\sim z^0$. Alternatively, this can be seen from the little-group preserving representation, where the fermionic-delta functions and the shift manifestly mirror the polarized scattering equations. As $z\rightarrow\infty$, the same argument as for the polarized scattering equations thus guarantees that the delta-functions remain of order one.
### The integrand
#### The Parke-Taylor factor.
The large-$z$ limit for the colour half-integrand $\mathrm{PT}(\alpha)$ is familiar from the original $d$-dimensional CHY amplitude representation. Since the Parke-Taylor factor only depend on the moduli of the marked Riemann sphere, its behaviour as $z\rightarrow\infty$ is determined by . $$\sigma_{n}= \sigma_1+z^{-1} \langle u_n u_1\rangle + z^{-2}y_n\,.$$ For colour-ordered Parke-Taylor factors, we thus find $$\widehat{\mathrm{PT}}(\alpha)\equiv\prod_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{\sigma_{\alpha(i)\alpha(i+1)}} \sim\begin{cases}z & \alpha^{-1}(1)=\alpha^{-1}(n)\pm1\,,
\\ 1 &\text{otherwise}\,,\end{cases}$$ so the colour half-integrands are of order $z$ if the legs $1$ and $n$ are adjacent in the colour-ordering $\alpha$ and of order $z^0$ otherwise.
#### The reduced determinant.
In contrast to the Parke-Taylor factor, the reduced determinant $\det{}'\hat H$ depends on $z$ not only via the marked points $\sigma_{1n}\sim z^{-1}$, but also via the anti-chiral spinors $\hat \epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ and $\hat \epsilon_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$. There is however no chiral contribution of order $z$ since $\hat \epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}= \epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ and $\hat \epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}= \epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$, and so all $z$-dependence stems from the columns 1 and $n$,
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat H_{i1} &= -z \frac{\epsilon_{i\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\sigma_{i1}}\left(\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\right) + \frac{\epsilon_{i\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\sigma_{i1}}\,, \\
\hat H_{in} &= -z \frac{\epsilon_{i\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\sigma_{i1}}\left(\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\right) + \frac{\epsilon_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\sigma_{i1}}-\frac{\epsilon_{i\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\sigma_{i1}^2}\left(\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\right) \langle u_nu_1\rangle\,.\end{aligned}$$
The entries $\hat H_{1n}$, $\hat H_{n1}$ as well as the diagonal entries $\hat{H}_{11}$ and $\hat{H}_{nn}$ depend quadratically on $z$, and we find to subleading order
$$\begin{aligned}
\hat H_{1n}& =- z^2\,\frac{\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\langle u_nu_1\rangle}\left(\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\right)+z\,y_n\,\frac{\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\langle u_nu_1\rangle^2}\left(\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\right)+z\,\frac{\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\langle u_nu_1\rangle}\,,\\
\hat H_{n1}& = +z^2\,\frac{\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\langle u_nu_1\rangle}\left(\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\right)-z\,y_n\,\frac{\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\langle u_nu_1\rangle^2}\left(\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\right)-z\,\frac{\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\langle u_nu_1\rangle}\,,\end{aligned}$$
which uniquely determines $\hat H_{11}$ and $\hat H_{nn}$ from linearity relations among the columns of $\hat H$. We remark that all remaining diagonal entries $\hat H_{ii}$ are independent[^31] of $z$, as can be seen from the (row) linearity relation $$\label{eq:BCFW_def_H_ii}
\langle u_i u_n\rangle \hat H_{ii} = -\sum_{j\neq n,i} \langle u_j u_n\rangle \hat H_{ji}= -\sum_{j\neq n,i} \langle u_j u_n\rangle H_{ji}\,,$$ which is manifestly of order one. All $z$-dependence of $\hat H$ is thus confined to the columns $1$ and $n$, suggesting that we define the reduced determinant by removing these columns. Naively this would imply $\det{}'\hat H\sim z$ because of the denominator factor $[\tilde u_1 \tilde u_n]=z^{-1}[\tilde u_1 \tilde w_n]$, but its coefficient vanishes, as can be seen from a judicious choice of row and column operations on $\hat H$.[^32] In practice, however, it is easier to extract the large-$z$ behaviour by using row- and column operations to remove the $z$-dependence from one of the two columns, say column 1, and reduce on a different column.
To make this explicit, let us construct a new matrix $\hat H'$ whose column 1 is independent of $z$ (apart from $\hat H'_{11}$ and $\hat H'_{n1}$, which will still be removed), $$\hat H'_{i1} = \hat H_{i1}-\frac{\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}{\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\hat H_{in}\,,\qquad\qquad \tilde w'{}^{\dot a}_n = \tilde u^{\dot a}_n + \frac{\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}{\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}} \tilde u^{\dot a}_1\,.$$ Due to \[lemma:red-det\], the reduced determinants agree, $\det{}' H'=\det{}' H$, and in particular so do their large-$z$-limits. But by construction, $H'$ only depends on $z$ via the $n$-th column and the entries $H_{1n}$ and $H_{nn}$, so we can manifestly remove all dependence on $z$ by reducing on the rows 1 and $n$ and the columns $i\neq 1$ and $n$, $$\det{}'\hat H= \det{}'\hat H'=\frac{1}{\left\langle u_1 u_n\right \rangle \left(\left[ \tilde u_{ i}\tilde u_n\right] + \frac{\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}{\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\epsilon_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\left[ \tilde u_{ i}\tilde u_1\right] \right)}\det \hat H{}^{[1n]}_{[i n]}\,.$$ The expression on the right hand side is now manifestly of order $\mathcal{O}(z^0)$.
#### Yang-Mills theory and gravity.
Over the last section, we derived that $$e^{F+\tilde F}\sim z^0\,,\qquad \sum_{\alpha\in S_n/\mathbb{Z}_n}\mathrm{PT}(\alpha)\sim z\,,\qquad\det{}'H\sim z^0\,,$$ in the large-$z$ limit. Combining this with the behaviour of the measure, we find that the boundary terms in supergravity and super Yang-Mills both vanish as expected, $$\mathcal{M}(z)\sim z^{-2}\,,\qquad\qquad \mathcal{A}(z)\sim z^{-1}\,.$$ This completes the BCFW-recursion proof of our formulae.\
As a brief aside, we mention here the curious observation that our brane formulae also do not receive boundary contributions in the BCFW recursion, despite their poor behaviour for large momenta. Though we are not aware of a discussion of this in the literature, this is also true for the D-brane amplitudes in the usual CHY–framework, and just relies on the additional observation that ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'A\sim z^0$ in the large-$z$ limit, which in turn follows from similar row- and column operations on $A$ as are used on $M$ to show that ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}{}'M\sim z^0$. It would be interesting to investigate this cancellation from the field theory perspective.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this article we have argued that the polarized scattering equations provide a natural generalization of the twistor and ambitwistor supersymmetric formulae from four dimensions. They lead to formulae for a full spectrum of supersymmetric gauge, gravity and brane theories in six-dimensions. These formulae are furthermore shown to factorize properly as a consequence of properties of the polarized scattering equations themselves, as described in §\[sec:fact\_SE\]. This led to a proof of the main formulae by BCFW recursion.
There remain issues that are not optimally resolved in our framework. Because the solutions to the polarized scattering equations themselves depend on the polarization data, it is no longer obvious that the formulae we obtain are linear in each polarization vector as they need to be, although the proof is relatively straightforward. As shown in §\[sec:PSE\], there is an $n+2$ dimensional vector space of potential solutions to the polarized scattering equations whose dimensionality is then then reduced by choice of polarization spinors. It should be possible to develop this further to produce formulae that are manifestly linear in the polarization data, or alternatively with free little-group indices as is more usually in higher-dimensional spinor-helicity frameworks.
#### Grassmannians, polyhedra, and equivalence with other formulations.
In four dimensions, twistor-string formulae for amplitudes, and indeed general BCFW terms, can be embedded as $2n-4$-dimensional cycles in the Grassmannian $G(k,n)$ for amplitudes with $k$ negative helicity particles, [@Bullimore:2009cb; @ArkaniHamed:2009sx].
In [@Cachazo:2018hqa] it was similarly shown that their 6d formulae could be embedded into a Lagrangian Grassmannian, i.e., the Grassmannian $LG(n,2n)$ of Lagrangian $n$-spaces in a symplectic $2n$-dimensional vector space. Ref. [@Schwarz:2019aat] further discussed how the polarized scattering equation formulation of [@Geyer:2018xgb] and this paper can also be embedded in the same Grassmannian, allowing one to see that the two formulations are essentially gauge equivalent representations. In the formulation in this paper, an element of the Grassmannian can be represented as an $n\times 2n$ matrix $C^{ia}_l$ with $a$ being the little group index for $k_i$ and $l$ being also a particle index.[^33] The symplectic form is given by $\Omega_{ia jb}=\varepsilon_{ab}\delta_{ij}$ and the condition that $C^{ia}_l$ defines an element of the Lagrangian Grassmannian is that $$C^{ia}_lC^{jb}_m\Omega_{iajb}=0\, .$$ This skew form is natural in the sense that it arises from momentum conservation in the form $$\kappa_{iA}^{a}\kappa_{jB}^{b}\Omega_{iajb}=0\, .$$ The Grassmannian integral formula then takes the form $$\int_\Gamma d\mu\;{\mathcal{I}}\int \prod_j\delta^4(C_j^{ia}\kappa_{iaA})\, .$$ Here ${\mathcal{I}}$ is a theory dependent integrand, $\Gamma$ a cycle in the Grassmannian of dimension $4n-6$, and $d\mu$ a measure on $\Gamma$. Our data embeds into the Grassmannian by $$C^{ai}_j= \frac{{\langle}u_iu_j\rangle}{\sigma_{ij}}\epsilon_i^a-\delta^i_jv_i^a\, ,$$ with $\Gamma$ parametrized by $(\sigma_i,u_i,v_i)$ subject to the constraints ${\langle}v_i\epsilon_i{\rangle}=1$ and modulo the Möbius transformations on the $\sigma_i$, and SL$(2)$ on the $u_i$. A different parametrization[^34] for $\Gamma$ is given in [@Cachazo:2018hqa], and in [@Schwarz:2019aat] it was argued that the two representations are gauge equivalent in $LG(n,2n)$.
In this paper in §\[sec:poldata\], the argument for linearity of the reduced determinants in the polarization data relies on a map between solutions to the polarized scattering equations that have different polarization data. This map should therefore similarly arise from an analogous gauge transformation in the Grassmannian $LG(n,2n)$.
Polyhedra such as the amplituhedron [@Arkani-Hamed:2013jha] emerge when BCFW cycles in a Grassmannian are united into one geometric object whose combinatorics are determined by a certain positive geometry. The original amplituhedron was adapted to momentum twistor or Wilson-loop descriptions of $N=4$ super Yang-Mills amplitudes [@Hodges:2009hk; @Mason:2009sa; @Mason:2010yk], but there is, at least as yet, no analogue of this in six dimensions. The version of the 4d amplituhedron ideas that are most natural in the context of the Grassmannian descriptions here is that described in [@Damgaard:2019ztj], a $2n-4$-dimensional space. It follows from the above that the analogue in 6d should therefore be a $4n-6$ dimensional space. In our context this space will then be naturally embedded in ${\mathbb{R}}^{4n}$ (perhaps projected onto some quotient) as the image of the positive Lagrangian Grassmannian $LG_+(n,2n)$ under the map $$Y_{lA}=C^{ia}_l\kappa_{iaA}\, .$$ There is of course an anti-chiral version also. It remains to explore these frameworks.
#### Worldsheet models in 6d.
Another gap in our description is to identify ambitwistor string models that underly the formulae. Ambitwistor-string models that admit vertex operators that yield the polarized scattering equations and supersymmetry factors were introduced in [@Geyer:2018xgb], together with worldsheet matter that provides the reduced determinants. However, these were chiral, and combining both chiralities to produce the gauge and gravity formulae has so far proved problematic: there are constraints needed to identify the two otherwise independent chiral halves. However, as seen here such constraints dont seem to matter too much at the level of the formulae. The chiral models would seem to be a better bet for the various $(N,0)$ theories, but for these the worldsheet matter required to provide the integrands has yet to be identified. The issues facing the 6d worldsheet models are resolved on reduction and we plan to write about this elsewhere.
#### Higher dimensions.
Representations of ambitwistor space, in terms of twistor coordinates with little-group indices exist in higher dimensions also. Furthermore, naive ambitwistor models in those coordinates lead to higher-dimensional analogues of the polarized scattering equations. A discussion of such models was given in [@Geyer:2019ayz]. Again one can obtain supersymmetric ampltude formulae without worrying too much about the detailed implementation of the models. In particular, there are many more constraints required to restrict the representation to ambitwistor space as in the space of null geodesics, and again these were not implemented in any systematic way. Indeed closely related models were proposed over the years by Bandos and coworkers [@Bandos:1999pq; @Bandos:2006nr; @Bandos:2017kdq; @Bandos:2017eof; @Bandos:2017zap; @Bandos:2014lja]. Bandos takes the attitude that the additional constraints should not be imposed, and instead that it should be possible to find genuine M-theory physics in these extra degrees of freedom [@Bandos:1999pq; @Bandos:2019zqp].
#### Gerbe amplitudes.
In addition to the well understood gauge, gravity and brane formulae, we also obtain more controversial formulae with $(2,0)$, $(3,1)$ and $(4,0)$ supersymmetry. The linear super-multiplets are Gerbe-like analogues of YM and gravity theories in the sense that Gerbes, self-dual closed 3-forms, appear in the multiplets. In particular in the $(2,0)$ case with the Parke-Taylor factor in the integrand, there is an important and much studied theory with $(2,0)$ supersymmetry that one might hope to say something about. This theory is expected to reduce to super-Yang-Mills in five dimensions as indeed our $(2,0)$ formulae with a Parke-Taylor does for even numbers of particles. In six dimensions however, this is thought to be a strongly coupled theory and so shouldnt give rise to meaningful amplitudes. It has furthermore been argued that there are no invariant three point amplitudes for such models in 6d [@Huang:2010rn]. On the other hand, the four point formulae has $s$ and $t$ singularities , so that soft limits should give a nontrivial limit involving the 3-point amplitude. Thus such soft limits are likely to be ambiguous and not make sense. Similar issues arise for the other Gerbe-like theories with $(3,1)$ and $(4,0)$ supersymmetry. We refer the interested reader to [@Cachazo:2018hqa] where some of these issues are discussed in more detail in the context of the little-group preserving representation. The amplitude formulae we obtain are problematic for odd particle number. Being ratios of Pfaffians of matrices whose size depends on the particle number $n$, one obtains zero divided by zero for odd $n$ and like the 3-particle case, might not have a sensible meaning. For the $(N,N)$-theories, analogous formulae can also be obtained, but identities such as allow us to obtain a well-defined non-zero formula when $n$ is odd. Such relations also hold for the Gerbe theories reduced to 5d because they coincide with the reductions of $(N,N)$ theories. However, we have not been able to find such relations in 6d. Thus the prognosis for some physical interpretation of these formulae is not clear. Some reasonable definition must be found for odd $n$ that is compatible with factorization, see the discussion after for additional details. If so, a further test will be to investigate massive modes on reduction to 5d as the R-symmetry of reduced $(0,2)$ massive modes is distinct from that of $(1,1)$ massive modes. For massive modes the little group in 5d is still SO$(4)$ with spin group $SL(2)\times SL(2)$. Thus the dotted and undotted scattering equations remain distinct and there is no longer an identification between the $U^{(a,b)}$ for fixed $a+b$. There is therefore no clear analogue of so analogues of the odd-point formulae for 5d massive modes reduced from 6d massless modes remain problematic.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
GA is supported by the EPSRC under grant EP/R513295/1. YG gratefully acknowledges support from the CUniverse research promotion project “Toward World-class Fundamental Physics” of Chulalongkorn University (grant reference CUAASC), as well as support from the National Science Foundation Grant PHY-1606531 and the Association of Members of the Institute for Advanced Study (AMIAS). LJM is grateful to the EPSRC for support under grant EP/M018911/1.
We are grateful to Leron Borsten, Hadleigh Frost, Alfredo Guevara, Matthew Heydeman, John Schwarz and Congkao Wen for discussions.
Appendices
==========
Direct proof of permutation invariance of H {#sec:perm}
-------------------------------------------
As an alternative to the abstract proof in \[lemma:perm-inv\], we can show directly that the reduced determinant $\det{}'H$ is permutation invariant by using row and column operations, as well as the constraints $$\label{eq:constr_6d}
\sum_i u_i^a H_{ij} = 0\,,\qquad \sum_i \tilde u_i^{\dot a} H_{ji} = 0\,.$$ Recall the definition of the reduced determinant; $$\label{eq:red_det_v2}
\det{}'(H): =(-1)^{i_1+i_2+j_1+j_2}\frac{\det\left(H^{[i_1i_2]}_{[j_1j_2]}\right)}{\langle u_{i_1} u_{i_2}\rangle [u_{j_1} u_{j_2}]}\,,$$ where $H^{[i_1i_2]}_{[j_1j_2]}$ denotes the matrix $H$ with rows $i_1$ and $i_2$ and columns $j_1$ and $j_2$ removed, $$\det\left(H^{[i_1i_2]}_{[j_1j_2]}\right) = \frac{\partial^2}{\partial H_{i_1 j_1}\partial H_{i_2 j_2}}\det(H)\,.$$ By definition, $\det{}'(H)$ is s invariant under exchanging two particle labels $i,j\neq i_{1,2},j_{1,2}$, since the determinant picks up a sign under each exchange of rows or columns. To prove permutation invariance, we thus only need to show that the reduced determinants obtained from removing different rows or columns are identical. Moreover, it is clearly sufficient to consider the case of different choices for the row $i_2$, all other cases are straightforward extensions. To be specific, consider $\det(H^{[1\,2]}_{[n-1\,n]})$ and $\det(H^{[1\,3]}_{[n-1\,n]})$, and let us suppress the subscript ${}_{[n-1\,n]}$ for the removed columns to keep the expressions readable. Then the reduced determinant is permutation invariant if $$\langle u_1 u_3\rangle\det\left(H^{[1\,2]}\right) =-\langle u_1 u_3\rangle \det\left(H^{[1\,2]}\right)\,.$$ First, multiply the row in $H^{[1\,2]}$ associated to particle 3 by $\langle u_1 u_3\rangle $ (and similarly for $H^{[1\,3]}$), $$\widehat{H}^{[1\,2]}_{3i}=\langle u_1 u_3\rangle H_{3i}\,,\qquad \widehat{H}^{[1\,3]}_{2i}=\langle u_1 u_2\rangle H_{2i}\,.$$ The determinants of the hatted matrices are then related to the original determinants via $$\label{eq:hat_H_6d}
\det\left(\widehat{H}^{[1\,2]}\right) =\langle u_1 u_3\rangle \det\left(H^{[1\,2]}\right)\,,\qquad \det\left(\widehat{H}^{[1\,3]}\right) =\langle u_1 u_2\rangle \det\left(H^{[1\,3]}\right)\,.$$ To compare the two determinants $ \det\widehat{H}^{[1\,2]}$ and $ \det\widehat{H}^{[1\,3]}$, proceed as follows: Multiply each row $\widehat{H}_{ji}^{[1\,2]}$ associated to particle $j\neq 3$ by $\langle u_1 u_j\rangle$, and add it to the row $\widehat{H}^{[1\,2]}_{3i}$, $$\label{eq:H12i=H13i}
\widehat{H}^{[1\,2]}_{3i}= \sum_{j\neq 1,2}\langle u_1 u_j\rangle H_{ji} = -\langle u_1 u_2\rangle H_{2i} = -\widehat{H}^{[1\,3]}_{2i}\,.$$ In the second equality, we have used the constraint , and the last identity follows from our definitions above. In particular, note that holds for $i=2$ as well, so there is no subtlety associated to the diagonal entries. Since row and column operations leave the determinant invariant, we can thus conclude that $$\det\left(\widehat{H}^{[1\,2]}\right)= -\det\left(\widehat{H}^{[1\,3]}\right)\,,$$ and permutation invariance follows by using .
Note that we can easily use the same idea to show that $\det(H)=0$. In this case, we follow the same steps as above, but now for the unreduced matrix $H$. Again, we define $$\widehat{H}_{2i}=\langle u_* u_2\rangle H_{2i}\,,$$ for any reference spinor $u_*$ in the little group. The determinants are again related by $ \det\widehat{H} =\langle u_* u_2\rangle \det\left(H\right)$. As before, we can use the constraint equations, together with convenient row operations on the matrix (adding $\langle u_* u_j\rangle H_{ji}$ to $\widehat{H}_{2i}$). However, since no rows have been removed from the matrix, this time we find $$\widehat{H}_{2i}= \sum_{j}\langle u_* u_j\rangle H_{ji} =0\,,$$ and so the determinant vanishes.
We can also extend this proof to the determinant with only one row and column removed, $H^{[1]}_{[n]}=\frac{\partial}{\partial H_{1n}}\det(H)=0$: Proceed as above, but choose $u_*=u_1$ to coincide with the removed row. Then again $$\widehat{H}^{[1]}_{2i}= \sum_{j\neq 1} \langle u_1 u_j\rangle H_{ji} =0\,,$$ since the term from the omitted row does not contribute to the constraint when $u_*=u_1$, and we conclude $H^{[1]}_{[n]}=\frac{\partial}{\partial H_{1n}}\det(H)=0$.
Comparison to other BCFW shifts in higher dimensions {#sec:BCFW_Cliff+Donal}
----------------------------------------------------
For generic polarization data of the particles $1$ and $n$, the BCFW shift differs from the BCFW shift for Yang-Mills theory and gravity of [@ArkaniHamed:2008yf], as well as the 6d spinorial shift of [@Cheung:2009dc]. In these, for gluons and gravitons, the shift vector is chosen to align with the polarization of one of the shifted particles, $q_\mu=e_{1\,\mu}$, to ensure that the boundary terms vanish.[^35] In the 6d spinor-helicity formalism, the polarization vector $e_1$ is given by (c.f. §\[YM-int\]) $$\label{eq:pol_vec}
e_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=\epsilon_{1\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\tilde\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}\,,\qquad \text{with } \epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}=\epsilon_{1\,a}\kappa_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a \text{ and } \epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}=\tilde\epsilon_1^{\dot a}\kappa^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_{1\,\dot a}=\tilde \epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\, k_1^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}\,.$$ Due to the gauge freedom $e_\mu\sim e_\mu+k_\mu$, the spinor $\tilde \epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ is only defined up to terms proportional to $\kappa_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a$. Up to this freedom, a canonical choice [@Cheung:2009dc] is given by $$\label{eq:def_tilde_epsilon}
\tilde \epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} = \tilde \epsilon_{1\, \dot a}\kappa_{*}{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^b\,\left(\kappa_{*}{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}^b\,\kappa_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{\dot a}\right)^{-1}\,,$$ where $\kappa_{*}{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^b$ is a reference spinor satisfying $\kappa_{*}{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}^b\,\kappa_1{}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_{\dot a}\neq 0$, and the inverse is defined as the matrix inverse in the little group spaces of the particles $1$ and $n$. This choice for $\tilde \epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} $ clearly satisfies $\tilde \epsilon_1^{\dot a} =\tilde \epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} \, \kappa_{1\,\dot a}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$, and thus reproduces $F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}=\big(\gamma_{\mu\nu}\big)\!{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}\, F^{\mu\nu} =\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}$.
The spinorial BCFW shift $q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}= \epsilon_{n\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}$ is thus only equivalent to the standard BCFW shift $q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=e_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}$ if we can choose a little group spinor $v^*_{1a}$ such that $$\epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} = -\tilde \epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}+v^*_{1a}\, \kappa_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\,.$$ However, for generic momenta and polarization, no such $v^*_{1a}$ exists: upon choosing the reference spinor $\kappa_{*}{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^b=\kappa_{n}{}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}^b$ in , we see that $q=e_1$ only if the polarization spinors for particles $1$ and $n$ satisfy $\tilde\epsilon_1^{\dot a} =- \epsilon_{n\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\, \kappa_{1}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\,\dot a}$. Thus, the BCFW shift $q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}= \epsilon_{n\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\epsilon_{1\,{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}$ generically differs from those discussed previously in the literature [@ArkaniHamed:2008yf; @Cheung:2009dc]). Note however that since $q$ is constructed from the chiral polarization spinors of both shifted particles, it *does* lie in the space of possible polarization vector for both particles.
#### Comparison to the 6d BCFW shift of Cheung & O’Connell
In the bosonic case, the super-BCFW shift discussed in \[sec:BCFW\] is strongly remininscent of the shift used in the work [@Cheung:2009dc] of Cheung and O’Connell on the 6d spinor-helicity formalism to derive higher point gluon amplitudes. Here we compare our shift to that of [@Cheung:2009dc], and comment on the similarities and differences in the resulting recursion relations.
Let us briefly review the work of [@Cheung:2009dc].[^36] For bosonic Yang-Mills theory, it is advantageous to keep the little-group symmetry manifest, see also \[sec:susy\] for a discussion on the trade-off between the little-group and R-symmetry for super Yang-Mills. Amplitudes are thus of the form $A_{\boldsymbol{ a\dot a}}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}}:=A^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}_{a_1\dot a_1\dots a_n\dot a_n}$, which relates to our representation (due to the linearity in the polarization spinors proven in \[sec:poldata\]) via $$A_{\boldsymbol{\epsilon\tilde\epsilon}}= \epsilon_1^{a_1}\tilde\epsilon_1^{\dot a_1}\dots \epsilon_n^{a_n}\tilde\epsilon_n^{\dot a_n}A^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}_{a_1\dot a_1\dots a_n\dot a_n}\,,\qquad \quad A_{\boldsymbol{\epsilon\tilde\epsilon}}:=A_{\epsilon_1\tilde\epsilon_1\dots \epsilon_n\tilde\epsilon_n} \,.$$ The BCFW-shift of Cheung and O’Connell is then designed to keep this little-group symmetry of the amplitude representations manifest. Note that the standard $d$-dimension BCFW recursion relation does not interact well with the little-group preserving amplitude representation, because the shift vector has to be chosen to align with the polarization of one of the particles, $q^\mu=e_1^\mu$, see [@ArkaniHamed:2008yf]. In the spinor-helicity formalism however, there is no natural candidate for $q=e_1$, essentially by construction. Cheung and O’Connell avoid this complication by studying partially contracted amplitudes of the form $$X^{a_1\dot a_1}\,A_{a_1\dot a_1\dots a_n\dot a_n}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}\,,$$ where $X$ is a little group vector for particle 1. For these amplitudes, they can use the standard BCFW construction and choose the deformation vector to be $q^\mu=X^{a\dot a}\,e_{1a\dot a}^\mu$, where $e_{1a\dot a}$ is a basis of polarization vectors for particle 1. Requiring that the shift leaves the external momenta on-shell is equivalent to $q^2=\det X=0$, and thus $X^{a\dot a} = x^a \tilde x^{\dot a}$ factorizes, where we can identify $$\label{eq:x=epsilon}
x^a=\epsilon_1^a\,,\qquad \tilde x^{\dot a}=\tilde \epsilon_1^{\dot a}\,.$$ This construction leaves the direction of the deformation free (parametrized by $X$), but still aligns it with the polarization vector of particle 1, since for any $X$ we have $q^\mu=\epsilon_{1}^a\tilde\epsilon_{1}^{\dot a} \,e_{1a\dot a}^\mu=e_1^\mu$. Since linearity in $X^{a\dot a}=\epsilon_{1}^a\tilde\epsilon_{1}^{\dot a}$ is guaranteed, the full little-group-preserving $A_{\boldsymbol{ a\dot a}}^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}}$ can still be extracted this way. Having defined this covariantized, but vectorial BCFW shift[^37] $$\check k_1 = k_1+zq\,,\quad \check k_n = k_n-zq\,,\quad\text{where }q^\mu =e_1^\mu=\epsilon_{1}^a\tilde\epsilon_{1}^{\dot a}\, e_{1a\dot a}^\mu\,\text{ and }\, e_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}^{a\dot a} = \kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\kappa_{*{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}^b\left(\kappa_{*{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}}^b\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}\right)^{-1}\,,$$ Cheung and O’Connell then implement it at the spinorial level as follows:
\[eq:BCFW-shift\_COC\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\check \kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a = \kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a +z \,\epsilon_1^a \,\tilde\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}&& \check \kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}= \kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}-z\, \tilde \epsilon_{1\dot a} \,\tilde\epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\,, \\
&\check \kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a = \kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a +z\, y^a \,\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}} && \check \kappa_{n\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}= \kappa_{n\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}-z \,\tilde y_{\dot a} \,\epsilon_1^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,.
\end{aligned}$$
Here, $\tilde \epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}$ and $\tilde\epsilon_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ are defined as in , such that $e_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}}=\epsilon_{1[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\tilde\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}]}$, and similarly for the antichiral case. Moreover, $y$ and $\tilde y$ are little group spinors of particle $n$, and are determined by the spinors $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_n$, as well as $\epsilon_1^a$ and $\tilde \epsilon_1^{\dot a}$, via $$y_a = \tilde \epsilon_1^{\dot a}\left(\kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\kappa_1^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\dot a}\right)^{-1}\,,\qquad \tilde y_{\dot a} = \epsilon_1^{a}\left(\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\kappa_n^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\dot a}\right)^{-1}\,.$$ Using this shift, the BCFW recursion relation for the little-group preserving representation becomes $$\epsilon_1^{a_1}\tilde \epsilon_1^{\dot a_1}A_{a_1\dot a_1\dots a_n\dot a_n}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}= \sum_{L}\frac{\varepsilon^{b_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}b_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}\varepsilon^{\dot b_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\dot b_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}}{k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}^2}\,\epsilon_1^{a_1}\tilde \epsilon_1^{\dot a_1}A^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}\,({{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}})}_{a_1\dot a_1\dots b_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\dot b_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}\left(\hat k_1\dots k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\right)A^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\mathrm{LG}$}}}\,({{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})}_{ b_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}\dot b_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}\dots a_n\dot a_n}\left(- k_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\dots \hat k_n\right)\,.$$
#### The shift of Cheung & O’Connell and the polarized scattering equations.
Naively, this recursion relation seems quite suitable to the framework based on the polarized scattering equations – contracting both sides into the remaining $\epsilon$’s and $\tilde \epsilon$’s leads directly to the recursion relation of \[sec:BCFW\]. This however is not true for the BCFW shift , which is inherently ambidextrous, and does not seem natural from the point of view of the (chiral) polarized scattering equations. It is difficult to verify that the boundary terms are absent,[^38] and it thus doesn’t seem feasible to apply the original recursion in our framework. Note that the ambidextrous nature of the shift can be traced back to the choice of the deformation vector $q=e_1$, and thus seems to be an intrinsic feature of any BCFW-relation closely related to the general-$d$ recursion of [@ArkaniHamed:2008yf].
#### Comparison.
To illustrate how the our chiral BCFW shift relates to the ambidextrous Cheung and O’Connell shift, it is helpful to recast in terms of some still-to-be-specified variables $x$ and $y$, related as before via $$\label{eq:xy-rels}
y_a = \tilde x^{\dot a}\left(\kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\kappa_1^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\dot a}\right)^{-1}\,,\qquad \tilde y_{\dot a} = x^{a}\left(\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\kappa_n^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\dot a}\right)^{-1}\,.$$ We stress that at this point these are the only constraints on the variables $\{x,\tilde x,y,\tilde y\}$, and that $x$ and $\tilde x$ may not align with the polarization of particle 1. The shift is then given by [^39]
\[eq:BCFW-shift\_COC\_v2\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\check{ \kappa}_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a = \kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a +z \,x^a {\langle}y\, \kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}&& \check\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}= \kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}-z\, \tilde x_{\dot a} \left[ \tilde y\,\kappa_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\right]\,, \\
&\check\kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a = \kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a +z\, y^a {\langle}x\,\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}&& \check \kappa_{n\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}= \kappa_{n\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}-z \,\tilde y_{\dot a} \left[\tilde x\,\kappa_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\right]\,.
\end{aligned}$$
We note that this is the 6d-version of the super BCFW-shift of [@Boels:2012ie], using a slightly modified notation to keep it more in line with [@Cheung:2009dc]. As above, we use the notation $\check\kappa_{1,n}$ for the shifted variables to make it easier to compare this ambidextrous shift to the chiral one of \[sec:BCFW\]. The shift can then be chosen to partially agree with the chiral BCFW shift and by setting $$\label{eq:xy=epsilon}
x^a=\epsilon_1^a\,,\qquad y^a = \epsilon_n^a\,,$$ which leads to the same shift for fundamental spinors, $\hat\kappa_{1,n}= \check\kappa_{1,n}$. To see what happens to the antifundamental spinors, we first observe that the relations become $$\tilde x_{\dot a} = \epsilon_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\,,\qquad \tilde y_{\dot a} = \epsilon_1^a\left(\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\kappa_{n}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\right)^{-1}_{a\dot a} = \frac{ \epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\kappa_{n\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{k_1\cdot k_n}\,.$$ In comparison to , this shift is missing the ‘pure gauge’ terms of $\tilde \epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$, and so the two shifts do not agree for the antifundamental spinors. While the shift may be interesting in its own right, the proportionality of the antifundamental shift to $\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ was crucial in proving that the boundary terms vanish.
More generally, we can show that the antifundamental shift $\check\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ never agrees with $\hat\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ for any choice of $\{x,\tilde x,y,\tilde y\}$. To see this, contract both shifted spinors $\hat\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ and $\check\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ into $\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a$ (and equivalently for $n$). This vanishes for the chiral shift, $\hat\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\,\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a=0$, but is generically non-zero for the little-group preserving shift, $\check\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a\neq0$, and we conclude that $\hat\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\neq\check\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$.
#### A more general shift.
is not the most general spinor deformation giving rise to the vecorial shift $\check k_1=k_1+z q$, $\check k_n=k_n-z q$. In fact, it is easily checked that we have the freedom to add terms proportional to $x^a {\langle}x\,\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}$ to $\check\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a$ etc,
\[eq:BCFW-shift\_COC\_v3\] $$\begin{aligned}
&\check{ \kappa}_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a = \kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a +z \,x^a \Big({\langle}y\, \kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}+\alpha_1\,{\langle}x\,\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}\Big) &&
\check\kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}= \kappa_{1\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}-z\, \tilde x_{\dot a} \Big(\left[ \tilde y\,\kappa_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\right]+\tilde\alpha_1 \left[\tilde x\,\kappa_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\right]\Big)\,, \\
&\check\kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a = \kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}^a +z\, y^a\Big( {\langle}x\,\kappa_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}+\alpha_n\,{\langle}y\,\kappa_{n{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}{\rangle}\Big) &&
\check \kappa_{n\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}= \kappa_{n\dot a}^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}-z \,\tilde y_{\dot a} \Big( \left[\tilde x\,\kappa_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\right]+\tilde \alpha_n\left[\tilde y\,\kappa_n^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}\right]\big)\,.
\end{aligned}$$
From the point of view of this more general shift, we can finally understand both the shift of Cheung and O’Connell and our chiral shift , as special choices of the free variables. As discussed above, Cheung and O’Connell pick $$x^a=\epsilon_1^a\,,\qquad \tilde x^{\dot a}=\tilde \epsilon_1^{\dot a}\,,\qquad \alpha_1=\alpha_n=\tilde \alpha_1=\tilde \alpha_n=0\,,$$ whereas our chiral shift corresponds to $$x^a=\epsilon_1^a\,,\qquad y^a=\epsilon_n^a\,,\qquad \tilde \alpha_1^{-1}=\tilde\alpha_n = k_1\cdot k_n\,,\qquad \alpha_1=\alpha_n=0\,.$$ Note that despite the six degrees of freedom in resolving the vectorial shift, most of the choices for $\{x,\tilde x,y,\tilde y\}$ will not give rise to a ‘good’ BCFW shift for any $\alpha_{1,n}$, $\tilde\alpha_{1,n}$. To our knowledge, the only two options to be found in the literature are the two discussed above: $q=e_1$ (the ambidextrous shift of [@ArkaniHamed:2008yf] and [@Cheung:2009dc]), or $q\cdot e_1=q\cdot e_n=0$ (the chiral shift of this paper).[^40]
Factorization of Pf U(2,0) {#sec:fact_U}
--------------------------
In this appendix, we provide details on the following factorization properties of the Pfaffian ${\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)}$.
\[lemma:fact\_pfU\] On boundary divisors $\partial_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}\mathfrak{M}_{0,n}\simeq \mathfrak{M}_{0,n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}\times \mathfrak{M}_{0,n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}$ with odd $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$, $${\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)} =\varepsilon^{\frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}- 1}{2}}\, \frac{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}^2}{\prod_{j\in L}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}} \, {\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,{\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\,.$$
#### Proof:
Despite the availability of permutation symmetric formulae, it will actually be easier to use the representation $${\mathrm{Pf}\,}U^{(2,0)} = \frac{\det U_Y^2}{\det X_Y}$$ in terms of $\det X_Y$ and $\det U_Y$, since these readily factorize. Restricting again to odd $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ odd, i.e. even subamplitudes, we can choose a partition $Y$ with $\frac{1}{2}\left(n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}-1\right)$ particles in $L$, and $\frac{1}{2}\left(n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}+1\right)$ particles in $R$, or in other words $|Y\cap L |= \frac{1}{2}\left(n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}-1\right)$ and $|Y\cap R |= \frac{1}{2}\left(n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}+1\right)$.
Consider first the factorization of $\det X_Y$. Using the above partition, $X$ decomposes into a block-diagonal form, with $$X_Y = \begin{blockarray}{c@{}cc@{\hspace{0pt}}cl}
& {\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\overbrace{\hspace{45pt}}^{\frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}{2}}}$}} & {\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\overbrace{\hspace{45pt}}^{\frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}-1}{2}}}$}} & & \\
\begin{block}{(c@{\hspace{0pt}}cc@{\hspace{0pt}}c)l}
& \varepsilon^{-1} \hat X_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]} & -X_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}|Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}\, [{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]}^{\phantom{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}|Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]} &&{\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\Big\}$}} \frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}-1}{2}} \\
& X_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}|Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}& X_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}^{[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]} &&{\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\Big\}$}} \frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}{2}} \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}\,.$$ where, with $i\in L$ and $p\in R$ (for readability we raise the matrix labels), $$X^{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}_{pq}=\frac1{\sigma_{pq}}\,,\qquad X^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}|Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}_{ip} = \frac1{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}}\,,\qquad \hat X^{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}_{ij} = x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}\,X^{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}_{ij} = \frac{x_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}}{x_{ij}}\,.$$ The leading order term in $\det X_Y$ is thus given by $$\label{eq:fact_X_prelim}
\det X_Y = \varepsilon^{-\frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}- 1}{2}}\sum_{p\in R}(-1)^{1+p}\det \hat X_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\cup\{p\}\, [{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]}\,\det X_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}\,[p]}^{\phantom{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]}\,,$$ where the subscript $\det \hat X_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\cup\{p\}}$ indicates the $(n_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}+1)/2$ square matrix constructed from $\hat X_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}$ and the additional row $p$ of $X_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}|Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}$. As usual, we use square brackets to denote the removal of the respective rows and columns. We may now expand this determinant along the row $p$, $$\det \hat X_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\cup\{p\}\, [{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]} = \prod_{j\in L}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}} \sum_{\bar i \in \overline{Y}_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}\frac{(-1)^{1+\bar i}}{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}\,x_{\bar i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}}\,\det X_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]}^{\phantom{Y_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}[\bar i]} = -\frac{ \prod_{j\in L}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}} }{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}}\,\det X_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}\,.$$ Here, we used $X^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}|Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}_{ip} = \frac1{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}}=\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}^{-1}$, and the additional factor of $x_{\bar i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}^{-1}$ originates from factoring out the product $ \prod_{j\in L}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}} $. In the last equality, we noted that the factors conspire to let us recover the full determinant $\det X_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}$. Inserting this identity back into , we get the following factorization property for $\det X_{Y}$; $$\label{eq:fact_X_Y_app}
\det X_Y =- \varepsilon^{-\frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}- 1}{2}}\,\prod_{j\in L}x_{j{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}\,\det X_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}\,\det X_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}\,.$$ One observation worth mentioning is that the factorization of $X_Y$ is solely responsible for the power-counting in the degeneration parameter $\varepsilon$. This is in line with what we expect, since $U^{(1,0)}$ (and also $U^{(0,1)}$) remaining of order one throughout the degeneration.\
On the other hand, it is precisely this property that naively obscures the factorization properties of $\det U_Y$: since all components remain of order one, we do not expect to find a natural factorization corresponding to the two subspheres. However, the combination $$U_{ip}U_{jq}-U_{iq}U_{jp} = \frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}\,{\langle}u_pu_q{\rangle}}{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}q}}\sim \varepsilon\,,$$ is actually of subleading order in $\varepsilon$. Here, we have used that the denominators become independent of $i$ and $j$, as well as a Schouten identity in the $u$’s. This in turn ensures with $Y$ chosen as above, $$U_Y= \begin{blockarray}{c@{}cc@{\hspace{0pt}}cl}
& {\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\overbrace{\hspace{45pt}}^{\frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}{2}}}$}} & {\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\overbrace{\hspace{45pt}}^{\frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}-1}{2}}}$}} & & \\
\begin{block}{(c@{\hspace{0pt}}cc@{\hspace{0pt}}c)l}
& U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]} & -\hat U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}|Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}\, [{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]}^{\phantom{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}|Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]} &&{\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\Big\}$}} \frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}-1}{2}} \\
& \hat U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}|Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}& U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}^{[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]} &&{\mbox{$\scriptstyle{\Big\}$}} \frac{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}+1}{2}} \\
\end{block}
\end{blockarray}\,.$$ the leading order term in $\det U_Y$ can have at most one entry from the off-diagonal blocks, i.e. the determinant factorizes similarly to $\det X_Y$, $$\det U_Y = \sum_{p\in Y_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}(-1)^{1+p}\det U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\cup\{p\}\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]}\,\det U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}\,[p]}^{\phantom{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}]}\,.$$ Here the subscripts are defined in complete analogy to the $X$ above. We can thus follow the same strategy as before, and expand $\det U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\cup\{p\}\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]}$ in the additional row $p$, $$\det U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\cup\{p\}\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]} = \sum_{\bar i \in \overline{Y}_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}(-1)^{1+\bar i}\frac{{\langle}u_{\bar i} u_p{\rangle}}{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}}\,\det U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]}^{\phantom{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}[\bar i]}\,.$$ As before, this expression can actually be resummed to give the full $\det U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}$, which relies on the Schouten identity $${\langle}u_{\bar i} w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}\,{\langle}u_p u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}= {\langle}u_{\bar i} u_p{\rangle}\,{\langle}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}+O\big(\varepsilon^{3/2}\big)=\varepsilon^{1/2} \frac{{\langle}u_{\bar i} u_p{\rangle}}{{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}} +O\big(\varepsilon^{3/2}\big)\,.$$ Using this, we recover the full determinant $\det U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}$, $$\det U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\cup\{p\}\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]} = i\,{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}\,\frac{{\langle}u_p u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}}{\sigma_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}}\sum_{\bar i \in \overline{Y}_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}(-1)^{1+\bar i}\frac{{\langle}w_{\bar i} w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}}{x_{\bar i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}}\,\det U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\,[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]}^{\phantom{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}[\bar i]}=i\,{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}\,\frac{{\langle}u_p u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}}{\sigma_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}}\,\det U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}\,,$$ which in turn gives the following factorization property for $\det U_Y$; $$\label{eq:fact_U_Y_app}
\det U_Y = i\,{\langle}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}\,\det U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}\,\det U_{Y_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}}\,.$$ Combining the factorization properties and for $ \det X_Y$ and $ \det U_Y$ with the independence of the choice of $Y_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $Y_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ ensured by (and proven in [@Roehrig:2017wvh]) then gives the factorization property of \[lemma:fact\_pfU\].$\Box$
Recursion 3 to 4 points {#sec:3-4points}
-----------------------
We show here how the BCFW shift defined in allows us to construct the four point amplitude from the three point in $\mathcal{N}=(1,1)$ super Yang-Mills. Having shown in \[sec:bdy\] that the boundary terms vanish, the standard recursion procedure gives:\
$$A_4(1234)=A_{3}(\hat{1},2,P)_{a\dot{a}}\frac{1}{s_{12}}A_{3}(K,3,\hat{4})^{a\dot{a}}\,,$$ with $k_P=-k_K=\hat{k}_1+k_2$. We have shifted here particles $1$ and $4$. The contraction between the little group indices of particles $P$ and $K$ comes from summing over the polarization states of the propagating particle, as prescribed by the BCFW procedure, to yield the numerator of the propagator. Taking the result we obtained for the three point amplitude we can write this expression as: $$\label{amp4=33}
A_4(1234)=
\frac{1}{s_{12}}
({\langle}\epsilon_1m_1{\rangle}{\langle}\epsilon_2m_2{\rangle}w_{Pa}+\mathrm{cyc.})
({\langle}\epsilon_3m_3{\rangle}{\langle}\epsilon_4m_4{\rangle}w_K^{a}+\mathrm{cyc.})\times (\mathrm{antifundamental})\,,$$ where the contribution of antifundamental spinors is analogous to the two factors in parenthesis, only with tilded variables. All the variables $m$ and $w$ are defined with respect to shifted spinors, i.e. $m_1=m_{\hat{1}}$ but we omit the hats to make the expressions more readable. can be expanded into: $$\begin{aligned}
A_4(1234)=
\frac{1}{s_{12}}\big(&\hat{1}_m2_m3_m\hat{4}_m{\langle}w_Pw_K{\rangle}+(\hat{1}_m2_w3_m\hat{4}_w+\hat{1}_m2_w3_w\hat{4}_m+\hat{1}_w2_m3_w\hat{4}_m+\hat{1}_w2_m3_m\hat{4}_w){\langle}m_Pm_K{\rangle}\\&
+(\hat{1}_m2_m3_m\hat{4}_w+\hat{1}_m2_m3_w\hat{4}_m){\langle}w_Pm_K{\rangle}+(\hat{1}_w2_m3_m\hat{4}_m+\hat{1}_m2_w3_m\hat{4}_m){\langle}m_Pw_K{\rangle}\big)\\&
\times (\mathrm{antifundamental})\,.\end{aligned}$$ We have used a shorthand notation: $i_m={\langle}\epsilon_im_i{\rangle}$ and $i_w={\langle}\epsilon_iw_i{\rangle}$.\
The computation of this amplitude is carried out in [@Cheung:2009dc]. One needs to specify the little group objects $m$ and $w$ for the internal particles $P,K$. Since $k_P=-k_K$, we can fix $\kappa_{pA}=i\kappa_{kA}$ and $\kappa_{p}^A=i\kappa_k^A$. Then $m_P,\tilde{m}_P$ are defined by and $w,\tilde{w}$ are their inverses. We can then write: $$\begin{aligned}
(k_1\wedge k_2)_A^B&=m_{Pa}\tilde{m}_{P\dot{a}}\kappa_{PA}^a\kappa_P^{B\dot{a}}\\
&=-m_{Pa}\tilde{m}_{P\dot{a}}\kappa_{KA}^a\kappa_K^{B\dot{a}}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Contracting with $\hat{\kappa}_{i\dot{c}}^A\hat{\kappa}_{Bjc}\tw_{i\dot{d}}w_{jd}\epsilon^{\dot{c}\dot{d}}\epsilon^{cd}$, where $i,j=3$ or $4$: $$m_{Pa}\tilde{m}_{P\dot{a}}m_{K}^{a}\tilde{m}_{K}^{\dot{a}}=-(k_1\wedge k_2)_A^B\hat{\kappa}_{i\dot{c}}^A\hat{\kappa}_{Bjc}\tw_{i\dot{d}}w_{jd}\epsilon^{\dot{c}\dot{d}}\epsilon^{cd}=-s_{14}\,.$$ Exploiting this property one can impose $${\langle}m_P w_K{\rangle}=0\,,$$ and choose normalizations so that: $$w_K=\frac{m_P}{\sqrt{-s_{14}}}\qquad \tilde{w}_K=\frac{\tilde{m}_P}{\sqrt{-s_{14}}}$$ The four point amplitude above then becomes:\
$$\begin{gathered}
A_4(1234)=
\frac{1}{s_{12}}\frac{1}{{\langle}m_Pm_K{\rangle}}\big(\hat{1}_m2_m3_m\hat{4}_m
-s_{14}(\hat{1}_m2_w3_m\hat{4}_w+\hat{1}_m2_w3_w\hat{4}_m+\hat{1}_w2_m3_w\hat{4}_m\\+\hat{1}_w2_m3_m\hat{4}_w)
\times (\mathrm{antifundamental})\,.\end{gathered}$$ One can then check that: $$\hat{1}_m2_m3_m\hat{4}_m
-s_{14}(\hat{1}_m2_w3_m\hat{4}_w+\hat{1}_m2_w3_w\hat{4}_m+\hat{1}_w2_m3_w\hat{4}_m\\+\hat{1}_w2_m3_m\hat{4}_w)=
{\langle}\hat{1}23\hat{4}{\rangle}\,,$$ by projecting it on the base $m_i,\,w_i$. This gives: $$A_4(1234)=\frac{1}{s_{12}s_{14}}{\langle}\hat{1}23\hat{4}{\rangle}[\hat{1}23\hat{4}]=\frac{{\langle}1234{\rangle}[1234]}{s_{12}s_{14}}\,,$$ where the second equality follows from the invariance of the polarization spinors under the shift.
[^1]: In that paper, the equations were referred to as the refined scattering equations as the extra data and measures distinguish the different MHV sectors so they were refined by MHV degree.
[^2]: This can be seen from the ranks $k-1$ and $n-k-1$ respectively of the $H$ and $\tilde H$ matrices of the Cachazo-Skiner formulae [@Cachazo:2012kg; @Cachazo:2012pz] and their relationships to $H^k$ [@Geyer:2016nsh].
[^3]: $A(n,m)$ is the number of permutations of $n$ elements in which $m$ elements are greater than their predecessors after the permutation.
[^4]: Note that $\epsilon_a$ and $\epsilon_{\dot a}$ cannot be taken to be real in Lorentz signature.
[^5]: Unique up to an SL$(2,{\mathbb{C}})$-transformation on the global $a$ index.
[^6]: i.e. taking all gluons as $g^{{\epsilon\tilde\epsilon}}$, fermions as $\psi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}\tilde\epsilon}$ or $\tilde\psi^{\epsilon {{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}$ and scalars as $\phi^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$\dot J$}}}}$. This can always be achieved by a choice of polarization. Note in this context that the supermomenta themselves only depend on the $\epsilon_{ia}$ from .
[^7]: See also the no-go theorems of [@Huang:2010rn; @Dennen:2010dh] for the existence of a 3-point amplitude.
[^8]: We attach the additional $i$-index to $a_i$ here to distinguish this $u_{a_ii}$ from the $u_{ia}$ in the original ansatz for $\lambda_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}a}$; the $a_i$ is a little group index associated to momentum $k_i$ rather than the global one associated to $\lambda_{Aa}$. We will drop these sub-indices when the equations are unambiguous.
[^9]: We also have the special solutions when $W(\sigma)^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ has no poles that leads to the 8 solutions $$u_{ai}=\kappa_{ia{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}(W_0^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}+\sigma_iW_1^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}})\, .$$
[^10]: This entails contracting a normalized basis of the Lie algebra of SL$(2,{\mathbb{C}})_u$ into the form $\prod_id^2u_i$ and restricting to the given slice.
[^11]: The indices are chosen to agree with the conventions in [@Heydeman:2017yww; @Cachazo:2018hqa].
[^12]: As discussed above, for super Yang-Mills and supergravity, we take $w^i_a=u_{ia}$, where $a$ denotes the chiral little group index, and similarly for $\tilde w_j^{\dot b}=\tilde u_j^{\dot b}$.
[^13]: Of course, we are free to reverse the roles of $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ in this discussion, at the expense of a minus sign due to our normalization conventions.
[^14]: The Eulerian number $A(p,q)$ is the number of permutations of $1$ to $p$ where $q$ elements are larger than their preceding element. They are defined recursively by $A(p,q)=(p-q)A(p-1,q-1)+(q+1)A(p-1,q)$.
[^15]: including the correct 3-particle amplitudes
[^16]: The choice of $\tilde\epsilon^{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}$ in the anti-fundamental shift will turn out to be crucial in proving that the boundary terms vanish. However, it is also the key distinction from previously defined shifts like the covariant shift of [@Cheung:2009dc]. We discuss this in more detail in \[sec:BCFW\_Cliff+Donal\].
[^17]: using $\varepsilon^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_3} \varepsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$C$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_2{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_3} =3!\,\delta^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_1}_{[{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_1}\delta^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_2}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_2}\delta^{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}_3}_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$B$}}}_3]}$.
[^18]: It is of course sufficient to only transform the fermionic variables in $1$ and $n$ to see this. Alternatively, we can also choose to perform a *full* fermionic Fourier transform on only one of the particles, e.g. $n$, $$\int d^{2N}\!q_n \;e^{-q_{nI}\eta_n^{I}}e^F=\delta^{0|2N}\left(\sum_i\frac{{\langle}u_i u_n{\rangle}}{\sigma_{in}}\Omega^{IJ}q_{iJ}\right)\;\exp\left(\frac1{2}\sum_{i,j\neq n}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_j{\rangle}}{\sigma_{ij}}\Omega^{IJ}q_{iI}q_{jJ}-\eta_n^I\right)\,.$$ This clearly comes at the expense of having to treat the two shifted particles differently. In this case, we choose the following BCFW shift for the new fermionic variables $\eta_n$: $$\hat \eta^I_n = \eta_n^I +z\, \Omega^{IJ}q_{1J}\,.$$ After transforming back to the R-symmetry breaking representation, this leads to the same exponential factor.
[^19]: To be explicit, the relevant little group transformations are $$U_{\dot a}^{\dot b}=\begin{pmatrix}1 & b \\ c & 1\end{pmatrix}\,,\qquad \text{ with }\;\;b=-z\,\tilde\epsilon_n^2\frac{[1n]}{{\langle}1n{\rangle}}\,,\;\;c=0\;\;\text{ for particle 1}\,,\qquad b=0\,,\;\;c=z\,\epsilon_1^2\frac{{\langle}1n{\rangle}}{[1n]}\;\;\text{ for particle n}\,.$$
[^20]: So, for example, ${\langle}u_i w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}\sim\varepsilon^{1/2}$ and ${\langle}u_i w_j {\rangle}\sim\varepsilon^{1/2}$.
[^21]: In the ambitwistor string, this has a particularly elegant interpretation in terms of picture changing operators. We start out on the Riemann sphere with $n$ vertex operators and $n-3$ picture changing operators. In the degeneration limit, the only non-trivial assignment of these onto the two subspheres correlates the number of picture changing operators with the number of vertex operators as described above. All other possibilities give zero after integration over the ghost zero modes.
[^22]: While the degeneration appears to treat $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $\Sigma_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ differently, their roles can be interchanged by starting from a parametrization of the sphere in $x$-coordinates instead of $\sigma$.
[^23]: This is quickly checked: First note that a quick weight count in the spinors $\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ shows that the right hand side is weightless in $\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$, and indeed the Faddeev-Popov Jacobian from fixing the SL$(2,\mathbb{C})$ freedom cancels against (part of) the Jacobian from solving the scattering equations. We can make this explicit e.g. by fixing $\kappa_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}0}^a$, as well as $\epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}1}$. Then $$J_{\mathrm{SL}(2)_\kappa} = k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,01} \epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}0}\,,\qquad J_{\mathrm{pol}}^{-1}=\varepsilon^{-1}\, {\langle}u_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}{\langle}w_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}u_*{\rangle}\,\, k_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\,01} \epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}0}\,,$$ and thus the integral indeed gives one.
[^24]: We have chosen a little-group frame where $\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}=i\kappa_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ to simplify the expression.
[^25]: For readability, we suppress the $\epsilon$- indices for external particles below.
[^26]: The other integrands are $\mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{h}}=\det{}'H\,[ \tilde\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\tilde v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]$ for $A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\tilde\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}$ and $\mathcal{I}^{\mathrm{h}}=\det{}'H\,{\langle}\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}\,[ \tilde\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\tilde v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}]$ for $A_{n_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+1}^{\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}\tilde\xi_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}}$ respectively.
[^27]: We can see this as follows. Using the explicit form of the supersymmetry representation, the condition contains two terms proportional to $\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $\epsilon_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ respectively, $ C_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}+C_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}=0$, with $$\begin{aligned}
C_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}&= \int d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\; e^{F_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+F_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}} \;G(q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})\; \epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\left(-{\langle}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}+ i\sum_{p\in R}\frac{{\langle}u_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}u_{p}{\rangle}}{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}}q_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\right)\\
C_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}&= \int d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}\; e^{F_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+F_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}} \;G(q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}},q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}})\; \epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\left(i{\langle}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}+ \sum_{i\in L}\frac{{\langle}w_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}}w_{i}{\rangle}}{x_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}i}} q_{i{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\right)\,.
\end{aligned}$$ Then we can straightforwardly integrate out $q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ in $C_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ (and $q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ in $C_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$) using the ansatz for $G$ and the vanishing of the local terms in the supersymmetry factors at the node ${\langle}\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{\rangle}={\langle}\xi_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
C_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}&= \! \int \!\!d^{2N} \!q_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}\; \prod_I \delta\!\left( i {\langle}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}\, q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}+ \sum_{p\in R}\frac{{\langle}u_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}u_{p}{\rangle}}{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}}q_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\right) e^{F_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$L$}}}+\hat F_{{\scalebox{0.5}{$R$}}}} \epsilon_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\!\left(\!-{\langle}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}v_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}{\rangle}q_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}+ i\sum_{p\in R}\frac{{\langle}u_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}}u_{p}{\rangle}}{\sigma_{{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}p}}q_{p{{\scalebox{0.6}{$I$}}}}\!\right) =0\,,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ and similarly and confirm that indeed $C_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}=C_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}=0$.
[^28]: As discussed above, these terms vanish if all external particles are in the top state of the multiplet.
[^29]: The ‘hat’-notation is intended as a reminder that these are not yet the factors $F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$L$}}}$ and $F_{{\scalebox{0.6}{$R$}}}$ for the subamplitudes since they do not include the contributions from the junction point.
[^30]: We have omitted higher order terms in $z^{-1}$ in $\hat{\mathcal{E}}_i$ and $\hat{\mathcal{E}}_n$.
[^31]: Here and below, independence of $z$ refers to the large-$z$ limit, and thus only entails independence to order $z^0$, with possible contributions of order $z^{-1}$ that vanish as $z\rightarrow\infty$.
[^32]: Recall from \[lemma:red-det\] that the reduced determinant is invariant under row and column operations.
[^33]: For [@Cachazo:2018hqa; @Schwarz:2019aat] this $l$-index is replaced by $ak$ where $a$ is the global little group index, and $k=0,\ldots,(n-2)/2$ indexes a basis in the space of polynomials on ${\mathbb{C}}$ of degree $(n-2)/2 $.
[^34]: In the notation of those references, the $4n-6$-cycles are parametrized by $(\sigma_i, w_{ia}^b)$ subject to a normalization of the determinants of the $W_{ia}^b$ in terms of the $\sigma_i$.
[^35]: In addition, we also have to work in a gauge where $q_\mu=e_{1\,\mu}$ does not transform under the shift.
[^36]: See also [@Boels:2012ie] for related work in higher dimensions.
[^37]: We use the notation $\check k_{1,n}$ here to facilitate the comparison to the chiral shift denoted by $\hat k_{1,n}$.
[^38]: To illustrate this difficulty, note that the scattering equations for $i\neq 1,n$ contain a single term of order $z$, $$\mathcal{E}_i\supset \left( \frac{{\langle}u_i u_1{\rangle}}{\sigma_{i1}}+z\, {\langle}\epsilon_n y{\rangle}\frac{{\langle}u_i u_n{\rangle}}{\sigma_{in}} \right)\epsilon_{1{{\scalebox{0.6}{$A$}}}}\,.$$
[^39]: This is in fact the original notation for the BCFW shift given in [@Cheung:2009dc], though with the interpretation of $x=\epsilon$ and $\tilde x=\tilde\epsilon$ as in and .
[^40]: The latter is of course only possible in $d\geq 6$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose logical characterizations of problems solvable in deterministic polylogarithmic time (${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$) and polylogarithmic space (${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$). We introduce a novel two-sorted logic that separates the elements of the input domain from the bit positions needed to address these elements. We prove that the inflationary and partial fixed point vartiants of this logic capture ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$ and ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$, respectively. In the course of proving that our logic indeed captures ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$ on finite ordered structures, we introduce a variant of random-access Turing machines that can access the relations and functions of a structure directly. We investigate whether an explicit predicate for the ordering of the domain is needed in our ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$ logic. Finally, we present the open problem of finding an exact characterization of order-invariant queries in ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$.'
address:
- 'Software Competence Center Hagenberg, Austria'
- 'Universidad Nacional de La Matanza, Argentina'
- 'Hasselt University, Belgium'
author:
- Flavio Ferrarotti
- Senén González
- José María Turull Torres
- Jan Van den Bussche
- Jonni Virtema
bibliography:
- 'database.bib'
title: Descriptive Complexity of Deterministic Polylogarithmic Time and Space
---
Introduction
============
The research area known as Descriptive Complexity [@fmta_book; @gurevich_complexity; @immerman_book] relates computational complexity to logic. For a complexity class of interest, one tries to come up with a natural logic such that a property of inputs can be expressed in the logic if and only if the problem of checking the property belongs to the complexity class. An exemplary result in this vein is that a family $\cal
F$ of finite structures (over some fixed finite vocabulary) is definable in existential second-order logic (ESO), if and only if the membership problem for $\cal F$ belongs to NP [@fagin_theorem]. We also say that ESO *captures* NP. The complexity class P is captured, on ordered finite structures, by a *fixed point logic*: the extensions of first-order logic with least fixed points [@imm_relpol; @vardi_comp].
After these two seminal results, many more capturing results have been developed, and the benefits of this enterprise has been well articulated by several authors in the references given earlier, and others [@ahv_book]. We just mention here the advantage of being able to specify properties of structures (e.g., data structures and databases) in a logical, declarative manner; at the same time, we are guaranteed that our computational power is well delineated.
The focus of the present paper is on computations taking deterministic polylogarithmic time, i.e., time proportional to $(\log n)^k$ for some arbitrary but fixed $k$. Such computations are practically relevant and common on ordered structures. Well known examples are binary search in an array or search in a balanced search tree. Another natural example is the computation of $f(x_1,\dots,x_r)$, where $x_1$, …, $x_r$ are numbers taken from the input structure and $f$ is a function computable in polynomial time when numbers are represented in binary.
Computations with sublinear time complexity can be formalized in terms of Turing machines with random access to the input [@immerman_book]. When a family $\cal F$ of ordered finite structures over some fixed finite vocabulary is defined by some deterministic polylogarithmic-time random-access Turing machine, we say that $\cal F$ belongs to the complexity class ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$. In this paper, we show how this complexity class can be captured by a new logic which we call *index logic*.
Index logic is two-sorted; variables of the first sort range over the domain of the input structure. Variables of the second sort range over an initial segment of the natural numbers; this segment is bounded by the logarithm of the size of the input structure. Thus, the elements of the second sort represent the bit positions needed to address elements of the first sort. Index logic includes full fixed point logic on the second sort. Quantification over the first sort, however, is heavily restricted. Specifically, a variable of the first sort can only be bound using an address specified by a subformula that defines the positions of the bits of the address that are set. This “indexing mechanism” lends index logic its name.
In the course of proving our capturing result, we consider a new variant of random-access Turing machines. In the standard variant, the entire input structure is presented as one binary string. In our new variant, the different relations and functions of the structure can be accessed directly. We will show that both variants are equivalent, in the sense that they lead to the same notion of ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$. We note that, in descriptive complexity, it is a common practice to work only with relational structures, as functions can be identified with their graphs. In a sublinear-time setting, however, this does not work. Indeed, let $f$ be a function and denote its graph by $\tilde f$. If we want to know the value of $f(x)$, we cannot spend the linear time needed to find a $y$ such that $\tilde f(x,y)$ holds. Thus, in this work, we allow structures containing functions as well as relations.
We also devote attention to gaining a detailed understanding of the expressivity of index logic. Specifically, we observe that order comparisons between quantified variables of the first sort can be expressed in terms of their addresses. For constants of the first sort that are directly given by the structure, however, we show that this is not possible. In other words, index logic without an explicit order predicate on the first sort would no longer capture ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$ for structures with constants.
Finally, we introduce a variant of index logic with partial fixed point operators and show that it captures ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$. This result is analogous to the classical result regarding the descriptive complexity of PSPACE, which is captured over ordered structures by first-order logic with the addition of partial fixed point operators [@Vardi82]. For consistency, we define ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ using the model of direct-access Turing machines, i.e., the variant of the random-access Turing machine that we introduce in this paper. As with ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$, both models of computation lead to the same notion of ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$. Moreover, we show that, in the case of ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$, random-access to the input-tape can be replaced with sequential-access without having any impact on the complexity class. Similar to PSPACE, the nondeterministic and deterministic ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ classes coincide. It is interesting to note that beyond the problems in nondeterministic logarithmic space, there are well known natural problems that belong to ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ (see examples below, under related work).
A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the 26th International Workshop in Logic, Language, Information, and Computation [@FerrarottiGTBV19]. This is an extended improved version which in addition to the full proofs of the results on deterministic polylogarithmic time reported in [@FerrarottiGTBV19], also considers polylogarithmic space and its descriptive characterization in terms of a variant of index logic.
#### Related work
Many natural fixed point computations, such as transitive closure, converge after a polylogarithmic number of steps. This motivated the study in [@GroheP2017] of a fragment of fixed point logic with counting (FPC) that only allows polylogarithmically many iterations of the fixed point operators (<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">polylog</span>-FPC). They noted that on ordered structures <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">polylog</span>-FPC captures NC, i.e., the class of problems solvable in parallel polylogarithmic time. This holds even in the absence of counting, which on ordered structures can be simulated using fixed point operators. Moreover, an old result in [@Immerman81] directly implies that <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">polylog</span>-FPC is strictly weaker than FPC with regards to expressive power.
It is well known that the (nondeterministic) logarithmic time hierarchy corresponds exactly to the set of first-order definable Boolean queries (see [@immerman_book], Theorem 5.30). The relationship between uniform families of circuits within [NC]{}$^1$ and nondeterministic random-access logarithmic time machines was studied in [@barrington:jcss1990]. However, the study of descriptive complexity of classes of problems decidable by *deterministic* formal models of computation in polylogarithmic time, i.e., the central topic of this paper, has been overlooked by previous works.
On the other hand, *nondeterministic* polylogarithmic time complexity classes, defined in terms of alternating random-access Turing machines and related families of circuits, have received some attention [@Barr92; @FerrarottiGST18]. Recently, a theorem analogous to Fagin’s famous theorem [@fagin_theorem], was proven for nondeterministic polylogarithmic time [@FerrarottiGST18]. For this task, a restricted second-order logic for finite structures, where second-order quantification ranges over relations of size at most polylogarithmic in the size of the structure, and where first-order universal quantification is bounded to those relations, was exploited. This latter work, is closely related to the work on constant depth quasi-polynomial size AND/OR circuits and the corresponding restricted second-order logic in [@Barr92]. Both logics capture the full alternating polylogarithmic time hierarchy, but the additional restriction in the first-order universal quantification in the second-order logic defined in [@FerrarottiGST18], enables a one-to-one correspondence between the levels of the polylogarithmic time hierarchy and the prenex fragments of the logic, in the style of a result of Stockmeyer [@Stockmeyer76] regarding the polynomial-time hierarchy. Unlike the classical results of Fagin and Stockmeyer [@fagin_theorem; @Stockmeyer76], the results on the descriptive complexity of nondeterministic polylogarithmic time classes only hold over ordered structures.
Up to the authors knowledge, very little is known regarding the relationship of ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ with the main classical complexity classes (see [@papadimitriou] and [@gj_intract]). As usual, let ${\mathrm{L}}$ and ${\mathrm{NL}}$ denote deterministic and nondeterministic logarithmic space, respectively. Further, let ${\mathrm{L}}^j$ denote $\mathrm{DSPACE}[(\left\lceil\log n \right\rceil)^{j}]$. The following relations are known:
1. ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}\neq \mathrm{P}$, and it is *unknown* whether ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}\subseteq \mathrm{P}$.
2. $\mathrm{PolylogSpace} \neq \mathrm{NP}$, and it is *unknown* whether $\mathrm{PolylogSpace} \subseteq \mathrm{NP}$.
3. Obviously: ${\mathrm{L}}\subseteq {\mathrm{NL}}\subseteq {\mathrm{L}}^2 \subseteq {\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}\subseteq \mathrm{DTIME}[2^{(\left\lceil\log n \right\rceil)^{O(1)}}]$, the latter class being known as quasi-polynomial time ($\mathrm{QuasiP}$).
4. \[item4\] For all $i \geq j \geq 1$, ${\mathrm{L}}^j$ uniform $\mathrm{NC^{i}}$ $\subseteq {\mathrm{L}}^i$ (see [@Borodin77]); hence we have that ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ $\mathrm{uniform}$ $\mathrm{NC}$ $\subseteq {\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$.
5. For all $i \geq 1$, let $\mathrm{SC}^{i} := \mathrm{DTIME{-}DSPACE}(n^{O(1)}, (\log n)^{i})$ and let $\mathrm{SC} := \bigcup_{i \in \mathbb{N}}\mathrm{SC^{i}}$ (see [@Greenlaw95]). It follows that ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}= \mathrm{SC} \cap \mathrm{P}$.
Some interesting natural problems in ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ which are not known to be in ${\mathrm{NL}}$ follow. By item \[item4\] above, we get that division, exponentiation, iterated multiplication of integers [@Reif86], and integer matrix operations, such as exponentiation, computation of the determinant, rank and the characteristic polynomial (see [@MateraT1997] and [@GrossoHMST2000] for detailed algorithms in ${\mathrm{L}}^2$), are all in ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$. Other well-known problems in the class are $k$-colorability of graphs of bounded tree-width [@GottlobLS02], primality, 3NF test, BCNF test for relational schemas of bounded tree-width [@GottlobPW06; @GottlobPW10], and the circuit value problem of only EXOR gates [@papadimitriou]. Finally, in [@BeaudryM95] an interesting family of problems is presented. It is shown that, for every $k \geq 1$, there is an algebra $(S; +, .)$ over matrices such that the depth $O(\log n)^{k}$ straight linear formula problem over $M(S; +, .)$ is $\mathrm{NC}^{k+1}$ complete under ${\mathrm{L}}$ reducibility. Now, by \[item4\] above, these problems are in $\mathrm{DSPACE}[(\log n)^{k+1}]$.
Preliminaries {#sec:preliminaries}
=============
We allow structures containing functions as well as relations and constants. Unless otherwise stated, we work with finite ordered structures of finite vocabularies. A finite structure $\bf A$ of vocabulary $$\sigma = \{R^{r_1}_1, \ldots, R^{r_p}_p, c_1, \ldots
c_q, f^{k_1}_1, \ldots, f^{k_s}_s\},$$ where each $R^{r_i}_i$ is an $r_i$-ary relation symbol, each $c_i$ is a constant symbol, and each $f^{k_i}_i$ is a $k_i$-ary function symbol, consists of a finite domain $A$ and interpretations for all relation, constant, and function symbols in $\sigma$. An interpretation of a symbol $R^{r_i}_i$ is a relation $R^{\bf A}_i \subseteq A^{r_i}$, of a symbol $c_i$ is a value $c_i^{\bf A} \in A$, and of a symbol $f^{k_i}_i$ is a function $f^{\bf A}_i: A^{k_i} \rightarrow A$. A finite ordered $\sigma$-structure ${\mathbf{A}}$ is a finite structure of vocabulary $\sigma\cup\{\leq\}$, where $\leq\notin\sigma$ is a binary relation symbol and $\leq^{\mathbf{A}}$ is a linear order on $A$. Every finite ordered structure has a corresponding isomorphic structure, whose domain is an initial segment of the natural numbers. Thus, we assume, as usual, that $A = \{0, 1, \ldots, n-1\}$, where $n$ is the cardinality $|A|$ of $A$.
In this paper, $\log n$ always refers to the binary logarithm of $n$, i.e., $\log_2 n$. We write $\log^k n$ as a shorthand for $(\left\lceil\log n \right\rceil)^k$. A tuple of elements $(a_1,\dots,a_k)$ is sometimes written as $\bar{a}$. We then use $\bar{a}[i]$ to denote the $i$-th element of the tuple. Similarly, if $s$ is a finite string, we denote by $s[i]$ the $i$-th letter of this string.
Deterministic polylogarithmic time {#sec:random-access}
==================================
The sequential access that Turing machines have to their tapes restrict sub-linear time computations to depend only on the first sub-linear bits of the input; there is now way to access an arbitrary bit of the input. Therefore, logarithmic time complexity classes are usually studied using models of computation that have random-access[^1] to their input, i.e., that can access every input address directly. As this also applies to polylogarithmic time, we adopt a Turing machine model that has a *random-access* read-only input, similar to the logarithmic-time Turing machine in [@barrington:jcss1990].
Our concept of a *random-access Turing machine* is that of a multi-tape Turing machine which consists of: (1) a finite set of states, (2) a read-only random access *input-tape*, (3) a sequential access *address-tape*, and (4) one or more (but a fixed number of) sequential access *work-tapes*. All tapes are divided into cells, each equipped with a *tape head* which scans the cells, and are “semi-infinite” in the sense that they have no rightmost cell, but have a leftmost cell. The tape heads of the sequential access address-tape and work-tapes can move left or right. When a head is in the leftmost cell, it is not allowed to move left. The address-tape alphabet only contains symbols $0$, $1$ and $\sqcup$ (for blank). The position of the input-tape head is determined by the number $i$ stored in binary between the leftmost cell and the first blank cell of the address-tape (if the leftmost cell is blank, then $i$ is considered to be $0$) as follows: If $i$ is strictly smaller than the length $n$ of the input string, then the input-tape head is in the $(i+1)$-th cell. Otherwise, if $i \geq
n$, then the input-tape head is in the $(n+1)$-th cell scanning the special end-marker symbol $\triangleleft$.
Formally, a *random-access Turing machine* $M$ with $k$ work-tapes is a five-tuple $(Q, \Sigma, \delta, q_0, F)$. Here $Q$ is a finite set of *states*; $q_0 \in Q$ is the *initial state*. $\Sigma$ is a finite set of symbols (the *alphabet* of $M$). For simplicity, we fix $\Sigma = \{0, 1,
\sqcup\}$. $F \subseteq Q$ is the set of *accepting final states*. The *transition* function of $M$ is of the form $\delta : Q \times (\Sigma \cup
\{\triangleleft\}) \times \Sigma^{k+1} \rightarrow Q \times
(\Sigma \times \{\leftarrow, \rightarrow, - \})^{k+1}$. We assume that the tape head directions $\leftarrow$ for “left”, $\rightarrow$ for “right” and $-$ for “stay”, are not in $Q \cup \Sigma$.
Intuitively, $\delta(q, a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_{k+2}) = (p, b_2,
D_2, \ldots, b_{k+2}, D_{k+2})$ means that, if $M$ is in the state $q$, the input-tape head is scanning $a_1$, the index-tape head is scanning $a_2$, and for every $i = 1, \ldots, k$ the head of the $i$-th work-tape is scanning $a_{i+2}$, then the next state will be $p$, the index-tape head will write $b_2$ and move in the direction indicated by $D_2$, and for every $i = 1, \ldots, k$ the head of the $i$-th work-tape will write $b_{i+2}$ and move in the direction indicated by $D_{i+2}$. Situations in which the transition function is undefined indicate that the computation must stop. Observe that $\delta$ cannot change the contents of the input tape.
A *configuration* of $M$ on a fixed input $w_0$ is a $k+2$ tuple $(q, i, w_1, \ldots, w_{k})$, where $q$ is the current state of $M$, $i \in \Sigma^*\# \Sigma^*$ represents the current contents of the index-tape cells, and each $w_j \in
\Sigma^*\# \Sigma^*$ represents the current contents of the $j$-th work-tape cells. We do not include the contents of the input-tape cells in the configuration since they cannot be changed. Further, the position of the input-tape head is uniquely determined by the contents of the index-tape cells. The symbol $\#$ (which we assume is not in $\Sigma$) marks the position of the corresponding tape head. By convention, the head scans the symbol immediately at the right of $\#$. All symbols in the infinite tapes not appearing in their corresponding strings $i, w_0,
\ldots, w_k$ are assumed to be the designated symbol for blank $\sqcup$.
At the beginning of a computation all work-tapes are blank, except the input-tape, that contains the input string, and the index-tape that contains a $0$ (meaning that the input-tape head scans the first cell of the input-tape). Thus, the *initial configuration* of $M$ is $(q_0, \#0, \#,
\ldots, \#)$. A *computation* is a (possibly infinite) sequence of configurations which starts with the initial configuration and, for every two consecutive configurations, the latter is obtained by applying the transition function of $M$ to the former. An input string is *accepted* if an accepting configuration, i.e., a configuration in which the current state belongs to $F$, is reached.
\[example1\] Following a simple strategy, a random-access Turing machine $M$ can figure out the length $n$ of its input as well as $\lceil
\log n \rceil$ in polylogarithmic time. In its initial step, $M$ checks whether the input-tape head scans the end-marker $\triangleleft$. If it does, then the input string is the empty string and its work is done. Otherwise, $M$ writes $1$ in the first cell of its address tape and keeps writing $0$’s in its subsequent cells right up until the input-tape head scans $\triangleleft$. It then rewrites the last $0$ back to the blank symbol $\sqcup$. At this point the resulting binary string in the index-tape is of length $\lceil \log n \rceil$. Next, $M$ moves its address-tape head back to the first cell (i.e., to the only cell containing a $1$ at this point). From here on, $M$ repeatedly moves the index head one step to the right. Each time it checks whether the index-tape head scans a blank $\sqcup$ or a $0$. If $\sqcup$ then $M$ is done. If $0$, it writes a $1$ and tests whether the input-tape head jumps to the cell with $\triangleleft$; if so, it rewrites a $0$, otherwise, it leaves the $1$. The binary number left on the index-tape at the end of this process is $n-1$. Adding one in binary is now an easy task.
The *formal language accepted* by a machine $M$, denoted $L(M)$, is the set of strings accepted by $M$. We say that $L(M) \in \mathrm{DTIME}[f(n)]$ if $M$ makes at most $O(f(n))$ steps before accepting or rejecting an input string of length $n$. We define the class of all formal languages decidable by (deterministic) random-access Turing machines in *polylogarithmic time* as follows: $${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}= \bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{N}}
\mathrm{DTIME}[\log^k n] \qquad$$
It follows from Example \[example1\] that a ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$ random-access Turing machine can check any numerical property that is polynomial time in the size of its input in binary. For instance, it can check whether the length of its input is even, by simply looking at its least-significant bit.
When we want to give a finite structure as an input to a random-access Turing machine, we encode it as a string, adhering to the usual conventions in descriptive complexity theory [@immerman_book]. Let $\sigma = \{R^{r_1}_1, \ldots,
R^{r_p}_p, c_1, \ldots, c_q, f^{k_1}_1, \ldots, f^{k_s}_s\}$ be a vocabulary, and let ${\bf A}$ with $A = \{0, 1,{\dots},
{n{-}1}\}$ be an ordered structure of vocabulary $\sigma$. Note that the order on $A$ can be used to define an order for tuples of elements of $A$ as well. Each relation $R_i^{\bf A} \subseteq A^{r_i}$ of $\bf A$ is encoded as a binary string $\mathrm{bin}(R^{\bf A}_i)$ of length $n^{r_i}$, where $1$ in a given position $m$ indicates that the $m$-th tuple of $A^{r_i}$ is in $R_i^{\textbf{A}}$. Likewise, each constant number $c^{\bf A}_j$ is encoded as a binary string $\mathrm{bin}(c^{\bf
A}_j)$ of length $\lceil \log n \rceil$.
We also need to encode the functions of a structure. We view $k$-ary functions as consisting of $\lceil \log n \rceil$ many $k$-ary relations, where the $m$-th relation indicates whether the $m$-th bit of the value of the function is $1$. Thus, each function $f^{\bf A}_i$ is encoded as a binary string $\mathrm{bin}(f^{\bf A}_i)$ of length $\lceil \log
n \rceil n^{k_i}$.
The encoding of the whole structure $\mathrm{bin}(\textbf{A})$ is the concatenation of the binary strings encoding its relations, constants, and functions. The length $\hat{n} =
|\mathrm{bin}(\textbf{A})|$ of this string is $n^{r_1}+\cdots+n^{r_p} + q \lceil \log n \rceil + \lceil \log n
\rceil n^{k_1}+\cdots+\lceil \log n \rceil n^{k_s}$, where $n =
|A|$ denotes the size of the input structure ${\bf A}$. Note that $\log \hat{n} \in O(\lceil \log n \rceil)$, and hence $\mathrm{DTIME}[\log^k \hat{n}] = \mathrm{DTIME}[\log^k n]$.
Direct-access Turing machines {#datm}
=============================
In this section, we propose a new model of random-access Turing machines. In the standard model reviewed above, the entire input structure is assumed to be encoded as one binary string. In our new variant, the different relations and functions of the structure can be accessed directly. We then show that both variants are equivalent, in the sense that they lead to the same notion of ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$. The direct-access model will then be useful to give a transparent proof of our capturing result.
Let $\sigma = \{R^{r_1}_1, \ldots, R^{r_p}_p, c_1,
\ldots c_q, f^{k_1}_1, \ldots, f^{k_s}_s\}$ be a vocabulary. A *direct-access Turing machine that takes $\sigma$-structures ${\mathbf{A}}$ as an input*, is a multitape Turing machine with $r_1 + \cdots + r_p + k_1 + \dots + k_s$ distinguished work-tapes, called *address-tapes*, $s$ distinguished read-only (function) *value-tapes*, $q+1$ distinguished read-only *constant-tapes*, and one or more ordinary *work-tapes*.
Let us define a transition function $\delta_l$ for each tape $l$ separately. These transition functions take as an input the current state of the machine, the bit read by each of the heads of the machine, and, for each relation $R_i\in \sigma$, the answer (0 or 1) to the query $(n_1, \dots, n_{r_i}) \in R^{\mathbf{A}}_i$. Here, $n_j$ denotes the number written in binary in the $j$th distinguished tape of $R_i$.
Thus, with $m$ the total number of tapes, the state transition function has the form $$\delta_Q: Q \times \Sigma^m\times \{0,1\}^p \rightarrow Q.$$ If $l$ corresponds to an address-tape or an ordinary work-tape, we get the form $$\delta_l: Q \times
\Sigma^m\times \{0,1\}^p \rightarrow \Sigma \times \{\leftarrow,
\rightarrow, - \}.$$ If $l$ corresponds to one of the read-only tapes, we have $$\delta_l: Q \times \Sigma^m\times \{0,1\}^p \rightarrow
\{\leftarrow, \rightarrow, - \}.$$
Finally we update the contents of the function value-tapes. If $l$ is the function value-tape for a function $f_i$, then the content of the tape $l$ is updated to $f^{{\mathbf{A}}}_i(n_1,\dots n_{k_i})$ written in binary. Here, $n_j$ denotes the number written in binary in the $j$th distinguished address-tape of $f_i$ *after* the execution of the above transition functions. If one of the $n_j$ is too large, the tape $l$ is updated to contain only blanks. Note that the head of the tape remains in place; it was moved by $\delta_l$ already.
In the initial configuration, read-only constant-tapes for the constant symbols $c_1, \ldots, c_q$ hold their values in ${\bf A}$ in binary. One additional constant-tape (there are $q+1$ of them) holds the size $n$ of the domain of ${\bf A}$ in binary. Each address-tape, each value-tape, and each ordinary work-tape holds only blanks.
\[directrandom\] A class of finite ordered structures $\cal C$ of some fixed vocabulary $\sigma$ is decidable by a random-access Turing machine working in ${{\mathrm{PolylogTime}}}$ with respect to $\hat{n}$, where $\hat{n}$ is the size of the binary encoding of the input structure, iff $\cal C$ is decidable by a direct-access Turing machine in ${{\mathrm{PolylogTime}}}$ with respect to $n$, where $n$ is the size of the domain of the input structure.
We will first sketch how a random-access Turing machine $M_r$ simulates a direct-access Turing machine $M_d$ on an input ${\mathbf{A}}$. Let $n$ denote the cardinality of $A$ and ${\hat{n}}$ the length of ${\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}})$. We dedicate a work-tape of $M_r$ to every tape of $M_d$. In addition, for each relation $R$, we add one extra tape that will always contain the answer to the query $?R(\vec{n})$. We also use additional work-tapes for convenience. We then encode the initial configuration of $M_d$ into the tapes of $M_r$:
1. On the 0th constant tape, write $n$ in binary.
2. On each tape for a constant $c_i$, write $c_{i}^{{\mathbf{A}}}$ in binary.
3. For the answer-tapes of relations $R_i$, write the bit $0$.
For encoding the transitions of $M_d$, we will in addition need two more constructs:
1. Updating the answer-tapes of relations after each transition.
2. Updating the answer-tapes of functions after each transition.
We now need to verify that these procedures (3. is trivial) can be performed by $M_r$ in polylogarithmic time with respect to ${\hat{n}}$.
Step 1. On a fixed vocabulary $\sigma$, we have ${\hat{n}}= f(n)$, for some fixed function $f$ of the form $$n^{r_1}+\cdots+n^{r_p} + q \lceil \log n \rceil + \lceil \log n \rceil n^{k_1}+\cdots+\lceil \log n \rceil n^{k_s}.$$ We will find $n$ by executing a binary search between the numbers $0$ and ${\hat{n}}$; note that checking whether a binary representation of a number is at most ${\hat{n}}$, can be checked by writing the representation to the index-tape and checking whether a bit or $\triangleleft$ is read from the input-tape. For each i between $0$ and ${\hat{n}}$, $f(i)$ can be computed in polynomial time with respect to the length of ${\hat{n}}$ in binary, and thus in polylogarithmic time with respect to ${\hat{n}}$.
Step 2. The binary representation of a constant $c^{\mathbf{A}}_i$ is written in the input-tape between $g(n)$ and $g(n)+ \lceil \log n
\rceil$, where $g$ is a fixed function of the form $
n^{r_1}+\cdots+n^{r_p} + (i-1) \lceil \log n \rceil. $ The numbers $n$ and $g(n)$ are obtained as in case 1. Then $g(n)$ is written on the index tape and the next $\lceil \log n \rceil$ bits of the input are copied to the tape corresponding to $c_i$.
Steps a. and b. These cases are are handled similar to each other and to the case 2. above. The main difference for b. is that the bits of the output are not in successive positions of the input, but the location of each bit needs to be calculated separately.
We next sketch how a direct-access Turing machine $M_d$ simulates a random-access Turing machine $M_r$ on an input ${\mathbf{A}}$. First note that approach similar to the converse direction does not work here, as we do not have enough time to directly construct the initial configuration of $M_r$ inside $M_d$. For each work-tape of $M_r$, we dedicate a work-tape of $M_d$. For the index-tape of $M_r$, we dedicate a work-tape of $M_d$ and call it the index-tape of $M_d$. Moreover, we use some additional work-tapes for convenience. The idea of the simulation is that the dedicated work-tapes and the index-tape of $M_d$ copy exactly the behaviour of the corresponding tapes of $M_r$. The additional work-tapes are used to calculate to which part of the input of $M_r$ the index-tape refers to. After each transition of $M_r$ this is checked so that the machine $M_d$ can update its address-tapes accordingly.
Recall that given an input $\sigma = \{R^{r_1}_1, \ldots, R^{r_p}_p, c_1, \ldots c_q, f^{k_1}_1, \ldots, f^{k_s}_s\}$ structure ${\mathbf{A}}$ of cardinality $n$, the input of $M_r$ is of length $$\label{eq:one}
n^{r_1}+\cdots+n^{r_p} + q \lceil \log n \rceil + \lceil \log n \rceil n^{k_1}+\cdots+\lceil \log n \rceil n^{k_s}.$$ The number written in binary on the index-tape of $M_r$ determines the position of the input that is read by $M_r$. From we obtain fixed functions on $n$, that we use in the simulation to check which part of the input is read when the index-tape holds a particular number. For example, if the index-tape holds $n^r_1+1$, we can calculate that the head of the input-tape of $M_r$ reads the bit answering the query: is $\vec 0 \in R_2^{{\mathbf{A}}}$. We can use an extra work-tape of $M_d$ to always store the bit that $M_r$ is reading from its input; the rest of the simulation is straightforward.
Index logic
===========
[\[sec:ifpplog\]]{}
In this section, we introduce *index logic*, a new logic which over ordered finite structures captures ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$. Our definition of index logic is inspired by the second-order logic in [@Barr92], where relation variables are restricted to valuations on the sub-domain $\{0, \ldots, \lceil \log n
\rceil-1\}$ ($n$ being the size of the interpreting structure), as well as by the well known counting logics as defined in [@grohe_2017].
Given a vocabulary $\sigma$, for every ordered $\sigma$-structure $\mathbf{A}$, we define a corresponding set of natural numbers $\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A}) = \{0,\dots,\lceil \log n \rceil-1\}$ where $n=|A|$. Note that $\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A}) \subseteq A$, since we assume that $A$ is an initial segment of the natural numbers. This simplifies the definitions, but it is otherwise unnecessary.
Index logic is a two-sorted logic. Individual variables of the first sort **v** range over the domain $A$ of $\mathbf{A}$, while individual variables of the second sort **n** range over $\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A})$. We denote variables of sort **v** with $x, y, z, \ldots$, possibly with a subindex such as $x_0,x_1, x_2, \dots$, and variables of sort **n** with $\mathtt{x}, \mathtt{y}, \mathtt{z}$, also possibly with a subindex. Relation variables, denoted with uppercase letters $X,Y,Z, \ldots$, are always of sort **n**, and thus range over relations defined on $\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A})$.
The only terms of sort ***n*** are the variables of sort ***n***. For a vocabulary $\sigma$, the $\sigma$-terms $t$ of sort ***v*** are generated by the following grammar: $$t ::= x \mid c \mid f(t, \ldots, t),$$ where $x$ is a variable of sort ***v***, $c$ is a constant symbol in $\sigma$, and $f$ is a function symbol in $\sigma$.
\[syntax\] Let $\sigma$ be a vocabulary. The formulae of *index logic* $\mathrm{IL(IFP)}$ is generated by the following grammar: $$\begin{gathered}
\varphi ::= t_1 \leq t_2 \mid {{\tt x}}_1 \leq {{\tt x}}_2 \mid R(t_1, \ldots, t_k) \mid X({{\tt x}}_1, \ldots, {{\tt x}}_k) \mid (\varphi \land \varphi) \mid \neg \varphi \mid [\mathrm{IFP}_{\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X} \varphi]\bar{{{\tt y}}} \mid \\
t=\mathit{index}\{\mathtt{x}:\varphi(\mathtt{x})\} \mid \exists x (x=\mathit{index}\{\mathtt{x}:\alpha(\mathtt{x})\} \wedge \varphi) \mid \exists {{\tt x}}\varphi,\end{gathered}$$ where $t, t_1, \ldots, t_k$ are $\sigma$-terms of sort ***v***, ${{\tt x}}, {{\tt x}}_1, \ldots, {{\tt x}}_k$ are variables of sort ***n***, $\bar{\mathtt{x}}$ and $\bar{{{\tt y}}}$ are tuples of variables of sort ***n*** whose length coincides with the arity of the relation variable $X$. Moreover, $\alpha({{\tt x}})$ is a formula where the variable $x$ of sort ***v*** does not occur as a free variable.
We also use the standard shorthand formulae $t_1 = t_2$, ${{\tt x}}_1 = {{\tt x}}_2$, $(\varphi\lor \psi)$, and $\forall {{\tt y}}\varphi$ with the obvious meanings.
The concept of a valuation is the standard one for a two-sorted logic. Thus, a *valuation* over a structure $\mathbf{A}$ is any total function *val* from the set of all variables of index logic to values satisfying the following constraints:
- If $x$ is a variable of sort **v**, then $\mathit{val}(x) \in A$.
- If $\mathtt{x}$ is a variable of sort **n**, then $\mathit{val}(\mathtt{x}) \in \textit{Num}(\mathbf{A})$.
- If $X$ is a relation variable with arity $r$, then $\mathit{val}(X) \subseteq (\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A}))^r$.
If $\chi$ is a variable and $B$ a legal value for that variable, we write $\it{val}(B/\chi)$ to denote the valuation that maps $\chi$ to $B$ and agrees with $\it{val}$ for all other variables. Valuations extend to terms and tuples of terms in the usual way. Fixed points are defined in the standard way (see [@ef_fmt2] and [@libkin_fmt] among others). Given an operator $F : {\cal P}(B) \rightarrow {\cal P}(B)$, a set $S \subseteq B$ is a *fixed point* of $F$ if $F(S) = S$. A set $S \subseteq B$ is the *least fixed point* of $F$ if it is a fixed point and, for every other fixed point $S'$ of $F$, we have $S \subseteq S'$. We denote the least fixed point of $F$ as $\mathrm{lfp}(F)$. The *inflationary fixed point* of $F$, denoted by $\mathrm{ifp}(F)$, is the union of all sets $S^i$ where $S^0 := \emptyset$ and $S^{i+1} := S^i \cup F(S^i)$.
Let $\varphi(X, \bar{\mathtt{x}})$ be a formula of vocabulary $\sigma$, where $X$ is a relation variable of arity $k$ and $\mathtt{x}$ is a $k$-tuple of variables of sort $\textbf{n}$. Let $\bf A$ be a $\sigma$-structure and $\it{val}$ a variable valuation. The formula $\varphi(X, \bar{\mathtt{x}})$ gives rise to an operator $F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\varphi,\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X} : {\cal P}((\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A}))^k) \rightarrow {\cal P}((\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A}))^k)$ defined as follows: $$F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\varphi, \bar{\mathtt{x}}, X}(S) := \{ \bar{a}\in (\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A}))^k \mid \mathbf{A},\mathit{val}(S/X, \bar{a}/ \bar{\mathtt{x}}) \models \varphi (X,\bar{\mathtt{x}}).$$
\[semanticsIndexLogic\] The formulae of $\mathrm{IL(IFP)}$ are interpreted as follows:
- $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models {{\tt x}}_1 \leq {{\tt x}}_2$ iff $\mathit{val}({{\tt x}}_1) \leq \mathit{val}({{\tt x}}_2)$.
- $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models t_1 \leq t_2$ iff $\mathit{val}(t_1) \leq \mathit{val}(t_2)$.
- $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models R(t_1,\dots, t_k) $ iff $(\mathit{val}(t_1),\dots,\mathit{val}(t_k))\in R^\mathbf{A}$.
- $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models X({{\tt x}}_1,\dots,{{\tt x}}_k) $ iff $(\mathit{val}({{\tt x}}_1),\dots,\mathit{val}({{\tt x}}_k)) \in \mathit{val}(X) $.
- $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models t=\mathit{index}\{\mathtt{x}:\varphi(\mathtt{x})\}$ iff $\mathit{val}(t)$ in binary is $b_m b_{m-1} \cdots b_0$, where $m = {\lceil\log |A|\rceil}-1$ and $b_j = 1$ iff $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val}(j/\mathtt{x}) \models \varphi(\mathtt{x})$.
- $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models [\mathrm{IFP}_{\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X} \varphi]\bar{{{\tt y}}}$ iff $\mathit{val}(\bar{{{\tt y}}}) \in \mathrm{ifp}(F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\varphi, \bar{\mathtt{x}}, X})$.
- $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models \neg \varphi $ iff $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \not\models \varphi$.
- $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models \varphi \wedge \psi $ iff $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models \varphi$ and $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models \psi$.
- $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models \exists \mathtt{x} \, \varphi$ iff $\mathbf{A}, \mathit{val}(i/\mathtt{x}) \models \varphi$, for some $i\in\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A})$.
- $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models \exists x (x=\mathit{index}\{\mathtt{x}:\alpha(\mathtt{x})\} \wedge \varphi)$ iff there exists $i\in A$ such that $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val}(i/\mathtt{x}) \models x=\mathit{index}\{\mathtt{x}:\alpha(\mathtt{x})\}$ and $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val}(i/\mathtt{x}) \models \varphi$.
It immediately follows from the famous result by Gurevich and Shelah regarding the equivalence between inflationary and least fixed points [@gs_fixpoint], that an equivalent index logic can be obtained if we (1) replace $[\mathrm{IFP}_{\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X} \varphi]\bar{{{\tt y}}}$ by $[\mathrm{LFP}_{\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X} \varphi]\bar{{{\tt y}}}$ in the formation rule for the fixed point operator in Definition \[syntax\], adding the restriction that every occurrence of $X$ in $\varphi$ is positive[^2], and (2) fix the interpretation $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models [\mathrm{LFP}_{\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X} \varphi]\bar{y}$ iff $\mathit{val}(\bar{y}) \in \mathrm{lfp}(F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\varphi, \bar{\mathtt{x}}, X})$.
Moreover, the convenient tool of *simultaneous fixed points*, which allows one to iterate several formulae at once, can also be used here, since it does not increase the expressive power of the logic. Following the syntax and semantics proposed by Ebbinghaus and Flum [@ef_fmt2], a version of index logic with simultaneous inflationary fixed point operators can be obtained by replacing the clause corresponding to $\mathrm{IFP}$ in Definition \[syntax\] by the following:
- If $\bar{{{\tt y}}}$ is tuple of variables of sort **n**, and for $m \geq 0$ and $0 \leq i \leq m$, we have that $\bar{\mathtt{x}}_i$ is also a tuple of variables of sort **n**, $X_i$ is a relation variable whose arity coincides with the length of $\bar{\mathtt{x}}_i$, the lengths of $\bar{{{\tt y}}}$ and $\bar{\mathtt{x}}_0$ are the same, and $\varphi_i$ is a formula, then $[\textrm{S-IFP}_{\bar{\mathtt{x}}_0, X_0, \ldots, \bar{\mathtt{x}}_m, X_m} \varphi_0, \ldots, \varphi_m]\bar{{{\tt y}}}$ is an atomic formula.
The interpretation is that $\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models [\textrm{S-IFP}_{\bar{\mathtt{x}}_0, X_0, \ldots, \bar{\mathtt{x}}_m, X_m} \varphi_0, \ldots, \varphi_m]\bar{{{\tt y}}}$ iff $\mathit{val}(\bar{{{\tt y}}})$ belongs to the first (here $X_0$) component of the simultaneous inflationary fixed point.
Thus, we can use index logic with the operators $\textrm{IFP}$, $\textrm{LFP}$, $\textrm{S-IFP}$ or $\textrm{S-LFP}$ interchangeably. In the next two subsections, we give two worked-out examples that illustrate the power of index logic. After that, the exact characterization of its expressive power is presented in Subsection \[charProofIndexLogic\].
Finding the binary representation of a term {#binrepex}
-------------------------------------------
Let $t$ be a term of [sort $\bf v$]{}. In this example, we construct an index logic formula that expresses the well-known bit predicate ${\mathrm{BIT}}(t,{{\tt x}})$. The predicate ${\mathrm{BIT}}(t,{{\tt x}})$ states that the $(\it{val}({{\tt x}})+1)$-th bit of $\it{val}(t)$ in binary is set. Subsequently, the sentence $t
= {\mathit{index}}\{{{\tt x}}: {\mathrm{BIT}}(t,{{\tt x}})\} $ is valid over the class of all finite ordered structures. Informally, for a fixed term $t$, our implementation of ${\mathrm{BIT}}(t,{{\tt x}})$ works by iterating through the bit positions ${{\tt y}}$ from the most significant to the least significant. These bits are accumulated in a relation variable $Z$. For each ${{\tt y}}$ we set the corresponding bit, on the condition that the resulting number does not exceed $t$. The set bits are collected in a relation variable $Y$.
In the formal description of ${\mathrm{BIT}}(t,{{\tt x}})$ below, we use the following abbreviations. We use $M$ to denote the most significant bit position. Thus, formally, ${{\tt z}}= M$ abbreviates $\forall {{\tt z}}'\, {{\tt z}}'\leq{{\tt z}}$. Furthermore, for a unary relation variable $Z$, we use ${{\tt z}}= \min Z$ with the obvious meaning. We also use abbreviations such as ${{\tt z}}={{\tt z}}'-1$ with the obvious meaning.
Now ${\mathrm{BIT}}(t,{{\tt x}})$ is a simultaneous fixed point $ [\textrm{S-IFP}_{{{\tt y}},Y,{{\tt z}},Z} \, \varphi_Y,\varphi_Z]({{\tt x}})$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_Z & := (Z = \emptyset \land {{\tt z}}=M) \lor
(Z \neq \emptyset \land {{\tt z}}= \min Z - 1), \\
\varphi_Y & :=
Z \neq \emptyset \land {{\tt y}}= \min Z \land \exists x(x={\mathit{index}}\{{{\tt z}}: Y({{\tt z}}) \lor {{\tt z}}={{\tt y}}\} \land t \geq x).\end{aligned}$$
Binary search in an array of key values
---------------------------------------
In order to develop insight in how index logic works, we develop in detail an example showing how binary search in an array of key values can be expressed in the logic.
We represent the data structure as an ordered structure ${\mathbf{A}}$ over the vocabulary consisting of a unary function ${K}$, a constant symbol $N$, a constant symbol $T$, and a binary relation $\prec$. The domain of ${\mathbf{A}}$ is an initial segment of the natural numbers. The constant $l:=N^{\mathbf{A}}$ indicates the length of the array; the domain elements $0$, $1$, …, $l-1$ represent the cells of the array. The remaining domain elements represent key values. Each array cell holds a key value; the assignment of key values to array cells is given by the function ${{K}}^{\mathbf{A}}$.
The simplicity of the above abstraction gives rise to two peculiarities, which, however, pose no problems. First, the array cells belong to the range of the function ${K}$. Thus, array cells are allowed to play a double role as key values. Second, the function ${K}$ is total, so it is also defined on the domain elements that are not array cells. We will simply ignore ${K}$ on that part of the domain.
We still need to discuss about $\prec$ and $T$. We assume $\prec^{\mathbf{A}}$ to be a total order, used to compare key values. So $\prec^{\mathbf{A}}$ can be different from the built-in order $<^{\mathbf{A}}$. For the binary search procedure to work, the array needs to be sorted, i.e., ${\mathbf{A}}$ must satisfy $ \forall x \forall y \Big(x<y < N \to \big({K}(x) \preceq
{K}(y)\big)\Big)$. Finally, the constant $t:=T^{\mathbf{A}}$ is the test value. Specifically, we are going to exhibit an index logic formula that expresses that $t$ is a key value stored in the array. In other words, we want to express the condition $$\exists x (x < N \land
{K}(x)=T). \eqno (\gamma)$$ Note that, we express here the condition $(\gamma)$ by a first-order formula that is not an index logic formula. So, our aim is to show that $(\gamma)$ is still expressible, over all sorted arrays, by a formula of index logic.
We recall the procedure for binary search [@knuth_vol3] in the following form, using integer variables $L$, $R$ and $I$:
===$L := 0$\
$R := N-1$\
**while $L\neq R$ do\
$I := \lfloor (L+R)/2 \rfloor$\
**if ${K}(I) \succ T$ then $R := I-1$ else $L := I$\
[**if ${K}(L)=T$ return**]{} ‘found’ [**else return**]{} ‘not found’****
We are going to express the above procedure as a simultaneous fixed point, using binary relation variables $L$ and $R$, and a unary relation variable $Z$. We collect the iteration numbers in $Z$, thus counting until the logarithm of the size of the structure. Relation variables $L$ and $R$ are used to store the values, in binary representation, of the integer variables $L$ and $R$ during all iterations. Specifically, for each $i\in{\mathit{Num}}({\mathbf{A}})$, the value of the term ${\mathit{index}}\{{{\tt x}}: L(i,{{\tt x}})\}$ will be the value of the integer variable $L$ before the $(i+1)$-th iteration of the while loop (and similarly for $R$).
In the formal expression of $(\gamma)$ below, we use the bit predicate from Section \[binrepex\]. We also assume the following formulas:
- A formula ${\it avg}(X,Y, {{\tt x}})$ that expresses, for unary relation variables $X$ and $Y$, and a numeric variable ${{\tt x}}$, that the bit ${{\tt x}}$ is set in the binary representation of $\lfloor (x + y)/2 \rfloor$, where $x$ and $y$ are the numbers represented in binary by $X$ and $Y$.
- A formula ${\it minusone}(X,{{\tt y}})$, expressing that the bit ${{\tt y}}$ is set in the binary representation of $x-1$, where $x$ is the number represented in binary by $X$.
These formulas surely exist because index logic includes full inflationary fixed point logic on the numeric sort; inflationary fixed point logic captures PTIME on the numeric sort, and computing the average, or subtracting one, are PTIME operations on binary numbers.
We are going to apply the formula $\it avg(X,Y,{{\tt x}})$, where $X$ and $Y$ are given by $L({{\tt z}},.)$ and $R({{\tt z}},.)$. So, formally, below, we use $\it avg'({{\tt z}},{{\tt x}})$ for the formula obtained from the formula $\it avg$ by replacing each subformula of the form $X({{\tt u}})$ by $L({{\tt z}},{{\tt u}})$, and $Y({{\tt u}})$ by $R({{\tt z}},{{\tt u}})$.
Furthermore, we are going to apply the formula $\it minusone(X, {{\tt u}})$, where $X$ is given by $\it avg'({{\tt z}})$. So, formally, $\it minusone'({{\tt z}},{{\tt u}})$ will denote the formula obtained from $\it minusone(X,u)$ by replacing each subformula of the form $X({{\tt u}})$ by ${\it avg}'({{\tt z}},{{\tt u}})$.
A last abbreviation we will use is $\it test({{\tt z}})$, which will denote the formula $\exists e (e = {\mathit{index}}\{{{\tt x}}: {\it avg}'({{\tt z}},{{\tt x}})\} \land
{K}(e) \succ T)$.
Now $(\gamma)$ is expressed by $ \exists x (x={\mathit{index}}\{{{\tt l}}:
\psi({{\tt l}})\} \land {K}(x)=T)$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\psi({{\tt l}}) & := \exists {{\tt s}}\forall {{\tt s}}' ({{\tt s}}' \leq {{\tt s}}\wedge [\textrm{S-IFP}_{{{\tt z}},{{\tt x}},L,{{\tt z}},{{\tt x}},R,{{\tt z}},Z} \, \varphi_L,\varphi_R,\varphi_Z]({{\tt s}}, {{\tt l}})), \\
\varphi_Z & := (Z=\emptyset \land {{\tt z}}=0) \lor (Z\neq \emptyset
\land {{\tt z}}=\max Z + 1), \\
\varphi_L & := \begin{aligned}[t]
& Z \neq \emptyset \land {{\tt z}}=\max Z + 1 \land {}\\
& \exists {{\tt z}}' ({{\tt z}}' = \max Z \land
({\it test}({{\tt z}}') \to L({{\tt z}}',{{\tt x}})) \land (\neg {\it test}({{\tt z}}') \to {\it avg}'({{\tt z}}', {{\tt x}}))),
\end{aligned}\\
\varphi_R & := \begin{aligned}[t]
& (Z=\emptyset \land {{\tt z}}=0 \land {\mathrm{BIT}}(N-1,{{\tt x}})) \lor (Z \neq \emptyset \land {{\tt z}}=\max Z + 1 \wedge {} \\
& \exists {{\tt z}}' ({{\tt z}}' = \max Z \land
({\it test}({{\tt z}}') \to {\it minusone}'({{\tt z}}',{{\tt x}})) \land (\neg {\it test}({{\tt z}}') \to
R({{\tt z}}',{{\tt x}})))).
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$
The logical characterization theorem for ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$ {#charProofIndexLogic}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following result confirms that our logic serves our original purpose.
\[captureResult\] Over ordered structures, index logic captures ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$.
${}$
#### Formulas of index logic can be evaluated in polylogarithmic time
Let ${\mathrm{VAR}}$ be a finite set of variables (of sort [**[n]{}**]{}, [**v**]{}, and relational). We stipulate a Turing machine model that has a designated work-tape for each of the variables in ${\mathrm{VAR}}$. The idea here is that the tape designated for a variable contains the value of that variable encoded as a binary string. We use induction on the structure of formulas to show that, for every sentence $\varphi$ of index logic, whose variables are from the set ${\mathrm{VAR}}$, there exists a direct-access Turing machine $M_\varphi$ that, for every ordered structure $\bf A$ with $|A| = n$, and every valuation $\mathit{val}$, decides in time $O(\lceil \log n \rceil^{O(1)})$ whether ${\bf A}, \mathit{val} \models \varphi$. Since ${\mathrm{VAR}}$ is an arbitrary finite set, this suffices.
In the proof, variables $v$ of sort ***n*** and ***v*** are treated in a similar way as constant symbols, meaning that their value $\mathit{val}(v)$ is written in binary in the first $\lceil \log n \rceil$ cells of their designated work-tapes. The work-tape designated to a relation variable $X$ of arity $k$ contains $\mathit{val}(X) \subseteq \mathit{Num}({\bf A})^{k}$ encoded as a binary string in its first $\lceil \log n \rceil^k$ cells, where a $1$ in the $i$-th cell indicates that the $i$-th tuple in the lexicographic order of $\mathit{Num}({\bf A})^{k}$ is in $\mathit{val}(X)$. We will show first, by induction on the structure of terms, that, if $t$ is term, $M$ a direct-access Turing machine, and $\mathit{val}$ a valuation such that, for every variable $\chi$ that occurs in $t$, the value $\mathit{val}(\chi)$ is written in binary in the designated work-tape of $\chi$, then $\mathit{val}(t)$ can be computed by $M$ in time $O(\lceil \log n \rceil^{O(1)})$. If $t$ is a variable of sort ***n*** or ***v***, or a constant symbol, then $M$ only needs to read the first $\lceil \log n \rceil$ cells of the appropriate work-tape or constant-tape, respectively. If $t$ is a term of the form $f_i(t_1, \ldots, t_k)$, we access and copy each $\mathit{val}(t_j)$ in binary in the corresponding address-tapes of $f_i$. By the induction hypothesis, this takes time $O(\lceil \log n \rceil^{O(1)})$ each. Using $\lceil \log n \rceil$ additional steps the result of length $\lceil \log n \rceil$ will then be accessible in the value-tape of $f_i$.
We will next use induction to prove our main claim. Note that, the cases for quantifiers assure that the assumptions needed for the calculation of the values of terms are met. We will show by induction that, if $\varphi$ is a formula with variables in ${\mathrm{VAR}}$, ${\it{val}}$ a valuation, and $M$ a direct-access Turing machine, such that, for every variable $\chi$ that occurs free in $\varphi$, the value $\mathit{val}(\chi)$ is written in binary in the designated work-tape of $\chi$, then ${\bf A}, \mathit{val}\models \psi$ can be decided by $M$ in time $O(\lceil \log n \rceil^{O(1)})$.
If $\varphi$ is an atomic formula of the form $t_1 \leq t_2$, $M$ can evaluate $\varphi$ in polylogarithmic time by accessing the values of $t_1$ and $t_2$ in binary and then comparing their $\lceil \log n \rceil$ bits.
If $\varphi$ is an atomic formula of the form $R_i(t_1,\dots, t_k)$, $M$ can evaluate $\varphi$ in polylogarithmic time by simply computing the values of the terms $t_1,\dots, t_k$ and copying the values to the corresponding address-tapes of $R_i$. By the proof for terms above, computing the values of the terms take polylogarithmic time each, and since the values have $\lceil \log n \rceil$ bits, also the copying can be done in polylogarithmic time.
If $\varphi$ is an atomic formula of the form $X({{\tt x}}_1,\dots,{{\tt x}}_k)$, $M$ can evaluate $\varphi$ in polylogarithmic time by accessing the values ${{\tt x}}_1,\dots, {{\tt x}}_k$ in binary, computing the position $i$ of the tuple $({{\tt x}}_1,\dots, {{\tt x}}_k)$ in the lexicographic order of $\mathit{Num}({\bf A})^{k}$ in binary, and then accessing the $i$-th cell of the work-tape which contains the encoding of $\mathit{val}(X)$ of length $\lceil \log n \rceil^k$. Computing $i$ in binary involves simple arithmetic operations on binary numbers of length bounded by $\log (\lceil \log n \rceil^k)$, which can clearly be done in time polynomial in $\log n$.
If $\varphi$ is an atomic formula of the form $t=\mathit{index}\{\mathtt{x}:\psi(\mathtt{x})\}$, $M$ proceeds as follows. Let $s = \lceil \log n \rceil - 1$ and let $b_s b_{s-1}\cdots b_0$ be $\mathit{val}(t)$ in binary. For every $i$, $0\leq i \leq s$, $M$ writes $i$ in binary in the work-tape designated for the variable $\mathtt{x}$ and checks whether ${\bf A}, \mathit{val}(i/\mathtt{x}) \models \psi(\mathtt{x})$ iff $b_i = 1$. Since, by the induction hypothesis, this check can be done in polylogarithmic time, and $\mathit{val}(t)$ can be computed in polylogarithmic time, we get that $M$ decides $t=\mathit{index}\{\mathtt{x}:\varphi(\mathtt{x})\}$ in polylogarithmic time as well.
If $\varphi$ is a formula of the form $[\mathrm{IFP}_{\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X} \psi]\bar{y}$, where the arity of $X$ is $k$, let $F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\psi,\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X} : {\cal P}((\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A}))^k) \rightarrow {\cal P}((\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A}))^k)$ denote the related operator, $F^0 := \emptyset$, and $F^{i+1} := F^{i} \cup F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\psi,\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X} (F^i)$, for each $i\geq 0$. The inflationary fixed point is reached on stage $\lvert \textit{Num}(\mathbf{A})^k \rvert$, at the latest, and thus $
\mathrm{ifp}(F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\psi,\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X}) = F^{\log^k n}.
$ Recall that $$F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\psi, \bar{\mathtt{x}}, X}(S) := \{ \bar{a}\in (\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A}))^k \mid \mathbf{A},\mathit{val}(S/X, \bar{a}/ \bar{\mathtt{x}}) \models \psi (X,\bar{\mathtt{x}})\}.$$ We calculate $F^{i+1}$ from $F^{i}$ as follows. Note that on each stage, the value of $F^{i}$ is written in binary on the work-tape designated for $X$. We first calculate the value of $F^{i+1}$ in binary on another work-tape, and then reformat the contents of the work-tape designated for $X$ to contain the value of $F^{i+1}$. For $i=0$, we format the work-tape designated for $X$ to contain a string of $0$s of length $\log^k n$. In order to calculate $F^{i+1}$ from $F^{i}$, we go through all $k$-tuples $\bar{a}\in (\textit{Num}(\mathbf{A}))^k$ in the lexicographic order. For $1 \leq j\leq k$, we write $\bar{a}[j]$ in binary on the designated work-tape for $\bar{{{\tt x}}}[j]$ and check whether $$\label{eq:1}
\mathbf{A},\mathit{val}(S/X, \bar{a}/ \bar{\mathtt{x}}) \models \psi (X,\bar{\mathtt{x}})$$ holds. By induction hypothesis, this can be checked in time $O(\lceil \log n \rceil^{O(1)})$. If $\eqref{eq:1}$ holds and $\bar{a}$ is the $l$-th k-tuple in the lexicographic ordering, we write $1$ to the $l$-th cell of the work-tape, where the value of $F^{i+1}$ is being constructed, otherwise we write $0$ to this cell. Hence the computation of $F^{i+1}$ from $F^{i}$ can be done in time $\log^k n \times O(\lceil \log n \rceil^{O(1)})$ which is still $O(\lceil \log n \rceil^{O(1)})$. It is now clear that $\mathrm{ifp}(F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\psi,\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X}) = F^{\log^k n}$ can be computed in time $O(\lceil \log n \rceil^{O(1)})$ as well. Finally, determining whether ${\it val}(\bar{y})$ is included in the fixed point is clearly computable in $O(\lceil \log n \rceil^{O(1)})$, for one must just calculate the position of ${\it val}(\bar{y})$ in the lexicographic order of $k$-tuples, and then check whether that position has a $0$ or $1$ in the work-tape corresponding to $X$.
If $\varphi$ is a formula of the form $\exists x (x=\mathit{index}\{\mathtt{x}:\alpha(\mathtt{x})\} \wedge \psi(x))$, $M$ proceeds as follows. For each $i \in \{0, \ldots, \lceil \log n \rceil-1\}$, $M$ writes $i$ in binary in the work-tape designated for $\mathtt{x}$ and checks whether ${\bf A}, \mathit{val}(i/\mathtt{x}) \models \alpha(\mathtt{x})$. Since, by definition, $x$ does not appear free in $\alpha(\mathtt{x})$, it follows by the induction hypothesis that $M$ can perform each of these checks in polylogarithmic time. In parallel, $M$ writes the bit string $b_s b_{s-1}\cdots b_0$, defined such that $b_i = 1$ iff ${\bf A},\mathit{val}(i/\mathtt{x}) \models \alpha(\mathtt{x})$, to the work-tape designated to the variable $x$. Let the content of this work-tape at the end of this process be $t$ in binary. $M$ can now check whether $t < n$ (recall that by convention, $M$ has the value $n$ in binary in one of its constant-tapes and thus this can be done in polylogarithmic time). If $t \geq n$ then ${\bf A}, \mathit{val} \not\models \varphi$. If $t < n$, then $M$ checks whether ${\bf A}, \mathit{val}(t/x) \models \psi$, which by the induction hypothesis can also be done in polylogarithmic time.
Finally, if $\varphi$ is a formula of the form $\exists \mathtt{x} \,\psi$, then for each $i \in \{0, \ldots, \lceil \log n \rceil-1\}$, $M$ writes $i$ in binary to the work-tape designated for $\mathtt{x}$ and checks whether ${\bf A}, \mathit{val}(i/\mathtt{x}) \models \psi$. It follows by the induction hypothesis that $M$ can perform each of these checks in polylogarithmic time. If the test is positive for some $i$ then ${\bf A}, \mathit{val} \models \varphi$. The remaining cases are those corresponding to Boolean connectives and follow trivially from the induction hypothesis.
#### Every polylogarithmic time property can be expressed in index logic
Suppose we are given a class $\cal C$ of ordered $\sigma$-structures, which can be decided by a deterministic polylogarithmic time direct-access Turing machine $M = (Q, \Sigma, \delta, q_0, F, \sigma)$, that has $m$ tapes, including ordinary work-tapes, address-tapes, (function) value-tapes and constant-tapes. We assume, w.l.o.g., that $F = \{q_a\}$ (i.e., there is only one accepting state), $|Q| = a+1$, and $Q = \{q_0, q_1, \ldots, q_{a}\}$.
Let $M$ run in time $O(\lceil \log n \rceil^k)$. Note that, only small inputs (up to some fixed constant) may require more time than $\lceil \log n \rceil^k$. Those finite number of small input structures can be dealt separately, for each finite structure can be easily defined by an index logic sentence. Hence, from now on, we only consider those inputs for which $M$ runs in time $\lceil \log n \rceil^k$. Using the order relation $\leq^{\bf A}$ of the ordered structure $\bf{A}$, we can define the lexicographic order $\leq^{\mathbf{A}}_k$ for the $k$-tuples in $\mathit{Num}({\mathbf{A}})^k$, and then use this order to model time and positions of the tape heads of $M$. Note that this can be done, since the number of $k$-tuples in $\mathit{Num}({\mathbf{A}})^k$ is $\lceil \log n \rceil^k$. In our proof, we use expressions of the form $\bar{t} \sim t'$, where $\bar{t}$ is a $k$-tuple of variables of sort $\bf n$ and $t'$ is a single variable also of sort $\bf n$, with the intended meaning that $\it{val}(\bar{t})$ is the $(\it{val}(t')+1)$-th tuple in the order $\leq^{\mathbf{A}}_k$. This is clearly expressible in index logic, since it is a polynomial time property on the $\bf n$ sort.
Next we introduce, together with their intended meanings, the relations we use to encode the configurations of polylogarithmic time direct-access Turing machines. Consider:
- A $k$-ary relation $S_q$, for every state $q \in Q$, such that $S_q(\bar{t})$ holds iff $M$ is in state $q$ at time $\bar{t}$.
- $2k$-ary relations $T_i^0, T_i^1, T_i^\sqcup$, for every tape $i = 1, \ldots, m$, such that $T_i^s(\bar{p}, \bar{t})$ holds iff at the time $\bar{t}$ the cell $\bar{p}$ of the tape $i$ contains the symbol $s$.
- $2k$-ary relations $H_i$, for every tape $i = 1, \ldots, m$, such that $H_i(\bar{p}, \bar{t})$ holds iff at the time $\bar{t}$ the head of the tape $i$ is on the cell $\bar{p}$.
We show that these relations are definable in index logic by means of a simultaneous inflationary fixed point formula. The following sentence is satisfied by a structure $\bf A$ iff ${\bf A} \in {\cal C}$. The idea of the formula is that it uses the simultaneous fixed point operator to construct the whole computation of $M$ iteration by iteration, and states that there exists a time step in which $M$ accepts. We define the formula $$\label{IFPformula}
\exists \mathtt{x}_0 \ldots \mathtt{x}_{k-1} \big([\textrm{S-IFP}_{
\bar{t}, S_{q_a}, \mathrm{A}, \mathrm{B}_1, \mathrm{B}_2, \mathrm{B}_3, \mathrm{C}
}
\;\varphi_{q_a}, \Phi_\mathrm{A}, \Phi_{\mathrm{B}_1}, \Phi_{\mathrm{B}_2}, \Phi_{\mathrm{B}_3}, \Phi_{\mathrm{C}}](\mathtt{x}_0, \ldots, \mathtt{x}_{k-1})\big),$$ where $$\mathrm{A} = \bar{t}, S_{q_0}, \ldots, \bar{t}, S_{q_{a-1}} \quad
\mathrm{B}_1 = \bar{p}\, \bar{t}, T^0_1, \ldots, \bar{p}\, \bar{t}, T^0_m \quad
\mathrm{B}_2 = \bar{p}\, \bar{t}, T^1_1, \ldots, \bar{p}\, \bar{t}, T^1_m$$ $$\mathrm{B}_3 = \bar{p}\, \bar{t}, T^\sqcup_1, \ldots, \bar{p}\, \bar{t}, T^\sqcup_m \quad
\mathrm{C} = \bar{p}\, \bar{t}, H_1, \ldots, \bar{p}\, \bar{t}, H_m$$ $$\Phi_\mathrm{A} = \varphi_{q_0}, \ldots, \varphi_{q_{a-1}} \quad
\Phi_{\mathrm{B}_1} = \psi_{01}, \ldots, \psi_{0m} \quad
\Phi_{\mathrm{B}_2} = \psi_{11}, \ldots, \psi_{1m}$$ $$\Phi_{\mathrm{B}_3} = \psi_{\sqcup1}, \ldots, \psi_{\sqcup m}\quad
\Phi_{\mathrm{C}} = \gamma_{1}, \ldots, \gamma_{m}.$$ Note that here $\bar{p}$ and $\bar{t}$ denote $k$-tuples of variables of sort $\bf n$.
The formula builds the required relations $S_{q_i}$, $T^0_i$, $T^1_i$, $T^\sqcup_i$ and $H_i$ (for $1 \leq i \leq m$) in stages, where the $j$-th stage represents the configuration at time steps up to $j-1$. The subformulae $\varphi_{q_i}$, $\psi_{0i}$, $\psi_{1i}$, $\psi_{\sqcup i}$ and $\gamma_i$ define $S_{q_i}$, $T^0_i$, $T^1_i$, $T^\sqcup_i$ and $H_i$, respectively.
To simplify the presentation of the subformulae and w.l.o.g., we assume that, in every non-initial state of a computation, each address-tape contains a single binary number between $0$ and $n-1$ and nothing else. This number has at most $\log n$ bits, and hence we encode positions of address-tapes (and function value-tapes) with a single variable of sort $\bf n$ (instead of a tuple of variables).
We will now give the idea how the formulae $\varphi_{q_i}$, $\psi_{0i}$, $\psi_{1i}$, $\psi_{\sqcup i}$, and $\gamma_i$ are constructed from $M$. We first describe the construction of $\psi_{0i}$ in detail; the formulae $\psi_{1i}$ and $\psi_{\sqcup i}$ are constructed in a similar fashion. The rough idea behind all the formulas is the following: the formulas encode directly the initial configuration of the computation, and for a non-initial time step, how the configuration at that time step is computed from the previous configuration. The formula $\psi_{0i}(\bar{p},\bar{t})$, for example, encodes whether the $i$-th tape at the cell position $\bar{p}$ at the time $\bar{t}$ contains the symbol $0$. If $i$ is an address-tape or an ordinary work-tape, then in the initial configuration of the computation, the tape $i$ contains the blank symbol $\sqcup$ on all its cells. In this case, the formula $\psi_{0i}$ is of the form: $$\neg(\bar{t} \sim 0) \wedge \alpha^0_i(\bar{p}, \bar{t} - 1),$$ where $\alpha^0_i(\bar{p}, \bar{t} - 1)$ list conditions under which at the following time instant, $\bar{t}$, the position $\bar{p}$ of the tape $i$ will contain $0$. In the more general case, the formula has the form $(\bar{t}\sim 0 \land \xi_{T^0_i}) \lor (\neg(\bar{t} \sim 0) \wedge \alpha^0_i(\bar{p}, \bar{t} - 1))$, where $\xi_{T^0_i}$ is used to encode the initial configuration related to the relation $T^0_i$.
We will next describe the construction of $\alpha^0_i(\bar{p}, \bar{t} - 1)$. Suppose, $i$ refers to an address-tape or to an ordinary work-tape. The formula $\alpha^0_i(\bar{p}, \bar{t} - 1)$ is a disjunction over all the possible reasons, for why at the time $\bar{t}$ the position $\bar{p}$ of tape $i$ contains the symbol $0$. There are two possibilities: (1) at the time $\bar{t}-1$ the head of the tape $i$ was not in the position $\bar{p}$ and the position $\bar{p}$ of the tape $i$ contained the symbol $0$, (2) at the time $\bar{t}-1$ the head of the tape $i$ was in the position $\bar{p}$ and the head wrote the symbol $0$. Below, we display a disjunct of $\alpha^0_i(\bar{p}, \bar{t} - 1)$ that is due to a reason of the second kind by one possible transition $\delta_i(q, a_1, \ldots, a_m, b_1, \ldots, b_p)=(0, \rightarrow)$. The disjunct of $\alpha^0_i(\bar{p}, \bar{t} - 1)$, which takes care of this case is obtained from the following formula by substituting $\bar{p}_i$ with $\bar{p}$:
$$\begin{aligned}
&\exists \bar{p}_1 \dots \bar{p}_{i-1}\bar{p}_{i+1} \dots \bar{p}_m \Big(S_q(\bar{t}-1) \wedge\\
&\big(\bigwedge_{1\leq j\leq m} H_j(\bar{p}_j, \bar{t}-1) \wedge T^{a_j}_j(\bar{p}_j, \bar{t}-1) \big) \wedge \\
& \bigwedge_{1\leq l\leq p} \exists x_1 \ldots x_{r_l} \big( \mathrm{check}(R_l(x_1, \ldots, x_{r_l}), b_l) \land \\
&\quad \bigwedge_{1\leq k \leq r_l} x_k = \mathit{index}\{\mathtt{x} \mid (T^1_{\tau^R_{l,k}}(\mathtt{x}, \bar{t}-1))\} \big) \Big),\end{aligned}$$
*At time $\bar{t}-1$, $M$ is in the state $q$ and the head of the tape $j$ is in the position $\bar{p}_j$ reading $a_j$.*
*At time $\bar{t}-1$, the tuple of values in the address-tapes of $R_l$ is in $R^{\mathbf{A}}$ iff $b_l=1$.*
where $\tau^R_{l,1}, \ldots, \tau^R_{l,r_l}$ denote the $r_l$ address-tapes corresponding to the $r_l$-ary relation $R_l$, and $\mathrm{check}(R_l(x_1, \ldots, x_{r_l}), b_l)$ is a shorthand for $R_l(x_1, \ldots, x_{r_l})$, if $b_l=1$, and a shorthand for $\neg R_l(x_1, \ldots, x_{r_l})$, if $b_l=0$.
Assume then that $i$ refers to a value-tape of a function $f_j$ of arity $k_j$, and let $\tau^f_{j,1}, \ldots, \tau^f_{j,k_j}$ refer to its address-tapes. Recall that the contents of a value-tape of a function at a time $\bar{t}$ depends only on the contents of its address-tapes at the time $\bar{t}$. Below, we write $\psi_{0i}(p,\bar{t})$ using the contents of the related address-tapes at time $\bar{t}$. This is fine, for we do not introduce circularity of definitions (technically, we obtain the contents of the related address-tapes at time $\bar{t}$ using the corresponding formulas that define them from the configuration of the machine at time $\bar{t}-1$). Now $\psi_{0i}(p,\bar{t})$ refers to the following formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\exists x_1 \ldots x_{k_j} \Big( \big( \bigwedge_{1\leq l \leq k_j} x_l = \mathit{index}\{\mathtt{x} \mid T^1_{\tau^f_{j,l}}({{\tt x}}, \bar{t})\} \big) \land
\neg {\mathrm{BIT}}(f_j(x_1, \ldots, x_{k_j}),p) \Big),
$$ where ${\mathrm{BIT}}(f_j(x_1, \ldots, x_{k_j}),p)$ expresses that the bit of position $p$ of $f_j(x_1, \ldots, x_{k_j})$ in binary is $1$; we showed, in Section \[binrepex\], how the bit predicate is expressed in index logic. The formula $\varphi_{q_0}$ is of the form $\bar{t} \sim 0 \vee (\neg(\bar{t} \sim 0) \wedge \alpha_{q_0}(\bar{t}-1))$ and other $\varphi_{q}$’s are of the form $\neg (\bar{t} \sim 0) \wedge \alpha_{q}(\bar{t}-1)$, where $\alpha_{q}(\bar{t}-1)$ list conditions under which $M$ will enter state $q$ at the next time instant, $\bar{t}$.
Finally, the formulae $\gamma_i$ are of the form $$(\bar{t} \sim 0 \wedge \bar{p} \sim 0 ) \vee \big(\neg(\bar{t} \sim 0) \wedge \alpha_i(\bar{p}, \bar{t} - 1)\big),$$ where $\alpha_i(\bar{p}, \bar{t} - 1)$ list conditions under which, at the following time instant $\bar{t}$, the head of the tape $i$ will be in the position $\bar{p}$.
We omit writing the remaining subformulae, since it is an easy but tedious task. It is also not difficult to see that in the $j$-th stage of the simultaneous inflationary fixed point computation, the relations $S_q$, $(T_i^0, T_i^1, T_i^\sqcup)_{1 \leq i \leq m}$ and $(H_i)_{1 \leq i \leq m}$ encode the configuration of $M$ for times $\leq j-1$, which completes our proof.
Definability in Deterministic PolylogTime
=========================================
We observe here that very simple properties of structures are nondefinable in index logic. Moreover, we provide an answer to a fundamental question on the primitivity of the built-in order predicate (on terms of [sort $\bf v$]{}) in our logic. Indeed, we are working with ordered structures, and variables of [sort $\bf v$]{} can only be introduced by binding them to an index term. Index terms are based on sets of bit positions which can be compared as binary numbers. Hence, it is plausible to suggest that the built-in order predicate can be removed from our logic without losing expressive power. We prove, however, that this does not work in the presence of constant or function symbols in the vocabulary.
\[emptiness\] Assume that the vocabulary includes a unary relation symbol $P$. Checking emptiness (or non-emptiness) of $P^{\mathbf{A}}$ in a given structure ${\mathbf{A}}$ is not computable in ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$.
We will show that emptiness is not computable in ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$. For a contradiction, assume that it is. Consider first-order structures over the vocabulary $\{P\}$, where $P$ is a unary relation symbol. Let $M$ be some Turing machine that decides in ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$, given a $\{P\}$-structure ${\mathbf{A}}$, whether $P^{\mathbf{A}}$ is empty. Let $f$ be a polylogarithmic function that bounds the running time of $M$. Let $n$ be a natural number such that $f(n)< n$.
Let ${\mathbf{A}}_\emptyset$ be the $\{P\}$-structure with domain $\{0,\dots,n-1\}$, where $P^{\mathbf{A}}=\emptyset$. The encoding of ${\mathbf{A}}_\emptyset$ to the Turing machine $M$ is the sequence $
s := \underbrace{0\dots 0}_{\text{$n$ times}}
$. Note that the running time of $M$ with input $s$ is strictly less than $n$. This means that there must exist an index $i$ of $s$ that was not read in the computation $M(s)$. Define $$s' := \underbrace{0\dots 0}_{\text{$i$ times}} 1 \underbrace{0\dots 0}_{\text{$n-i-1$ times}}.$$ Clearly the output of the computations $M(s)$ and $M(s')$ are identical, which is a contradiction since $s'$ is an encoding of a $\{P\}$-structure where the interpretation of $P$ is a singleton.
The technique of the above proof can be adapted to prove a plethora of undefinability results, e.g., it can be shown that $k$-regularity of directed graphs cannot be decided in ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$, for any fixed $k$.
We can develop this technique further to show that the order predicate on terms of [sort $\bf v$]{} is a primitive in the logic. The proof of the following lemma is quite a bit more complicated though.
\[lemma:order\] Let $P$ and $Q$ be unary relation symbols. There does not exist an index logic formula $\varphi$ such that for all $\{P,Q\}$-structures ${\mathbf{A}}$ such that $P^{\mathbf{A}}$ and $Q^{\mathbf{A}}$ are disjoint singleton sets $\{l\}$ and $\{m\}$, respectively, it holds that $${\mathbf{A}}, {\mathit{val}}\models \varphi \text{ if and only if } l < m.$$
We will show that the property described above cannot be decided in ${{\mathrm{PolylogTime}}}$; the claim then follows from Theorem \[captureResult\]. For a contradiction, suppose that the property can be decided in ${{\mathrm{PolylogTime}}}$, and let $M$ and $f:{\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}$ be the related random-access Turing machine and polylogarithmic function, respectively, such that, for all $\{P,Q\}$-structures ${\mathbf{A}}$ that satisfy the conditions of the claim, $M({\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}}))$ decides the property in at most $f(\vert {\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}})\rvert)$ steps. Let $k$ be a natural number such that $f(2k) < k-1$.
Consider a computation $M(s)$ of $M$ with an input string $s$. We say that an index $i$ is *inspected* in the computation, if at some point during the computation $i$ is written in the index tape in binary. Let ${\mathrm{Ins}}_M(s)$ denote the set of inspected indices of the computation of $M(s)$ and ${\mathrm{Ins}}^j_M(s)$ denote the set of inspected indices during the first $j$ steps of the computation. We say that $s$ and $t$ are *$M$-$j$-equivalent* if the lengths of $t$ and $s$ are equal and $t[i]=s[i]$, for each $i\in {\mathrm{Ins}}^j_M(s)$. We say that ${\mathbf{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{B}}$ are *$M$-$j$-equivalent* whenever ${\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}})$ and ${\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{B}})$ are. Note that if two structures ${\mathbf{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{B}}$ are $M$-$j$-equivalent, then the computations $M({\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}}))$ and $M({\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{B}}))$ are at the same configuration after $j$ steps of computation. Hence if ${\mathbf{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{B}}$ are M-$f(\vert {\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}}) \rvert)$-equivalent, then outputs of $M({\mathbf{A}})$ and $M({\mathbf{B}})$ are identical.
Let ${\mathfrak{C}}$ be the class of all $\{P,Q\}$-structures ${\mathbf{A}}$ of domain $\{0,\dots k-1\}$, for which $P^{\mathbf{A}}$ and $Q^{\mathbf{A}}$ are disjoint singleton sets. The encodings of these structures are bit strings of the form $b_1\dots b_k c_1\dots c_k$, where exactly one $b_i$ and one $c_j$, $i\neq j$, is $1$. The computation of $M({\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}}))$ takes at most $f(2k)$ steps.
We will next construct a subclass ${\mathfrak{C}}^*$ of ${\mathfrak{C}}$ that consists of exactly those structures ${\mathbf{A}}$ in ${\mathfrak{C}}$ for which the indices in ${\mathrm{Ins}}({\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}}))$ hold only the bit $0$. We present an inductive process that will in the end produce ${\mathfrak{C}}^*$. Each step $i$ of this process produces a subclass ${\mathfrak{C}}_i$ of ${\mathfrak{C}}$ for which the following hold:
1. The structures in ${\mathfrak{C}}_i$ are $M$-$i$-equivalent.
2. There exists ${\mathbf{A}}_i \in {\mathfrak{C}}_i$ and $${\mathfrak{C}}_i = \{ {\mathbf{B}}\in {\mathfrak{C}}\mid \forall j\in {\mathrm{Ins}}^i({\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}}_i)) \text{ the $j$th bit of ${\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{B}})$ is $0$}\}.$$
Define ${\mathfrak{C}}_0 := {\mathfrak{C}}$; clearly ${\mathfrak{C}}_0$ satisfies the properties above. For $i < f(2k)$, we define ${\mathfrak{C}}_{i+1}$ to be the subclass of ${\mathfrak{C}}_{i}$ consisting of those structures ${\mathbf{A}}$ that on time step $i+1$ inspects an index that holds the bit $0$.[^3]
Assume that a) and b) hold for ${\mathfrak{C}}_{i}$, we will show that the same holds for ${\mathfrak{C}}_{i+1}$. Proof of a): Let ${\mathbf{A}},{\mathbf{B}}\in {\mathfrak{C}}_{i+1}$. By construction and by the induction hypothesis, ${\mathbf{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{B}}$ are $M$-$i$-equivalent, and on step $i+1$ $M({\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}}))$ and $M({\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{B}}))$ inspect the same index that holds $0$. Thus ${\mathbf{A}}$ and ${\mathbf{B}}$ are $M$-$(i+1)$-equivalent. Proof of b): It suffices to show that ${\mathfrak{C}}_{i+1}$ is nonempty; the claim then follows by construction and the property b) of ${\mathfrak{C}}_i$. By the induction hypothesis, there is a structure ${\mathbf{A}}_i \in {\mathfrak{C}}_i$. Let $j$ be the index that $M({\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}}_i))$ inspects on step $i+1$. Since $i+1\leq f(2k) < k-1$, there exists a structure ${\mathbf{A}}_i'\in {\mathfrak{C}}_i$ such that the $j$th bit of ${\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}}_i')$ is $0$. Clearly ${\mathbf{A}}'_i \in {\mathfrak{C}}_{i+1}$.
Consider the class ${\mathfrak{C}}_{k-2}$ (this will be our ${\mathfrak{C}}^*$) and ${\mathbf{B}}\in {\mathfrak{C}}_{k-2}$ and recall that ${\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{B}})$ is of the form $b_1\dots b_k c_1\dots c_k$. Since $\lvert {\mathrm{Ins}}^{k-2}({\mathbf{B}}) \rvert \leq k-2$, there exists two distinct indices $i$ and $j$, $0\leq i < j\leq k-1$, such that $i,j,i+k,j+k\notin {\mathrm{Ins}}^{k-2}({\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{A}}))$. Let ${\mathbf{B}}_{P < Q}$ denote the structure such that ${\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{B}}_{P < Q})$ is a bit string where the $i$th and $j+k$th bits are $1$ and all other bits are $0$. Similarly, let ${\mathbf{B}}_{Q < P}$ denote the structure such that ${\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{B}}_{Q < P})$ is a bit string where the $j$th and $i+k$th bits are $1$ and all other bits are $0$. Clearly the structures ${\mathbf{B}}_{P < Q}$ and ${\mathbf{B}}_{Q < P}$ are in ${\mathfrak{C}}_{k-2}$ and $M$-$(k-2)$-equivalent. Since $(k-2)$ bounds above the length of computations of $M({\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{B}}_{P < Q}))$ and $M({\mathrm{bin}}({\mathbf{B}}_{Q < P}))$, it follows that the outputs of the computations are identical. This is a contradiction, for ${\mathbf{B}}_{P < Q}$ and ${\mathbf{B}}_{Q < P}$ are such that $M$ should accept the first and reject the second.
\[primitive\] Let $c$ and $d$ be constant symbols in a vocabulary $\sigma$. There does not exist an index logic formula $\varphi$ that does not use the order predicate $\leq$ on terms of [sort $\bf v$]{} and that is equivalent with the formula $c\leq d$.
For the sake of a contradiction, assume that $\varphi$ is such a formula. We will derive a contradiction with Lemma \[lemma:order\]. Without loss of generality, we may assume that the only symbols of $\sigma$ that occur in $\varphi$ are $c$ and $d$, and that $\varphi$ is a sentence (i.e., $\varphi$ has no free variables). We define the translation $\varphi^*$ of $\varphi$ inductively. In addition to the cases below, we also have the cases where the roles of $c$ and $d$ are swapped.
- For $\psi$ that does not include $c$ or $d$, let $\psi^*:=\psi$.
- For Boolean connectives and quantifiers the translation is homomorphic.
- For $\psi$ of the form ${{\ensuremath{\left[\mathrm{IFP}_{\bar{\tt x},X}{\theta}\right]}}}{\bar y}$, let $\psi^* := {{\ensuremath{\left[\mathrm{IFP}_{\bar{\tt x},X}{\theta^*}\right]}}}{\bar y}$.
- For $\psi$ of the form $c=d$, let $\psi^* := \bot$.[^4]
- For $\psi$ of the form $c = x$ or $x = c$, let $\psi^* := C(x)$.
- For $\psi$ of the form $x = {\mathit{index}}\{ \tt{x} : \theta(\tt{x}) \}$, define $\psi^*$ as $
x = {\mathit{index}}\{ {\tt x} : \theta^*( {\tt x}) \}.
$
- For $\psi$ of the form $c = {\mathit{index}}\{ \tt{x} : \theta(\tt{x}) \}$, let $$\psi^* := \exists z (z= {\mathit{index}}\{ {\tt x} : \theta^*( {\tt x}) \} \land C(z)),$$ where $z$ is a fresh variable.
If ${\mathbf{A}}$ is a $\{C,D\}$-structure such that $C^{\mathbf{A}}$ and $D^{\mathbf{A}}$ are disjoint singleton sets, we denote by ${\mathbf{A}}'$ the $\{c,d\}$-structure with the same domain such that $\{c^{{\mathbf{A}}'}\} = C^{\mathbf{A}}$ and $\{d^{{\mathbf{A}}'}\} = D^{\mathbf{A}}$. We claim that for every $\{C,D\}$-structure ${\mathbf{A}}$ such that $C^{\mathbf{A}}$ and $D^{\mathbf{A}}$ are disjoint singleton sets $\{l\}$ and $\{m\}$ and every valuation ${\mathit{val}}$ the following holds: $$l < m \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad c^{{\mathbf{A}}'} < d^{{\mathbf{A}}'} \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad {\mathbf{A}}',{\mathit{val}}\models \varphi \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad {\mathbf{A}},{\mathit{val}}\models \varphi^*.$$ This is a contradiction with Lemma \[lemma:order\]. It suffices to proof the last equivalence as the first two are reformulations of our assumptions. The proof is by induction on the structure of $\varphi$. The cases that do not involve the constants $c$ and $d$ are immediate. Note that by assumption, $c^{\mathbf{A}}$ and $d^{\mathbf{A}}$ are never equal and thus the subformula $c=d$ is equivalent to $\bot$. The case $c=x$ is also easy: $${\mathbf{A}}',{\mathit{val}}\models c=x \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad {\mathit{val}}(x)=c^{{\mathbf{A}}'} \quad\Leftrightarrow\quad {\mathit{val}}(x)\in C^{\mathbf{A}}\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad {\mathbf{A}},{\mathit{val}}\models C(x).$$ The case for $c = {\mathit{index}}\{x : \theta(x)\}$ is similar: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbf{A}}',{\mathit{val}}\models c = {\mathit{index}}\{x : \theta(x)\} &\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad {\mathbf{A}}',{\mathit{val}}\models \exists z (z = {\mathit{index}}\{x : \theta(x)\} \land c=z) \\
&\quad\Leftrightarrow\quad {\mathbf{A}},{\mathit{val}}\models \exists z (z = {\mathit{index}}\{x : \theta(x)\} \land C(z)). \end{aligned}$$ All other cases are homomorphic and thus straightforward.
We conclude this section by affirming that, on purely relational vocabularies, the order predicate on [sort $\bf v$]{} is redundant. The intuition for this result was given in the beginning of this section.
\[redundancy\] Let $\sigma$ be a vocabulary without constant or function symbols. For every sentence $\varphi$ of index logic of vocabulary $\sigma$ there exists an equivalent sentence $\varphi'$ that does not use the order predicate on terms of [sort $\bf v$]{}.
We will define the translation $\varphi'$ of $\varphi$ inductively. Without loss of generality, we may assume that each variable that occurs in $\varphi$ is quantified exactly once (for this purpose, we stipulate that the variable ${{\tt x}}$ is quantified by the term ${\mathit{index}}\{ \tt{x} : \alpha(\tt{x})\}$). For every variable $x$ of [sort $\bf v$]{} that occurs in $\varphi$, let $\alpha_x({\tt x})$ denote the unique subformula such that $\exists x (x={\mathit{index}}\{{\tt x} : \alpha_x({\tt x})\} \land \psi)$ is a subformula of $\varphi$ for some $\psi$. Note that ${\tt x}$ occurs only in ${\mathit{index}}\{{\tt x} : \alpha_x({\tt x})\}$. We define the following shorthands for variables ${\tt x}$ and ${\tt y}$ of [sort $\bf n$]{}: $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_{{\tt x} ={\tt y}} (\psi({\tt x}), \theta({\tt y})) &:= \forall {\tt z} \big( \psi({\tt z}/ {\tt x}) \leftrightarrow \theta({\tt z}/ {\tt y})\big),
\\
\varphi_{{\tt x} < {\tt y}} (\psi({\tt x}), \theta({\tt y})) &:= \exists {\tt z} \Big(\big( \neg \psi({\tt z}/ {\tt x}) \land \theta({\tt z}/ {\tt y}) \big) \land \forall {\tt z}' \Big({\tt z} < {\tt z}' \rightarrow \big( \psi({\tt z}'/ {\tt x}) \leftrightarrow \theta({\tt z}'/ {\tt y}) \big) \Big)\Big),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\tt z}$ and ${\tt z}'$ are fresh distinct variables of [sort $\bf n$]{}. In the formulas above, $\psi({\tt z}/ {\tt x})$ denotes the formula that is obtained from $\psi$ by substituting each free occurrence of ${{\tt x}}$ in $\psi$ by ${{\tt z}}$. The translation $\varphi\mapsto \varphi'$ is defined as follows:
- For formulae that do not include variables of [sort $\bf v$]{}, the translation is the identity.
- For Boolean connectives and quantifiers of [sort $\bf n$]{}, the translation is homomorphic.
- For $\psi$ of the form ${{\ensuremath{\left[\mathrm{IFP}_{\bar{\tt x},X}{\theta}\right]}}}{\bar y}$, let $\psi' := {{\ensuremath{\left[\mathrm{IFP}_{\bar{\tt x},X}{\theta'}\right]}}}{\bar y}$.
- For $\psi$ of the form $x\leq y$, let $\psi' := \varphi_{{\tt x} ={\tt y}}(\alpha_x({\tt x}), \alpha_y({\tt y})) \lor \varphi_{{\tt x} < {\tt y}}(\alpha_x({\tt x}), \alpha_y({\tt y}))$.
- For $\psi$ of the form $x = {\mathit{index}}\{ {\tt y} : \theta({ \tt y}) \}$, define $\psi' := \varphi_{{\tt x} ={\tt y}}(\alpha_x({\tt x}), \theta({\tt y}))$.
- For $\psi$ of the form $\exists x (x = {\mathit{index}}\{ \tt{x} : \alpha(\tt{x}) \land \theta \}$, define $\psi' := \theta'$.
By a straightforward inductive argument it can be verified that the translation preserves equivalence.
Index logic with partial fixed points
=====================================
[\[sec:nifpplog\]]{}
In this section, we introduce a variant of index logic defined in Section \[sec:ifpplog\]. This logic, which we denote as IL(PFP), is defined by simply replacing the inflationary fixed point operator IFP in the definition of index logic by the partial fixed point operator PFP. We stick to the standard semantics of the PFP operator. We define that $$\mathbf{A},\mathit{val} \models [\mathrm{PFP}_{\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X} \varphi]\bar{{{\tt y}}} \text{ iff } \mathit{val}(\bar{{{\tt y}}}) \in \mathrm{pfp}(F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\varphi, \bar{\mathtt{x}}, X}),$$ where $\mathrm{pfp}(F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\varphi, \bar{\mathtt{x}}, X})$ denotes the *partial* fixed point of the operator $F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\varphi, \bar{\mathtt{x}}, X}$ (see the description above Definition \[semanticsIndexLogic\]). The *partial fixed point* $\mathrm{pfp}(F)$ of an operator $F : {\cal P}(B) \rightarrow {\cal P}(B)$ is defined as the fixed point of $F$ obtained from the sequence $(S^i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, where $S^0 := \emptyset$ and $S^{i+1} := F(S^i)$, if such a fixed point exists. If such a fixed point does not exist, then $\mathrm{pfp}(F) := \emptyset$. It is well known that first-order logic extended with partial fixed point operators captures ${\mathrm{PSPACE}}$. As a counterpart for this result, we will show that IL(PFP) captures the complexity class polylogarithmic space (${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$). Recall that in IL(PFP) the relation variables bounded by the PFP operators range over (tuples of) ${\mathit{Num}}({\mathbf{A}})$, where ${\mathbf{A}}$ is the interpreting structure. Thus, the maximum number of iterations before reaching a fixed point (or concluding that it does not exist), is *not* exponential in the size $n$ of ${\mathbf{A}}$, as in FO(PFP). Instead, it is *quasi-polynomial*, i.e., of size $O(2^{\log^k n})$, for some constant $k$. This observation is, in part, the reason why IL(PFP) characterizes ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$. Finally, by an analogous argument that proves the well-known relationship $\mathrm{PSPACE} \subseteq \mathrm{DTIME}(2^{n^{O(1)}})$, it follows that ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}\subseteq \mathrm{DTIME}(2^{\log^{O(1)} n})$.
The Complexity Class ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$
----------------------------------------------
Let $L(M)$ denote the class of structures of a given signature $\sigma$ accepted by a direct-access Turing machine $M$. We say that $L(M) \in \mathrm{DSPACE}[f(n)]$ if $M$ visits at most $O(f(n))$ cells in each work-tape before accepting or rejecting an input structure whose domain is of size $n$. We define the class of all languages decidable by a deterministic direct-access Turing machines in *polylogarithmic space* as follows: $${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}:= \bigcup_{k \in \mathbb{N}}
\mathrm{DSPACE}[(\left\lceil\log n \right\rceil)^k].$$ Note that it is equivalent whether we define the class $\mathrm{PolylogSpace}$ by means of direct-access Turing machines or random-access Turing machines. Indeed, by Theorem \[directrandom\] and by the fact that the (standard) binary encoding of a structure ${\mathbf{A}}$ is of size polynomial with respect to the cardinality of its domain $A$, the following corollary is immediate.
\[tba\] A class of finite ordered structures $\cal C$ of some fixed vocabulary $\sigma$ is decidable by a random-access Turing machine working in ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ with respect to $\hat{n}$, where $\hat{n}$ is the size of the binary encoding of the input structure, iff $\cal C$ is decidable by a direct-access Turing machine in ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ with respect to $n$, where $n$ is the size of the domain of the input structure.
Moreover, in the context of ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$, there is no need for random-access address-tape for the input; ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ defined with random-access Turing machines coincide with ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ defined with (standard) Turing machines that have sequential access to the input.
A class of finite ordered structures $\cal C$ of some fixed vocabulary $\sigma$ is decidable by a random-access Turing machine working in ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ with respect to $\hat{n}$ iff $\cal C$ is decidable by a standard (sequential-access) Turing machine in ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ with respect to $\hat{n}$, where $\hat{n}$ is the size of the binary encoding of the input structure.
We give the idea behind the proof; the proof itself is straightforward. We take as the definition of the standard (sequential-access) Turing machine the definition of the random-access Turing machine given in Section \[sec:random-access\], except that we suppose a sequential-access read-only-head for the input tape, and remove the address-tape.
A random-access Turing machine $M_r$ can simulate a sequential-access Turing machine $M_s$ directly by using its address-tape to simulate the movement of the head of the sequential-access input-tape. In the simulation, when the head of the input-tape of $M_s$ is on the $i+1$-th cell, the address-tape of $M_r$ holds the number $i$ in binary, and hence refers to the $i+1$-th cell of the input. When the head of the input-tape of $M_s$ moves right, the machine $M_r$ will increase the binary number in its address-tape by one. Similarly, when the head of the input-tape of $M_s$ moves left, the machine $M_r$ will decrease the binary number in its address-tape by one. A total of $\lceil \log n \rceil$ bits suffices to access any bit of an input of length $n$. Clearly increasing or decreasing a binary number of length at most $\lceil \log n \rceil$ by one can be done in ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$. The rest of the simulation is straightforward.
The simulation of the other direction is a bit more complicated, as after each time the content of the address-tape of the random-access machine is updated, we need to calculate the corresponding position of the head of the input-tape of the sequential-access machine. However, this computation can be clearly done in ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$: We use a work-tape of the sequential-access machine to mimic the address-tape of the sequential-access machine, and an additional work-tape as a binary counter. After each computation step of the random-access machine, the sequential-access machine moves the head of its input tape to its leftmost cell, formats the work-tape working as a binary counter to contain exactly the binary number that is written on the address-tape. Then the sequential-access machine moves the head of its input-tape right step-by-step simultaneously decreasing the binary counter by $1$. Once the binary counter reaches $0$, the head of the input tape is in correct position. The rest of the simulation is straightforward.
Since the function $\left\lceil\log n \right\rceil$ is *space constructible* (s.c. for short) (see [@papadimitriou], where these functions are denoted as *proper*), and for any two s.c. functions their product is also s.c., we get that for any $k \geq 1$ the function $(\left\lceil\log n \right\rceil)^k$ is s.c. Hence, by Savitch’s theorem, we obtain the following result.
For any $k \geq 1$, it holds that $\mathrm{NSPACE}[(\left\lceil\log n \right\rceil)^k] \subseteq \mathrm{DSPACE}[(\left\lceil\log n \right\rceil)^{2k}]$. Thus, nondeterministic and deterministic ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ coincide.
Index logic with partial fixed point operators captures ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To encode a configuration of polylogarithmic size, we follow a similar strategy as in Theorem \[captureResult\], i.e., in the proof of the characterization of ${\mathrm{PolylogTime}}$ by $\mathrm{IL(IFP)}$. The difference here is that there is no reason to encode the whole history of a computation in the fixed point. At a time step $t$ it suffices that the configuration of the machine at time step $t-1$ is encoded; hence, we may drop the variables $\bar{t}$, from the fixed point formula defined on page . Moreover, we make a small alteration to the Turing machines so that acceptance on an input structure will correspond to the existence of a partial fixed point.
\[captureResultPolyLogSpace\] Over ordered finite structures, $\mathrm{IL(PFP)}$ captures ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$.
The direction of the proof that argues that IL(PFP) can indeed be evaluated in ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$ is straightforward. Let $\psi$ be an IL(PFP)-sentence, we only need to show that there exists a direct-access Turing machine $M_{\psi}$ working in $O(\log^{d} n)$ space, for some constant $d$, such that for every structure $\mathbf{A}$ and valuation $\it{val}$, it holds that $\mathbf{A} \in L(M_{\psi})$ iff $\mathbf{A}, \it{val} \models \psi$. Note that, in an induction on the structure of $\psi$, all the cases, except the case for the $\mathrm{PFP}$ operator, are as in the proof of Theorem \[captureResult\]. Clearly if a formula can be evaluated in $\mathrm{PolylogTime}$ it can also be evaluated in $\mathrm{PolylogSpace}$. For the case of the $\mathrm{PFP}$ operator (using a similar strategy as in [@ef_fmt2]), we set a counter to $2^{\log^{r} n}$, using exactly $\log^{r} n$ cells in a work-tape, where $r$ is the arity of the relation variable $X$ bounded by the $\mathrm{PFP}$ operator. To evaluate the $\mathrm{PFP}$ operator, say on a formula $\varphi (\bar{\mathtt{x}}, X)$, $M$ will iterate evaluating $\varphi$, decreasing the counter in each iteration. When the counter gets to $0$, $M$ checks whether the contents of the relation $X$ is equal to its contents in the following cycle, and whether the tuple given in the $\mathrm{PFP}$ application belongs to it. If both answers are positive, then $M$ accepts, otherwise, it rejects. This suffices to find the fixed point (or to conclude that it does not exist), as there are $2^{\log^{r} n}$ many relations of arity $r$ with domain $\{0,\dots, \lceil \log n \rceil-1\}$.
For the converse, let $M = (Q, \Sigma, \delta, q_0, F, \sigma)$ be an $m$-tape direct-access Turing machine that works in ${\mathrm{PolylogSpace}}$. As in the proof of Theorem \[captureResult\], we assume w.l.o.g., that $F = \{q_a\}$ (i.e., there is only one accepting state), $|Q| = a+1$, and $Q = \{q_0, q_1, \ldots, q_{a}\}$. In addition to the assumptions made in the proof of Theorem \[captureResult\], we assume that once the machine reaches an accepting state, it will not change its configuration any longer; that is, all of its heads stay put, and write the same symbol as the head reads. Note that the machine $M$ accepts if and only if $M$ is in the same accepting configuration during two consecutive time steps.
We build an IL(PFP)-sentence $\psi_{M}$ such that for every structure $\mathbf{A}$ and valuation $\it{val}$, it holds that $\mathbf{A} \in L(M)$ iff $\mathbf{A},\it{val} \models \psi_{M}$. The formula is a derivative of that of Theorem \[captureResult\] and is defined using a simultaneous PFP operator. In the formula below, $S_{q_0}, \ldots, S_{q_{a}}$ denote $0$-ary relation variables that range over the values *true* and *false*. We define $$\label{PFPformula}
\psi_{M} := [\textrm{S-PFP}_{
S_{q_a}, \mathrm{A}, \mathrm{B}_1, \mathrm{B}_2, \mathrm{B}_3, \mathrm{C}
}
\;\varphi_{q_a}, \Phi_\mathrm{A}, \Phi_{\mathrm{B}_1}, \Phi_{\mathrm{B}_2}, \Phi_{\mathrm{B}_3}, \Phi_{\mathrm{C}}],$$ where $$\mathrm{A} = S_{q_0}, \ldots, S_{q_{a-1}} \quad
\mathrm{B}_1 = \bar{p}, T^0_1, \ldots, \bar{p}, T^0_m \quad
\mathrm{B}_2 = \bar{p}, T^1_1, \ldots, \bar{p}, T^1_m$$ $$\mathrm{B}_3 = \bar{p}, T^\sqcup_1, \ldots, \bar{p}, T^\sqcup_m \quad
\mathrm{C} = \bar{p}, H_1, \ldots, \bar{p}, H_m$$ $$\Phi_\mathrm{A} = \varphi_{q_0}, \ldots, \varphi_{q_{a-1}} \quad
\Phi_{\mathrm{B}_1} = \psi_{01}, \ldots, \psi_{0m} \quad
\Phi_{\mathrm{B}_2} = \psi_{11}, \ldots, \psi_{1m}$$ $$\Phi_{\mathrm{B}_3} = \psi_{\sqcup1}, \ldots, \psi_{\sqcup m}\quad
\Phi_{\mathrm{C}} = \gamma_{1}, \ldots, \gamma_{m}.$$
The formulae used in the PFP operator are defined in the same way as in Theorem \[captureResult\]; with the following two exceptions.
1. The formulae of the form $\alpha^0_i(\bar{p}, \bar{t} - 1)$ are replaced with the analogous formulae $\alpha^0_i(\bar{p})$ obtained, by simply removing the variables referring to time steps.
2. Subformulas of the form $\bar{t}\sim 0$ are replaces with $\neg S_{q_0} \land \ldots \land \neg S_{q_{a-1}}$, which will be true only on the first iteration of the fixed point calculation.
Following the proof of Theorem \[captureResult\], it is now easy to show that ${\mathbf{A}},\it{val} \models \psi_{M}$ if and only if *$M$ accepts ${\mathbf{A}}$*.
Discussion
==========
An interesting open question concerns order-invariant queries. Indeed, while index logic is defined to work on ordered structures, it is natural to try to understand which queries about ordered structures that are actually invariant of the order, are computable in PolylogTime. Results of the kind given by Proposition \[emptiness\] already suggest that very little may be possible. Then again, any polynomial-time numerical property of the size of the domain is clearly computable. We would love to have a logical characterization of the order-invariant queries computable in PolylogTime.
Another natural direction is to get rid of Turing machines altogether and work with a RAM model working directly on structures, as proposed by Grandjean and Olive [@grol_graph_lin]. Plausibly by restricting their model to numbers bounded in value by a polynomial in $n$ (the size of the structure), we would get an equivalent PolylogTime complexity notion.
In this vein, we would like to note that extending index logic with numeric variables that can hold values up to a polynomial in $n$, with arbitrary polynomial-time functions on these, would be useful syntactic sugar that would, however, not increase the expressive power.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: The term *random-access* refers to the manner how *random-access memory* (RAM) is read and written. In contrast to sequential memory, the time it takes to read or write using RAM is almost independent of the physical location of the data in the memory. We want to emphasise that there is nothing *random* in random-access.
[^2]: This ensures that $F^{\bf A, \it{val}}_{\varphi, \bar{\mathtt{x}}, X}$ is a monotonic function and that the least fixed point $\mathrm{lfp}(F^{\bf A,\it{val}}_{\varphi, \bar{\mathtt{x}}, X})$ exists.
[^3]: If the machine already halted on an earlier time step $t$, we stipulate that the machine inspects on time step $i+1$ the same index that it inspected on time step $t$.
[^4]: By $\bot$ we denote some formula that is always false, e.g, $\exists {\tt x}\, {\tt x}\neq {\tt x}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Quantum algorithms can break factoring and discrete logarithm based cryptography and weaken symmetric cryptography and hash functions.
In order to estimate the real-world impact of these attacks, apart from tracking the development of fault-tolerant quantum computers it is important to have an estimate of the resources needed to implement these quantum attacks.
For attacking symmetric cryptography and hash functions, generic quantum attacks are substantially less powerful than they are for today’s public-key cryptography. So security will degrade gradually as quantum computing resources increase. At present, there is a substantial resource overhead due to the cost of fault-tolerant quantum error correction. We provide estimates of this overhead using state-of-the-art methods in quantum fault-tolerance. For example, recent lattice surgery methods reduced memory costs by roughly a factor of 5 over previous methods. Future advances in fault-tolerance and in the quality of quantum hardware may reduce this overhead further. Another part of the cost of implementing generic quantum attacks is the cost of implementing the cryptographic functions. We use state-of-the-art optimized circuits, though further improvements in their implementation would also reduce the resources needed to implement these attacks. To bound the potential impact of further circuit optimizations we provide cost estimates assuming trivial-cost implementations of these functions. These figures indicate the effective bit-strength of the various symmetric schemes and hash functions based on what we know today (and with various assumptions on the quantum hardware), and frame the various potential improvements that should continue to be tracked. As an example, we also look at the implications for Bitcoin’s proof-of-work system.
For many of the currently used asymmetric (public-key) cryptographic schemes based on RSA and elliptic curve discrete logarithms, we again provide cost estimates based on the latest advances in cryptanalysis, circuit compilation and quantum fault-tolerance theory. These allow, for example, a direct comparison of the quantum vulnerability of RSA and elliptic curve cryptography for a fixed classical bit strength.
This analysis provides state-of-the art snap-shot estimates of the realistic costs of implementing quantum attacks on these important cryptographic algorithms, assuming quantum fault-tolerance is achieved using surface code methods, and spanning a range of potential error rates. These estimates serve as a guide for gauging the realistic impact of these algorithms and for benchmarking the impact of future advances in quantum algorithms, circuit synthesis and optimization, fault-tolerance methods and physical error rates.
author:
- Vlad Gheorghiu
- Michele Mosca
title: 'Benchmarking the quantum cryptanalysis of symmetric, public-key and hash-based cryptographic schemes'
---
Introduction\[sct::intro\]
==========================
Symmetric, public-key (asymmetric) and hash-based cryptography constitute a fundamental pillar of modern cryptography. Symmetric cryptography includes symmetric-key encryption, where a shared secret key is used for both encryption and decryption. Cryptographic hash functions map arbitrarily long strings to strings of a fixed finite length. Currently deployed public-key schemes are used to establish a common secret key between two remote parties. They are based on factoring large numbers or solving the discrete logarithm problem over a finite group. For more details about modern cryptography the interested reader can consult one of the many excellent references on the topic, e.g. [@Katz:2007:IMC:1206501].
In contrast to asymmetric schemes based on factoring or solving the discrete logarithm problem and which are completely broken by a quantum adversary via Shor’s algorithm [@SJC.26.1484], symmetric schemes and hash functions are less vulnerable to quantum attacks. The best known quantum attacks against them are based on Grover’s quantum search algorithm [@PhysRevLett.79.325], which offers a quadratic speedup compared to classical brute force searching. Given a search space of size $N$, Grover’s algorithm finds, with high probability, an element $x$ for which a certain property such as $f(x)=1$ holds, for some function $f$ we know how to evaluate (assuming such a solution exists). The algorithm evaluates $f$ a total of $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N})$ times. It applies a simple operation in between the evaluations of $f$, so the $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N})$ evaluations of $f$ account for most of the complexity. In contrast, any classical algorithm that evaluates $f$ in a similar “black-box” way requires on the order of $N$ evaluations of $f$ to find such an element.
Any quantum algorithm can be mapped to a quantum circuit, which can be implemented on a quantum computer. The quantum circuit represents what we call the “logical layer". Such a circuit can always be decomposed in a sequence of “elementary gates", such as Clifford gates (CNOT, Hadamard etc. [@NC00]) augmented by a non-Clifford gate such as the T gate.
Running a logical circuit on a full fault-tolerant quantum computer is highly non-trivial. The sequence of logical gates have to be mapped to sequences of surface code measurement cycles (see e.g. [@PhysRevA.86.032324] for extensive details). By far, the most resource-consuming (in terms of number of qubits required and time) is the T gate[^1]. In comparison with surface code defects and braiding techniques [@PhysRevA.86.032324], novel lattice surgery techniques [@2018arXiv180806709F; @1808.02892; @1367-2630-14-12-123011] reduce the spatial overhead required for implementing T gates via magic state distillation by approximately a factor of 5, while also modestly improving the running time.
In this paper we first analyze the security of symmetric schemes and hash functions against large-scale fault-tolerant quantum adversaries, using surface code defects and braiding techniques. We take into account the time-space trade-offs with parallelizing quantum search, down to the fault-tolerant layer. Naively, one might hope that $K$ quantum computers (or quantum “processors”, as we will call them later in the paper) running in parallel reduce the number the circuit depth down to $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N})/K$ steps, similar to the classical case of distributing a search space across $K$ classical processors. However quantum searching does not parallelize so well, and the required number of steps for parallel quantum searching is of the order $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N/K})$ [@quantph.9711070]. This is a factor of $\sqrt{K}$ larger than $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{N})/K$ . As shown in [@quantph.9711070], the optimal way of doing parallel quantum search is to partition the search space into $N/K$ parts, and to perform independent quantum searches on each part.
Secondly, we investigate the security of public-key cryptographic schemes such as RSA and ECC against quantum attacks, using the latest developments in theory of fault-tolerant quantum error correction, i.e. novel lattice surgery techniques [@2018arXiv180806709F; @1808.02892; @1367-2630-14-12-123011].
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sct::method\], we provide an overview of the methodology used in our analysis. In Sec. \[sct::ciphers\] we investigate the security of the AES family of modern symmetric ciphers. In Sec. \[sct::hash\] we analyze the security of the SHA family of hash functions. In Sec. \[sct::bitcoin\] we investigate the security of Bitcoin’s [@satoshi:bitcoin] proof-of-work consensus mechanism. We conclude our investigation of symmetric and hash-based cryptographic schemes in Sec. \[sct::intrinsic\_parallel\_grover\], where we evaluate the intrinsic cost of running the Grover algorithm with a trivial oracle (i.e., an oracle with a unit cost of 1 for each invocation).
In the subsequent sections we analyze public-key cryptographic schemes. In Sec. \[sct::rsa\] and Sec. \[sct::ecc\] we examine the most common public-key establishment schemes, such as RSA and ECC, respectively. In the subsequent sections we analyze public-key cryptographic schemes. In Sec. \[sct::rsa\] and Sec. \[sct::ecc\] we examine the most common public-key establishment schemes, such as RSA and ECC, respectively. Finally we summarize our findings and conclude in Sec. \[sct::conclusion\].
Methodology\[sct::method\]
==========================
Symmetric cryptography and hash functions\[sct::symmetric\]
-----------------------------------------------------------
The methodology, sketched in Fig. \[fgr:flowchart\_lite\] and Fig. \[fgr:full\_algorithm\], follows the same lines as the one described in great detail in our earlier paper [@10.1007/978-3-319-69453-5_18], which we refer the interested reader to for more details.
![Analyzing an attack against a symmetric cryptographic function with a fault-tolerant quantum adversary. Our resource estimation methodology takes into account several of the layers between the high level description of an algorithm and the physical hardware required for its execution. Our approach is modular should assumptions about any of these layers change, and hence it allows one to calculate the impact of improvements in any particular layer.[]{data-label="fgr:flowchart_lite"}](figures/flowchart_lite.pdf){width="35.00000%"}
![Grover searching with an oracle for $f : \{0,1\}^k \rightarrow \{0,1\}^k$. The algorithm makes $\lfloor \frac{\pi}{4} 2^{N/2}\rfloor$ calls to $G$, the *Grover iteration*, or, if parallelized on $K$ processors, $\lfloor \frac{\pi}{4} 2^{N/(2K)}\rfloor$ calls to $G$. The Grover iteration has two subroutines. The first, $U_g$, implements the predicate $g : \{0,1\}^k
\rightarrow \{0,1\}$ that maps $x$ to $1$ if and only if $f(x) = y$. Each call to $U_g$ involves two calls to a reversible implementation of $f$ and one call to a comparison circuit that checks whether $f(x) = y$.[]{data-label="fgr:full_algorithm"}](figures/grover_vertical.pdf){width="46.00000%"}
We assume a surface-code based fault-tolerant architecture [@PhysRevA.86.032324], using Reed-Muller distillation schemes [@Fowler:2013aa]. For each scheme we vary the possible physical error rates per gate from $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-7}$. We believe that this range of physical error rates is wide enough to cover both first generation quantum computers as well as more advanced future machines. In comparison to surface code defects and braiding methods [@PhysRevA.86.032324], lattice surgery techniques [@2018arXiv180806709F; @1808.02892; @1367-2630-14-12-123011] mostly impact the physical footprint of the fault-tolerant layer required to run a specific quantum algorithm, reducing the distillation overhead by approximately a factor of 5. The temporal overhead (i.e. the number of surface code cycles) is reduced less drastically. For this reason, lattice surgery has less significant effects in estimating the security of symmetric schemes or hash functions, reducing the security parameter[^2] by at most 1 and decreasing the spatial overhead by at most a factor of 5. Therefore when estimating the security of symmetric and hash-based cryptographic schemes we use surface code defects and braiding techniques.
For each cryptographic primitive, we display four plots, in the following order:
1. We plot the total number of surface code cycles per CPU (where a CPU is a quantum computer capable of executing a single instance of Grover’s quantum search algorithm) as a function of the number of CPUs. We directly tie the quantum security parameter to the total number of surface code cycles (see [@10.1007/978-3-319-69453-5_18] for more details). We also add to the plot the theoretical lower bound achievable by quantum search in the cases of: a) considering the oracle a black box of unit cost (lower line), and b) considering the oracle as composed of ideal quantum gates, each of unit cost (upper line). Note that the difference between b) and a) represents the intrinsic cost of logical overhead (i.e. the overhead introduced by treating the oracle as a logical circuit and not a blackbox), whereas the difference between the upper lines and b) represents the intrinsic cost introduced by the fault-tolerant layer.
2. We plot the total wall-time per CPU (i.e. how long will the whole computation take on a parallel quantum architecture) as a function of the number of CPUs. The horizontal dashed line represents the one-year time line, i.e. the $x$ coordinate of the intersection point between the “Total time per CPU” line and the one-year time line provides the number of processors required to break the system within one year (in $\log_2$ units).
3. We plot the total physical footprint (number of qubits) per CPU, as a function of the number of CPUs.
4. Finally we plot the total physical footprint (number of qubits) of all quantum search machines (CPUs) running in parallel.
In the following sections we proceed to analyze symmetric ciphers (AES, Sec. \[sct::ciphers\]), hash functions (SHA-256, SHA3-256, Sec. \[sct::hash\], Bitcoin’s hash function, Sec. \[sct::bitcoin\]), and finally the minimal resources required for running Grover’s algorithm with a trivial oracle \[sct::intrinsic\_parallel\_grover\] (e.g. the identity gate) on search spaces of various sizes.
Note that in some ranges of the plots from sections \[sct::ciphers\], \[sct::hash\], \[sct::intrinsic\_parallel\_grover\] and \[sct::bitcoin\] the total physical footprint increases slightly with the number of processors, which may seem counter-intuitive. This happens due to the fact that with more processors the required code distances decrease, and in some instances one can pipeline more magic states factories in parallel into the surface code, which in effect causes an increase in the overall physical footprint. Note that the total time per CPU is monotonically decreasing, as parallelizing distilleries does not increase the wall time. For more details see [@10.1007/978-3-319-69453-5_18].
Public-key cryptography\[sct::pk\]
----------------------------------
Most of the recent progress in quantum cryptanalysis is related to the fault-tolerant layer in Fig. \[fgr:flowchart\_lite\]. New methods and techniques based on surface code lattice surgery [@2018arXiv180806709F; @1808.02892; @1367-2630-14-12-123011] allow a significant decrease of the overall footprint (number of qubits, or space) taken by the quantum computation, and also a relatively modest decrease in time, in comparison with methods based on surface code defects and braiding [@PhysRevA.86.032324; @Fowler:2013aa].
We consider the best up-to-date optimized logical quantum circuits for attacking RSA and ECC public-key schemes [@1706.06752; @PhysRevA.52.3457; @cuccaro04; @Beauregard:2003:CSA:2011517.2011525] then perform a physical footprint resource estimation analysis using lattice surgery techniques. We remark that the overall time required to run the algorithm depends on the level of parallelization for the magic state factories[^3].
For each public-key cryptogrpric scheme, we analyze the space/time tradeoffs and plot the results on a double logarithmic scale. We fit the data using a third degree polynomial[^4] and obtain an analytical closed-form formula for the relation between the time and the number of qubits required to attack the scheme, in the form
$$\label{eqn1}
y(x) = \alpha x^3 + \beta x^2 + \gamma x + \delta,$$
where $y$ represents logarithm base 2 of the number of qubits and $x$ represents the logarithm base 2 of the time (in seconds). For example, the quantity $$\label{eqn2}
y\left(\log_2(24\times 3600)\right) \approx y(16.3987)$$ represents how many qubits are required to break the scheme in one day (24 hours) for a fixed physical error rate per gate $p_g$, assuming a surface code cycle time of 200ns. Note that the computation time scales linearly with the surface code cycle time, e.g. a 1000ns surface code cycle time will result in a computation that is 5 times longer than a $200ns$ surface code cycle time. Therefore, for a specific cryptographic scheme for which we plotted the space/time tradeoffs using a surface code cycle time of $200ns$ and a fixed physical error rate per gate $p_g$, the number of qubits required to break a specific scheme in a time $t$ using an alternative surface code cycle time $t_c$ is given by
$$\label{eqn3}
y\left(\log_2\left(\frac{200ns}{t_c}t\right)\right),$$
where $t$ is expressed in seconds and $t_c$ is expressed in nanoseconds.
We assume a surface code cycle time of 200ns, in conformance with [@PhysRevA.86.032324]. For each scheme we analyze, we compare its security using the more conservative (and realistic in the short term) $p_g=10^{-3}$ and also the more optimistic $p_g=10^{-5}$. Note that assuming the more optimistic assumption from a quantum computing perspective is the more conservative assumption from a cybersecurity perspective.
Furthermore, in this analysis, we are reporting the full physical footprint, including the memory required for magic state distillation. Using present-day techniques, the memory required for generating these generic input states accounts for a substantial fraction of the total memory cost and thus we are including these in the total cost estimate and will track the impact of improved methods.
Symmetric ciphers\[sct::ciphers\]
=================================
Below we analyze the security of AES family of symmetric ciphers against large-scale fault-tolerant quantum adversaries. We used the highly optimized logical circuits produced in [@10.1007/978-3-319-29360-8_3].
AES-128
-------
{width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:aes\_128\_cycles\] For example, the plots in Fig. \[fgr:aes\_128\_cycles\] tells us that if we have $2^{50}$ quantum computers running Grover’s algorithm in parallel, with no physical errors, then it would take about $2^{63}$ gate calls (where the purple line intersects the vertical line at $50$), where we assume each gate to have unit cost. Still with no errors, a trivial cost for implementing the cryptographic function (oracle) would bring the cost down to about $2^{38}$ oracle calls per quantum computer. Keeping the actual function implementation, but adding the fault-tolerant layer with a physical error rate of $10^{-7}$ (with appropriate assumptions and using state-of-the-art quantum error correction) pushes the cost up to around $2^{76}$ surface code cycles per quantum computer (where now each code cycle is assumed to have unit cost). Similar remarks hold for the remaining plots in this manuscript. {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:aes\_128\_time\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:aes\_128\_phys\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:aes\_128\_phys\_total\]
AES-192
-------
{width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:aes\_192\_cycles\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:aes\_192\_time\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:aes\_192\_phys\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:aes\_192\_phys\_total\]
AES-256
-------
{width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:aes\_256\_cycles\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:aes\_256\_time\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:aes\_256\_phys\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:aes\_256\_phys\_total\]
Hash functions\[sct::hash\]
===========================
In this section we study the effect of parallelized Grover attacks on the SHA-256 [@SHA2] snd SHA3-256 [@SHA3] family of hash functions. We used the highly optimized logical circuits produced in [@10.1007/978-3-319-69453-5_18].
SHA-256
-------
{width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:sha\_256\_cycles\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:sha\_256\_time\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:sha\_256\_phys\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:sha\_256\_phys\_total\]
SHA3-256
--------
{width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:sha3\_256\_cycles\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:sha3\_256\_time\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:sha3\_256\_phys\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:sha3\_256\_phys\_total\]
Bitcoin \[sct::bitcoin\]
========================
In this section we analyze the security of Bitcoin’s [@satoshi:bitcoin] proof-of-work protocol, which is based on finding a hash[^5] pre-image which that starts with a certain number of zeros. The latter is dynamically adjusted by the protocol so that the problem is on average solved by the whole network in 10 minutes. Currently, it takes around $2^{75}$ classical hashing operations [@btc_difficulty] for finding a desired hash pre-image successfully via brute-force search with specialized hardware. {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:sha\_256\_bitcoin\_cycles\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:sha\_256\_bitcoin\_time\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:sha\_256\_bitcoin\_phys\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:sha\_256\_bitcoin\_phys\_total\]
Intrinsic cost of parallelized Grover’s algorithm\[sct::intrinsic\_parallel\_grover\]
=====================================================================================
More efficient quantum implementations of AES and SHA imply more efficient cryptanalysis. In this section, we aim to bound how much further optimized implementations of these cryptographic functions could help. We do so by assuming a trivial cost of $1$ for each function evaluation.
Searching space of size $2^{56}$
--------------------------------
{width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_56\_cycles\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_56\_time\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_56\_phys\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_56\_phys\_total\]
Searching space of size $2^{64}$
--------------------------------
{width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_64\_cycles\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_64\_time\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_64\_phys\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_64\_phys\_total\]
Searching space of size $2^{128}$
---------------------------------
{width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_128\_cycles\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_128\_time\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_128\_phys\] {width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_128\_phys\_total\]
Searching space of size $2^{256}$
---------------------------------
{width="42.90000%"} \[fgr:minimal\_grover\_256\_cycles\] {width="42.90000%"}
{width="42.90000%"}
{width="42.90000%"}
RSA schemes\[sct::rsa\]
=======================
In the following section we compute the space/time tradeoffs for attacking public-key cryptographic schemes based on factoring large numbers, namely RSA-1024, RSA-2048, RSA-3072, RSA-4096, RSA-7680 and RSA-15360. For each scheme, we plot the space/time tradeoff points then fit it with a third degree polynomial, for $p_g=10^{-3}$ and $p_g=10^{-5}$, respectively.
RSA-1024
--------
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:rsa1024a\]
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:rsa1024b\]
RSA-2048
--------
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:rsa2048a\]
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:rsa2048b\]
RSA-3072
--------
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:rsa3072a\]
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:rsa3072b\]
RSA-4096
--------
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:rsa4096a\]
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:rsa4096b\]
RSA-7680
--------
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:rsa7680a\]
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:rsa7680b\]
RSA-15360
---------
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:rsa15360a\]
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:rsa15360b\]
Elliptic curve schemes\[sct::ecc\]
==================================
In the following section we compute the space/time tradeoffs for attacking public-key cryptographic schemes based on solving the discrete logarithm problem in finite groups generated over elliptic curves, namely NIST P-160, NIST P-192, NIST P-224, NIST P-256, NIST P-384 and NIST P-521. For each scheme, we plot the space/time tradeoff points then fit it with a third degree polynomial, for $p_g=10^{-3}$ and $p_g=10^{-5}$, respectively. We used the logical circuits from [@1706.06752].
NIST P-160
----------
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:p160a\]
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:p160b\]
NIST P-192
----------
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:p192a\]
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:p192b\]
NIST P-224
----------
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:p224a\]
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:p224b\]
NIST P-256
----------
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:p256a\]
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:p256b\]
NIST P-384
----------
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:p384a\]
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:p384b\]
NIST P-521
----------
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:p521a\]
{width="47.50000%"} \[fgr:p521b\]
Summary and conclusions {#sct::conclusion}
=======================
We analyzed the security of several widely used symmetric ciphers and hash functions against parallelized quantum adversaries. We computed the security parameter, wall-time and physical footprint for each cryptographic primitive. Our attack model was based on a brute force searching via a parallelized version of Grover’s algorithm, assuming a surface-code fault-tolerant architecture based on defects and braiding techniques.
It is worth noting that throughout we are assuming that brute-force search where we treat the cryptographic function as a black-box is essentially the optimal attack against SHA and AES, which is currently believed to be the case.
Some symmetric key algorithms are susceptible in a model that permits “superposition attacks” [@quantph.1602.05973]. In most realistic instances, these attacks are not practical, however they do shed light on the limitations of certain security proof methods in a quantum context, and remind us that we shouldn’t take for granted that non-trivial attacks on symmetric key cryptography may be possible. For example, very recently, there have been several cryptanalysis results [@1712.06239] and [@1802.03856] that attempt to reduce breaking some symmetric algorithms to solving a system of non-linear equations. Solving these non-linear equations is then attacked using a modified version of the quantum linear equation solver algorithm [@PhysRevLett.103.150502]. The results are heavily dependent on the condition number of the non-linear system, which turns to be hard to compute (it is not known for most ciphers and hash functions such as AES or SHA). Provided the condition number is relatively small, then one may get an advantage compared to brute-force Grover search. However at this time it is not clear whether this is indeed the case, and we do not have large-scale quantum computers to experiment with.
The quantum security parameter (based on our assumptions of using state-of-the-art algorithms and fault-tolerance methods) for symmetric and hash-based cryptographic schemes is summarized in Table \[tbl1\]. For more details about space/time tradeoffs achievable via parallelization of Grover’s algorithm please see the corresponding Sec. \[sct::ciphers\], Sec. \[sct::hash\] and Sec. \[sct::bitcoin\], respectively.
Name qs
--------------- -----
AES-128 106
AES-192 139
AES-256 172
SHA-256 166
SHA3-256 167
Bitcoin’s PoW 75
: Quantum security parameter ($qs$) for the AES family of ciphers, SHA family of hash functions, and Bitcoin, assuming a conservative physical error rate per gate $p_g=10^{-4}$.[]{data-label="tbl1"}
We also analyzed the security of asymmetric (public-key) cryptography, in particular RSA and ECC, in the light of new improvements in fault-tolerant quantum error correction based on surface code lattice surgery techniques. We computed the space/time tradeoff required to attack every scheme, using physical error rates of $10^{-3}$ and $10^{-5}$, respectively. We fitted the data with a third degree polynomial, which resulted in an analytical formula of the number of qubits required to break the scheme as a function of time.
The total number of physical qubits required to break the RSA schemes in 24 hours, together with the required number of $T$ gates, corresponding number of surface code cycles and corresponding classical security parameter is summarized in Table \[tbl2\]. For more details about possible space/time tradeoffs please see the corresponding Section \[sct::rsa\] of the manuscript.
Name nq Tc scc s
----------- ----------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -----
RSA-1024 $3.01 \times 10^7$ $3.01 \times 10^{11}$ $5.86 \times 10^{13}$ 80
RSA-2048 $1.72 \times 10^8$ $2.41 \times 10^{12}$ $4.69 \times 10^{14}$ 112
RSA-3072 $6.41 \times 10^8$ $8.12 \times 10^{12}$ $1.58 \times 10^{15}$ 128
RSA-4096 $1.18 \times 10^9$ $1.92 \times 10^{13}$ $3.75 \times 10^{15}$ 156
RSA-7680 $7.70 \times 10^{10}$ $1.27 \times 10^{14}$ $2.64 \times 10^{16}$ 192
RSA-15360 $4.85 \times 10^{12}$ $1.01 \times 10^{15}$ $2.24 \times 10^{17}$ 256
: The total physical footprint ($nq$) required to break the RSA schemes in 24 hours, together with the required number of $T$ gates ($Tc$), the corresponding number of surface code cycles ($scc$), and the corresponding classical security parameter ($s$). We assume a very conservative physical error rate per gate $p_g=10^{-3}$, more likely to be achievable by the first generations of fault-tolerant quantum computers.[]{data-label="tbl2"}
The total number of physical qubits required to break the ECC schemes in 24 hours, together with the required number of $T$ gates, corresponding number of surface code cycles and corresponding classical security parameter is summarized in in Table \[tbl3\]. For more details about possible space/time tradeoffs please see the corresponding Section \[sct::ecc\] of the manuscript. As observed before in [@1706.06752], breaking RSA schemes demands more quantum resources in comparison with elliptic curve-based schemes, for the same level of classical security.
Name nq Tc scc s
------- -------------------- ----------------------- ----------------------- -----
P-160 $1.81 \times 10^7$ $2.08 \times 10^{11}$ $4.05 \times 10^{13}$ 80
P-192 $3.37 \times 10^7$ $3.71 \times 10^{11}$ $7.23 \times 10^{13}$ 96
P-224 $4.91 \times 10^7$ $5.90 \times 10^{11}$ $1.15 \times 10^{14}$ 112
P-256 $6.77 \times 10^7$ $8.82 \times 10^{11}$ $1.72 \times 10^{14}$ 128
P-384 $2.27 \times 10^8$ $3.16 \times 10^{12}$ $6.17 \times 10^{14}$ 192
P-521 $6.06 \times 10^8$ $7.92 \times 10^{12}$ $1.56 \times 10^{15}$ 260
: The total physical footprint ($nq$) required to break the ECC schemes in 24 hours, together with the required number of $T$ gates ($Tc$), the corresponding number of surface code cycles ($scc$), and the corresponding classical security parameter ($s$). We assume a very conservative physical error rate per gate $p_g=10^{-3}$, more likely to be achievable by the first generations of fault-tolerant quantum computers.[]{data-label="tbl3"}
Recent developments in the theory of fault-tolerant quantum error correction have great impact on evaluating the effective strength of cryptographic schemes against quantum attacks, as the fault-tolerant layer of a quantum computation is the most resource-intensive part of running a quantum algorithm. Therefore, monitoring the advances in the theory of quantum error correction is of crucial importance when estimating the strength (or weakness) of a cryptographic scheme against a quantum adversary. This work serves as a benchmark against which the impact of future advances can be compared.
Most of this work is based on research supported by the Global Risk Institute for its members. We also acknowledge support from NSERC and CIFAR. IQC and the Perimeter Institute are supported in part by the Government of Canada and the Province of Ontario. Vlad Gheorghiu thanks Austin Fowler for helpful discussions and clarifications regarding lattice surgery methods.
[25]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1137/S0097539795293172) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.325) @noop [**]{}, ed. (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.032324) [****, ()](http://stacks.iop.org/1367-2630/14/i=12/a=123011) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.86.052329) @noop [“,” ]{} (), @noop [“,” ]{} (), , @noop [“,” ]{} [“,” ](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) () in @noop [**]{}, (, , ) pp. [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep01939) @noop [“,” ]{} (), , [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.52.3457) [ ()](http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0410184) [****, ()](http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2011517.2011525) in @noop [**]{}, (, , ) pp. @noop [“,” ]{} (), @noop [“,” ]{} (), [“,” ](https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty) @noop [“,” ]{} @noop [“,” ]{} (), @noop [“,” ]{} (), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.150502)
[^1]: Clifford gates are “cheap", i.e. they require relatively small overhead for implementation in the surface code, but are not universals, hence a non-Clifford gate is required. One such gate is the T gate. There are other possible choices, however all of the non-Clifford gates require special techniques such as magic state distillation [@1367-2630-14-12-123011; @PhysRevA.86.052329] and significant overhead (order of magnitudes higher than Clifford gates) to be implemented in the surface code. In fact, to a first order approximation, for the purpose of resource estimation, one can simply ignore the overhead introduced by the Clifford gates and simply focus only on the T gates.
[^2]: The security parameter is defined as the logarithm base two of the number of fundamental operations (in our case surface code cycles) required to break the scheme.
[^3]: Every T gate in the circuit must be implemented by a specialized magic state factory, each of which occupies a significant physical footprint. One can implement more magic states in parallel if one is willing to increase the physical footprint of the computation.
[^4]: A third degree polynomial fits the data very precisely, providing a coefficient of determination $R^2$ greater than 0.997.
[^5]: The hash function being used by the protocol is H($x$) := SHA-256(SHA-256($x$).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat Einstein-Vlasov system. We find explicit conditions on the initial data, with ADM mass $M,$ such that the resulting spacetime has the following properties: there is a family of radially outgoing null geodesics where the area radius $r$ along each geodesic is bounded by $2M,$ the timelike lines $r=c\in [0,2M]$ are incomplete, and for $r>2M$ the metric converges asymptotically to the Schwarzschild metric with mass $M$. The initial data that we construct guarantee the formation of a black hole in the evolution. We also give examples of such initial data with the additional property that the solutions exist for all $r\geq 0$ and all Schwarzschild time, i.e., we obtain global existence in Schwarzschild coordinates in situations where the initial data are not small. Some of our results are also established for the Einstein equations coupled to a general matter model characterized by conditions on the matter quantities.'
author:
- |
H[å]{}kan Andréasson\
Mathematical Sciences\
Chalmers University of Technology\
Göteborg University\
S-41296 Göteborg, Sweden\
email: [email protected]\
\
Markus Kunze\
Fachbereich Mathematik\
Universität Duisburg-Essen\
D-45117 Essen, Germany\
email: [email protected]\
\
Gerhard Rein\
Mathematisches Institut der Universität Bayreuth\
D-95440 Bayreuth, Germany\
email: [email protected]
title: The formation of black holes in spherically symmetric gravitational collapse
---
\[section\]
\[theorem\][Definition]{} \[theorem\][Proposition]{} \[theorem\][Example]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{} \[theorem\][Corollary]{} \[theorem\][Lemma]{}
Introduction
============
One of the many striking predictions of General Relativity is the assertion that under appropriate conditions astrophysical objects like stars or galaxies undergo a gravitational collapse resulting in a spacetime singularity. This was first proven by Oppenheimer and Snyder [@OS] who constructed a semi-explicit example of a homogeneous spherically symmetric ball of dust, i.e., of a pressure-less fluid, which under its self-consistent, general relativistic gravitational interaction collapses. During this collapse the scalar curvature of spacetime blows up at the centre of symmetry, and the geometry of spacetime breaks down there. This is referred to as the formation of a spacetime singularity. An important feature of the Oppenheimer-Snyder solution is that during the collapse a two-dimensional spacelike sphere evolves which encloses the singularity and through which no causal curve, i.e., no light ray or particle trajectory, can pass outward. In this way the spacetime singularity is isolated from the outside part of spacetime by a so-called event horizon, and the singularity cannot be seen or in any other way be experienced by observers outside the event horizon. This configuration was later termed a black hole.
In the 1960s Penrose [@pen] proved that the formation of spacetime singularities from regular initial data is not restricted to spherically symmetric, especially constructed or isolated examples but is a genuine, stable feature of spacetimes. However, this result gives little information about the geometric structure of a spacetime with such a singularity. In particular, it is in general not known if every spacetime singularity which arises from the gravitational collapse of regular initial data is covered by an event horizon. Since the existence of so-called naked singularities (for which, by definition, the latter is not true) would violate predictability (it would not be possible to predict from the initial data what an observer would see if he could observe a singularity), the cosmic censorship conjecture was formulated which demands that any singularity which arises from the gravitational collapse of *generic* regular initial data is indeed hidden behind an event horizon. The restriction to generic data means that naked singularities are allowed to occur for a “null set” of the initial data. An important example where naked singularities do form for a null set, but for which cosmic censorship holds true, is the spherically symmetric Einstein-scalar field system, cf. [@Chr94; @Chr99a]. Actually the above is an informal statement of the so-called weak cosmic censorship conjecture [@wald 12.1]; we will not be concerned with the strong version in the present paper. For a mathematical discussion and the definition of the weak cosmic censorship conjecture we refer to [@Chr99].
To deal with this conjecture in full generality is out of reach of the present level of mathematics, but under the assumption of spherical symmetry progress has been made in recent years. One important outcome of these investigations is that the answer is sensitive to which model is chosen to describe the matter. Christodoulou [@Chr84] showed that for dust, i.e., the matter model used by Oppenheimer and Snyder, cosmic censorship is violated. On the other hand, in a series of papers Christodoulou investigated a massless scalar field as matter model and showed in 1999 that weak and strong cosmic censorship hold true for this matter model; see [@Chr99a] and the references therein.
In the present investigation the main example considered as a matter model is the so-called collisionless gas as described by the Vlasov equation. It is used extensively in astrophysics, cf. [@BT], to describe galaxies or globular clusters which are viewed as large ensembles of mass points which interact only through the gravitational field that the ensemble creates collectively. In a relativistic context this leads to the Einstein-Vlasov system. All results available for this system support the following
[**Conjecture:**]{} [*Weak cosmic censorship holds for the Einstein-Vlasov system.*]{}
We mention explicitly that, in contrast to dust, small, spherically symmetric initial data launch global solutions, i.e., the solutions are geodesically complete and hence satisfy cosmic censorship, cf. [@RR1]. Also, the numerical simulations [@AR1; @OC; @RRS2] which treat large initial data support the hypothesis that naked singularities do not form in the evolution. We point out a further interesting feature of Vlasov matter observed in these numerical studies: In a one-parameter family of solutions which for large parameters, i.e., large amplitudes of the initial data, collapse to a black hole the smallest black hole always has a strictly positive ADM mass, i.e., there is a mass gap. For some other models, e.g. a scalar field, the mass of the black hole as a function of the parameter is continuous and arbitrarily small black holes can form, cf. [@CG] for a review.
The aim of the present paper is to find explicit conditions on the initial data which ensure the formation of black holes. This class of initial data has the important property that, except for “boundary cases”, properly restricted small perturbations of the data lead to solutions with the same properties. In this sense the established behaviour of the solutions is stable and not restricted to especially constructed solutions or initial data, respectively. It turns out that some of our results can be formulated for a general matter model which satisfies certain specific assumptions, and in order to give a broader impact to our results we shall do so. At the same time we emphasize that the Vlasov matter model is the only one which is presently known to actually satisfy all the assumptions needed for our arguments to go through.
As an interesting corallary to our main result we show that it is in fact possible to choose initial data for the Einstein-Vlasov system, which lead to formation of black holes, such that the solutions exist for all Schwarzschild time and all $r\geq 0.$ We thus obtain global existence in Schwarzschild coordinates for initial data which are not small, and to the best of our knowledge this is the first global existence result in Schwarzschild coordinates for initial data which lead to gravitational collapse and formation of black holes.
One aspect of our result is that there is a set of initial data which leads to gravitational collapse such that weak cosmic censorship holds. This point should be related to an earlier result by Rendall [@Rend92], where it is shown that there exist initial data for the spherically symmetric Einstein-Vlasov system such that a trapped surface forms in the evolution. The occurrence of a trapped surface signals the formation of an event horizon. Indeed, Dafermos [@D05] has proved that if a spherically symmetric spacetime contains a trapped surface and the matter model satisfies certain hypotheses then weak cosmic censorship holds true. In [@DR05] it was then shown that Vlasov matter does satisfy the required hypotheses. Hence, by combining these results it follows that initial data exist which lead to gravitational collapse and for which weak cosmic censorship holds. However, the proof in [@Rend92] rests on a continuity argument, and it is not possible to tell whether or not a given initial data set will give rise to a black hole. This is in contrast to the explicit conditions on the initial data, together with the detailed asymptotic structure, that we obtain in the present work. In this regard it is natural to relate our results to those of Christodoulou on the spherically symmetric Einstein-scalar field system [@Chr87] and [@Chr91]. In [@Chr87] it is shown that if the final Bondi mass $M$ is different from zero, the region exterior to the sphere $r=2M$ tends to the Schwarzschild metric with mass $M$. In Theorem \[bh\] below we show that solutions of the spherically Einstein-Vlasov system, under certain conditions on the initial data, also converge to the Schwarzschild metric asymptotically. Furthermore, in [@Chr91] explicit conditions on the initial data are specified which guarantee the formation of trapped surfaces. This paper played a crucial role in Christodoulou’s proof [@Chr99a] of the weak and strong cosmic censorship conjectures mentioned above. The conditions on the initial data in [@Chr91] allow the ratio of the Hawking mass and the area radius to cover the full range, i.e., $2m/r\in (0,1),$ whereas our conditions always require $2m/r$ to be quite close to one. However, we believe that to understand gravitational collapse in the case of Vlasov matter the essential situation is when $2m/r$ is large. We thus hope that the results in the present paper will lead to progress on the general understanding of gravitational collapse and the weak cosmic censorship conjecture in the case of Vlasov matter.
The Vlasov matter model has a further property to recommend it when compared to other matter models. For the Vlasov-Poisson system, which arises as the Newtonian limit of the Einstein-Vlasov system in a rigorous sense [@RR2; @Rl0], and which is used extensively in astrophysics, there is a global existence and uniqueness result for general, smooth initial data [@LP; @Pf]. This means in particular that any breakdown of a solution of the Einstein-Vlasov system can be expected to be a genuine, general relativistic effect such as a spacetime singularity and not only remainder of some bad behaviour which the matter model exhibits already on the Newtonian level.
To be more specific, consider now a smooth spacetime manifold $M$ equipped with a spacetime metric $g_{\alpha \beta}$; Greek indices run from $0$ to $3$. Then the Einstein equations read $$\label{feqgen}
G_{\alpha \beta} = 8 \pi T_{\alpha \beta},$$ where $G_{\alpha \beta}$ is the Einstein tensor, a non-linear second order differential expression in the metric $g_{\alpha \beta}$, and $T_{\alpha \beta}$ is the energy-momentum tensor given by the matter content (or other fields) of the spacetime. To obtain a closed system, the field equations (\[feqgen\]) have to be supplemented by $$\label{matevol}
\mbox{evolution equation(s) for the matter}$$ and $$\label{emtdef}
\mbox{the definition of $T_{\alpha \beta}$ in terms of the matter and the metric}.$$ It is often possible to specify conditions on (\[matevol\]) and (\[emtdef\]) under which one can establish geometric properties of a spacetime described by the Einstein-matter system (\[feqgen\]), (\[matevol\]), (\[emtdef\]). The Penrose singularity theorem mentioned above is of this nature, and part of our arguments will also be presented in this form.
However, in order to verify such general conditions, in particular with respect to the existence of local or global solutions to the corresponding initial value problem, a specific matter model must be chosen, and in the present paper this is a collisionless gas. All the particles in the gas are assumed to have the same rest mass, normalized to unity, and to move forward in time. Hence, their number density $f$ is a non-negative function supported on the mass shell $$PM := \left\{ g_{\alpha \beta} p^\alpha p^\beta = -1,\ p^0 >0 \right\},$$ a submanifold of the tangent bundle $TM$ of the spacetime manifold $M$; $p^\alpha$ are the canonical momenta corresponding to general coordinates $x^\alpha=(t,x^a)$ on $M$. We use coordinates $(t,x^a)$ with zero shift, and Latin indices run from $1$ to $3$. On the mass shell $PM$ the variable $p^0$ becomes a function of the remaining variables $(t,x^a,p^b)$: $$p^0 = \sqrt{-g^{00}} \sqrt{1+g_{ab}p^a p^b}.$$ The number density $f=f(t,x^a,p^b)$ satisfies a continuity equation, the so-called Vlasov equation, which says that $f$ is constant along the geodesics of the spacetime metric, $$\label{vlgen}
\partial_t f + \frac{p^a}{p^0}\,\partial_{x^a} f
-\frac{1}{p^0}\,\Gamma^a_{\beta \gamma} p^\beta p^\gamma\,\partial_{p^a} f = 0,$$ where $\Gamma^\alpha_{\beta \gamma}$ are the Christoffel symbols induced by the metric $g_{\alpha \beta}$. The energy-momentum tensor is given by $$\label{emtvlgen}
T_{\alpha \beta}
=\int p_\alpha p_\beta f \,|g|^{1/2} \,\frac{dp^1 dp^2 dp^3}{-p_0},$$ where $|g|$ denotes the modulus of the determinant of the metric. The system (\[feqgen\]), (\[vlgen\]), (\[emtvlgen\]) is the Einstein-Vlasov system in general coordinates. For an introduction to relativistic kinetic theory and the Einstein-Vlasov system we refer to [@And05] and [@Rend05].
If, for comparison, the matter is to be described as a perfect fluid with density $\Rho$, four-velocity field $U^\alpha$, and pressure $P$, then the matter evolution equations are the Euler equations $$U^\alpha \nabla_\alpha \Rho + (\Rho +P) \nabla^\alpha U_\alpha = 0,$$ $$(\Rho +P)U^\alpha \nabla_\alpha U_\beta +
(g_{\alpha \beta} + U_\alpha U_\beta) \nabla^\alpha P = 0,$$ where $\nabla_\alpha$ is the covariant derivative corresponding to the metric $g_{\alpha \beta}$. The energy-momentum tensor in this case is $$T_{\alpha \beta}
= \Rho U_\alpha U_\beta + P (g_{\alpha \beta} + U_\alpha U_\beta ).$$ To close the Einstein-Euler system it has to be supplemented by an equation of state $P=P(\Rho)$. The choice $P=0$ yields the dust matter model referred to above.
Due to the complexity of the field equations (\[feqgen\]) very little can be said about the questions at hand for these equations in their general form. Since on the other hand these questions are of considerable interest also in spacetimes satisfying simplifying symmetry assumptions, we from now on focus on asymptotically flat, spherically symmetric spacetimes and write down the metric $$ds^2=-e^{2\mu(t,r)}dt^2+e^{2\lambda(t,r)}dr^2+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,d\varphi^2)$$ in Schwarzschild coordinates. Here $t\in{\mathbb R}$ is the time coordinate, $r\in [0, \infty[$ is the area radius, i.e., $4 \pi r^2$ is the area of the orbit of the symmetry group $\mathrm{SO}(3)$ labeled by $r$, and the angles $\theta\in[0, \pi]$ and $\varphi\in[0, 2\pi]$ parameterize these orbits. Asymptotic flatness means that the metric quantities $\lambda$ and $\mu$ have to satisfy the boundary conditions $$\label{boundc}
\lim_{r\to\infty}\lambda(t, r)=\lim_{r\to\infty}\mu(t, r)=0.$$ For a metric of this form the $00$, $11$, and $01$ components of the Einstein equations are found to be $$\label{ein1}
e^{-2\lambda}(2r\lambda_r-1)+1=8\pi r^2 e^{-2\mu} T_{00},$$ $$\label{ein2}
e^{-2\lambda}(2r\mu_r+1)-1 = 8\pi r^2 e^{-2\lambda} T_{11},$$ $$\label{ein3}
\lambda_t = 4 \pi r T_{01},$$ where subscripts indicate partial derivatives. The $22$ and $33$ components are also nontrivial, but they are not needed for our analysis, and the remaining components vanish identically due to the symmetry assumption.
Our aim is to find explicit conditions on the initial data such that the corresponding solutions of the spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat version of the system (\[feqgen\]), (\[matevol\]), (\[emtdef\]) have the following property: There is an outgoing radial null geodesic $\gamma^+$ originating from $r=r_0>0$, i.e., $$\label{gamma+}
\frac{d \gamma^+}{ds}(s)=e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,\gamma^+(s))},\;\gamma^+(0)=r_0,$$ such that the solution exists on the outer region $$\label{ddef}
D:=\{(t,r) \in [0,\infty[^2 \mid r \geq \gamma^+(t)\},$$ and $\gamma^+$ has the property that $$\label{limgamma}
\lim_{s\to \infty}\gamma^+(s) < \infty.$$ This indicates that the matter distribution undergoes a gravitational collapse, and a black hole forms. In the case of Vlasov matter we obtain a more detailed picture which supports this interpretation: There exists an extremal, radially outgoing null geodesic $\gamma^\ast$ in the outer domain $D$ such that $\lim_{s\to \infty}\gamma^\ast (s) = 2 M$ where $M$ is the ADM mass of the solution, and as $t\to\infty$ the metric converges for $r>2 M$ to the Schwarzschild metric representing a black hole of mass $M$.
In the next section we state our main results for the Einstein-Vlasov system, where we specify classes of spherically symmetric initial data which lead to solutions showing the above behaviour. The Vlasov equation and the corresponding energy-momentum tensor components in the case of spherical symmetry are stated there. In Section \[secgenmat\] we give a general formulation of one of our results where no particular matter model is considered. The reason for this is that most steps in the proof of Theorem \[vlasov2\] below are of a general character and—besides the fact that for the Einstein-Vlasov system there is an existence theory for the initial value problem which guarantees the existence of solutions on $D$—the specific properties of Vlasov matter are used only in one key lemma. Hence it is natural to precisely single out the required conditions on the level of the macroscopic matter quantities. This clarifies the main mechanism in our method, and it may lead to applications of our method to other matter models. Using an additional feature of Vlasov matter we construct an alternative, and in some respects larger, class of initial data which ensure the formation of black holes, cf. Theorem \[vlasov1\].
The proofs of our results then proceed as follows. After stating some general auxiliary results in Section \[prelim\] we prove Theorem \[genmat\], which is the general-matter version of Theorem \[vlasov2\], in Section \[secgenmatproof\]. The latter result is then established in Section \[secvlasov2\] by showing that Vlasov matter satisfies the required general conditions on the matter for a suitable class of initial data. Theorem \[vlasov1\] is established in Section \[secvlasov1\] together with Corallary \[ssinthemiddle\] on global existence in Schwarzschild coordinates. For all these results it is essential to make sure that in the outer region $D$ all the matter moves inward. In the case of general matter this is a condition which we have to impose on the solution, whereas in the case of Vlasov matter we can specify conditions on the initial data such that this is true. In Section \[bhproof\] we prove the convergence of our solution to a Schwarzschild black hole of the corresponding ADM mass in the case of Vlasov matter.
Main results for Vlasov matter {#secvlasres}
==============================
In this section Eqns. (\[boundc\])–(\[ein3\]) will be supplemented by the spherically symmetric version of the Vlasov equation together with expressions for the relevant components of the energy-momentum tensor so that a closed system is obtained, known as the spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat Einstein-Vlasov system.
In order to exploit the symmetry it is useful to introduce non-canonical variables on momentum space and write $f=f(t,r,w,L)$. For a detailed derivation of the corresponding equations we refer to [@Rein95]; here we just state the result. The Vlasov equation is $$\label{vlasov}
\partial_{t}f+e^{\mu-\lambda}\frac{w}{E}\partial_{r}f
-\left(\lambda_{t}w+e^{\mu-\lambda}\mu_{r}E-
e^{\mu-\lambda}\frac{L}{r^3E}\right)\,\partial_{w}f=0,$$ where $$E=E(r,w,L):=\sqrt{1+w^{2}+L/r^{2}} = e^\mu p^0.$$ The variables $w\in ]-\infty,\infty[$ and $L\in [0,\infty[$ can be thought of as the radial component of the momentum and the square of the angular momentum respectively. Notice that the latter is conserved along characteristics of the Vlasov equation. The matter quantities are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(t,r)
&=&
e^{-2 \mu} T_{00}(t,r) =
\frac{\pi}{r^{2}}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty}Ef(t,r,w,L)\,dL\,dw,
\label{rho}\\
p(t,r)
&=&
e^{-2 \lambda} T_{11}(t,r) =
\frac{\pi}{r^{2}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{w^{2}}{E}f(t,r,w,L)\,dL\,dw,
\label{p}\\
j(t,r)
&=&
-e^{-(\lambda+\mu)} T_{01}(t,r) =
\frac{\pi}{r^{2}}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{0}^{\infty}w\,f(t,r,w,L)\,dL\,dw.
\label{j}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the quantities $\rho,\, p,\, j$ appear on the right hand sides of the field equations (\[ein1\])–(\[ein3\]), and they are given in terms of $f$ alone, which is the main reason for using the non-canonical variables $w$ and $L$. The system (\[boundc\])–(\[ein3\]), (\[vlasov\])–(\[j\]) is the spherically symmetric Einstein-Vlasov system in Schwarzschild coordinates. As initial data we need to prescribe an initial distribution function $\open{f}=\open{f}(r,w,L)\geq 0$, which should be compactly supported in $]0,\infty[ \times ]-\infty,\infty[\times ]0,\infty[$, and such that $$\label{notsinit}
\int_0^r 4\pi\eta^2\open{\rho}(\eta)\,d\eta
=4\pi^2 \int_0^r\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}
E\open{f}(\eta,w,L)\,dL\,dw\,d\eta < \frac{r}{2}.$$ The origin $r=0$ is excluded from the support for technical reasons, but this could be avoided by using Cartesian coordinates. The condition (\[notsinit\]) implies that the equations (\[ein1\]) and (\[ein2\]) have solutions $\lambda$ and $\mu$, cf. Section \[prelim\], and since $\open{f}$ has compact support, a property which is inherited by $f(t)$, the matter terms are well defined. If in addition $\open{f}$ is $C^1$ we say that the initial data is *regular*. As is shown in [@RR1] or [@Rein95], regular initial data launch a unique local solution for which all the derivatives which appear in the system exist classically. In Section \[secvlasov2\] we discuss in more detail that this local solution extends to the whole outer region $D$ defined in (\[ddef\]).
To state our main results let $0<r_0<r_1$ be given, put $M=r_1/2$ (this is going to be the ADM mass of the solution), and fix $0<M_\mathrm{out}<M$ such that $$\label{icnts}
\frac{2(M-M_\mathrm{out})}{r_0}<\frac{8}{9}.$$ **Remark.** The value $8/9$ is chosen for definiteness, and any number less than one would do, effecting the values of some of the constants below.
Two different theorems will be stated below, corresponding to the following two situations.
- Let $R_1>r_1$ be such that $$\label{mediumstrip}
R_1-r_1<\frac{r_1-r_0}{6},$$ or
- let $R_1>r_1$ be such that $$\label{smallstrip}
\sqrt{\frac{R_1-r_1}{R_1}}<\min\left\{\frac{1}{6},\frac{r_0^2}{12\kappa R_1M},
\frac{r_1-r_0}{8\kappa R_1}\right\},$$ where the (explicit) constant $\kappa>0$ will be specified in Theorems \[vlasov2\] and \[genmat\] below.
Finally, we define $$R_0:=\frac{1}{2}(r_1+R_1).$$ Denote by $\open{\rho}\,$ the energy density induced by the initial distribution function $\open{f}$. We require that all the matter in the outer region $[r_0, \infty[$ is initially located in the strip $[R_0,R_1]$, with $M_\mathrm{out}$ being the corresponding fraction of the ADM mass $M$, i.e., $$\label{checkM}
\int_{r_0}^{\infty}4\pi r^2\open{\rho}(r)dr = \int_{R_0}^{R_1}4\pi r^2\open{\rho}(r)dr=M_\mathrm{out}.$$ Furthermore, the remaining fraction $M-M_\mathrm{out}$ should be initially located within the ball of area radius $r_0$, i.e., $$\label{M-checkM}
\int_{0}^{r_0}4\pi r^2\open{\rho}(r)dr=M-M_\mathrm{out}.$$ **Remark.** The set up described above is quite similar to the set up in [@Chr91] for a scalar field. In [@Chr91] it is not required to have matter in an “inner” strip $[0,r_0]$, as is the case here in view of (\[M-checkM\]) and the condition $M_\mathrm{out}<M.$ The reason why we need some matter in the region $r\le r_0$ is to ensure that initially ingoing matter continues to be ingoing for all times, cf. Lemma \[ingoinglemma\] below. If one only considers purely radially ingoing particles, i.e., with no angular momentum (which results in a non-smooth distribution function $f$), then we could allow for $M_\mathrm{out}=M.$ It is interesting to note that $p=\rho$ holds for Vlasov matter, if the particles have no angular momentum and their rest mass is zero, which is the case for the scalar field considered in [@Chr91].
Now we are in the position to formulate our main results for Vlasov matter. Corresponding to Case (i) above, we prove
\[vlasov1\] Let $r_0,\, r_1, M$, and $M_\mathrm{out}$ be given as above, and let $R_1$ satisfy (\[mediumstrip\]). Then there exists a set ${\cal{I}}_1$ of regular initial data for the spherically symmetric Einstein-Vlasov system such that if $\open{f}\in{\cal{I}}_1$, then (\[checkM\]) and (\[M-checkM\]) hold, the corresponding solution exists on $D$, and $$\lim_{s\to \infty}\gamma^+(s) < \infty,
\quad \lim_{s\to \infty} \int_{\gamma^+(s)}^\infty 4 \pi r^2 \rho(s,r)\,dr > 0,$$ where $\gamma^+$ satisfies (\[gamma+\]).
By abuse of notation we denote by $D$ both the outer region in spacetime defined by (\[ddef\]) and the part of the mass shell with $(t,r) \in D$.
The next theorem addresses Case (ii) above, assuming the stronger condition (\[smallstrip\]). This allows for a more straightforward proof, and the constraints on the momentum variables of the initial distribution function $\open{f}$ which are used to specify the set ${\cal{I}}_1$ will be slightly relaxed. Hence, the initial data set ${\cal{I}}_1$ does not contain ${\cal{I}}_2$ in Theorem \[vlasov2\] below, but it is larger in the sense that data in ${\cal{I}}_2$ are quite close to containing a trapped surface, which is not necessarily the case for data in ${\cal{I}}_1$. The precise form of ${\cal{I}}_1$ and ${\cal{I}}_2$ is specified in the proofs.
\[vlasov2\] Let $r_0,\, r_1, M$, and $M_\mathrm{out}$ be given as above and let $R_1$ satisfy (\[smallstrip\]) with $\kappa=6$. Then there exists a set ${\cal{I}}_2$ of regular initial data for the spherically symmetric Einstein-Vlasov system such that if $\open{f}\in{\cal{I}}_2$, then (\[checkM\]) and (\[M-checkM\]) hold, the corresponding solution exists on $D$, and $$\lim_{s\to \infty}\gamma^+(s) < \infty,
\quad \lim_{s\to \infty} \int_{\gamma^+(s)}^\infty 4 \pi r^2 \rho(s,r)\,dr > 0,$$ where $\gamma^+$ satisfies (\[gamma+\]).
The Einstein-Vlasov system has a wide variety of static, spherically symmetric solutions with finite ADM mass and finite radius, i.e., compact support of the matter, cf. [@Rss1; @RRss1; @RRss2]. Particularly interesting examples of initial data for which our results apply are obtained if the matter for $r \leq r_0$ is represented by such a static solution, more precisely:
\[ssinthemiddle\] Let $f_s$ be a static solution of the spherically symmetric Einstein-Vlasov system with finite ADM mass $M_s>0$ and finite radius $r_s >0$. Define $r_0=r_s$, let $r_1 > r_0$ be arbitrary, $M=r_1/2$, and $M_\mathrm{out} = M -M_s$; the latter quantity is positive. Then the initial data sets ${\cal{I}}_1$ and ${\cal{I}}_2$ both contain data $\open{f}$ which coincide with the given static solution for $0\leq r\leq r_0$. The corresponding solution $f$ of the Einstein-Vlasov system exists for all $r\geq 0,\ t\geq 0$ and coincides with the static solution $f_s$ for all $r\leq \gamma^+(t)$ and $t\geq 0$.
We prove this result at the end of Section \[secvlasov1\]. It represents a global existence result for the Einstein-Vlasov system in Schwarzschild time for data which are not small.
In the next section we formulate a version of Theorem \[vlasov2\] for quite general matter models. One reason for this is that the main mechanism behind our method becomes very transparent by posing sufficient conditions on the macroscopic matter terms rather than conditions on the initial distribution function $\open{f}$ as we did in the theorems above. Theorem \[vlasov2\] will then be a consequence of this generalization, cf. Section \[secvlasov2\], whereas Theorem \[vlasov1\] is established in Section \[secvlasov1\].
In these proofs it turns out that for the classes of initial data that we specify we can obtain somewhat sharper asymptotic information on $\gamma^+$ and the mass in the outer region; see (\[precise\]) below. More importantly, we can establish the following additional information which shows that the solution evolves towards a Schwarzschild black hole of mass $M$.
\[bh\] In the situation of Theorem \[vlasov1\] or Theorem \[vlasov2\] the following holds:
- There exist constants $\alpha, \beta > 0$ depending only on the initial data set ${\cal I}_1$ or ${\cal I}_2$ respectively such that if $$t \geq 0 \ \mbox{and}\ r \geq 2 M + \alpha e^{-\beta t}$$ then $f(t,r,\cdot,\cdot) = 0$, i.e., we have vacuum, and the metric equals the Schwarzschild metric $$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{2 M}{r}\right)\, dt^2 + \left(1-\frac{2 M}{r}\right)^{-1}dr^2\,
+ r^2(d\theta^2 + \sin^2 \theta d\varphi^2),$$ representing a black hole of mass $M$.
- For all $t\geq 0$ and $\gamma^+ (t) \leq r \leq 2 M + \alpha e^{-\beta t}$, $$\mu(t,r)
\leq \ln \left(\frac{\alpha e^{-\beta t}}{2 M + \alpha e^{-\beta t}}\right)^{1/2}$$ so that in the outer region $D$, $$\lim_{t\to \infty} \mu(t,r) = -\infty\ \mbox{for}\
r \leq 2 M,$$ and the timelike lines $r=c,$ where $c\in [0,2M],$ are incomplete and their proper lengths are uniformly bounded by a constant depending on $\alpha,\, \beta$ and $M.$
- Let r\^:= { rr\_0 &|& \
&& (0)=r \_[s]{}(s) < }, and let $\gamma^\ast$ be the radially outgoing null geodesic with $\gamma^\ast (0) = r^\ast$. Then $$\lim_{s\to\infty}\gamma^\ast (s) = 2 M,$$ and every radially outgoing null geodesic $\gamma$ with $\gamma(0) > r^\ast$ is future complete with $\lim_{s\to\infty}\gamma (s) = \infty$.
The result for general matter models {#secgenmat}
====================================
In this section we specify the general assumptions on a matter model sufficient for our method to be applied. In order to keep the discussion consistent with the Vlasov part of our arguments, and in view of the right hand sides of the field equations (\[ein1\]), (\[ein2\]), (\[ein3\]), it is convenient to use the notation $$\label{genmatquant}
\rho := e^{-2\mu} T_{00},\ p := e^{-2\lambda} T_{11},\
j := - e^{-\mu-\lambda}T_{01}.$$ Firstly, we assume that the following two conditions are satisfied.
- The dominant energy condition holds. (DEC)
- The radial pressure $p$ is non-negative. (NNP)
The dominant energy condition (DEC) plays a central role in general relativity and is the main criterion that a matter model should satisfy to be considered realistic. We refer to [@HE] for its definition. The non-negative pressure condition (NNP) is restrictive in the sense that it rules out, for example, a Maxwell field as matter model. However, for most astrophysical models it is a standard assumption, with e.g. fluid models satisfying this condition. For the purpose of this paper we only need to focus on two consequences of these two criteria, cf. [@HE] and [@P]. The (DEC) condition implies, together with the (NNP) condition, that $$\label{nnrho}
0\leq p\leq \rho\ \mbox{and}\ |j| \leq \rho.$$ Furthermore, by (DEC) any geodesic $(s,R(s))$ of a material particle or a light ray satisfies $$\label{mattergeodesic}
\left|\frac{dR(s)}{ds}\right| \leq e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,R(s))}.$$ The meaning of the latter condition is that locally the speed of energy flow is less than or equal to the speed of light.
Let $\lambda,\, \mu,\, \rho,\, p,\, j$ correspond to a solution of the spherically symmetric Einstein-matter equations (\[boundc\])–(\[ein3\]), (\[matevol\]), (\[emtdef\]) in Schwarzschild coordinates, launched by initial data from a class $\cal{I}$. In order to investigate the global structure of the solutions it is necessary that they exist globally in an appropriate sense. In the situation at hand they need to exist on the outer region $D$ defined in (\[ddef\]). In the spherical symmetric case the main obstruction for obtaining global solutions arises from the difficulties related to the centre of symmetry $r=0$. For example, for a massless scalar field or a collisionless gas as matter model it has been shown that solutions remain regular away from $r=0$ for general initial data, cf. [@Chr99; @And1; @RRS]. On the other hand, for dust a singularity of shell crossing type can also occur at some $r>0$. Although in that case there are no true geometric spacetime singularities, such behaviour has to be ruled out in order not to interfere with the analysis of the solution on $D$. This can be achieved by proper assumptions on the initial data, cf. [@Chr84]. In view of (\[mattergeodesic\]) a possible break down of solutions at $r=0$ will have no influence on the outer domain $D$. Hence we formulate a third condition, concerning global existence of solutions in the outer domain, as follows.
- For solutions launched by data from the set $\cal{I}$, $\gamma^+$ defined by (\[gamma+\]) exists on $[0,\infty[$, and $\lambda,\, \mu,\, \rho,\, p,\, j\in C^1(D).$ (GLO)
The three conditions above are of a quite general nature. The fourth and final condition however, is tightly connected to our method of proof.
- There exists a constant $c_1>0$ such that $\rho \leq -c_1 j$ in $D$. (GCC)
The acronym (GCC) stands for “gravitational collapse condition”, and this condition plays a crucial role for our method of proof. We emphasize that our main results show that for Vlasov matter there are initial data sets such that (GCC) holds. As a first consequence of (GCC) and (\[nnrho\]), note that $j\le 0$ in $D$, i.e., the matter is ingoing for all times. In this respect our present results complement [@AKR1], where purely outgoing matter is considered.
Let us now assume that our matter model satisfies (DEC) and (NNP), and that there exists an initial data set $\cal{I}$ such that (GLO) and (GCC) hold as well. Then we have the following result, which should be viewed as a version of Theorem \[vlasov2\] for general matter.
\[genmat\] Let $r_0,\, r_1,\, M$, and $M_\mathrm{out}$ be given as above and let $R_1$ satisfy (\[smallstrip\]) with $\kappa=2c_1$. Assume that there exists an initial data set ${\cal{I}}_3\subset\cal{I}$ such that (\[checkM\]) and (\[M-checkM\]) hold for all initial data in ${\cal{I}}_3$. Then for any solution launched by initial data in ${\cal{I}}_3$, $$\lim_{s\to \infty}\gamma^+(s) < \infty,
\quad \lim_{s\to \infty} \int_{\gamma^+(s)}^\infty 4 \pi r^2 \rho(s,r)\,dr > 0,$$ where $\gamma^+$ satisfies (\[gamma+\]).
The detailed information on the gravitational collapse which for Vlasov matter is provided in Theorem \[bh\] is not available in the present situation, but the following still holds.
[**Remark**]{}. In the situation of Theorem \[genmat\], $$\lim_{t\to \infty} \mu(t,r) = -\infty\ \mbox{for}\
\lim_{s\to\infty}\gamma^+(s) \leq r \leq r_1$$ for some $r_1 > \lim_{s\to\infty}\gamma^+(s)$. If $r^\ast$ and $\gamma^\ast$ are defined as in Theorem \[bh\] then $$\lim_{s\to\infty}\gamma^\ast (s) < \infty,$$ and every radially outgoing null geodesic $\gamma$ with $\gamma(0) > r^\ast$ is future complete with $\lim_{s\to\infty}\gamma (s) = \infty$.
These assertions will be established in Section \[bhproof\]. Concerning the question which matter models besides Vlasov matter satisfy our conditions above we note the following:
[**Remark**]{}. For a spherically symmetric perfect fluid with density ${\cal R}$, pressure $P=P({\cal R})$, and radial velocity field $u$, the (DEC) and (NNP) conditions and Eqn. (\[nnrho\]) respectively are satisfied provided that $0\leq P({\cal R}) \leq {\cal R}$, which restricts the equation of state. The (GCC) condition holds for example with $c_1=\sqrt{2}$ if $-e^{\lambda} u \geq 1$ on $D$. In the kinetic context of the Vlasov model we derive analogous estimates on the particle level from conditions on the initial data.
Preliminaries {#prelim}
=============
In this section we collect some general facts concerning the spherically symmetric Einstein-matter equations under the assumptions (DEC) and (NNP) that have been specified in the previous section.
A quantity which plays an important role is the quasi-local mass $m(t,r)$. Typically, the spherically symmetric Einstein-matter system is supplemented by the requirement of a regular centre, i.e., $\lambda (t,0)=0$. Using this boundary condition the field equation (\[ein1\]) implies that $$\label{e2lamb}
e^{-2\lambda}=1-\frac{2m}{r},$$ where the quasi-local mass would be given by $m(t,r) := \int_0^r 4\pi\eta^2\rho(t,\eta)\,d\eta$. Then $m(t,\infty)$ is a conserved quantity, the ADM mass. However, in the present context we want to investigate the system on the outer domain $D$, regardless of whether or not the solution remains regular in the region $r<\gamma^+(t)$. Hence we do not use the usual boundary condition at $r=0$. Instead, we assume that the ADM mass $M>0$ is given and redefine the quasi-local mass by $$\label{m-def}
m(t,r)=M-\int_r^\infty 4\pi\eta^2\rho(t,\eta)\,d\eta.$$ Then $\lim_{r\to\infty} m(t, r)=M$, $0\le m\le M$, and $m_r=4\pi r^2\rho$ holds. Defining $\lambda$ by (\[e2lamb\]), (\[genmatquant\]) shows that (\[ein1\]) and the boundary condition in (\[boundc\]) are satisfied. In addition, we need to modify (\[notsinit\]) to $$\label{notsinit2}
\open{m}(r)<\frac{r}{2},\quad r\in ]0, \infty[,$$ a condition that once again will be included in the notion of regular initial data.
By (\[ein1\]) and (\[ein2\]), $$\label{mur}
\lambda_r=\Big(4\pi r\rho-\frac{m}{r^2}\Big)e^{2\lambda},
\quad\mu_r=\Big(\frac{m}{r^2}+4\pi r p\Big)e^{2\lambda}.$$ In view of (\[boundc\]), $\mu=\hat{\mu}+\check{\mu}$, where we define $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mu}(t, r)
&:=&
-\int_r^\infty\frac{m(t, \eta)}{\eta^2}\,e^{2\lambda(t,\,\eta)}\,d\eta,\label{hatmu}
\\
\check{\mu}(t, r)
&:=&
-\int_r^\infty 4\pi\eta\,p(t, \eta)\,e^{2\lambda(t,\,\eta)}\,d\eta.
\label{checkmu}\end{aligned}$$
\[hatmu-lem\] The following assertions hold.
- $2\hat{\mu}\le\mu-\lambda\le\hat{\mu}\le\hat{\mu}+\lambda$.
- $\mu+\lambda\le\hat{\mu}+\lambda$.
- $(\mu-\lambda)(t, r)=2\hat{\mu}(t, r)
+\int_r^\infty 4\pi\eta\,(\rho-p)(t, \eta)\,e^{2\lambda(t,\,\eta)}\,d\eta$.
- $\hat{\mu}_t(t, r)=\int_r^\infty 4\pi j(t, \eta)
\,e^{(\mu+\lambda)(t,\,\eta)}e^{2\lambda(t,\,\eta)}\,d\eta$. In particular, if $j\le 0$, then also $\hat{\mu}_t\le 0$.
[**Proof:**]{} In view of (\[boundc\]), $$\lambda(t, r)=-\int_r^\infty\Big(4\pi\eta\,\rho(t, \eta)
-\frac{m(t, \eta)}{\eta^2}\Big)\,e^{2\lambda}\,d\eta
= - \int_r^\infty 4\pi\eta\,\rho(t, \eta)\,e^{2\lambda}\,d\eta -\hat{\mu} ,$$ and by (\[nnrho\]) the relation $\mu-\lambda\ge 2\hat{\mu}$ follows. On the other hand, by (\[e2lamb\]), $\lambda\ge 0$. Thus $\check{\mu}\le 0$ leads to $\mu-\lambda\le\mu\le\hat{\mu}\le\hat{\mu}+\lambda$, and part (a) is established. Part (b) follows from $\check{\mu}\le 0$. As to (c), we observe that $$\hat{\mu}+\lambda+\int_r^\infty
4\pi\eta\,(\rho-p)\,e^{2\lambda}\,d\eta=\check{\mu},$$ which gives the claim. By (\[e2lamb\]) and (\[ein3\]), ${(e^{2\lambda}\frac{m}{r^2})}_t
=\frac{1}{2r}{(e^{2\lambda}-1)}_t=-4\pi\,e^{\mu+\lambda}e^{2\lambda}j$. Hence (d) follows from (\[hatmu\]).
$\Box$
\[int0infty\] For $r\in [0, \infty[$ the following holds: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int_r^\infty 4\pi\eta\,(\rho+p)(t, \eta)
\,e^{(\mu+\lambda)(t,\,\eta)}e^{2\lambda(t,\,\eta)}\,d\eta
=1-e^{(\mu+\lambda)(t,\,r)}\le 1,
\\ & & \int_r^\infty 4\pi\eta\,\rho(t, \eta)
\,e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(t,\,\eta)}e^{2\lambda(t,\,\eta)}\,d\eta
=1-e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(t,\,r)}\le 1.\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof:**]{} It suffices to integrate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gsto}
\partial_r(e^{\mu+\lambda})
& = &
e^{\mu+\lambda}(\mu_r+\lambda_r) = e^{\mu+\lambda} 4\pi r\,(p+\rho),
\nonumber \\
\partial_r(e^{\hat{\mu}+\lambda})
& = &
e^{\hat{\mu}+\lambda}(\hat{\mu}_r+\lambda_r)
=e^{\hat{\mu}+\lambda}\Big(e^{2\lambda}\frac{m}{r^2}
+\Big(4\pi r\rho-\frac{m}{r^2}\Big)e^{2\lambda}\Big)
\nonumber \\
& = &
4\pi r\rho\,e^{\hat{\mu}+\lambda}e^{2\lambda},\end{aligned}$$ observing that $\lim_{r\to\infty}\hat{\mu}(t, r)
=\lim_{r\to\infty}\lambda(t, r)=\lim_{r\to\infty}\mu(t, r)=0$. For Vlasov matter, the first relation has been used in [@And1 Lemma 1].
$\Box$
Next we consider outgoing and ingoing radial null geodesics $\gamma^+$ and $\gamma^-$, respectively.
\[gammapm\] Let $\gamma^{\pm}$ be the solutions to $$\frac{d\gamma^{\pm}}{ds}(s)=\pm\,e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))},
\quad\gamma^+(0)=r_0<r_1=\gamma^-(0).$$ Then
- $\gamma^+$ is strictly increasing, $s\mapsto m(s, \gamma^+(s))$ is increasing, and the limits $\lim_{s\to\infty}\gamma^+(s)\in ]r_0, \infty]$ and $\lim_{s\to\infty} m(s, \gamma^+(s))\in [m(0, r_0), M]$ exist.
- $\gamma^-$ is strictly decreasing, $s\mapsto m(s, \gamma^-(s))$ is decreasing, and the limits $\lim_{s\to\infty}\gamma^-(s)\in [0, r_1[$ and $\lim_{s\to\infty} m(s, \gamma^-(s))\in [0, m(0, r_1)]$ exist.
- The relation $$\frac{d}{ds}(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))
=\Big(\hat{\mu}_t-4\pi r\,e^{\mu+\lambda}(j\mp\rho)\Big)
\bigg|_{(t,\,r)=(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))}$$ holds. In particular, if $j\le 0$ and $\rho=j=0$ along $\gamma^{\pm}$, then also $\frac{d}{ds}(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))\le 0$.
[**Proof:**]{} Differentiating (\[e2lamb\]) w.r.t. $t$ and using (\[ein3\]) implies that $m_t=-4\pi r^2 e^{\mu-\lambda} j$. Since $\rho\ge j$ according to (\[nnrho\]), this yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}\,m(s, \gamma^+(s)) & = & m_t(s, \gamma^+(s))
+m_r(s, \gamma^+(s))\frac{d\gamma^+}{ds}(s)
\\ & = & (-4\pi r^2 e^{\mu-\lambda} j
+4\pi r^2\rho\,e^{\mu-\lambda})\big|_{(t,\,r)=(s, \gamma^+(s))}\ge 0.\end{aligned}$$ Thus part (a) is obtained from $m\le M$. Since $\rho\ge -j$, the proof of (b) is analogous to (a). As to (c), note that by definition of $\hat{\mu}$, (\[ein1\]), and (\[ein3\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\frac{d}{ds}(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))}
\\ & = & \Big(\hat{\mu}_t+\hat{\mu}_r\frac{d\gamma^{\pm}}{ds}
+\lambda_t+\lambda_r\frac{d\gamma^{\pm}}{ds}\Big)\bigg|_{(t,\,r)=(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))}
\\ & = & \Big(\hat{\mu}_t\pm\frac{m}{r^2}\,e^{2\lambda}e^{\mu-\lambda}
-4\pi r\,e^{\mu+\lambda}j\pm\Big(4\pi r\rho-\frac{m}{r^2}\Big)e^{2\lambda}
e^{\mu-\lambda}\Big)\bigg|_{(t,\,r)=(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))}
\\ & = & \Big(\hat{\mu}_t-4\pi r\,e^{\mu+\lambda}(j\mp\rho)\Big)
\bigg|_{(t,\,r)=(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))},\end{aligned}$$ as desired. The last claim follows from Lemma \[hatmu-lem\](d).
$\Box$
Proof of Theorem \[genmat\] {#secgenmatproof}
===========================
In this section we use the hypotheses stated in Section \[secgenmat\] to prove Theorem \[genmat\]. The proof is short and emphasizes that the crucial mechanism is captured in the (GCC) condition. Our main results which show in particular that the (GCC) condition holds for Vlasov matter are established in the next sections.
Consider the out- and ingoing null geodesics $\gamma^+$ and $\gamma^-$ defined in Lemma \[gammapm\]. The claims follow if we can show that these geodesics never intersect. By continuity and monotonicity there exists $T \in ]0,\infty]$ such that $$\label{fg-esti}
r_0\le\gamma^+(t) < \gamma^-(t)\le r_1,\quad t\in [0, T[;$$ it will be shown that actually $T=\infty$ holds. In view of (\[checkM\]) we have initially that $\rho=p=j=0$ for $r\geq R_1.$ The (GCC) condition implies that $j\leq 0$ in $D$, meaning that the flow of matter is ingoing. Therefore $$\label{ingoing}
\rho=p=j=0\quad\mbox{and}\quad m=M
\quad\mbox{for}\quad (t,r)\in [0, T[\times [R_1, \infty[.$$ By Lemma \[int0infty\], (\[nnrho\]), the (GCC) condition, and Lemma \[hatmu-lem\](d) for $s\in [0,T[$ and $r\in [\gamma^+(s), \infty[$, $$\begin{aligned}
1-e^{(\mu+\lambda)(s,\,r)} & = & \int_r^\infty 4\pi\eta\,(\rho+p)(s, \eta)
\,e^{(\mu+\lambda)(s,\,\eta)}e^{2\lambda(s,\,\eta)}\,d\eta
\\ & \le & 2c_1\int_r^\infty 4\pi\eta\,|j(s, \eta)|
\,e^{(\mu+\lambda)(s,\,\eta)}e^{2\lambda(s,\,\eta)}\,d\eta
\\ & \le & -2c_1 R_1\int_r^\infty 4\pi j(s, \eta)
\,e^{(\mu+\lambda)(s,\,\eta)}e^{2\lambda(s,\,\eta)}\,d\eta
\\ & = & -2c_1 R_1\hat{\mu}_t(s, r),\end{aligned}$$ since $j(s, \eta)\neq 0$ implies $\eta\le R_1$. Thus $$\label{mut}
\hat{\mu}_t(s, r)\le
-\frac{1}{2c_1 R_1}\Big(1-e^{(\mu+\lambda)(s,\,r)}\Big).$$ This in turn implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est}
\lefteqn{\hat{\mu}(t, \gamma^{\pm}(t))-\hat{\mu}(0, \gamma^{\pm}(0))}\nonumber
\\ & = & \int_{0}^t\frac{d}{ds}\,\hat{\mu}(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))\,ds\nonumber
\\ & = & \int_{0}^t\Big(\hat{\mu}_t(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))
\pm\hat{\mu}_r(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\Big)\,ds\nonumber
\\ & \le & \int_{0}^t\Big(-\frac{1}{2c_1 R_1}\Big(1-e^{(\mu+\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\Big)
\pm\frac{m(s,
\gamma^{\pm}(s))}{\gamma^{\pm}(s)^2}\,e^{(\mu+\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\Big)\,ds
\nonumber
\\ & \le & -\frac{t}{2c_1 R_1}
+\int_{0}^t\Big(\frac{1}{2c_1 R_1}
+\frac{m(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))}{\gamma^{\pm}(s)^2}\Big)\,e^{(\mu+\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\,ds.\end{aligned}$$ Now for any $r\in [r_0,r_1]$ and $t\in [0,T[$ it follows from $\hat{\mu}_r\ge 0$ and (\[e2lamb\]) that $$\hat{\mu}(t,r)\leq \hat{\mu}(t,R_1)
=-\int_{R_1}^{\infty}\frac{M\,d\eta}{\eta^2(1-2M/\eta)}.$$ Using $M=r_1/2$ we get $$\hat{\mu}(t,R_1)=\frac{1}{2}\log\Big(\frac{R_1-r_1}{R_1}\Big),$$ so that for $r\in [r_0,r_1],$ $$\label{emuhat}
e^{\hat{\mu}(t,\,r)}\leq e^{\hat{\mu}(t,R_1)}=\sqrt{\frac{R_1-r_1}{R_1}}.$$ By (\[mattergeodesic\]) and the properties of the initial matter distribution there is vacuum in the region $\gamma^+(t) \leq r\leq\gamma^-(t)$. Hence $m(t, r)=M-M_\mathrm{out}$ and (\[icnts\]) imply that $$\label{explambdaless3}
e^{\lambda(t,r)}\leq\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-2(M-M_\mathrm{out})/r_0}}<3$$ for $\gamma^+(t) \leq r\leq\gamma^-(t)$. From Lemma \[hatmu-lem\](b) and (\[smallstrip\]), recalling $\kappa=2c_1$, we obtain in particular that $$e^{(\mu+\lambda)(s,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\leq
e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s,\gamma^{\pm}(s))} <
\min\left\{\frac12,\frac{r_0^2}{8c_1R_1M}\right\} =: d.$$ Thus (\[est\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mu}(t, \gamma^{\pm}(t))-\hat{\mu}(0, \gamma^{\pm}(0))
& \le & -\frac{t}{2c_1 R_1}
+d\int_{0}^t\Big(\frac{1}{2c_1 R_1}+\frac{M}{r_0^2}\Big)\,ds
\\ & = & -\bigg(\frac{1-d}{2c_1 R_1}-d\,\frac{M}{r_0^2}\bigg)t
\\ & \le & -\bigg(\frac{1}{4c_1 R_1}-d\,\frac{M}{r_0^2}\bigg)t
\\ & \le & -\frac{t}{8c_1 R_1},\quad t\in [0, T[.\end{aligned}$$ Hence Lemma \[hatmu-lem\](a) leads to the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2step}
|\gamma^{\pm}(t)-\gamma^{\pm}(0)|
& = & \bigg|\int_{0}^t\,e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\,ds\bigg|
\le\int_{0}^t\,e^{\hat{\mu}(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\,ds
\nonumber\\ & \le & e^{\hat{\mu}(0,\,\gamma^{\pm}(0))}
\int_{0}^t\,e^{-\frac{s}{8c_1 R_1}}\,ds\le 8c_1 R_1 \sqrt{\frac{R_1-r_1}{R_1}},
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we used (\[emuhat\]) in the last inequality. By the third condition in (\[smallstrip\]), $$\sqrt{\frac{R_1-r_1}{R_1}}<\frac{r_1-r_0}{16 c_1R_1},$$ so that $$|\gamma^{\pm}(t)-\gamma^{\pm}(0)|<\frac{r_1-r_0}{2},\quad t\in [0, T[.$$ Since $\gamma^-(0)-\gamma^+(0)=r_1-r_0$, this implies that $\gamma^-(T)-\gamma^+(T) > 0$. Hence, if we choose $T$ in (\[fg-esti\]) to be maximal, then $T=\infty$, i.e., $\gamma^+$ and $\gamma^-$ do never intersect. This completes the proof of Theorem \[genmat\].
$\Box$
[**Remark.**]{} In the above proof we have obtained the more explicit information that $$\label{precise}
\lim_{s\to \infty}\gamma^+(s) < \frac{r_0+r_1}{2},
\quad m(s,\gamma^+(s))= M-M_\mathrm{out},\; s\geq 0,$$ the latter since all the matter originally to the right of $\gamma^- (s) > \gamma^+(s)$ necessarily stays there.
Proof of Theorem \[vlasov2\] {#secvlasov2}
============================
We first check that the (DEC), (NNP), and (GLO) conditions hold for Vlasov matter. Then we show that there exists a class of initial data such that the corresponding solutions satisfy the (GCC) condition with $c_1=3$. Hence Theorem \[vlasov2\] will follow from Theorem \[genmat\].
The characteristic system associated to the Vlasov equation (\[vlasov\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dR}{ds} & = & e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,\,R)}\,\frac{W}{E}, \label{char1}
\\[1ex] \frac{dW}{ds} & = & -\lambda_t(s, R)W-e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,\,R)}\mu_r(s, R)E
+e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,\,R)}\frac{L}{R^3 E}, \label{char2}
\\[1ex] \frac{dL}{ds} & = & 0. \label{char3}\end{aligned}$$ If $s\mapsto (R, W, L)(s)$ is a solution with data $(R, W, L)(0)=(r, w, L)$, then $$f(s, R(s), W(s), L)=\open{f}(r,w, L)$$ is constant in $s$. Hence $(R(s), W(s), L)\in \supp f(s)$ iff $(r,w,L) \in \supp \open{f}$. Such characteristics will be addressed as characteristics in $\supp f$.
Direct inspection of the definition in (\[p\]) shows that (NNP) holds for Vlasov matter. It is moreover well-known that the (DEC) condition is satisfied for Vlasov matter; see [@And05 Sec. 1.4]. Alternatively, we can check (\[nnrho\]) and (\[mattergeodesic\]) directly. The latter follows from (\[char1\]) above, whereas the former is a consequence of the expressions for the matter terms given in (\[rho\]), (\[p\]), and (\[j\]).
To see that the (GLO) condition holds for any regular initial data set we argue as follows. First of all, a regular initial data launches a local-in-time solution on some time interval $[0,T[$, and the corresponding theorems in [@RR1] or [@Rein95] also give a condition under which this local solution can be extended to a global one. In order to see that the local solution can always be extended to the whole outer domain $D$ we first observe that the spherically symmetric Einstein-Vlasov system on $D$, with (\[e2lamb\]) and (\[m-def\]) replacing the usual boundary condition of a regular centre and with (\[gamma+\]) included, has again a well-posed initial value problem for regular data supported in $]r_0,\infty[$. This can be shown in the same way as for the system on the whole space, the essential point being that no characteristic of the Vlasov equation can enter region $D$ at the boundary $r=\gamma^+(t)$. To the local solution on $D$ we can now apply the arguments from [@RRS] and conclude that the solution exists on all of $D$. This is possible due to the fact that the estimates in [@RRS] address a situation where matter is bounded away from the centre or is controlled in a neighborhood of the centre so that these estimates can be applied on $D$. We emphasize that for our present analysis only the behaviour of the solution on $D$ plays a role. We have chosen to present our results in the form that we have Vlasov matter also inside $r<\gamma^+(t)$, and this part of the solution may or may not break down, but this is irrelevant for our arguments.
Hence it remains to show that the (GCC) condition holds. To this end we let $0<r_0<r_1<R_1$, $R_0=(r_1+R_1)/2$, and $M=r_1/2$. For a parameter $W_-<0$ to be specified below and regular data $\fn$ with ADM mass $M$ we formulate the following
[**General support condition:**]{} For all $(r,w,L) \in \supp \fn\,$ the following holds: $$r \in ]0,r_0] \cup [R_0,R_1],$$ and if $r\in [R_0,R_1]$ then $$w \leq W_-$$ and also $$\label{hypoL}
0< L <\frac{3L}{\eta}\,\open{m}(\eta) +\eta\,\open{m}(\eta),\ \eta\in [r_0,R_1].$$ We use the notation $\open{m}$ when $\rho=\open{\rho}\,$ in (\[m-def\]). Furthermore, we abbreviate $$\label{Gammadef}
\Gamma = \Gamma(r_1,R_1) := \sqrt{\frac{R_1-r_1}{R_1+r_1}}.$$ The following lemma shows that if the support condition holds, then the particles in the outer domain $D$ keep moving inward in a controlled way.
\[ingoinglemma\] Let $\fn$ be regular and satisfy the general support condition for some $W_-<0$. Then for all $(r,w,L) \in \supp f(t)$ such that $(t, r)\in D$, $$w \leq \Gamma(r_1,R_1) W_-.$$ In particular, $j\leq 0$ on $D$.
**Proof:** Let $[0, T[$ denote the maximal time interval such that for $t < T$ $$\label{bootcd}
w < 0 \ \mbox{for}\ (r,w,L)\in\supp f(t)\ \mbox{with}\
(t,r) \in D.$$ Since $W_-<0$, $T>0$ by continuity. By the definition of $j$, $$\label{jle0}
j(t, r)\le 0 \ \mbox{for}\ (t,r)\in D_T:=D \cap ([0,T[\times [0,\infty[).$$ Let $(R, W, L)(s)$ be a characteristic in $\supp f$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}(e^{-\lambda}W) & = &
-\,e^{-\lambda}\Big(W\lambda_t+W\lambda_r\frac{dR}{ds}-\frac{dW}{ds}\Big)
\\ & = & \frac{4\pi R}{E}\,e^{\mu}(2WEj-W^2\rho-E^2 p)
+e^{\mu}\Big(1-\frac{2m}{R}\Big)\frac{L}{R^3 E}
\\ & & +\,e^{\mu}\frac{m}{R^2}\,\Big(\frac{w^2}{E}-E\Big)
\\ & = & -\,\frac{4\pi^2}{R}\,e^{\mu}\,\int_{-\infty}^\infty\int_0^\infty
\bigg[\sqrt{\frac{\tilde{E}}{E}}\,w
-\sqrt{\frac{E}{\tilde{E}}}\,\tilde{w}\bigg]^2\,f\,d\tilde{L}\,d\tilde{w}
\\ & & -\,e^{\mu}\frac{m}{R^2}\bigg(\frac{1+L/R^2}{E}+\frac{2L}{R^2 E}\bigg)
+e^{\mu}\frac{L}{R^3 E}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $E=E(R, W, L)$ and $\tilde{E}=\tilde{E}(R, \tilde{w},
\tilde{L})$. Therefore $$\frac{d}{ds}(e^{-\lambda}W)\le -e^{\mu}\frac{m}{R^2}\bigg(\frac{1+L/R^2}{E}
+\frac{2L}{R^2 E}\bigg)+e^{\mu}\frac{L}{R^3 E}.$$ Differentiating (\[e2lamb\]) w.r.t. $t$ and using (\[ein3\]) leads to $m_t=-4\pi r^2 e^{\mu-\lambda} j$, which by (\[jle0\]) is non-negative on $D_T$. It follows that $m(s, r)\ge m(0, r)=\open{m}\,(r)$. Thus as long as the characteristic remains in $D_T$, $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{ds}(e^{-\lambda}W)
& \le & -e^{\mu}\frac{\open{m}\,(R)}{R^2}\bigg(\frac{1+L/R^2}{E}
+\frac{2L}{R^2 E}\bigg)+e^{\mu}\frac{L}{R^3 E}
\\ & = & e^{\mu}\,\frac{1}{R^3 E}\bigg(L-\frac{3L}{R}\,\open{m}\,(R)
-R\,\open{m}\,(R)\bigg).\end{aligned}$$ Now $R(0)\in [R_0, R_1]$ and $\dot{R}(s)\le 0$ by (\[char1\]) and (\[bootcd\]) yields $R_1\ge R(0)\ge R(s)\geq \gamma^+(s) \geq r_0$. Hence condition (\[hypoL\]) implies that, as long as the characteristic remains in $D_T$, $\frac{d}{ds}(e^{-\lambda}W)<0$, so that $$W(s)\le e^{\lambda(s,\,R(s))-\lambda(0,\,R(0))}\,W_- .$$ But $\lambda\ge 0$, so $W_-<0$ leads to $$W(s)\le\Big(\min_{r\in [R_0, R_1]} e^{-\lambda(0,\,r)}\Big)\,W_-.$$ In view of (\[e2lamb\]), $$e^{-\lambda(0,\,r)}\geq \sqrt{1-\frac{2M}{R_0}}=\sqrt{\frac{R_1-r_1}{R_1+r_1}},
\quad r\in [R_0,R_1],$$ and recalling (\[Gammadef\]) it follows that $$W(s)\leq \Gamma(r_1,R_1) W_-<0$$ as long as the characteristic remains in $D_T$. By the maximality of $T$ in (\[bootcd\]), $T=\infty$, and the proof is complete.
$\Box$
In order to specify the initial data set ${\cal{I}}_2$, let $r_0,\, r_1,\, M$, and $M_\mathrm{out}$ be given as in Section \[secvlasres\] and let $R_1$ be such that (\[smallstrip\]) holds for $\kappa=6$. We require that $W_-<0$ satisfies the estimate $$\label{condw}
\Gamma(r_1,R_1)\, |W_-|\geq 1.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I2def}
{\cal{I}}_2 := \Bigl\{ \fn
&\mid&
\fn \ \mbox{is regular, satisfies (\ref{checkM}), (\ref{M-checkM}),
the general support condition,}\nonumber \\
&&
\mbox{and for}\ (r,w,L)\in \supp \fn\ \mbox{with}\ r\in [R_0,R_1],
\sqrt{L}/r_0 \leq \Gamma\, |W_-|\Bigr\}.\nonumber \\
&&
\ \label{condL1}\end{aligned}$$ Consider now a solution $f$ launched by initial data from this set. Condition (\[condw\]) and Lemma \[ingoinglemma\] imply that $$\label{condw2}
|w|\geq\Gamma(r_1,R_1)\,|W_-|\geq 1\quad\mbox{on}\quad\supp f \cap D,$$ and since $L$ is conserved along characteristics, (\[condL1\]) leads to $\sqrt{L}/r \leq \sqrt{L}/r_0 \leq |w|$ for all particles in $\supp f \cap D$. Hence the definition (\[rho\]) of $\rho$ implies that on $D$, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho(t,r)
&\leq&
\frac{\pi}{r^2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty} f\,dL\,dw
+ \frac{\pi}{r^2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty} |w|f\,dL\,dw\nonumber\\
&&
{}+
\frac{\pi}{r^2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty} \sqrt{L}/r f\,dL\,dw\nonumber\\
&\leq&
3\,\frac{\pi}{r^2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty} |w|f\,dL\,dw =3\,|j(t,r)|.\end{aligned}$$ Accordingly, ${\cal{I}}_2$ satisfies the (GCC) condition with $c_1=3$, and Theorem \[vlasov2\] follows from Theorem \[genmat\].
$\Box$
We briefly show that the set ${\cal{I}}_2$ is far from empty. Therefore fix $0<r_0<r_1<R_0<R_1$, $M=r_1/2$, and $0<M_\mathrm{out}<M$ such that $R_0=(r_1+R_1)/2$, (\[icnts\]), and (\[smallstrip\]) are satisfied. Let $0\leq f_1\in C^1$ have $r$-support in $[r_0-\delta,r_0]$ for some $0<\delta<r_0/9$, and let $0\leq f_2\in C^1$ have $r$-support in $[R_0, R_1]$. Fix the compact $w$-support of $f_2$ in $]-\infty,W_{-}]$ with $W_-<0$ such that (\[condw\]) holds, and fix its $L$-support in $[0, L_2]$ so that $$\frac{\sqrt{L_2}}{r_0} \leq \Gamma(r_1,R_1)\,|W_-|$$ and $$L <(M-M_\mathrm{out})\Big(\frac{3L}{\eta}+\eta\Big),\quad L\in[0, L_2],
\quad\eta\in [r_0,R_1].$$ Now take $\open{f}=A f_1+B f_2,$ where $A>0$ and $B>0$ are chosen such that (\[checkM\]) and (\[M-checkM\]) are satisfied. Note that $\open{m}(\eta)\ge M-M_\mathrm{out}$ for $\eta\in [r_0, R_1]$, whence (\[hypoL\]) holds as well; thus the general support condition if verified. It remains to check (\[notsinit2\]). If $r\in ]0, r_0-\delta]$, then $\open{m}(r)=0$. If $r\in [r_0-\delta, R_0]$, then $\open{m}(r)\le M-M_\mathrm{out}$ yields in view of (\[icnts\]), $$\frac{2\open{m}}{r}\leq \frac{2(M-M_\mathrm{out})}{r_0-\delta}<1.$$ If $r\in [R_0, \infty[$, then $$\frac{2\open{m}}{r}\leq \frac{2M}{R_0}<1,$$ since $2M=r_1<R_0.$ Hence $\open{f}$ is regular and has all the properties that are required in the definition of ${\cal{I}}_2$.
[**Remark.**]{} The set ${\cal{I}}_2$ has “non-empty interior”, in the sense that sufficiently small perturbations of initial data in the “interior” of this set belong to ${\cal I}_2$ as well, provided that the support is changed very little and $M$ is left invariant. This is due to the fact that the various parameters entering into the definition of ${\cal{I}}_2$ are defined in terms of inequalities and hence can be varied.
Proof of Theorem \[vlasov1\] {#secvlasov1}
============================
The set up is closely related to the set up in the proof of Theorem \[vlasov2\]. As we saw above, the (DEC), (NNP), and (GLO) conditions are satisfied for Vlasov matter, and we will again construct an initial data set such that the (GCC) condition holds with $c_1=3$. However, since this result relies on condition (\[mediumstrip\]) instead of (\[smallstrip\]), we cannot simply invoke Theorem \[genmat\] after the (GCC) condition has been verified; instead an additional step needs to be added to the proof. For this new argument a slightly stronger condition on the momentum variable $w$ needs to be imposed on $\supp \fn$. We now require that $W_-<0$ satisfies $$\label{condwt1}
\Gamma(r_1,R_1)^2 |W_-|^2\geq \frac{10}{d},$$ where $$d:=\min\left\{\frac12,\frac{r_0}{12 R_1},\frac{r_1-r_0}{300 R_1}\right\}.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{I1def}
{\cal{I}}_1 := \Bigl\{ \fn
&\mid&
\fn \ \mbox{is regular, satisfies (\ref{checkM}), (\ref{M-checkM}),
the general support condition,}\nonumber \\
&&
\mbox{and for}\ (r,w,L)\in \supp \fn\ \mbox{with}\ r\in [R_0,R_1],
\sqrt{L}/r_0 \leq 1.
\Bigr\}
\ \label{condL1t1}\end{aligned}$$ The same construction as at the end of the previous section shows that this set is not empty, and the same remark as at the end of the previous section applies.
Let $f$ be a solution launched by initial data from ${\cal{I}}_1$. It is clear from these conditions that Lemma $\ref{ingoinglemma}$ applies, and since $10/d\geq 1$, it follows that (\[condw2\]) holds as well. Thus the argument leading to $\rho\leq 3|j|$ on $D$ in the proof of Theorem \[vlasov2\] applies again. Hence, the (GCC) condition is satisfied with $c_1=3$.
Consider the expression $$\rho(s, r)-p(s, r)=
\frac{\pi}{r^2}\int_{-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty
\Big(E-\frac{w^2}{E}\Big) \,f(s, r, w,L)\,dL\,dw.$$ Since $E^2\ge w^2\ge\Gamma^2(r_1,R_1)\,W_-^2$ by Lemma \[ingoinglemma\], we get for $r\in [\gamma^+(s), R_1]$ from $\sqrt{L}/r_0\le 1$, $$\label{c0-def}
E-\frac{w^2}{E}=\frac{1}{E}\,(E^2-w^2)=\frac{1}{E}\,\Big(1+\frac{L}{r^2}\Big)
\le\frac{2}{E}\le\frac{2}{\Gamma^2\,W_-^2}\,E=:c_0 E,$$ so that $$\label{c0}
\rho(s, r)-p(s, r)\le c_0\rho(s, r).$$ After this preparation, we again show that the out- and ingoing null geodesics $\gamma^+$ and $\gamma^-$ do not intersect. We choose $T\in ]0,\infty[$ such that (\[fg-esti\]) holds. In this case we cannot rely on the smallness of $e^{\hat{\mu}}$ as in the proof of Theorem \[genmat\], so we need to control the evolution also when $e^{\hat{\mu}}$ is not small. For this part the estimate (\[c0\]) is essential.
We fix $t_\ast^{\pm}\in [0, T[$ by requiring that $$e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))} > d\,\,\mbox{for}\,\,
s\in [0, t_\ast^{\pm}[,\quad
e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\le d\,\,\mbox{for}\,\,
s\in [t_\ast^{\pm}, T[.$$ First we note that $t_\ast^{\pm}$ is well-defined, since by Lemma \[gammapm\](c), $$\label{monotone}
\frac{d}{ds}\,e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\le 0.$$ [*Step 1:*]{} Consider $s\in [0, t_\ast^{\pm}]$; if $t_\ast^{\pm}=0$, then this step is omitted. For $\eta\ge\gamma^{\pm}(s)$, $$d\le e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}
\le e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s,\,\eta)},$$ since $(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)_r=4\pi r\rho\,e^{2\lambda}\ge 0$ by (\[gsto\]). Hence Lemma \[hatmu-lem\](c) and (\[c0\]) yield $$\begin{aligned}
(\mu-\lambda)(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s)) & = & 2\hat{\mu}(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))
+\int_{\gamma^{\pm}(s)}^\infty 4\pi\eta\,(\rho-p)(s, \eta)\,e^{2\lambda(s,\,\eta)}\,d\eta
\\ & \le & 2\hat{\mu}(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))
+\frac{c_0}{d}\int_{\gamma^{\pm}(s)}^\infty 4\pi\eta\,\rho(s, \eta)
\,e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s,\,\eta)}e^{2\lambda(s,\,\eta)}\,d\eta
\\ & \le & 2\hat{\mu}(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))+\frac{c_0}{d},\end{aligned}$$ where for the last estimate Lemma \[int0infty\] has been used.
Now we make the following observation: There is at least one characteristic $(\bar{R},\bar{W},\bar{L})(s)$ with $\bar{R}(0)\in [R_0,R_1],$ which does not leave the strip $[r_1,R_1]$ during the finite time interval $[0, T]$. In fact, if at time $t=T$ all characteristics had left the strip $[r_1, R_1]$ (and thus had entered the region $r<r_1$), then $m(T, r_1)=M$. From (\[e2lamb\]) and $2M=r_1$ it would follow that $\lambda(T,r_1)=\infty$. However, this contradicts the (GLO) condition which holds for Vlasov matter.
Since $\gamma^{\pm}(s)\le r_1\le \bar{R}(s)$, and since $\hat{\mu}_r\geq 0$, we thus obtain in view of Lemma \[hatmu-lem\](a) that $$\begin{aligned}
(\mu-\lambda)(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))
& \le & 2\hat{\mu}(s,\gamma^{\pm}(s))
+\frac{c_0}{d}\le 2\hat{\mu}(s, \bar{R}(s))+\frac{c_0}{d}
\\ & \le & (\mu-\lambda)(s, \bar{R}(s))+\frac{c_0}{d},
\quad s\in [0, t_\ast^{\pm}].\end{aligned}$$ Next note that $|W|\ge 1$ by (\[condw2\]), and hence due to (\[char1\]) and observing $\bar{R}^2\ge r_0^2\ge L$, $$|\dot{\bar R}|=\frac{|W|}{E}\,e^{\mu-\lambda}
\geq\frac{|W|}{\sqrt{2+W^2}}\,e^{\mu -\lambda}
\geq\frac{1}{2}\,e^{\mu-\lambda}.$$ Therefore for all $t\in [0, t_\ast^{\pm}]$ the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1step}
|\gamma^{\pm}(t)-\gamma^{\pm}(0)|
& = &
\bigg|\int_0^t\pm\,e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\,ds\bigg|
\le e^{\frac{c_0}{d}}\int_0^t e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,\,\bar{R}(s))}\,ds\nonumber\\
& \le &
-2e^{\frac{c_0}{d}}\int_0^t\dot{\bar{R}}(s)\,ds
=2e^{\frac{c_0}{d}}(\bar{R}(0)-\bar{R}(t))\nonumber\\
& \le & 2e^{\frac{c_0}{d}}(R_1-r_1)\end{aligned}$$ is obtained.\
[*Step 2:*]{} Let $t\in [t_\ast^{\pm}, T[$; if $t_\ast^{\pm}=T$, then this step is omitted. The arguments here are basically the ones presented in Section \[secgenmatproof\]. The computation leading to (\[est\]) is almost identical, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est2}
&&
\hat{\mu}(t, \gamma^{\pm}(t))-\hat{\mu}(t_{\ast}^{\pm},
\gamma^{\pm}(t_{\ast}^{\pm}))
\nonumber\\
&&
\qquad \le -\frac{t-t_{\ast}^{\pm}}{2c_1 R_1}
+\int_{t_{\ast}^{\pm}}^t\Big(\frac{1}{2c_1 R_1}
+\frac{m(s, \gamma^{\pm}(s))}{\gamma^{\pm}(s)^2}\Big)\,
e^{(\mu+\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\,ds\end{aligned}$$ for $c_1=3$. By Lemma \[hatmu-lem\](b), $e^{(\mu+\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}
\le e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\le d$. Next we use the facts that $m/r<1/2,\; \gamma^{\pm}(s)\ge r_0$, and the definition of $d$ to obtain the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mu}(t, \gamma^{\pm}(t))-\hat{\mu}(t_\ast^{\pm}, \gamma^{\pm}(t_\ast^{\pm}))
& \le & -\frac{1}{2c_1 R_1}(t-t_\ast^{\pm})
+d\int_{t_\ast^{\pm}}^t\Big(\frac{1}{2c_1 R_1}+\frac{1}{2r_0}\Big)\,ds
\\ & = & -\bigg(\frac{1-d}{2c_1 R_1}-d\,\frac{1}{2r_0}\bigg)(t-t_\ast^{\pm})
\\ & \le & -\bigg(\frac{1}{4c_1 R_1}-d\,\frac{1}{2r_0}\bigg)(t-t_\ast^{\pm})
\\ & \le & -\frac{1}{8c_1 R_1}(t-t_\ast^{\pm}),\quad t\in [t_\ast^{\pm}, T[.\end{aligned}$$ Hence by Lemma \[hatmu-lem\](a), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{22step}
|\gamma^{\pm}(t)-\gamma^{\pm}(t_\ast^{\pm})|
& = & \bigg|\int_{t_\ast^{\pm}}^t\,e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\,ds\bigg|
\le\int_{t_\ast^{\pm}}^t\,e^{\hat{\mu}(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}\,ds
\nonumber\\ & \le & e^{\hat{\mu}(t_\ast^{\pm},\,\gamma^{\pm}(t_\ast^{\pm}))}
\int_{t_\ast^{\pm}}^t\,e^{-\frac{(s-t_\ast^{\pm})}{8c_1 R_1}}\,ds
\nonumber\\ & \le & e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(t_\ast^{\pm},\,\gamma^{\pm}(t_\ast^{\pm}))}
\int_{t_\ast^{\pm}}^\infty\,e^{-\frac{(s-t_\ast^{\pm})}{8c_1 R_1}}\,ds\le 8c_1 R_1 d.\end{aligned}$$ Adding the contributions (\[1step\]) from Step 1 and (\[22step\]) from Step 2, the final estimate $$|\gamma^{\pm}(t)-\gamma^{\pm}(0)|\le 2e^{c_0/d}(R_1-r_1)
+8c_1 R_1 d$$ is obtained for all $t\in [0, T[$. From (\[c0-def\]) and (\[condwt1\]) we have $c_0/d\leq 1/5$. The third condition on $d$ together with (\[mediumstrip\]) thus imply that $$|\gamma^{\pm}(t)-\gamma^{\pm}(0)|<\frac{r_1-r_0}{2}.$$ As in the proof of Theorem \[genmat\] we conclude that $\gamma^+$ and $\gamma^-$ do not intersect, completing the proof of Theorem \[vlasov1\].
$\Box$
[**Remarks.**]{} (a) The sharper estimates stated in (\[precise\]) clearly hold also in this case.\
(b) The solution must necessarily enter the regime of Step 2, more precisely, $$\lim_{s\to \infty} e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))} = 0$$ for both null geodesics. Otherwise, the monotonicity implied by Eqn. (\[monotone\]) yields a positive constant $c>0$ such that $e^{(\hat{\mu}+\lambda)(s,\,\gamma^{\pm}(s))}>c$ for all time, and hence, $$|\dot \gamma^\pm| = e^{\mu - \lambda} =
e^{\hat{\mu} + \lambda}e^{\check{\mu} - 2\lambda}
> c e^{\check{\mu} -2\lambda}.$$ Since no matter can cross the two null geodesics, $$\begin{aligned}
(\check{\mu} -2\lambda)(s,r)
&=&
\int_r^\infty 4 \pi \eta(2 \rho - p)e^{2\lambda} d\eta + 2\hat{\mu}(s,r)\\
&\geq&
2\hat{\mu}(s,r) = -2 \int_r^\infty \frac{\open{m}(r_0)}{\eta^2}
\frac{1}{1-2\open{m}(r_0)/\eta}\,d\eta\\
&=&
\ln \frac{r-2\open{m}(r_0)}{r}\end{aligned}$$ for $r=\gamma^\pm(s)$. If we insert this into the estimate for $\dot \gamma^\pm$ it follows that this quantity is bounded from below by a positive constant which contradicts the finite limits of $\gamma^\pm(s)$ as $s\to \infty$.
It remains to prove Cor. \[ssinthemiddle\].
[**Proof of Corollary \[ssinthemiddle\]:**]{} Let $f_s$ be a static solution. By [@And2], $2m_s(r)/r < 8/9$ for $r>0$ where $m_s$ is the local ADM mass induced by $f_s$. In particular, $M_s < r_s/2 < r_1/2 = M$, and (\[icnts\]) holds. As described above we can now specify the matter distribution for $r\geq r_0$, and we obtain initial data $\open{f}$ in ${\cal{I}}_1$ or in ${\cal{I}}_2$ which coincide with the given static solution for $0\leq r\leq r_0$.
Since no matter travels from the outer domain $D$ to the inner one where $r\leq \gamma^+(t)$, the only way the matter in the outer domain can affect the static solution is through the metric. Consider the time-independent version of the Vlasov equation (\[vlasov\]). Dropping all the time derivatives we see that in the remaining equation the factor $e^{\lambda - \mu}$ can be canceled. Therefore, the static Einstein-Vlasov system is formulated in terms the quantities $f, \lambda$, and $\mu_r$, but not $\mu$ itself. By (\[e2lamb\]) and (\[mur\]), $\lambda$ and $\mu_r$ are on $r\leq \gamma^+(t)$ not affected by the matter in the outer domain $D$, and therefore $f=f_s, \lambda, \mu_r$ remain time-independent for $r\leq \gamma^+(t)$.
$\Box$
Notice that the metric coefficient $\mu$ of course does change on the interior region, cf. Thm \[bh\] (b).
Proof of Theorem \[bh\] {#bhproof}
=======================
As a first step we estimate $\mu -\lambda$ from below for $r > 2 M$, using Lemma \[hatmu-lem\] (a): (-)(t,r) && 2(t,r) = -2 \_r\^ e\^[2(t,)]{}d\
&=& -2 \_r\^d-2 \_r\^d\
&=& , r> 2 M. Now consider any characteristic in the matter support, and let $R(t)$ denote its radial coordinate. Then by Lemma \[ingoinglemma\] and as long as $R(t) > 2 M$, $$\frac{dR}{ds} = e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,R)}\frac{W}{E} \leq - C e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,R)}
\leq - C \frac{R-2M}{R};$$ for initial data from the set ${\cal I}_1$ respectively ${\cal I}_2$ one can take $C:=\Gamma |W_-|/\sqrt{2+\Gamma^2 W_-^2}$ respectively $C:=1/\sqrt{3}$. Integrating this differential inequality we find that as long as $R(t) > 2 M$ the estimate -C t && \_[R(0)]{}\^[R(t)]{} dr = R(t) - R(0) + 2 M\
&& 2 M - R\_1 + 2 M holds, and hence $$R(t) \leq 2 M + (R_1 - 2 M)e^{\frac{1}{2 M}(R_1 - 2 M - C t)},$$ which proves the support estimate in part (a). Since all the matter, which has ADM mass $M$, is contained in the region where $r \leq 2 M + \alpha e^{-\beta t}=: \sigma(t)$, the assertion on the metric follows. Moreover, for any $r\leq \sigma(t)$ the monotonicity of $\mu$ with respect to $r$ implies that $$\mu(t,r) \leq \ \mu(t,\sigma(t)) = \hat\mu(t,\sigma(t)) =
\ln \left(\frac{\sigma(t) -2 M}{\sigma(t)}\right)^{1/2},$$ which is the first assertion of part (b). The second follows immediately since the integral $\int_0^\infty e^{\mu(t,r)}dt$ is the proper length of a coordinate line of constant $r,\theta$, and $\varphi$ in the outer region $D$. This completes the proof of part (b). As to (c) we first observe that any radially outgoing null geodesic which enters the region $r > 2 M$ escapes to $r=\infty$ and is future complete, since by part (a) the metric on $r>2 M+ \epsilon$ where $\epsilon >0$ is arbitrary eventually equals the Schwarzschild one for which the asserted properties of the geodesics hold. Now consider the extremal geodesic $\gamma^\ast$. If there existed some time $t>0$ such that $\gamma^\ast(t) > 2 M$, then by continuous dependence on the initial data the same would be true for all radially outgoing null geodesics with $\gamma(0)$ sufficiently close to but less than $r^*$. Hence such geodesics would escape to $r=\infty$ in contradiction to the definition of $r^\ast$. This shows that the extremal, radially outgoing null geodesic $\gamma^\ast$ has the property that $\lim_{t\to\infty} \gamma^\ast(t) \leq 2 M$.
It remains to show that the limit above cannot be strictly less than $2 M$. To this end we consider a radially outgoing null geodesic as long as $\gamma(t) < \sigma(t) = 2 M + \alpha e^{-\beta t}$. Then $$\frac{d\gamma}{ds} =
e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,\gamma(s))} \leq e^{\mu(s,\sigma(s))}
=
\left(\frac{\sigma(s) -2 M}{\sigma(s)}\right)^{1/2}
\leq
C e^{-\beta s/2},$$ and hence for any $0\leq t_0 \leq t$ and as long as $\gamma(t) < \sigma(t)$, $$\gamma(t) \leq \gamma(t_0) + C e^{-\beta t_0/2},$$ where the constant $C>0$ again depends only on the initial data set. Now assume that $R^\ast := \lim_{t\to \infty}\gamma^\ast(t) < 2 M$, choose $t_0>0$ such that $R^\ast + C e^{-\beta t_0/2} < 2 M$, and consider the radially outgoing null geodesic $\gamma^{\ast\ast}$ with $\gamma^{\ast\ast}(t_0) = R^\ast$. Then by construction, $\gamma^{\ast\ast}(t) < 2 M < \sigma(t)$ for all $t\geq t_0$, and since $\gamma^{\ast\ast}(t_0) = R^\ast > \gamma^{\ast}(t_0)$ it follows that $\gamma^{\ast\ast}(0) > \gamma^{\ast}(0)=r^\ast$. Hence $\gamma^{\ast\ast}$ is a radially outgoing null geodesic which at time $t=0$ starts to the right of $r^\ast$ and does not escape to $r=\infty$. This is in contradiction to the definition of $r^\ast$.
$\Box$
We conclude this section by proving the remark after Theorem \[genmat\]. Under our general matter conditions the matter is ingoing in the region $D$, in particular, the matter is for all time restricted to the region where $r\leq R_1$. Hence for $r\geq R_1$ the metric is again equal to the Schwarzschild one with mass $M$, and if we replace $2 M$ by $R_1$ in the above argument for part (c) we obtain the assertions on $\gamma^\ast$ in the general matter context. As to the divergence of $\mu$ we observe that $$\frac{d}{ds} \hat \mu (s,\gamma^-(s)) =
\hat \mu_t (s,\gamma^-(s)) + \hat \mu_r(s,\gamma^-(s))\frac{d\gamma^-}{ds} (s) \leq 0$$ so that the limit $
\hat \mu_\infty := \lim_{s\to \infty}\hat \mu (s,\gamma^-(s))
$ exists. The fact that $\gamma^-(s)>0$ is decreasing with $$\left| \frac{d\gamma^-}{ds} (s)\right| = e^{(\mu-\lambda)(s,\gamma^-(s))}
\geq e^{2 \hat\mu (s,\gamma^-(s))} \geq e^{2 \hat\mu_\infty},$$ implies that $\hat\mu_\infty = -\infty$. Since $\mu \leq \hat\mu$ we conclude that $$\lim_{s\to \infty}\mu (s,\gamma^-(s)) = -\infty,$$ from which the assertion follows by the monotonicity of $\mu$ with respect to $r$. [**Acknowledgement:**]{} The authors are grateful for discussions with A. Rendall.
[AAAA]{}
, The Einstein-Vlasov System/Kinetic Theory, [*Living Rev. Relativity*]{} [**8**]{} (2005).
, On global existence for the spherically symmetric Einstein-Vlasov system in Schwarzschild coordinates, [*Indiana Univ. Math. J.*]{} [**56**]{}, 523–552 (2007).
, Sharp bounds on $2m/r$ of general spherically symmetric static objects, preprint 2007, arXiv: gr-qc/0702137v1
, Global existence for the spherically symmetric Einstein-Vlasov system with outgoing matter, [*Comm. Partial Differential Eqns.*]{}, to appear
, A numerical investigation of the stability of steady states and critical phenomena for the spherically symmetric Einstein-Vlasov system, [*Class. Quantum Gravity*]{} [**23**]{}, 3659–3677 (2006).
, [*Galactic Dynamics*]{}, Princeton University Press 1987.
, Violation of cosmic censorship in the gravitational collapse of a dust cloud, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**93**]{}, 171–195 (1984).
, A mathematical theory of gravitational collapse, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**109**]{}, 613–647 (1987).
, The formation of black holes and singularities in spherically symmetric gravitational collapse, [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} [**44**]{}, 339–373 (1991).
, Examples of naked singularity formation in the gravitational collapse of a scalar field, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} (2) [**140**]{}, 607-653 (1994).
, The instability of naked singularities in the gravitational collapse of a scalar field, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} (2) [**149**]{}, 183-217 (1999).
, On the global initial value problem and the issue of singularities, [*Class. Quantum Gravity*]{} [**16**]{}, A23–A35 (1999).
, Spherically symmetric spacetimes with a trapped surface, [*Class. Quantum Gravity*]{} [**22**]{}, 2221–2232 (2005).
, An extension principle for the Einstein-Vlasov system in spherical symmetry, [*Ann. Henri Poincaré*]{} [**6**]{}, 1137–1155 (2005).
, Critical phenomena in gravitational collapse, [*Living Rev. Relativity*]{} [**2**]{} (1999).
, [*The Large Scale Structure of Space-time,*]{} Cambridge University Press 1975.
, Propagation of moments and regularity for the 3-dimensional Vlasov-Poisson system, [*Invent. Math.*]{} [**105**]{}, 415–430 (1991).
, Critical phenomena at the threshold of black hole formation for collisionless matter in spherical symmetry, [*Phys. Rev. D.*]{} [**65**]{}, 024007 (2002).
, On continued gravitational contraction, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**56**]{}, 455–459 (1939).
, Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**14**]{}, 57–59 (1965).
, Global classical solutions of the Vlasov-Poisson system in three dimensions for general initial data, [*J. Differential Equations*]{}, 281–303 (1992).
, [*A Relativist’s Toolkit; The Mathematics of Black Hole Mechanics,*]{} Cambridge University Press 2004.
, Static solutions of the spherically symmetric Vlasov-Einstein system. [*Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.*]{} [**115**]{}, 559–570 (1994)
, [*The Vlasov-Einstein System with Surface Symmetry*]{}, Habilitationsschrift, München 1995.
, Global existence of solutions of the spherically symmetric Vlasov-Einstein system with small initial data, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**150**]{}, 561–583 (1992). Erratum: [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**176**]{}, 475–478 (1996).
, The Newtonian limit of the spherically symmetric Vlasov-Einstein system, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**150**]{}, 585–591 (1992).
, Smooth static solutions of the spherically symmetric Vlasov-Einstein system. [*Ann. de l’Inst. H. Poincaré, Physique Théorique*]{} [**59**]{}, 383–397 (1993)
, A regularity theorem for solutions of the spherically symmetric Vlasov-Einstein system, [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**168**]{}, 467–478 (1995).
, Critical collapse of collisionless matter—a numerical investigation, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**58**]{}, 044007 (1998).
, Compact support of spherically symmetric equilibria in non-relativistic and relativistic galactic dynamics. [*Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.*]{}, 363–380 (2000)
, The Newtonian limit for asymptotically flat solutions of the Vlasov-Einstein system. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**163**]{}, 89–112 (1994).
, Cosmic censorship and the Vlasov equation, [*Class. Quantum Gravity*]{} [**9**]{}, L99–L104 (1992).
, Theorems on existence and global dynamics for the Einstein equations, [*Living Rev. Relativity*]{} [**6**]{} (2005).
, [*General Relativity*]{}, Chicago University Press 1984.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A proof of concept detector is presented for scintillation light detection in liquid argon using Silicon Photo-Multipliers. The aim of the work is to build an anti-Compton veto for germanium detectors operated directly in liquid argon like in the GERDA experiment. Properties of the Multi-Pixel Photon Counter (MPPC) are studied at cryogenic temperatures. To increase the light collection efficiency of the MPPCs wavelength shifting fibers were used. A veto efficiency comparable to a similar setup with a Photo-Multiplier Tube was achieved.'
address: 'Max-Planck-Institut f[ür]{} Physik, M[ü]{}nchen, Germany'
author:
- 'József Janicskó-Csáthy, Hossein Aghaei Khozani, Xiang Liu, Béla Majorovits, Allen Caldwell'
bibliography:
- 'SiPM\_elsarticle.bib'
title: 'Development of an anti-Compton veto for HPGe detectors operated in liquid argon using Silicon Photo-Multipliers'
---
silicon photo-multiplier ,anti-Compton veto ,liquid Argon ,germanium detectors
Introduction {#intro}
============
One of the biggest challenges in dark matter and double beta decay experiments is to achieve a background level that is smaller than the expected signal. A reduction of the background can be achieved by adding shielding to the experiment and by careful selection of the components. After the limit imposed by the radioactivity of the cleanest materials available will be reached further reduction is possible only with an active veto system.
The GERDA [@GERDA] experiment currently being commissioned is built for the search for neutrinoless double beta decay ($0\nu2\beta$) with high purity germanium detectors (HPGe). The HPGe detectors are submerged directly in liquid argon (LAr). The LAr simultaneously acts as passive shielding and cryogenic cooling liquid.
The main source of background for the $0\nu2\beta$ decay is the radioactivity of the surrounding material. $\gamma$ photons hitting the HPGe detector undergo Compton scattering and very often deposit only part of their energy before escaping the detector. The half life limit on $0\nu2\beta$ decay at the end will be determined mainly by the number of this kind of events.
The escaping $\gamma$s with high probability will deposit their energy in the nearby environment. If the nearby space is filled with scintillating material the escaping $\gamma$s can be detected and the events with partial energy deposition in the HPGe detector can be vetoed. Such an arrangement is called an anti-Compton veto because it strongly suppresses the Compton background between the $\gamma$ lines.
In GERDA the liquid argon was chosen primarily because of its higher density compared to liquid nitrogen. In addition to that LAr like all noble liquids has the advantage of being an excellent scintillator. Ar scintillates in the VUV range emitting light at 128 nm. The properties of the scintillation light are well understood and described in the literature (see for example [@Hitachi]). The scintillator properties of LAr offer the possibility to use the scintillation light as an anti-Compton veto for the HPGe detectors, a possibility which is unexploited so far in the current design of GERDA.
Earlier it was shown that with a LAr anti-Compton veto more than an order of magnitude suppression of the background can be achieved [@LArGe] around the Q value of the $0\nu2\beta$ decay. Such a huge improvement could be decisive for the success of GERDA if it could be realized without increasing the radioactive background or changing the original design too much.
The main goal of this work is to provide a light detection solution for low background liquid scintillator experiments in general that is compatible with the stringent radiopurity requirements of dark matter and double beta decay experiments.
Anti-Compton veto with Silicon Photo-Multipliers
================================================
Traditionally an anti-Compton veto is built using Photo-Multiplier Tubes (PMTs). The PMTs have some important disadvantages. They are not well suited for a cryogenic environment and they contain components such as glass which have significant radioactive impurities. Furthermore the use of high voltage in an argon atmosphere is always a source of problems.
A novel photon detection device, the multipixel avalanche photodiode commonly called Silicon Photo-Multiplier (SiPM) could be an alternative to PMTs in certain cases. SiPMs do not require high voltage and they have a quantum efficiency at least as high as PMTs. Their small mass is the guarantee that their contribution to the radioactive background will be low.
The SiPM is an array of Avalanche Photodiodes (APDs) operated in Geiger mode. It promises single photon resolution and good photon detection efficiency. For a detailed description and possible applications see for example [@Dolgoshein].
A major disadvantage of existing SiPMs is their small active area. We will try to overcome this disadvantage by connecting wavelength shifting fibers (WLS) to it. The WLS fiber increases the effective surface and guides the trapped photons to the SiPM. Such a design would have the advantage of being compatible with the string design of GERDA.
To test the principle a small scale experiment was built up to measure the properties of SiPMs in a cryogenic environment and to demonstrate a reasonably high light collection efficiency in LAr.
In our experiments we used the Multi-Pixel Photon Counter (MPPC) made by Hamamatsu with 1mm$^2$ active surface. We chose the versions in ceramic case S10362-11-025C / -050C /-100C with 1600, 400 and 100 pixels respectively.
Properties of SiPMs in a cryogenic environment
----------------------------------------------
MPPCs were already characterized at liquid nitrogen (LN) temperatures in [@Otono] and [@Akiba]. The main goal of our studies was to determine the break-down voltage dependence on the temperature for the specimens we used. We also describe in this section the electronic setup that was used during the experiment. One property of the MPPCs that one immediately notices is that the pulse shapes change at low temperatures. The pulses become longer and their amplitude smaller (Fig.\[fig:pulse\_shape\_LN\]). The waveforms can be explained by the internal structure of the MPPC. The temperature dependent quenching resistor changes it’s value by an order of magnitude between room temperature and LN. The decay time of the pulse is given by the pixel capacity times the resistance of the quenching resistor. For a detailed study see [@Otono2].
![Difference in pulse shape at room temperature and in liquid nitrogen. The waveforms were recorded with a 100 pixel MPPC.[]{data-label="fig:pulse_shape_LN"}](LeCroy1_2.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}![Difference in pulse shape at room temperature and in liquid nitrogen. The waveforms were recorded with a 100 pixel MPPC.[]{data-label="fig:pulse_shape_LN"}](LeCroy5_2.eps "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
The long pulses with smaller amplitudes made it difficult to record good resolution spectra especially when the device was operated in a noisy environment with long cables from the detector to the front end electronics. In order to recover the single photon resolution and to measure the gain independently of the temperature we read out the MPPCs with charge sensitive amplifiers. It was found that the CREMAT CR-111 and the CR-112 [@CREMAT] have the optimal sensitivity. The integrated pulses were recorded with an XIA Pixie-4 DAQ [@XIA]. The DAQ was optimized for germanium detectors but because we used charge sensitive amplifiers it could be used for the SiPMs with almost the same settings. In Fig.\[fig:SiPM\_spctrm\] the pulse height spectrum of a 400 pixel MPPC is shown, operated in liquid nitrogen. The MPPC was separated from the preamplifier by a 50 cm long cable.
![\[fig:SiPM\_spctrm\] ’Photo-electron’ spectrum recorded with a SiPM: the SiPM is separated from the preamplifier by a cable and is submerged in LN. Many p.e. peaks can be distinguished. ](SiPM_spectrm_2.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
To measure the dark rate at different temperatures we wrapped the MPPCs in several layers of black tape and suspended them inside a dewar filled with liquid nitrogen. In the same experiment we measured three specimens with 100, 400 and 1600 pixels. A Pt-100 temperature sensor was also attached to the SiPMs. As the liquid nitrogen slowly evaporated we recorded dark pulses with the DAQ. At temperatures below 150 K the data acquisition was running for several hours until the first p.e. peak could be seen.
During one measurement the temperature was stable within a few degrees. For each temperature we recorded data at several bias voltages. From the amplitude of the single p.e. peak we could estimate the gain. From the bias voltage dependence of the gain we obtained the break-down voltage for each temperature.
Since in the final experiment we used only the 400 pixel MPPC here we show only the plots recorded with this device. The plots for the 100 and 1600 pixel devices look very similar. Fig.\[fig:SiPM\_gain\] shows gain measurements at different temperatures and bias voltages.
After the temperature dependence of the breakdown voltage was known (Fig.\[fig:SiPM\_BDV\]) we remeasured the dark rate as a function of temperature always at the same over-voltage. The results are shown in Fig.\[fig:SiPM\_DR\]. The measured dark rate at liquid nitrogen temperature is at the level of 10$^{-2}$ Hz at an over-voltage of 2.5 V for the 400 pixel device. For the MPPCs with 100 and 1600 pixels the dark rate at liquid nitrogen temperature is within the same order of magnitude as for the 400 pixel MPPC. The rates we measured are significantly smaller than what is reported in [@Otono] but agree better with [@Akiba]. It is interesting to note that the dark rate drops below one Hz already at about 160 K close to the boiling point of Xe which makes this device especially interesting for low countrate cryogenic experiments.
![\[fig:e\_schema\] Electronic schematics of the setup](schema.eps "fig:"){width="0.6\columnwidth"}\
![\[fig:SiPM\_gain\] Gain as a function of bias voltage at different temperatures measured with the 400 pixel MPPC.](400_gain_2.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![\[fig:SiPM\_BDV\] Break-down voltage as a function of temperature of the MPPC with 400 pixels](bdv400.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![\[fig:SiPM\_DR\] Dark rate of the 400 pixel MPPC as a function of temperature at 2.5 V over-voltage. The error bars from the statistical error are smaller then the symbols. ](400_dr.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Experimental setup
------------------
In order to increase the light collection efficiency we connected wavelength shifting fibers (WLS) to the SiPMs. The optical connection was realized with home made couplers. The coupler was made such that we could fine tune the position of the SiPM relative to the fiber. Each coupling was tuned by hand to the maximum light intensity seen by the SiPM.
The 128 nm light emitted by LAr cannot be absorbed by a WLS fiber or any plastic lightguide since such a short wavelength would be absorbed already in the cladding of the fiber before reaching the scintillating core.
We therefore coated a reflector foil (VM2000) with TPB (tetra-phenyl-butadiene) to serve as a primary wavelength shifter. The LAr volume delimited by the mirror foil creates an optical cavity where the only absorber is the WLS fiber. This arrangement increases substantially the amount of light collected in the fiber.
The emission spectrum of the TPB [@TPB] and the absorption spectrum of most WLS fibers partially overlap. We chose the BCF-91A made by Saint-Gobain [@bicron] which has a wide absorption peak. We estimated the conversion efficiency from 128 nm to 500 nm to be around 50%.
The choice of the WLS fiber was also motivated by the typical size of available fibers. The 1 mm $\times$ 1 mm square fiber is a reasonable match for the 1mm$^2$ active area of the SiPM.
The major limiting factor in such a setup is the low trapping efficiency of the WLS fibers. The fibers with the highest trapping efficiency are the multiclad fibers with square cross section. The fiber used in the experiment was the BCF-91A, 1 mm $\times$ 1 mm square cross section, multiclad fiber with a trapping efficiency of 7.3% and an attenuation length of $<$3.5 m [@bicron].
To hold the fibers inside the dewar a simple aluminium structure was designed. Three vertical bars with holes in them keep the coil of WLS fiber in place about 1 cm distance from the wall of the dewar. The distance between two parallel fibers is 1 cm. The holder with the fibers is shown on Fig.\[fig:wls\_setup\]. The volume enclosed by the fiber coil is approximatively 17 l. The VM2000 foil coated with a TPB solution was glued to the internal walls of our dewar.
The dewar was gas tight and it was kept under small overpressure.To remove the air it was flushed with Ar gas for about an hour before the filling with LAr started.
![\[fig:wls\_setup\] Conceptual drawing and the practical realization of the setup. An Al frame holds six 2.5m WLS fibers and 12 SiPMs inside the home made couplers. In the middle is the HPGe detector which was inserted only for the last experiment. Before the experiment the whole structure is lowered in the dewar below. The dewar has it’s wall covered with TPB coated VM2000 foil.](sipm_setup.eps "fig:"){width="0.40\columnwidth"}![\[fig:wls\_setup\] Conceptual drawing and the practical realization of the setup. An Al frame holds six 2.5m WLS fibers and 12 SiPMs inside the home made couplers. In the middle is the HPGe detector which was inserted only for the last experiment. Before the experiment the whole structure is lowered in the dewar below. The dewar has it’s wall covered with TPB coated VM2000 foil.](roland_setup.eps "fig:"){width="0.50\columnwidth"}\
Light yield estimation {#Yield_estimate}
----------------------
Attempts to use WLS fibers in combination with liquid scintillators were already made before. The description of a similar setup to ours can be found in [@McKinsey].
To predict the light yield we have to make some reasonable assumptions and use estimates when measurements are not available. One important assumption we make is that the light inside our LAr volume is distributed uniformly across the fibers. In this case the light collected at the end of the fiber will be:
$$I=I_{0}\frac{1}{L}\int_{0}^{L}e^{-\frac{x}{\lambda}}dx=I_{0}\frac{\lambda}{L}(1-e^{-\frac{L}{\lambda}})\label{eq:1}$$
where $I_{0}$ is the light intensity absorbed in the fiber, $\lambda$ is the attenuation length and L is the length of the fiber.
Another important property of the setup is that the fibers are inside an optical cavity and the light that is not absorbed in the fiber will be reflected back and forth many times. The intensity that is finally absorbed in the fiber will be proportional to $\frac{S}{1-(1-S)R}$, where $S$ is the ratio of the fiber surface to the reflector surface and $R$=0.95 is the reflectivity of the VM2000 foil taken from [@vm2000].
Following [@McKinsey] the photo electron yield can be calculated with the formula;
$$N=Y E_{F} E_{tr}I\frac{S}{1-(1-S)R} \times PDE\label{eq:3}$$
Where Y = 40000 number of primary photons per MeV deposited energy, $E_{tr}$ = 0.073 is the trapping efficiency of the square multiclad fiber [@bicron], PDE = Photon Detection Efficiency of the SiPM, taken to be 0.25 at 500 nm (see [@Eckert]), $E_{F}$ = fluor efficiency, the probability that a 128 nm photon is converted to 500 nm. We assume that $E_{F}$ is limited only by the absorption spectrum of the fiber (0.5 assumed).
![\[fig:yield\_est\] Estimated light yield as a function of fiber length for a six 1mm$\times$1mm fiber setup in a 17 l volume optical cavity.](expected_5.eps "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"}\
The formula was evaluated for the geometry of our setup. The light yield will depend on the number of fibers used for the same total length. Because of the limitations imposed by the number of feedthroughs and electronic channels we used six fibers with a SiPM on each end. If we plot the estimated light yield as a function of fiber length (Fig.\[fig:yield\_est\]) one can see that there is a clear maximum between 2 and 3 meters. For this reason we chose to use 2.5 m long fibers.
Measured light yield
--------------------
Once the dewar was filled with liquid argon the setup was illuminated with $^{60}$Co and $^{228}$Th sources. $^{60}$Co emits two $\gamma$s in coincidence at 1173.2 keV and 1332.5 keV. $^{228}$Th has a strong line at 2.6 MeV. In the recorded spectra we expect to see an enhancement corresponding to about 1.2 MeV and another to 2.6 MeV respectively.
In contrast to the setup in [@LArGe] the sources were outside the dewar. An event was recorded by the DAQ when at least two SiPMs gave a signal above a 1 p.e. threshold. For each event we recorded 6 $\mu$s long pulse shapes. Since we used charge sensitive preamplifiers the number of pixels hit was estimated off-line as the amplitude of the integrated pulse 6 $\mu$s after the trigger. All 12 channels were calibrated separately and a sum spectrum of total number of SiPM pixels fired was created.
Because more then one photon can hit the same pixel simultaneously the SiPM is an inherently nonlinear device. The deviation from the linear response is negligible when the number of p.e.’s is small compared to the number of pixels. In our case in average about 30 pixels fired per channel for a typical event and we used a 400 pixel SiPM. Furthermore the hits are distributed within a time window of 6 $\mu$s which is much longer than the recovery time of the device (about 200 ns). For simplicity we assume that the SiPMs operated always in the linear range and correction factors were not applied.
The spectra recorded with $^{60}$Co and $^{228}$Th sources show clear differences (Fig.\[fig:ligth\_collection\]). The energy resolution for a 100 p.e./MeV collected is not expected to be better than 10%. In addition to that the peaks corresponding to fully absorbed $\gamma$s are smeared due to many factors:
- attenuation in the WLS fiber: the light yield is different if the light is absorbed close to the middle or close to the end of the fiber
- afterpulses and pixel to pixel cross-talk within one SiPM: the number of p.e.’s is smeared out by these two random processes.
- the 12 SiPMs each has a slightly different light collection efficiency. For cross calibration of the SiPMs we would need distinct features in the spectra of individual channels which were not seen.
![\[fig:ligth\_collection\] Response of the detector to the $^{60}$Co and $^{228}$Th sources](Co_th_bckgr_618_myfilter_2.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
From the differences in the spectra recorded with the $^{60}$Co and $^{228}$Th sources we estimated a light yield between 100 and 200 p.e. for one MeV deposited energy. That is about 2 - 4 times lower than our estimate of about 400 p.e. calculated with Eq.\[eq:3\].
The reduced light yield can be largely explained with the quenching of the scintillation light by impurities in the Argon. It is well known that trace elements in ppm concentration can dramatically reduce the light yield. The Argon used was not the highest purity (Westfalen 4.6) and using a glass dewar we could not evacuate our setup before filling with LAr.
The Ar scintillation light has two components: a short component coming from the singlet excited molecular state $^1\Sigma^+_u$ with 6ns decay time and a long component from the triplet state $^3\Sigma^+_u$ with 1.6 $\mu$s decay time [@Hitachi]. The quenching affects mainly the long component. Fitting an averaged pulse we measured the triplet decay time which was found to be only 800 ns. The ratio of the intensities from the singlet and triplet state is 0.3 according to [@Hitachi]. The measured triplet life time implies that only 60% of the maximum scintillation light is produced. Our estimate is therefore reduced to about 250 p.e/MeV. Minor reductions in the light yield are expected from the imperfection of the TPB coating, additional absorbers in the dewar etc.
If the reduced light yield from the triplet state is taken into account our theoretical estimate is rather close to the measured light yield.
Anti-Compton veto
-----------------
Despite the limited energy resolution our system could still perform reasonably well as an anti-Compton veto for a HPGe detector. To test it we inserted an HPGe detector inside the coil of the WLS fibers. The HPGe detector was a p-type six fold segmented detector made by DSG Detector Systems GmbH. Because the crystal was damaged in the past it had a leakage current of about 6 nA. The best resolution achieved was 15 keV FWHM at 1332.5 keV on the core channel. The DAQ was triggered on the HPGe detector. Pulse shapes of the HPGe detector for the core channel and all segments plus the pulse shapes of the twelve SiPMs were recorded simultaneously. As in the previous experiment we recorded 6 $\mu$s long pulse shapes for each channel. Data was taken mainly with an external $^{228}$Th source.
The anti-Compton veto was applied off-line. From the recorded spectrum we produced a second spectrum by removing all the events when at least one SiPM registered a hit within a coincidence window of 6$\mu$s with the HPGe signal. Figure \[fig:anti\_Compt\_log\] shows the $^{228}$Th spectrum recorded with the germanium detector and the suppressed spectrum. In the Region of Interest (ROI) of the GERDA experiment (2039 keV $\pm$ 50 keV) the flat (Compton) background was suppressed by a factor 4.2.
![\[fig:anti\_Compt\_log\] $^{228}$Th spectrum recorded with the HPGe detector. The red histogram is the same spectrum after the anti-Compton cut is applied with 0.8 p.e. threshold ](RII_Th228_618_08_nice_5.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
It is even more convincing when we look at the Double Escape Peak (DEP) of the 2.6 MeV line (Fig.\[fig:anti\_DEP\]). After a pair production by a $\gamma$ the positron annihilates at rest and the two 511 keV $\gamma$s escape the HPGe detector. The energy deposited in the HPGe detector is the initial $\gamma$ energy minus 1022 keV. The two 511 keV $\gamma$s will deposit all their energy within a short distance in LAr. The net effect is that we have 1 MeV converted in scintillation light in the same time when 1592 keV energy is deposited in the HPGe detector. These events should be vetoed with high probability. On the other hand a fully absorbed $\gamma$ should not be vetoed.
As we can see in Fig.\[fig:anti\_DEP\] while the DEP peak is suppressed by a factor 6.1 the neighboring gamma line is only suppressed by a factor 1.1 with 0.8 p.e. threshold. The strong suppression of the DEP proves that the reduction of the Compton background is not due to a random coincidence.
![\[fig:anti\_DEP\]Suppressed spectrum of $^{228}$Th. One can see that the DEP is suppressed more than the neighboring gamma lines.](RII_Th228_618_08_nice_DEP_text_5.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Bias Voltage dependence
-----------------------
For practical use in a veto system the cross talk and afterpulse probability of the SiPM are much less important than the Photon Detection Efficiency. It is known that the PDE of the MPPC increases with the over voltage [@Akiba],[@Eckert]. To be sure that we operated our MPPCs at the highest possible efficiency we recorded data with three different voltages. In Fig.\[fig:Th\_v\_bias\] we see the same $^{228}$Th spectrum at increasing bias voltages. Fig.\[fig:Th\_v\_bias\] suggest that the number of p.e.’s increased significantly. On the other hand the veto efficiency did not increase too much. Fig.\[fig:SF\_v\_bias\] shows the suppression factors for the DEP and the Compton background around 2 MeV. Although we started our measurements at a very high over-voltage (2.5 V) the suppression factor (SF) for the DEP is still increasing until 2.8 V. From 2.8 V to 3.1 V the increase is negligible. We can conclude that the increase in the numbers of pixels fired seen in Fig.\[fig:Th\_v\_bias\] is mostly due to increased cross talk and afterpulse probability and not real p.e.’s. Since a further increase of the veto efficiency was not possible we are sure that the maximal PDE was achieved. For the analysis in the previous section we used the data recorded at 2.8 V over-voltage.
![\[fig:Th\_v\_bias\]Spectrum of $^{228}$Th recorded with different over-voltages, without the HPGe detector](Th228sum_v_bias_3.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![\[fig:SF\_v\_bias\]Suppression factors as function of over voltage](SF_v_bias_4.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Conclusion
==========
We have demonstrated that the combination of SiPMs with wavelength shifting fibers is a viable alternative of large area PMTs for the detection of light in liquid scintillator experiments.
We also showed that the MPPC made by Hamamatsu can be operated directly submerged in the cryoliquid without major problems. The devices survived many cooling cycles without deterioration of their performance. It is worthwhile to note that when the SiPM is operated at such a low temperature the dark rate is negligible.
The setup described in this paper was built with regard to the needs of double beta decay and dark matter experiments. We expect that the radioactive background induced by our solution is much smaller than by an equivalent setup with PMTs. The weight of the WLS fibers used in this experiment was only about 16 g. The holders and optical couplers can be further optimized and built from low activity materials. The activity of the materials needed for such a setup is currently under evaluation.
The full potential of the anti-Compton veto based on SiPMs and WLS fibers is not reached yet. Our setup suffered from the quality of the argon and the quality of the TPB coating could have been improved as well. In Section \[Yield\_estimate\] we showed that the effect of the attenuation in the fiber can be minimized by using many short fibers. Increasing the number of fibers while keeping the number of electronic channels low would be possible in combination with larger area SiPMs that are already on sale. With further optimization the limit imposed by the trapping eficiency of the fiber should be possible to achieve.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We analyze the proximity effect in a superconductor/ferromagnet (S/F) structure with a local inhomogeneity of the magnetization in the ferromagnet near the S/F interface. We demonstrate that not only the singlet but also the triplet component of the superconducting condensate is induced in the ferromagnet due to the proximity effect. Although the singlet component of the condensate penetrates into the ferromagnet over a short length $\xi _{h}=%
\sqrt{D/h}$ ($h$ is the exchange field in the ferromagnet and $D$ the diffusion coefficient), the triplet component, being of the order of the singlet one at the S/F interface, penetrates over a long length $\sqrt{%
D/\epsilon }$ ($\epsilon$ is the energy). This long-range penetration leads to a significant increase of the ferromagnet conductance below the superconducting critical temperature $T_{c}$.
address: |
$^{(1)}$Theoretische Physik III,\
Ruhr-Universität Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Germany\
$^{(2)}$Institute of Radioengineering and Electronics of the Russian Academy\
of Sciences, 103907 Moscow, Russia\
$^{(3)}$L.D. Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics, 117940 Moscow, Russia
author:
- 'F. S. Bergeret $^{1 }$, A. F. Volkov$^{1,2}$ and K. B. Efetov$^{1,3}$'
title: 'Long-range proximity effects in superconductor-ferromagnet structures '
---
In recent experiments on S/F structures a considerable increase of the conductance below the superconducting critical temperature $T_{c}$ was observed [@Petrashov1; @Pannetier; @Chandra]. Although in a recent work [@Belzig] it was suggested that such an increase may be due to scattering at the S/F interface, a careful measurement of the conductance demonstrated that the entire change of the conductance was due to an increase of the conductivity of the ferromagnet [@Petrashov1; @Pannetier].
Such an increase would not be a great surprise if instead of the ferromagnet one had a normal metal N. It is well known (see for review [@Been; @Lamb]) that in S/N structures proximity effects can lead to a considerable increase of the conductance of the N wire provided its length does not exceed the phase breaking length $L_\varphi$. However in a S/F structure, if the superconducting pairing is singlet, the proximity effect is negligible at distances exceeding a much shorter length $\sim \xi_h$. This reduction of the proximity effect due to the exchange field $h$ of the ferromagnet is clear from the picture of Cooper pairs consisting of electrons with opposite spins. The proximity effect is not considerably affected by the exchange energy only if the latter is small $h<T_{c}$. As concerns such strong ferromagnets as $Fe $ or $Co$ used in the experiments [@Petrashov1; @Pannetier], whose exchange energy $h$ is by several orders of magnitude larger than $T_{c}$, a singlet pairing is impossible due to the strong difference in the energy dispersions for the two spin bands. At the same time, an arbitrary exchange field cannot destroy a triplet superconducting pairing because the spins of the electrons forming Cooper pairs are already parallel. A possible role of the triplet component in transport properties of S/F structures has been noticed in Refs. [@Falko; @Spivak], where the triplet component arose only as a result of mesoscopic fluctuations. However, in both cases the corrections to the conductance are much smaller than the observed ones.
In this paper, we suggest a much more robust mechanism of formation of the triplet pairing in S/F structures, which is due to a local inhomogeneity of the magnetization $M$ in the vicinity of the S/F interface. We show that the inhomogeneity generates a triplet component of the superconducting order parameter with an amplitude comparable with that of the singlet pairing. The penetration length of the triplet component into the ferromagnet is equal to $\xi _{\varepsilon }=\sqrt{D/\varepsilon }$, where the energy $\varepsilon $ is of the order of temperature $T$ or the Thouless energy $E_{T}=D/L^{2},$ $L
$ is the sample size. The length $\xi _{\varepsilon }$ is of the same order as that for the penetration of the superconducting pairs into a normal metal and therefore the increase of the conductance due to the proximity effect can be comparable with that in an S/N structure.
= 4.5cm
We consider a structure shown in Fig.1 and assume that the magnetization orientation varies linearly from $\alpha =0$ at $x=0$ to $\alpha_{w}= Qw$ at $x=w$. Here $\alpha$ is the angle between $M$ and the $z$-axis. The case $%
Qw=\pi $ corresponds to a domain wall with thickness $w$ located at the S/F interface, while the model with the homogeneous magnetization is recovered by putting $Q=0$. This variation of $M$ may also be brought about by an external magnetic field (see [@Waintal] and references therein). Of course, the variation of the magnetization considered is the simplest model of what may happen at the interface in reality and we use it for simplicity. We consider the diffusive limit corresponding to a short mean free path. In this limit one may describe the S/F structure using the Usadel equation [@Usadel]. The proximity effect in a S/F structure with an uniform magnetization $M$ was analyzed in [@Demler]. For the system with a non-homogeneous magnetization one should use a generalized form of this equation containing spin variables [@Berger]. The equation is non-linear and contains normal $\check{g}$ and anomalous $\check{f}$ quasiclassical Green’s functions. These functions are $4\times 4$ matrices in the Nambu$%
\otimes $spin space.
Assuming that the anomalous condensate function $f$ is small, one can linearize the Usadel equation. This can be done if the transmission coefficient through the S/F interface is small due to a strong mismatch of the Fermi surfaces. Moreover, the order parameter in the superconductor can be strongly suppressed near the S/F interface if the transparency is high. In both cases one may assume a weak proximity effect, which presumably corresponds to the experiments. We write the Usadel equation for the matrix element (12) of $\check{f}$ in the Nambu space. Then for the retarded matrix (in the spin space) Green’s function $\hat{f}^R$ we obtain (the index $R$ is dropped)
$$-iD\partial _{{\bf r}}^{2}\hat{f}+2\epsilon \hat{f}-2\Delta \hat{\sigma}%
_{3}+\left( \hat{f}\hat{V}^{\ast }+\hat{V}\hat{f}\right) =0 \label{a2}$$
Here $\epsilon $ is the energy, $\Delta $ is the superconducting order parameter, which vanishes in the ferromagnet; $\hat{\sigma}_{i}$ are the Pauli matrices in the spin space, and the matrix $\hat{V}$ is defined as $%
\hat{V}=h\left( \hat{\sigma}_{3}\cos \alpha +\hat{\sigma}_{2}\sin \alpha
\right) $, where $\alpha $ varies with $x$ as shown in Fig.1. This matrix describes the interaction between the exchange field and spins of the conduction electrons and vanishes in the superconductor. Eq. (\[a2\]) could be written for temperature anomalous Green functions $\hat{f}^{M}$ at Matsubara frequencies $\omega $ , by replacing $\epsilon \rightarrow i\left| \omega \right| $ and multiplying the last term by ${\rm sgn}\left( \omega \right) $ [@Berger]. Eq. (\[a2\]) is supplemented by the boundary conditions at the interface that can also be linearized [@Zaitsev]. Assuming that there are no spin-flip processes at the S/F interface, we have $$\left. \partial _{x}\hat{f}\right| _{x=0}=\left( \rho /R_{b}\right) \hat{f}%
_{S}\;, \label{bound-cond}$$ where $\rho $ is the resistivity of the ferromagnet, $R_{b}$ is the S/F interface resistance per unit area in the normal state, and $f_{S}=\hat{%
\sigma}_{3}\Delta /\sqrt{\epsilon ^{2}-\Delta ^{2}}$. The solution of Eq. (\[a2\]) is trivial in the superconductor but needs some care in the ferromagnet. In the region $0<x<w$ the solution $\hat{f}$ can be sought in the form $\hat{f}=\hat{U}\left( x\right) \hat{f}_{n}\hat{U}%
\left( x\right)$, where $\hat{U}\left( x\right) =\hat{\sigma}_{0}\cos \left(
Qx/2\right) +i\hat{\sigma}_{1}\sin \left( Qx/2\right)$. Substituting this expression into Eq. (\[a2\]) and assuming that the solution depends on the coordinate $x$ only we obtain the following equation for $\hat{f}_{n}$ $$\begin{aligned}
-iD\partial_{xx}^2\hat{f}_n\!\!+\!\!i\left(DQ^2/2\right)\left(\hat{f}_n+\hat{%
\sigma}_1 \hat{f}_n\hat{\sigma}_1\right)\!\!+\!\!DQ\left\{\partial_{x}\hat{f}%
_n,\hat{\sigma}_1\right\} \nonumber \\
+2\epsilon\hat{f}_n+h\left\{\hat{\sigma}_3,\hat{f}_n\right\}\!=0 \label{a5}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\{...\}$ is the anticommutator. In the region $x>w$, $\hat{f}_{n}$ satisfies Eq. (\[a5\]) with $Q=0$.
We see from Eq. (\[a5\]) that the singlet component, commuting with $\hat{%
\sigma}_3$, and triplet component, anticommuting with $\hat{\sigma}_3$, are mixed by the rotating exchange field $h$. In the region $x>w$ the triplet and the singlet components decouple and their amplitudes should be found by matching the solutions at $x=w$. One should also use the boundary condition, Eq. (\[bound-cond\]), and match the solutions in the ferromagnet and superconductor. It is clear that the singlet and triplet components of the anomalous function $\hat{f}_{n}$ inevitably coexist in the ferromagnet. This fact is also known for the case of magnetic superconductors with $Q\neq 0$ [@Bul]. In the region $x>w$ the singlet part decays sharply but the triplet one survives over long distances. We are able to confirm these statements solving Eq. (\[a5\]) with the boundary condition Eq. (\[bound-cond\]). In the case of a homogeneous magnetization ($Q=0$) the triplet pairing cannot be induced, which follows immediately from Eq. (\[bound-cond\]) connecting separately the singlet and triplet components at the opposite sides of the interface and Eq. (\[a5\]).
Eq. (\[a5\]) can be solved exactly. The solution $\hat{f}_{n}$ can be written in the form $$\hat{f}_{n}= \hat{\sigma}_0A\left( x\right) +\hat{\sigma}_{3}B\left(
x\right)+i\hat{\sigma}_{1}C\left( x\right) \label{2}$$
The function $C\left( x\right) $ in Eq. (\[2\]) is the amplitude of the triplet pairing, whereas the first and the second term describe the singlet one. Substituting Eq. (\[2\]) into Eq. (\[a5\]) we obtain a system of three equations for the functions $A $, $B$ and $C $, which can be sought in the form $$A\left( x\right) =\sum_{i=1}^{3}\left( A_{i}\exp \left( -\kappa _{i}x\right)
+\bar{A}_{i}\exp \left( \kappa _{i}x\right) \right) \label{3}$$ The functions $B(x)$ and $C(x)$ can be written in a similar way. The eigenvalues $\kappa _{i}$ obey the algebraic equations
$$\begin{aligned}
\left( \kappa ^{2}-\kappa _{\epsilon }^{2}-Q^{2}\right) C-2\left( Q\kappa
\right) A &=&0 \nonumber \\
\left( \kappa ^{2}-\kappa _{\epsilon }^{2}\right) B-\kappa _{h}^{2}A &=&0
\label{4} \\
\left( \kappa ^{2}-\kappa _{\epsilon }^{2}-Q^{2}\right) A-\kappa
_{h}^{2}B+2\left( Q\kappa \right) C &=&0\;, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $\kappa _{\epsilon }^{2}=-2i\epsilon /D$ and $\kappa _{h}^{2}=-2ih/D$ (indices $i$ were dropped). The eigenvalues $\kappa $ are the values at which the determinant of Eqs. (\[4\]) turns to zero. From the first equation of Eqs. (\[4\]) we see that in the homogeneous case ($Q=0$) the triplet component has a characteristic penetration length $\sim \kappa _{\epsilon }^{-1}$, but we see from Eq. (\[bound-cond\]) that its amplitude is zero. If $Q\not=0$, the triplet component $C$ is coupled to the singlet component ($A$, $B$) induced in the ferromagnet according to the boundary condition Eq. (\[bound-cond\]) (proximity effect). If the width $w$ is small, the triplet component changes only a little in the region $(0,w)$ and spreads over a large distance of the order $\left| \kappa _{\epsilon }^{-1}\right| $ in the region $(0,L)$. In the case of a strong exchange field $h$, $\xi _{h}$ is very short ($\xi _{h}\ll w,\xi _{T}$), the singlet component decays very fast over the length $\xi _{h}$, and its slowly varying part turns out to be small. In this case the first two eigenvalues $\kappa _{1,2}\approx(1\pm
i)/\xi _{h}$ can be used everywhere in the ferromagnet $\left( 0<x<L\right) $, where $L$ is the length of the ferromagnet. As concerns the third eigenvalues, we obtain $\kappa _{3}=\sqrt{\kappa _{\epsilon }^{2}+Q^{2}}$ in the interval $(0,w)$, and $\kappa _{3}=\kappa _{\epsilon }$ in the interval $%
(w,L)$. The amplitude $B_{3}$ of the slowly varying part of the singlet component is equal to $B_{3}=2\left( Q\kappa _{3}/\kappa _{h}^{2}\right)
C_{3}\ll C_{3}$.
All the amplitudes should be chosen to satisfy the boundary conditions at $%
x=0$ (Eq. (\[bound-cond\])) and zero boundary condition at $x=L$. For the triplet component we obtain (we restore the indices R(A)) $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{C^{R(A)}(x)=\mp i\left\{ QB(0)\sinh \left( \kappa _{\epsilon
}(L-x)\right) .\right. } \nonumber \\
&\!\!\!\!\left. \left[ \kappa _{\epsilon }\cosh \Theta _{\epsilon }\cosh
\Theta _{3}+\kappa _{3}\sinh \Theta _{\epsilon }\sinh \Theta _{3}\right]
^{-1}\!\right\} ^{R(A)}& \label{5}\end{aligned}$$ where $w<x<L$, $B^{R(A)}(0)\!\!\!=\!\!\left( \rho \xi _{h}/2R_{b}\right)
f_{S}^{R(A)}$ is the amplitude of the singlet component at the S/F interface, $\Theta _{\epsilon }\!\!\!=\!\!\kappa _{\epsilon }L$, $\Theta
_{3}\!\!\!=\!\!\kappa _{3}w$, and $\kappa _{\epsilon }^{R(A)}\!\!\!=\!\!%
\sqrt{\mp 2i\epsilon /D}$. One can see that the difference $C^{R}-C^{A}$ is an even function of $\epsilon $. This is a direct consequence of the fact that $C^{R}-C^{A}$ is proportional to the Fourier transform of the correlator $K(t)\!\!\!=\!\!\left\langle \psi _{\uparrow }(t)\psi _{\uparrow
}(0)+\psi _{\uparrow }(0)\psi _{\uparrow }(t)\right\rangle $, which is even in time. In the Matsubara representation, $C^{R(A)}$ in Eq. (\[5\]) should be replaced by $C_{\omega }$ with ${\rm sgn}\omega $ instead of $(\mp )$ and $\kappa _{\omega }\!\!\!=\!\!\sqrt{|\omega |/D}$, $f_{S}(\omega
)\!\!\!=\!\!\Delta /\sqrt{\omega ^{2}+\Delta ^{2}}$ instead of $\kappa
_{\epsilon }^{R(A)}$, $f_{S}^{R(A)}$ respectively. Thus, $C_{\omega }$ corresponding to the temperature correlator ${\cal K}\left( \tau \right)
=-<T_{\tau }\psi _{\uparrow }\left( 0\right) \psi _{\uparrow }\left( \tau
\right) >$ is an odd function of $\omega $ and the sum over all $%
\omega $ is zero in accordance with $K(0)\!\!={\cal K}\left( 0\right) =\!0$.
It is clear from Eq. (\[5\]), that the triplet component is of the same order of magnitude as the singlet one at the interface. Indeed, for the case $w\ll L$ we obtain from Eq. (\[5\]) $\left| C(0)\right| \sim B(0)/\sinh
\alpha _{w}$, where $\alpha _{w}=Qw$ is the angle characterizing the rotation of the magnetization. Therefore if the angle $\alpha _{w}\leq 1$ and the S/F interface transparency is not too small, the singlet and triplet components are not small. They are of the same order in the vicinity of the S/F interface, but while the singlet component decays abruptly over a short distance ($\sim \xi _{h}$), the triplet one varies smoothly along the ferromagnet, turning to zero at the F reservoir. In Fig.2 we plot the spatial dependence of the singlet $|B(x)|$ and the triplet $|C(x)|$ components for two different $Q$. One can see that the singlet component decays abruptly undergoing the well known oscillations [@Buzdin2] while the triplet one decays to zero slowly. This decay in the region $(0,w)$ increases with increasing $Q$.
Thus, we come to a remarkable conclusion: the penetration of the superconducting condensate into a ferromagnet may be similar to the penetration into a normal metal. The only difference is that, instead of the singlet component in the case of the normal metal, the triplet one penetrates into the ferromagnet. Of course, in order to induce the triplet component one needs an inhomogeneity of the exchange field at the interface.
The presence of the condensate function (triplet component) in the ferromagnet can lead to interesting long-range effects. One of them is a change of the conductance of a ferromagnetic wire in a S/F structure (see inset in Fig.1) when the temperature is lowered below $T_{c}$. This effect was observed first in S/N structures and later was successfully explained (see, e.g. reviews [@Been; @Lamb]). Now we consider the S/F structure shown in the inset of Fig.1. The normalized conductance variation $\delta
\tilde{G}=\left( G-G_{n}\right) /G_{n}$ is given by the expression [@VZK]: $$\delta \tilde{G}=-\frac{1}{32T}{\rm Tr}\int {\rm d}\epsilon F_{V}^{\prime
}\left\langle \left[ \hat{f}^R(x)-\hat{f}^A(x)\right] ^{2}\right\rangle \;.
\label{6}$$ Here $G_{n}$ is the conductance in the normal state, $F_{V}^{\prime }=1/2%
\left[ \cosh ^{-2}((\epsilon +eV)/2T)+\cosh^{-2}((\epsilon -eV)/2T)\right]$, and $<..>$ denotes the average over the length of the ferromagnetic wire between the F reservoirs. The function $\hat{f}$ is given by the third term of Eq. (\[2\]) with $C^R=-\left(C^A\right)^*$ (we neglect the small singlet component). Substituting Eqs. (\[2\], \[5\]) into Eq. (\[6\]) one can determine the temperature dependence $\delta \tilde{G}\left(
T\right) $. Fig.3 shows this dependence. We see that $\delta \tilde{G}$ increases with decreasing temperature and saturates at $T=0$. This monotonic behaviour of $\delta \tilde{G}$ contrasts with the so called reentrant behaviour of $\delta \tilde{G}$ in S/N structures [@Art; @Nazarov] and is a result of broken time-reversal symmetry of the system under consideration.
Available experimental data are still controversial. It has been established in a recent experiment [@Chandra] that the conductance of the ferromagnet does not change below $T_{c}$ and all changes in $\delta G$ are due to changes of the S/F interface resistance $R_b$. However, in other experiments $R_b$ was negligibly small [@Petrashov1]. The mechanism suggested in our work may explain the long-range effects observed in the experiments [@Petrashov1; @Pannetier]. At the same time, the result of the experiment [@Chandra] is not necessarily at odds with our findings. The inhomogeneity of the magnetic moment at the interface, which is the crucial ingredient of our theory, is not a phenomenon under control in these experiments. One can easily imagine that such inhomogeneity existed in the structures studied in Refs. [@Petrashov1; @Pannetier] but was absent in those of Ref. [@Chandra]. The magnetic inhomogeneity near the interface may have different origins. Anyway, a more careful study of the possibility of a rotating magnetic moment should be performed to clarify this question.
In order to explain the reentrant behaviour of $\delta G(T)$ observed in Refs. [@Petrashov1; @Pannetier] one should take into account other mechanisms, as those analyzed in Refs. [@Belzig; @Falko; @Golubov]. However, this question is beyond the scope of the present paper.
We note that at the energies $\epsilon $ of the order of Thouless energy $%
\epsilon \sim E_{T}$ the triplet component spreads over the full length $L$ of the ferromagnetic wire (see Fig.2). This long-range effect differs completely from the proximity effect in a ferromagnet with a uniform magnetization considered recently in Ref.[@Buzdin]. In the latter case the characteristic wave vector is equal to $\kappa _{1,2}=\sqrt{-2i(\epsilon
\pm h)/D}$ (cf. Eqs. (\[4\])). It was noted in Ref. [@Buzdin] that if $%
\epsilon\rightarrow\pm h$, then $\kappa_{1,2}\rightarrow 0$ and the singlet component penetrates in the ferromagnet. If the characteristic energies $%
\epsilon_{ch}\sim E_T,T$ are much less than $h$, the penetration length $%
\left| \kappa _{1,2}\right| ^{-1}$ is of the order $\xi _{h}$ and is much shorter then $\xi _{T}$ or $L$.
= 5.2cm
= 5.0cm
It is also interesting to note that a triplet component of the condensate function with the same symmetry (odd in frequency $\omega $ and even in momentum $p$) was suggested by Berenziskii [@Berez] as a possible phase in superfluid $^{3}He$ (this, so called “odd” superconductivity, was discussed in a subsequent paper [@Balatsky]). Being symmetric in space, this component is not affected by potential impurities, in contrast to the case analyzed in Ref. [@Larkin], where the triplet component of the condensate was odd in space. While in $^{3}He$ this hypothetical condensate function is not realized (in $^{3}He$ it is odd in $p$ but not in frequency), in our system this odd (in $\omega $) triplet component does exist, although under special conditions described above.
In conclusion, we have shown that in the presence of a local inhomogeneity of magnetization near the S/F interface, both the singlet and triplet components of the condensate are created in the ferromagnet due to the proximity effect. The singlet component penetrates into the ferromagnet over a short length $\xi _{h}$, whereas the triplet component can spread over the full mesoscopic length of the ferromagnet. This long-range penetration of the triplet component should lead to a significant variation of the ferromagnet conductance below $T_{c}$.
We would like to thank SFB 491 for financial support.
V. T. Petrashov [*et al*]{}, JETP Lett.[** 59**]{}, 551 (1994); V. T. Petrashov, I. A. Sosnin, I. Cox, A. Parsons, and C. Troadec, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3281 (1999);
M. Giroud, H. Courtois, K. Hasselbach, D. Mailly and B. Pannetier,[* *]{}Phys. Rev. B [**58,**]{} 11872 (1998).
J. Aumentado and V. Chandrasekhar, cond-mat/0007433.
W. Belzig, A. Brataas, Yu. V. Nazarov, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 9726 (2000).
C. W. J. Beenakker, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**69**]{}, 731 (1997).
C. Lambert,and R. Raimondi, J. Phys. Cond. Matt. [**10**]{} (1998).
V. I. Fal’ko, A. F. Volkov, and C. J. Lambert, Phys.Rev. B [**60,** ]{}15394 (1999).
F. Zhou and B. Spivak, cond-mat 9906177.
X. Waintal and P.W. Brouwer, cond-mat/0010255.
K. D. Usadel, Phys. Rev. Lett [**25**]{}, 507 (1970)
E. A. Demler, G. B. Arnold, and M. R. Beasley, Phys. Rev. B [**55,** ]{}15174 (1997)
F. S. Bergeret, K. B. Efetov, A. I. Larkin, Phys Rev. B [**62**]{}, 11872 (2000).
A. V. Zaitsev, JETP [**59**]{}, 1015 (1984).
L. N. Bulaevski, A. I. Rusinov, and M. Kulic, Solid State Comm. [**30**]{}, 59 (1979); A. I. Buzdin, L. N. Bulaevskii, and S. V. Panjukov, JETP Lett. [**35**]{}, 178 (1982).
A. I. Buzdin, L. N. Bulaevskii, and S. V. Panjukov, JETP Lett. [**35**]{}, 178 (1982).
A. F. Volkov, A. V. Zaitsev, T. M. Klapwijk, Physica C[**210**]{}, 21 (1993); A. F. Volkov and H. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. B [**56,** ]{}11184 (1997).
S. N. Artemenko, A. F. Volkov and A. V. Zaitsev, Solid State Comm. [**30**]{}, 771 (1979).
Yu. Nazarov and T. H. Stoof, Phys. Rev.Lett. [**76**]{}, 823 (1996).
A. A. Golubov, Physica C, [**326-327**]{}, 46 (1999).
A. I. Buzdin, Phys Rev. B [**62,** ]{}11377 (2000).
V. L. Berezinskii, JETP [**20**]{}, 287 (1974).
A. Balatsky and E. Abrahams, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 13125 (1992).
A. I. Larkin, JETP Lett. [**2**]{}, 130 (1965).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $S \subseteq {\mathbb N}$ be a numerical semigroup with multiplicity $m$, conductor $c$ and minimal generating set $P$. Let $L=S \cap [0,c-1]$ and $W(S)=|P||L|-c$. In 1978, Herbert Wilf asked whether $W(S) \ge 0$ always holds, a question known as Wilf’s conjecture and open since then. A related number $W_0(S)$, satisfying $W_0(S) \le W(S)$, has recently been introduced. We say that $S$ is a *near-miss in Wilf’s conjecture* if $W_0(S)<0$. Near-misses are very rare. Here we construct infinite families of them, with $c=4m$ and $W_0(S)$ arbitrarily small, and we show that the members of these families still satisfy Wilf’s conjecture.'
address:
- 'Shalom Eliahou, Univ. Littoral Côte d’Opale, EA 2597 - LMPA - Laboratoire de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées Joseph Liouville, F-62228 Calais, France and CNRS, FR 2956, France'
- 'Jean Fromentin, Univ. Littoral Côte d’Opale, EA 2597 - LMPA - Laboratoire de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées Joseph Liouville, F-62228 Calais, France and CNRS, FR 2956, France'
author:
- Shalom Eliahou and Jean Fromentin
title: 'Near-misses in Wilf’s conjecture'
---
Introduction
============
Let ${\mathbb N}=\{0,1,2,\dots\}$ and ${\mathbb N}_+={\mathbb N}\setminus\{0\}$. Given rational numbers $a \le b$, we denote $[a,b]=\{z \in {\mathbb Z}\mid a \le z \le b\}$ the *integer interval* they span, and $[a,\infty[\ =\{z \in {\mathbb Z}\mid z \ge a\}$.
Let $S \subseteq {\mathbb N}$ be a *numerical semigroup*, *i.e.* a submonoid containing $0$ and with finite complement in ${\mathbb N}$. The *genus* of $S$ is $g(S)=|{\mathbb N}\setminus S|$, its *Frobenius number* is $F(S)=\max ({\mathbb Z}\setminus S)$ and its *conductor* is $c = F(S)+1$. Thus $c+{\mathbb N}\subseteq S$, and $c$ is minimal for this property. Let $S^*= S \setminus \{0\}$. The *multiplicity* of $S$ is $m=\min S^*$. As in [@E], we shall denote $$\label{q, rho}
q = \lceil c/m \rceil \ \textrm{ and }\ \rho=qm-c;$$ thus $c=qm-\rho$ and $0 \le \rho \le m-1$. An element $a \in S^*$ is *primitive* if it cannot be written as $a=a_1+a_2$ with $a_1,a_2 \in S^*$. As easily seen, the subset $P \subset S^*$ of primitive elements is contained in the integer interval $[m,m+~c-~1]$. Therefore $P$ is finite, and it generates $S$ as a monoid since every nonzero element in $S$ is a sum of primitive elements. It is well-known and easy to see that $P$ is the *unique minimal generating set* of $S$. Its cardinality $|P|$ is known as the *embedding dimension* of $S$. We shall denote by $D \subset S$ the set of *decomposable elements*, *i.e.* $D = S^*+S^*=S^* \setminus P$. See [@R; @RG] for extensive information about numerical semigroups.
Wilf’s conjecture
-----------------
Let $L=S \cap [0,c-1]$, the set of elements of $S$ to the left of its conductor $c$, and denote $$W(S) = |P||L|-c.$$ In 1978, Herbert Wilf asked, in equivalent terms, whether the inequality $$W(S) \ge 0$$ always holds [@W]. This question is known as *Wilf’s conjecture*. So far, it has only been settled for a few families of numerical semigroups, including the five independent cases $|P| \le 3$, $|L| \le 4$, $m \le 8$, $g \le 60$ and $q \le 3$. See [@Br08; @D; @DM; @E; @FGH; @FH; @K; @MS; @Sa] for more details.
The number $W_0(S)$
-------------------
Denote $S_q=[c,c+m-1]$ and $D_q = D \cap S_q = S_q \setminus P$. We may now define the closely related number $W_0(S)$ introduced in [@E]. It involves $|P \cap L|$ rather than $|P|$ as in $W(S)$, as well as $D_q$ and the numbers $q, \rho$ given by .
Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup. We set $$W_0(S) = |P \cap L||L| - q|D_q| + \rho.$$
As we shall see in the next section, we have $W(S) \ge W_0(S)$. In particular, if $W_0(S) \ge 0$, then $S$ satisfies Wilf’s conjecture. The case $W_0(S)<0$ seems to be extremely rare. The first instances were discovered in 2015 by the second author while performing an exhaustive computer check of numerical semigroups up to genus 60. Here is the outcome.
**Computational result**. *The more than $10^{13}$ numerical semigroups $S$ of genus $g \le 60$ all satisfy $W_0(S) \ge 0$, with exactly 5 exceptions. These 5 exceptions satisfy $W_0(S)=-1$, $W(S) \ge 35$ and $g \in \{43, 51, 55, 59\}$.*
We shall describe these five exceptions in the next section. Prompted by their unexpected existence, we say that $S$ is a *near-miss* in Wilf’s conjecture if $W_0(S) < 0$.
The next instances of near-misses were discovered by Manuel Delgado. More precisely, he proved the following result by explicit construction.
For any $z \in {\mathbb Z}$, there exist infinitely many numerical semigroups $S$ such that $W_0(S)=z$.
(The number $W_0(S)$ is denoted $E(S)$ in [@D].) He further proved that all the near-misses in his constructions satisfy Wilf’s conjecture.
Our aim in this paper is to explain the structure of the original five near-misses of genus $g \le 60$, construct infinite families of similar ones, and show that again, they still satisfy Wilf’s conjecture even though their numbers $W_0(S)$ get arbitrarily small in ${\mathbb Z}$.
Thus, both [@D] and the present paper provide constructions of families of numerical semigroups $S$ such that $W_0(S)$ goes to minus infinity. The main difference is that in [@D], the cardinality $|P \cap L|$ remains constant at $3$ and $q$ goes to infinity, whereas here, the cardinality $|P \cap L|$ goes to infinity and $q$ remains constant at $4$. In a sense, the case $q=4$ is best possible, as witnessed by the following result.
Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup such that $q \le 3$. Then $W_0(S) \ge 0$.
Hence Wilf’s conjecture holds for $q \le 3$. For $q=1$ this is trivial, and for $q=2$ this was first shown in [@K]. Informally, most numerical semigroups satisfy $q \le 3$, as proved by Zhai in [@Z]. Combining these results, it follows that *Wilf’s conjecture is asymptotically true as the genus goes to infinity*.
Contents
--------
In Section \[basic\], we describe the original near-misses of genus $g \le 60$, we recall some basic notions and notation, and we compare the numbers $W(S)$ and $W_0(S)$. In Section \[constructions\] we construct, for any integer $n \ge 3$, a numerical semigroup $S$ for which $q=4$, $|P \cap L|=n$ and $W_0(S) = -\binom{n}{3}$. We start with the case $n=3$, and then generalize it to $n\ge 4$ using the notion of $B_h$ sets from additive combinatorics, specifically for $h=3$. In Section \[satisfying Wilf\], we prove that the numerical semigroups $S$ constructed in Section \[constructions\] all satisfy $W(S) \ge 9$. The paper ends with the conjecture that our construction is optimal, in the sense that if $q=4$ and $|P \cap L|=n$, then probably $W_0(S) \ge -\binom{n}{3}$.
Basic notions and notation {#basic}
==========================
Throughout this section, let $S \subseteq {\mathbb N}$ be a numerical semigroup with multiplicity $m$ and conductor $c$. Recall that $q = \lceil c/m\rceil$ and $\rho =qm-c$.
On the near-misses of genus $g \le 60$
--------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, up to genus $g \le 60$, there are exactly 5 near-misses in Wilf’s conjecture. The following notation will be useful to describe them.
\[truncated\] Given positive integers $a_1,\dots,a_n, t$, we denote $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle a_1,\dots,a_n \rangle} & = & {\mathbb N}a_1+\dots+{\mathbb N}a_n, \\
{\langle a_1,\dots,a_n \rangle}_t & = & {\langle a_1,\dots,a_n \rangle} \cup [t,\infty[.\end{aligned}$$
As is well-known, ${\langle a_1,\dots,a_n \rangle}$ is a numerical semigroup if and only if $\gcd(a_1,\dots,a_n)=1$. On the other hand, ${\langle a_1,\dots,a_n \rangle}_t$ is always a numerical semigroup, even if $a_1,\dots,a_n$ are not globally coprime, and its conductor $c$ satisfies $c \le t$, with equality $c=t$ if and only if $t-1 \notin {\langle a_1,\dots,a_n \rangle}$.
The 5 near-misses up to genus 60 are given in Table \[table\]. They all satisfy $c=4m$, that is $q=4$ and $\rho=0$.
$S$ $m$ $|P|$ $|L|$ $g$ $W_0(S)$ $W(S)$
------------------------------------ --------- -------- ------- ----- ---------- --------
${\langle 14,22,23 \rangle}_{56}$ $14$ $7$ $13$ 43 $-1$ 35
${\langle 16,25,26 \rangle}_{64}$ $16$ $9$ $13$ 51 $-1$ 53
${\langle 17,26,28 \rangle}_{68} $ $17$ $10$ $13$ 55 $-1$ 62
${\langle 17,27,28 \rangle}_{68} $ $17$ $10$ $13$ 55 $-1$ 62
${\langle 18,28,29 \rangle}_{72}$ $18$ $11$ $13$ 59 $-1$ 71
: All near-misses of genus $g \le 60$[]{data-label="table"}
Slicing ${\mathbb N}$
---------------------
Coming back to our given numerical semigroup $S$, we shall denote $$I_q = [c,c+m-1],$$ the leftmost integer interval of length $m$ contained in $S$. More generally, for any $j \in {\mathbb N}$, let us denote by $I_j$ the translate of $I_q$ by $(j-q)m$. That is, $$\begin{aligned}
I_j & = & (j-q)m +[c,c+m-1]\\
& = & [c+(j-q)m,c+(j+1-q)m-1] \\
& = & [jm-\rho,(j+1)m-\rho-1].\end{aligned}$$ Let us also denote $$S_j = S \cap I_{j}.$$ Observe that $S_j=I_j$ if and only if $j \ge q$. Thus $S_q=I_q$ but $S_j \subsetneq I_j $ for $j < q$. Note also that $S_0=\{0\}$ and that $jm \in S_j$. Finally, for $j \ge 1$, let us denote $$\begin{aligned}
P_j &=P \cap S_j, \\
D_j &=D \cap S_j=S_j\setminus P_j.\end{aligned}$$
Comparing $W(S)$ and $W_0(S)$
-----------------------------
Since $P \subseteq [m,c+m-1]$ as mentioned earlier, we have $$P = P_1 \cup \dots \cup P_q.$$ In particular, we have $P \cap L = P_1 \cup \dots \cup P_{q-1}= P \setminus P_q$. The following formula appears in [@E].
\[W0\] We have $W(S) = W_0(S)+|P_q|(|L|-q)$.
By definition, $W(S)=|P||L|-c=|P||L|-qm+\rho$. Now use the two formulas $|P|=|P \cap L|+|P_q|$ and $m=|P_q|+|D_q|$.
If $W_0(S) \ge 0$, then $S$ satisfies Wilf’s conjecture.
We have $|L| \ge q$ since $L \supseteq \{0,1,\dots,q-1\}m$. Thus $|P_q|(|L|-q) \ge 0$, implying $W(S) \ge W_0(S)$ by the above proposition.
Note that if $S$ is a leaf in the tree of all numerical semigroups [@RGGJ1; @RGGJ2; @Br08], *i.e.* if $P=P \cap L$, then $P_q=\emptyset$ and so $W_0(S)=W(S)$ by Proposition \[W0\].
Apéry elements {#subsection Apery}
--------------
As customary, let ${\textrm{Ap}}(S)={\textrm{Ap}}(S,m)$ be the set of *Apéry elements of $S$ with respect to $m$*, namely $$\begin{aligned}
{\textrm{Ap}}(S) & = & \{s \in S \mid s-m \notin S\} \\
& = & \{\min(S \cap (i+m{\mathbb N})) \mid 0 \le i \le m-1\}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $|{\textrm{Ap}}(S)|=m$, and each element of ${\textrm{Ap}}(S)$ is the smallest element of its class mod $m$ in $S$. Note that $\min {\textrm{Ap}}(S)=0$ and $\max {\textrm{Ap}}(S) = c+m-1$. Note also that $P\setminus \{m\} \subseteq {\textrm{Ap}}(S)$.
For convenience, we shall denote $X = {\textrm{Ap}}(S)$ and $X_i=X \cap S_i$ for all $i \ge 0$. Note then that $X_0=\{0\}$.
\[formulas for L and Dq\] We have $$\begin{aligned}
|L| & = & q|X_0|+(q-1)|X_1|+\dots+|X_{q-1}|, \label{equation for L} \\
|D_q| & = & |X_0|+|X_1|+\dots+|X_{q-1}|+|X_q \cap D|. \label{equation for D}\end{aligned}$$
There is the partition $$L \ = \bigsqcup_{0 \le i \le q-1} \big(X_i+[0,q-i-1]\cdot m\big).$$ Indeed, for all $0 \le i \le q-1$, all $x \in X_i$ and all $j \ge 0$, we have $X_i+jm \subseteq S_{i+j}$ and $$(x+m{\mathbb N})\cap L = \{x,x+m,\dots,x+(q-i-1)m\}.$$ Conversely, every $a \in L$ belongs to a unique subset of this form, where $x \in X$ is uniquely determined by the condition $a \equiv x \bmod m$. This yields the stated partition of $L$. Moreover, we have $$|\left(X_i+[0,q-i-1]\cdot m\right)|=(q-i)|X_i|.$$ Whence formula . Similar arguments give rise to the decomposition $$\label{Dq}
D_q \ = \ (X_q \cap D) \ \sqcup \bigsqcup_{0 \le i \le q-1} \big(X_i+(q-i)m\big).$$ Whence formula .
Constructions
=============
In this section, we construct numerical semigroups $S$ such that $c=4m$ and where $W_0(S)$ is arbitrarily small in ${\mathbb Z}$. We start with a construction yielding infinitely many instances satisfying $W_0(S)=-1$. Then, after recalling the notion of $B_h$ sets from additive combinatorics, we use it to construct, for any $n \ge 3$, infinitely many instances satisfying $W_0(S)=-\binom{n}{3}$.
Realizing $W_0(S)=-1$
---------------------
First a notation from additive combinatorics. For nonempty subsets $A,B$ of ${\mathbb Z}$ or of any additively written group $G$, denote $A+B=\{a+b \mid a \in A, b \in B\}$ and $2A=A+A$. More generally, for any $h \in {\mathbb N}_+$, denote $hA=\underbrace{A+\dots+A}_h$.
\[new W0=-1\] Let $m,a,b \in {\mathbb N}_+$ satisfy $(3m+1)/2 \le a < b \le (5m-1)/3$. Let $A = \{a,b\}$, and assume that the elements of $$A \cup 2A \cup 3A= \{a,b,2a,a+b,2b,3a,2a+b, a+2b,3b\}$$ are pairwise distinct mod $m$. Let $S={\langle m,a,b \rangle}_{4m}$. Then $W_0(S)=-1$.
Note that the inequality $(3m+1)/2 < (5m-1)/3$ implies $m \ge 6$, while the hypothesis on $A \cup 2A \cup 3A$ implies $m \ge 9$. The computation of $W_0(S)$ requires several steps.
**Claim 1.** *We have* $$\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}
m+1 & \le & a & < & b & \le & 2m-2, \\
3m+1 & \le & 2a & < & 2b & \le & 4m-2, \\
4m+1 & \le & 3a & < & 3b & \le & 5m-1.
\end{array}$$
Indeed, these rather loose inequalities follow from the hypotheses on $a,b$. Thus $A \subseteq [m+1,2m-2]$, $2A \subseteq [3m+1,4m-2]$ and $3A \subseteq [4m+1,5m-1]$.
**Claim 2.** *Let $c$ be the conductor of $S$. Then $c=4m$, $q=4$ and $\rho=0$.*
Indeed, since $S={\langle m,a,b \rangle}_{4m}$, we have $c \le 4m$ by construction. By Claim 1, we have $${\langle m,a,b \rangle} \cap [3m+1, 4m-1] = (A+2m) \cup 2A \subseteq [3m+1,4m-2].$$ Therefore $4m-1 \notin {\langle m,a,b \rangle}$, implying $c=4m$ as desired. Since $q=\lceil c/m \rceil$ and $\rho=qm-c$, we have $q=4, \rho=0$.
**Claim 3.** *The elements of $\{0\}\cup A \cup 2A \cup 3A$ are pairwise distinct mod $m$.*
Indeed, the elements of $A \cup 2A \cup 3A$ are pairwise distinct mod $m$ by hypothesis, and it follows from Claim 1 that they are nonzero mod $m$.
**Claim 4.** *We have* $$X_1 = A, \ \ X_2 = \emptyset, \ \ X_3 = 2A, \ \ X_4 \cap D = 3A.$$
Indeed, it follows from Claim 3 that $$\label{Ai subset X}
\{0\}\cup A \cup 2A \cup 3A \subseteq X.$$ Since $\rho=0$ by Claim 2, we have $I_j=[jm, jm+m-1]$ for all $j \ge 0$. Hence $S_1=S \cap [m, 2m-1]$, $S_2=S \cap [2m, 3m-1]$, $S_3=S \cap [3m, 4m-1]$ and $S_4= [4m, 5m-1]$. Claim 1 then implies $A \subseteq S_1$, $2A \subseteq S_3$ and $3A \subseteq S_4$. On the other hand, since $c=4m$, we have $L=S_0 \cup S_1 \cup S_2 \cup S_3$, and $L \subseteq {\langle m,a,b \rangle}$ by construction. Consequently, since $X \cap (S+m)=\emptyset$, we have $X \cap L \subseteq {\langle a,b \rangle}$, and similarly $X_4 \cap D \subseteq {\langle a,b \rangle}$. Claim 1 then implies $X \cap S_1 \subseteq A$, $X \cap S_2=~\emptyset$, $X \cap S_3 \subseteq 2A$ and $X \cap S_4 \cap D \subseteq 3A$. The fact that these inclusions are equalities follows from and the claim is proved.
We are now in a position to compute $W_0(S)=|P \cap L||L|-q|D_q|+\rho$. We have $P \cap L=\{m,a,b\}$, $q=4$ and $\rho=0$. Thus $W_0(S)=3|L|-4|D_4|$ here. By Proposition \[formulas for L and Dq\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
|L| & = & 4|X_0|+3|X_1|+2|X_2|+|X_3|, \\
|D_4| & = & |X_0|+|X_1|+|X_2|+|X_3|+|X_4 \cap D|. \end{aligned}$$ Of course $X_0=\{0\}$, as noted in Section \[subsection Apery\]. Moreover $|X_1|=2$, $|X_2|=0$, $|X_3|=3$ and $|X_4 \cap D|=4$. It follows that $|L|=4 \cdot 1+3\cdot 2+2 \cdot 0+1 \cdot 3=13$ and $|D_4|=1+2+0+3+4=10$. Therefore $W_0(S)=3|L|-4|D_4|=-1$, as stated.
As an application, we now provide an explicit construction satisfying the hypotheses, and hence the conclusion, of the above result.
\[cor W0=-1\] Let $k,m$ be integers such that $k \ge 2$, $m \ge 3k+8$ and $m \equiv k \bmod 2$. Let $a=(3m+k)/2$ and let $S={\langle m,a,a+1 \rangle}_{4m}$. Then $W_0(S)=-1$.
Let $b=a+1$ and $A=\{a,b\}$. It suffices to see that the hypotheses of Proposition \[new W0=-1\] on $a,b$ and $A$ are satisfied. The inequalities $$\label{a < b}
(3m+1)/2 \le a < b \le (5m-1)/3$$ follow from the hypotheses $k \ge 2$ and $m \ge 3k+8$. It remains to see that the elements of $A \cup 2A \cup 3A$ are pairwise distinct mod $m$. It is equivalent to see that the elements of $(A+3m) \cup (2A+m) \cup 3A$ are pairwise distinct mod $m$. This in turn follows from the chain of inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
4m+1 &\le 2a+m < a+b+m < 2b+m \\
&< a+3m < b+3m \\
& < 3a < 2a+b < a+2b < 3b \\
&\le 5m-1,\end{aligned}$$ all straightforward consequences of the hypotheses and .
The five near-misses up to genus $60$ listed in Table \[table\], and satisfying $W_0(S)=-1$, are all covered by the above two results. Indeed, four of them are of the form $S={\langle m,a,a+1 \rangle}_{4m}$ and derive from Corollary \[cor W0=-1\], namely with parameters $(m,k)$ = $(14,2), (16,2), (17,3) \textrm{ and }(18,2)$, respectively. The fifth one, that is ${\langle 17,26,28 \rangle}_{68}$, is not of this form but is still covered by Proposition \[new W0=-1\]. Indeed, let $m=17, a=26, b=28$. Then these numbers satisfy all the hypotheses of Proposition \[new W0=-1\], namely $$(3m+1)/2 \le a < b \le (5m-1)/3,$$ and setting $A=\{a,b\}$, we have $2A+m=\{69, 71, 73\}$, $A+3m=\{77,79\}$ and $3A=\{78, 80, 82, 84\}$, showing that the elements of $A \cup 2A \cup 3A$ are pairwise distinct mod $m$, as required.
In order to generalize the above construction and get numerical semigroups $S$ with $q=4$ and $W_0(S)$ negative arbitrarily small, we need the notion of $B_h$ sets from additive combinatorics, specifically for $h=3$.
$B_h$ sets
----------
Let $G$ be an abelian group. Let $A \subseteq G$ be a nonempty finite subset, and let $h \ge 1$ be a positive integer. Then $$\label{hA}
|hA| \le \binom{|A|+h-1}{h}.$$ See [@T Section 2.1]. This upper bound is best understood by noting that the right-hand side counts the number of monomials of degree $h$ in $|A|$ commuting variables.
We say that $A$ is a *$B_h$ set* if equality holds in ; equivalently, if for all $a_1, \dots,a_h, b_1,\dots,b_h \in A$, we have $$a_1+\dots+a_h=b_1+\dots+b_h$$ if and only if $(a_1,\dots,a_h)$ is a permutation of $(b_1,\dots,b_h)$. See [@T Section 4.5].
Here are some remarks and examples. The property of being a $B_h$ set is stable under translation in $G$. Clearly, every nonempty finite subset of $G$ is a $B_1$ set and, if $h \ge 2$, every $B_h$ set is a $B_{h-1}$ set.
In $G = {\mathbb Z}$, any subset $A=\{a,b\}$ of cardinality $2$ is a $B_h$ set for all $h \ge 1$, since $|hA|=h+1=\binom{|A|+h-1}{h}$. On the other hand, the subset $A=\{3,4,5\} \subset ~{\mathbb Z}$ is not a $B_2$ set since $3+5=4+4$ in $2A$. Note that $B_2$ sets are also called *Sidon sets*.
For any integer $h \ge 2$, there are arbitrarily large $B_h$ sets in ${\mathbb N}_+$. Take for instance $A=\{1,h, h^2, \dots, h^t\}$ for any $t \ge 1$.
Note that a $B_h$ set in ${\mathbb Z}$ does not necessarily induce a $B_h$ set in the group ${\mathbb Z}/m{\mathbb Z}$. However, for any finite subset $A \subset {\mathbb Z}$ and integer $m \ge |A|$, if $A$ induces a $B_h$ set of cardinality $|A|$ in ${\mathbb Z}/m{\mathbb Z}$, then clearly $A$ itself is a $B_h$ set in ${\mathbb Z}$.
An instance of a $B_3$ set in ${\mathbb Z}/m{\mathbb Z}$ is provided by Proposition \[new W0=-1\]. Indeed, given $m,a,b$ and $A=\{a,b\}$ as in that proposition, the hypothesis there on $A \cup 2A \cup 3A$ means that $A$ induces a $B_3$ set in ${\mathbb Z}/m{\mathbb Z}$.
Towards arbitrarily small $W_0(S)$ {#arbitrary}
----------------------------------
We now generalize Proposition \[new W0=-1\], allowing for more than 3 left primitive elements, and yielding numerical semigroups $S$, still with $c=4m$, but now with $W_0(S)$ arbitrarily small in ${\mathbb Z}$. The construction requires large $B_3$ sets in ${\mathbb N}_+$.
\[new construction\] Let $m,a,b,n \in {\mathbb N}_+$ satisfy $n \ge 3$ and $$(3m+1)/2 \le a < b \le (5m-1)/3.$$ Let $A \subset {\mathbb N}_+$ be a subset of cardinality $|A|=n-1$ with $\min A=a$, $\max A=b$ and inducing a $B_3$ set in ${\mathbb Z}/m{\mathbb Z}$. Let $S={\langle \{m\} \cup A \rangle}_{4m}$. Then $W_0(S)=-\binom{n}{3}$.
Note that for $n=3$, Proposition \[new construction\] exactly reduces to Proposition \[new W0=-1\].
The proof generalizes that of Proposition \[new W0=-1\]. For convenience, we repeat most of the arguments while adapting them to the present context.
**Claim 1.** *We have* $$\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}
m+1 & \le & a & < & b & \le & 2m-2 \\
3m+1 & \le & 2a & < & 2b & \le & 4m-2 \\
4m+1 & \le & 3a & < & 3b & \le & 5m-1
\end{array}$$
These are easy consequences of the hypotheses on $a,b$. It follows that $A \subseteq [m+1,2m-2]$, $2A \subseteq [3m+1,4m-2]$ and $3A \subseteq [4m+1,5m-1]$.
**Claim 2.** *Let $c$ be the conductor of $S$. Then $c=4m$, $q=4$ and $\rho=0$.*
Indeed, since $S={\langle \{m\} \cup A \rangle}_{4m}$, we have $c \le 4m$, and equality holds since $4m-1 \notin S$ by Claim 1.
**Claim 3.** *The elements of $\{0\}\cup A \cup 2A \cup 3A$ are pairwise distinct mod $m$.*
Indeed, the elements of $A \cup 2A \cup 3A$ are pairwise distinct mod $m$ since $A$ induces a $B_3$ set in ${\mathbb Z}/m{\mathbb Z}$ by hypothesis. Furthermore, it follows from Claim 1 that they are nonzero mod $m$.
**Claim 4.** *We have* $$X_1 = A, \ \ X_2 = \emptyset, \ \ X_3 = 2A, \ \ X_4 \cap D = 3A.$$
This directly follows from the preceding claims. See the corresponding point in the proof of Proposition \[new W0=-1\].
We may now compute $W_0(S)=|P \cap L||L|-q|D_q|+\rho$. We have $P \cap L=\{m\} \cup A$, $q=4$ and $\rho=0$. Hence $|P \cap L|=|A|+1=n$, and so $W_0(S)=n|L|-4|D_4|$ here. By Proposition \[formulas for L and Dq\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
|L| & = & 4|X_0|+3|X_1|+2|X_2|+|X_3|, \\
|D_4| & = & |X_0|+|X_1|+|X_2|+|X_3|+|X_4 \cap D|. \end{aligned}$$ Of course $X_0=\{0\}$. Moreover, we have $|X_1|=|A|$, $|X_2|=0$, $|X_3|=|2A|$ and $|X_4 \cap D|=|3A|$. Now, since $A$ is a $B_3$ set of cardinality $|A|=n-1$, in ${\mathbb Z}/m{\mathbb Z}$ and hence in ${\mathbb Z}$, we have $$|2A|=\binom{n}{2}, \ \ |3A|=\binom{n+1}{3}.$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
|L| & = & 4+3(n-1)+\binom{n}{2} \ \ = \ \ \binom{n}{2}+3n+1, \label{|L|}\\
|D_4| & = & \binom{n-2}{0}+\binom{n-1}{1}+\binom{n}{2}+\binom{n+1}{3} \ \ = \ \ \binom{n+2}{3}. \label{|D|}\end{aligned}$$ A direct computation then yields $\displaystyle W_0(S)=n|L|-4|D_4|=-\binom{n}{3}$, as desired.
Here is an application of Proposition \[new construction\]. We only need a $B_3$ set $A$ in ${\mathbb Z}$; the other hypotheses will force $A$ to induce a $B_3$ set in ${\mathbb Z}/m{\mathbb Z}$, as required.
Let $n \ge 3$ be an integer. Let $A' \subset {\mathbb N}$ be a $B_3$ set of cardinality $n-1$ containing $0$. Let $r = \max A'$. Let $k,m \in {\mathbb N}_+$ satisfy $k \ge r+1$, $m \ge 3k+6r+2$ and $m \equiv k \bmod 2$. Let $a=(3m+k)/2$ and $A=a+A'$. Let $S={\langle \{m\} \cup A \rangle}_{4m}$. Then $W_0(S)=-\binom{n}{3}$.
It suffices to see that $A$ satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition \[new construction\]. We have $a=\min A$. Let $b=\max A=a+r$. The required inequalities $$\label{a < b bis}
(3m+1)/2 \le a < b \le (5m-1)/3$$ then follow from the hypotheses on $k,m,A$. Of course $A$ is a $B_3$ set, being a translate of the $B_3$ set $A'$. It remains to see that $A$ induces a $B_3$ set of the same cardinality in ${\mathbb Z}/m{\mathbb Z}$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
C & = & A \cup 2A \cup 3A, \\
C' & = & (A+3m) \cup (2A+m) \cup 3A.\end{aligned}$$
**Claim.** *$C' \subseteq [4m+1,5m-1]$ and $A+3m$, $2A+m$, $3A$ are pairwise disjoint.*
Indeed, this follows from the chain of inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
4m+1 &\le 2a+m < a+b+m < 2b+m \\
&< a+3m < b+3m \\
& < 3a < 2a+b < a+2b < 3b \\
&\le 5m-1,\end{aligned}$$ all straightforward consequences of the hypotheses and . Since $A$ is a $B_3$ set, the elements of $C$ are pairwise distinct in ${\mathbb Z}$, and hence so are the elements of $C'$ by the above claim. Moreover, since $C' \subseteq [4m+1,5m-1]$, its elements are also pairwise distinct mod $m$. Hence $A$ is a $B_3$ set mod $m$, as desired.
Given $n \ge 3$, here is an explicit infinite family of numerical semigroups $S$ for which $W_0(S)=-\binom{n}{3}$. Let $$A'=\{3^0-1,3-1,\dots,3^{n-2}-1\}.$$ Then $A'$ is a $B_3$ set of cardinality $n-1$ containing $0$, and hence can be used in the above corollary. Let $r=\max A'=3^{n-2}-1$. Let $k$ be any integer such that $k \ge r+1$. Let then $m=3k+6r+2$, $a_k=(3m+k)/2$, $A_k=a_k+A'$ and $S_k={\langle \{m\} \cup A_k \rangle}_{4m}$. Then $W_0(S_k)=-\binom{n}{3}$ for all $k \ge r+1$.
Satisfying Wilf’s conjecture {#satisfying Wilf}
============================
In this section, we show that all the near-misses constructed above satisfy Wilf’s conjecture.
\[satisfaction\] Let $S={\langle \{m\} \cup A \rangle}_{4m}$ be a numerical semigroup as constructed in Proposition \[new construction\]. Then $W(S) \ge 9$.
We shall freely use any information about $S$ provided in the proof of Proposition \[new construction\]. To start with, since $q=4$ here, Proposition \[W0\] gives $$\label{W at q=4}
W(S) = |P_4|(|L|-4)+W_0(S).$$
**Claim.** We have $|P_4| \ge m/6 \ge |D_4|/6$.
Indeed, as $S_4=P_4 \sqcup D_4$ and $|S_4|=m$, it follows that $m=|P_4|+|D_4|$. A decomposition of $D_4$ is provided by , namely $$\label{dec D4}
D_4 \ = \ (X_4 \cap D) \ \sqcup \bigsqcup_{0 \le i \le 3} \big(X_i+(4-i)m\big).$$ By Claim 4 in the proof of Proposition \[new construction\], we have $$X_1 = A, \ \ X_2 = \emptyset, \ \ X_3 = 2A, \ \ X_4 \cap D = 3A,$$ and $X_0=\{0\}$ as always. Injecting this information into yields $$\label{D4}
D_4 \ = \ \{4m\} \sqcup (A+3m)\sqcup (2A+m) \sqcup 3A.$$ By the hypotheses on $a,b$ in Proposition \[new construction\], and since $a,b$ are integers, we have $$\left\lceil(3m+1)/2\right\rceil \ \le \ a \ < \ b \ \le \ \left\lfloor(5m-1)/3\right\rfloor.$$ As easily seen, this implies the following inequalities: $$\begin{array}{ccccccc}
m+ \lceil (m+1)/2 \rceil & \le & a & < & b & \le & m+\lfloor (2m-1)/3\rfloor, \\
3m+ 1 & \le & 2a & < & 2b & \le & 3m+\lfloor (m-2)/3\rfloor, \\
4m+ \lceil (m+3)/2 \rceil & \le & 3a & < & 3b & \le & 4m+(m-1).
\end{array}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
A+3m & \subseteq & 4m+ \left[\lceil(m+1)/2\rceil, \lfloor(2m-1)/3\rfloor\right], \\
2A+m & \subseteq & 4m+ \left[1, \lfloor(m-2)/3\rfloor\right], \\
3A & \subseteq & 4m+ \left[\lceil(m+3)/2\rceil, m-1\right].\end{aligned}$$ Now, the point is that these subsets of $S_4=4m+[0,m-1]$ completely avoid the subinterval $$\begin{aligned}
J & = & 4m+\left[\lfloor(m-2)/3\rfloor+1, \lceil(m+1)/2\rceil-1 \right] \\
& = & 4m+\left[\lfloor(m+1)/3\rfloor, \lceil(m-1)/2\rceil \right].\end{aligned}$$ Thus by , we have $$D_4 \cap J \ = \ \emptyset.$$ Since $J \subseteq S_4=P_4 \sqcup D_4$, it follows that $J \subseteq P_4$. Now, as easily seen by considering the six possible classes of $m$ mod 6, we have $$|J| \ = \ \lceil(m-1)/2\rceil-\lfloor(m+1)/3\rfloor+1 \ \ge \ m/6$$ for all $m \in {\mathbb N}_+$. It follows as claimed that $|P_4| \ge m/6$, and also $|P_4| \ge |D_4|/6$ since $m \ge |D_4|$.
Plugging the latter estimate on $|P_4|$ into yields $$\label{lower}
W(S) \ \ge \ |D_4|(|L|-4)/6+W_0(S).$$ By , we have $\displaystyle |L|-4 = \binom{n}{2}+3(n-1)$, where $n=|P \cap L|=|A|+1$. Hence $(|L|-4)/6 \ge 1$ since $n \ge 3$ by assumption. By , this implies $$W(S) \ \ge \ |D_4|+W_0(S).$$ By Proposition \[new construction\] and its proof, we have $$|D_4|=\binom{n+2}{3}, \quad W_0(S) = -\binom{n}{3}.$$ Whence $W(S) \ge 9$, as desired.
Conjectures
-----------
For $q=4$, the lower bound on $W_0(S)$ in terms of $|P \cap L|$ provided by Proposition \[new construction\] might well be optimal.
\[conj 1\] Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup with $q=4$ and $|P \cap L|=n$. Then $\displaystyle W_0(S) \ge -\binom{n}{3}$.
Here is a more precise formulation.
\[conj 2\] Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup of multiplicity $m$ with $q=4$ and $|P \cap L|=n$. Then the minimum of $W_0(S)-\rho$ should be attained exactly when the following conditions simultaneously hold:
1. $P \cap L \subseteq S_1$,
2. $X_1$ induces a $B_3$ set in ${\mathbb Z}/m{\mathbb Z},$
3. $X_2=\emptyset,$ $X_3 = 2X_1$ and $X_4 \cap D=3X_1$.
We leave it to the reader to see that Conjecture \[conj 2\] implies Conjecture \[conj 1\], for instance by following the proof of Proposition \[satisfaction\].
[aaa]{} <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Bras-Amorós</span>, Fibonacci-like behavior of the number of numerical semigroups of a given genus, Semigroup Forum 76 (2008) 379–384. , On a question of Eliahou and a conjecture of Wilf, Math. Zeitschrift (2017), DOI 10.1007/s00209-017-1902-3. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">M. Delgado, P.A. García-Sánchez and J. Morais</span>, “Numericalsgps”: a GAP package on numerical semigroups. (<http://www.gap-system.org/Packages/numericalsgps.html>) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">D. Dobbs and G. Matthews</span>, On a question of Wilf concerning numerical semigroups, in: Focus on Commutative Rings Research, Nova Sci. Publ., New York, 2006, pp. 193–202. , Wilf’s conjecture and Macaulay’s theorem, (2015) arXiv:1703.01761 \[math.CO\]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">R. Fröberg, C. Gottlieb and R. Häggkvist</span>, On numerical semigroups, Semigroup Forum 35 (1987) 63–83. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J. Fromentin and F. Hivert</span>, Exploring the tree of numerical semigroups, Math. Comp. 85 (2016) 2553–2568. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">N. Kaplan</span>, Counting numerical semigroups by genus and some cases of a question of Wilf, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 216 (2012) 1016–1032. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Moscariello and A. Sammartano</span>, On a conjecture by Wilf about the Frobenius number, Math. Z. 280 (2015) 47–53. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.L. Ramírez Alfonsín</span>, The Diophantine Frobenius problem. Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications 30, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.C. Rosales and P.A. García-Sánchez</span>, Numerical semigroups. Developments in Mathematics, 20. Springer, New York, 2009. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.C. Rosales, P.A. García-Sánchez, J.I. García-García and J.A. Jiménez Madrid</span>, The oversemigroups of a numerical semigroup, Semigroup Forum 67 (2003) 145–158. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.C. Rosales, P.A. García-Sánchez, J.I. García-García and J.A. Jiménez Madrid</span>, Fundamental gaps in numerical semigroups, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 189 (2004) 301–313. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Sammartano</span>, Numerical semigroups with large embedding dimension satisfy Wilf’s conjecture, Semigroup Forum 85 (2012) 439–447. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">E.S. Selmer</span>, On a linear Diophantine problem of Frobenius, J. Reine Angew. Math. 293/294 (1977) 1–17. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">J.J. Sylvester</span>, Mathematical questions with their solutions, Educational Times 41 (1884) 21. , Additive Combinatorics. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 105. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006. ISBN: 978-0-521-85386-6; 0-521-85386-9. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">H. Wilf</span>, A circle-of-lights algorithm for the money-changing problem, Amer. Math. Monthly 85 (1978) 562–565. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">A. Zhai</span>, Fibonacci-like growth of numerical semigroups of a given genus, Semigroup Forum 86 (2013) 634–662.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article, we continue our investigation on the role of non-commutativity in quantum theory. Using the method explained in *On non-commutativity in quantum theory (I): from classical to quantum probability*, we analyze two toy models which exhibit non-commutativity between the corresponding position and velocity random variables. In particular, using ordinary probability theory, we study the kinematics of a point-like particle jumping at random over a discrete random space. We show that, after the removal of the random space from the model, the position and velocity of the particle do not commute, when represented as operators on the same Hilbert space.'
author:
- Curcuraci Luca
bibliography:
- 'bib-b2.bib'
title: |
On non-commutativity in quantum theory (II):\
toy models for non-commutative kinematics.
---
Introduction
============
In [@LC] we proposed a method to construct a non-commutative probability theory starting from a collection of ordinary probability spaces (i.e. a contextual probability space [@khrennikov2009contextual]) using entropic uncertainty relations. In this article, following this method, we try to shed some light on the non-commutativity in quantum mechanics. In particular, we will focus on the fundamental commutation relation $$\label{[Q,P]}
[\hat{Q},\hat{P}] = i\hbar {\hat{\mathbb{I}}}$$ between position and momentum operators in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. The goal is to construct a Kolmogorov probabilistic model in which this commutation relation and, more generally, non-relativistic quantum mechanics can be recovered. To achieve this, we will present two toy models describing the kinematics of a point-like particle jumping at random over a random discrete space. As we will see, in these toy models a full derivation of the commutation relation is not possible (hence no direct comparison with non-relativistic quantum mechanics is available) but from them, we may understand how such a model should look like. Such model will be presented in [@LC3].
The main idea is the following. In the framework of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, the statistical description of a free particle in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ is done by using an element of a separable infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, $\psi \in L_2({\mathbb{R}}^3)$, and a set of non-commuting (in general) self-adjoint operators on this Hilbert space. As we have seen, non-commutativity has various consequences like Heisenberg uncertainty principle, CHSH inequalities (when also the spin is considered) and, most important, the impossibility to abandon the Hilbert space description[^1]. The basic assumption of the models presented here is that space (time is still a parameter) plays an active role in the description of a particle. More precisely, we will treat particles as point-like objects and the *physical space* as a random distribution of points. With the term physical space", we mean the space on which particles actually move: for example the physical space of classical mechanics is ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. The random distribution of points used to describe the physical space is not static but evolves stochastically in time according to some law. We also assume that a particle moves by jumping at random from one point of the physical space to another. The particle and physical space are described using random variables in the framework of ordinary probability theory. When we want to describe *only* the particle, we have to remove (the exact meaning of this term will be clarified later) the random variables describing the physical space: this will be the origin of the non-commutativity between the position and the velocity operators of the particle in these models.
The article is organized as follows. In section \[SpaceTime\] we will give some physical arguments supporting the basic assumptions of the model about the physical space, then in section \[mA\], we will discuss a toy model where time is discrete. This will be generalized in section \[mB\] to the continuous time case. In both models, we will derive an entropic uncertainty relation for the position and velocity random variables. This allows to conclude that they can be represented on a common Hilbert space as two non-commuting operators (using the results presented in [@LC]). For each toy model, we point out positive aspects and limitations.
Space and time in quantum mechanics {#SpaceTime}
===================================
In the models proposed in the subsequent sections, space will be treated as a stochastic process, while time will be a parameter. Here we try to argue our choice of space and time using ordinary non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
Let us start with the *time*. In ordinary quantum mechanics, time is a parameter, and we will treat it in the same way also in the proposed models. It is known that, associate to time an operator $\hat{T}$ which is the canonical conjugate of the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$, i.e. $[\hat{T},\hat{H}] = i {\hat{\mathbb{I}}}$, is problematic [@bunge1970so]. Different proposals are available [@wang2007introduce] however, none of them can be considered as a satisfactory solution of the problem: 1) one may use an operator $\hat{T}$ which is not self-adjoint and fulfil the commutation relation, but then one has to deal with complex eigenvalues of such operator; 2) one may choose an Hamiltonian which is not bounded from below and fulfil the commutation relation using a self-adjoint $\hat{T}$, but such Hamiltonian does not describe stable physical systems. Giving up to fulfil the relation $[\hat{T},\hat{H}] = i {\hat{\mathbb{I}}}$, another possible way to introduce a time operator is the following. Suppose we have a quantum particle, described at time $t$ by the vector $|\psi_t \rangle \in {\mathcal{H}}$, and whose time evolution is given by the Schödingher equation, as usual. We want to define the time operator $\hat{T}$ as the operator such that $$\hat{T} | \psi_t \rangle = t | \psi_t \rangle,$$ for any $|\psi_t\rangle \in {\mathcal{H}}$. Since $t \in {\mathbb{R}}$ the spectrum is real, hence $\hat{T}$ is self-adjoint. No commutation relation with the Hamiltonian is assumed, hence we are free to assume the energy spectrum bounded from below. In addition, we also assume that $\hat{T}$ commutes with all the operators over ${\mathcal{H}}$. This is reasonable from the physical point of view since we can always measure time together with any other observable of the particle in a non-relativistic experiment. Indeed in non-relativistic systems, the time in any clock of the laboratory is the time at which the quantum particle is measured in the same experiment. Assuming that, the spectral representation theorem [@LC; @moretti2013spectral] implies that $${\mathcal{H}}= \int^{\bigoplus}_{{\mathbb{R}}} {\mathcal{H}}_t dt$$ where $\int^{\oplus} \cdot$ means the continuous direct sum. The unitary time evolution $\hat{U}_t$ induced by the Schödinger equation, can be seen as a map between different Hilbert spaces in the direct sum above, namely $\hat{U}_{s}:{\mathcal{H}}_t \rightarrow {\mathcal{H}}_{t+s}$. By the spectral decomposition theorem [@LC; @moretti2013spectral], the operator $\hat{T}$ can be written as $$\hat{T} = \int^{\bigoplus}_{\mathbb{R}}t {\hat{\mathbb{I}}}_{{\mathcal{H}}_t} dt$$ where ${\hat{\mathbb{I}}}_{{\mathcal{H}}_t}$ is the identity on the Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_t$. In [@LC] we saw that non-commuting operators over a Hilbert space are the non-commutative version of random variables and that, their probability distributions are all encoded in a state defined on the algebra that they form (typically represented using a vector of the Hilbert space on which they are defined). In all attempts seen above to define a time operator, we cannot consider time as a random variable with probability distribution *induced by the quantum state used to describe the particle*. Indeed, if $\hat{T}$ is not self-adjoint, it corresponds to a random variable taking value on ${\mathbb{C}}$, which is hardly identifiable with physical time. If $\hat{T}$ is self-adjoint but $\hat{H}$ is not bounded from below, the time is a random variable but of an unphysical system. Finally, in the last possibility, we can easily understand that no statistical information about time is contained in $|\psi_t\rangle$. For these reasons in the proposed models, we can safely treat time as a parameter without neglecting possible quantum effects".
Now we turn our attention to *space*. In this case the situation is different. Consider a quantum particle in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, hence with Hilbert space $L_2({\mathbb{R}}^3)$. Let $\mathbf{x} = (x_1,x_2,x_3) \in {\mathbb{R}}^3$, the position operator is defined as $$\hat{Q}_i\psi(\mathbf{x}) = x_i \psi(\mathbf{x}) \mspace{30mu} i= 1,2,3$$ for all $\psi(\mathbf{x}) \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$, i.e. all the Schwartz functions on ${\mathbb{R}}^3$. $\hat{Q}_i$ is self-adjoint and does not commute with the momentum operator. The previous arguments does not apply and it can be legitimately considered as a random variable whose statistical properties are described by the wave function. However, $\hat{Q}_i$ represents on the Hilbert space the random variable describing the $i$-th coordinate of the *particle position*, and is not related to the underlying physical space. The particle position is the random phenomena, not the physical space where the particle lives. In appendix A, a simple model of ruler described within the formalism of non-relativistic quantum mechanics is given. In a nutshell, a quantum ruler can be considered as a collection of quantum particles bounded together and localised in a given region of space. Particles are assumed distinguishable, so they can be counted, and each particle can be found in two different states, labeled by a spin variable. Before any measurement, the spin variables of the ruler are in a known configuration. The measurement is modelled with a contact interaction (between the ruler and the particle we want to measure) which generates a spin-flip. A (projective) measurement of the quantum ruler (as a photograph) right after the interaction reveals which particle of the ruler touches" the measured quantum particle. We can then count the number of particles between the spin-flipped particle and a chosen origin on the ruler (see the distance functions in appendix B for some possible methods). Repeating this procedure many times, we obtain that the probability to find the $i$-th particle of the ruler with the spin flipped is well approximated by $$P[X_A = i] = \int \prod_{j = 1}^N dy_j |\psi_R(y_1,\cdots,y_i, \cdots, y_N)|^2 |\phi_A(y_i)|^2,$$ where $N$ is the number of particles of the quantum ruler, $\psi_R(y_1,\cdots,y_i, \cdots, y_N)$ is the wave function of the quantum ruler and $\phi_A(x)$ is the wave function of the quantum particle whose position is measured. In appendix A, it is argued that under reasonable assumptions, the expression above reduces to $|\phi_A(x)|^2$ as expected. Note that in the above expression, we have two contributions to the probability: one due to the particle and one due to the ruler. Hence, if we construct the physical space of a quantum system using a quantum mechanical model of a ruler, we may legitimately think that the physical space of quantum mechanics can be described by random variables.
We conclude by observing that the argument presented here about space *is not loophole free*. One can always argue that the stochasticity we observe in the physical space is an artifact of the ruler: the ruler is random, not the space. This is clearly another legitimate possibility, but in this article, we want to explore the consequences of *the choice of considering space as a random phenomenon*.
Model A: Discrete-time $1$-D kinematics on a random space {#mA}
=========================================================
Here we will describe a discrete (and finite) random space and a particle moving on it jumping at random from one point of space to another. Space, position, and velocity of the particle at a given time will be treated in the same way: using random variables. The whole model is 1-dimensional. We will show that, once the space process is removed from the model, the position and velocity of the particle can be jointly described in a non-commutative probability space.
The space process {#ModA:SPsec}
-----------------
\[sec3a\]
The process describing space in this model (Model A) we will be called *space process*. The space process is assumed to be a discrete and finite set of points distributed at random. More precisely, at each instant of time, space is a random distribution of $M \in {\mathbb{N}}$ points over the real line. Such points evolve in time as discrete-time random walks and, in this sense, space is a *stochastic process*. This time evolution has a twofold interpretation. A first possibility is to think it with respect to the real line: a point of the space process is a random walk and it changes its position along the line as time changes. A second possible way to see this time evolution is to look at its effects on the ordering among points“: the points change their distances with respect to a chosen point (the origin) when this distance is measured on the points” (see the distances defined in appendix B). In some sense this second point of view can be considered as an internal description: it describes space as if the observer has no possibility to see the continuous real line. On the other hand, the first possibility should be considered as an external description[^2]. For simplicity, we chose to describe the whole model from the first point of view. Nothing forbids to adopt the second point of view for the description despite, at a first look, it seems more complicated.
Let us recall some basic facts about the random walk [@rudnick2004elements]. Consider a lattice of points having spacing $l \in {\mathbb{R}}$, say ${\mathbb{Z}}_l := \{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}\mspace{5mu} | \mspace{5mu} x = ln, n \in {\mathbb{Z}}\}$. Then take a collection of independent, identically distributed Bernulli random variables $\{Y_i\}_{i = 1}^\infty$, characterised by the probabilities $P[Y_i = -l] = p$ and $P[Y_i = +l] = q =1-p$ for all $i$. Using this collection, we can define the random walk as the process $$\label{RandomWalk}
S_N := \sum_{i =0}^N Y_i$$ where $Y_0$ is an arbitrary random variable with distribution $\pi(y_0)$ taking value on ${\mathbb{Z}}_l$, representing the initial position of the random walk. $N$ labels time (assumed discrete) and $S_N$ represents the position of the random walk at time $N$. Let us now derive the probability distribution of the random walk position at time $N$, i.e. $S_N$. Consider the random walk at time $N$. Since at each time-step the random walk can move by $+l$ or by $-l$ its position, if for $n < N$ times the random walk moves by $-l$, its final position $d$ will be $$d = (N-n)l -nl = (N - 2n)l$$ Using this equation we can see that, if at time $N$ the random walk is found in $d$, the number of times the random walk moves by $-l$ is $$n = \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{d}{l} + N \right).$$ Clearly, the number of times it moves by $+l$ will be $N -n$. Note that the chronological order of the movements does not make any difference on the final position. Assume, for the moment, that the initial position $Y_0$ is given, and set it $Y_0 = 0$. Since for a given $d = (N - 2n)l$ the random walk is just the sum of Bernulli random variables, i.e. a binomial process, we can write $$\begin{split}
P[S_N = d] &= \binom{N}{n}p^n (1-p)^{N-n} \\
&= \binom{N}{\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{d}{l} + N \right)} p^{\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{d}{l} + N \right)}(1-p)^{N - \frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{d}{l} + N \right) } \\
&= \binom{N}{\frac{d + N}{2l} } p^{\frac{d + Nl}{2l}}(1-p)^{\frac{Nl - d}{2l}}.
\end{split}$$ Nevertheless this formula holds only for $d \in [-lN, lN]$. If $d > lN$ or $d<-Nl$, this probability must be zero because these regions of space cannot be reached by the random walk in $N$ time-steps. Restoring $Y_0$ (hence we simply translate the final position $d$ by $Y_0 = y_0$), we can write that $$\label{RandomWalkProb|C}
\begin{split}
P[S_N - y_0 = d - y_0] = \binom{N}{\frac{d + N}{2l} } p^{\frac{d + N}{2l}}(1-p)^{\frac{N - d }{2l}},
\end{split}$$ Note that can be used as a probability only when the value of the random variable $Y_0$ is given: hence it is a conditional probability with respect to the value of $Y_0$, i.e. $P[S_N - y_0 = d - y_0] = P[S_N= d| Y_0 = y_0]$ . To complete the description of the random walk , using the Bayes theorem we obtain $$\label{RandomWalkProb}
P[S_N = d] = \sum_{y_0 \in {\mathbb{Z}}_l} P[S_N = d| Y_0 = y_0]\pi(y_0),$$ which is the probability to find the random walk at time $N$ in the position $d \in {\mathbb{Z}}_l$, given that at the initial time it started from the position $Y_0$, random variable with distribution $\pi(y_0)$. Without loosing generality, we set $l =1$ for simplicity. We conclude our review on basic facts about the random walk, formalising the description at measure-theoretic level. As for any stochastic process, also for the random walk, there exists a probability space $(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)$. The sample space $\Omega$ can be imagined as the set of all possible trajectories of the random walk. It is a countable set (provided that the time of the random walk vary over a finite interval), since the random walk is a discrete process. ${\mathcal{E}}$ is a $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega$, and can be thought as the power set of $\Omega$, i.e. ${\mathcal{E}}= \mathcal{P}(\Omega)$[^3], while $P$ is the probability measure. The random walk on this probability space is the identity random variable evaluated at a given time $N$, i.e. for $s\in \Omega$ the position of the random walk at time $N$ is $S_N(s) = s(N)$.
Let us now come back to the space process. As stated in the beginning, it consists of a collection of $M$ random walks. At any time step $N$, the random distribution of points of the random walks is the space process of model A at time $N$. We may start with this preliminary definition.
Let $\{S^{(i)}_N\}_{i \in I} $ be a collection of independent random walks, where $|I| = M \in {\mathbb{N}}$, defined as in and described with the probability distributions . We call such a collection the *space process* for the Model $A$.
A possible realisation of the space process is given in figure \[fig:SP\].
![A realisation of an $M=5$ space process ${\mathbb{S}^A}$ is given. The set of coloured point at any time step represents the random distribution of points of the space process at a fixed time step, ${\mathbb{S}^A}_N$. The dashed lines liking the points of the same color represent the random walk evolution of each point of the space process. Such evolution changes the random distribution of points of the space process as time changes. Note that at a given time step, points may overlap.[]{data-label="fig:SP"}](SP.pdf)
We label the space process of model A with the symbol ${\mathbb{S}^A}$, while ${\mathbb{S}^A}_N$ is the space process at the time-step $N$ (hence a random variable describing the distribution of $M$ points in ${\mathbb{R}}$). The outcome of the random variable ${\mathbb{S}^A}_N$, can be thought as a $M$-tuple, i.e. ${\mathbf{S}}_N = (s_1(N),\cdots, s_M(N))$ where $s_i(N) \in {\mathbb{R}}$ is the position of the $i$-th random walk at time $N$. Call $\tilde{P}^A$ the probability measure for the space process ${\mathbb{S}^A}$. Since the random walks are assumed to be independent, the probability to obtain a specific configuration is given by $$\label{Pro1}
\tilde{P}^A[{\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N] = \prod_{i =1}^M P[S_N^{(i)} = s_{i}(N)].$$ For the same reason, it may happen that for some realisation the points overlap. In a similar manner, we can also construct the joint probabilities $$\begin{split}\label{Pro2}
\tilde{P}^A[{\mathbb{S}^A}_N &= {\mathbf{S}}_N, {\mathbb{S}^A}_T = {\mathbf{S}}'_T] = \\
&\prod_{i,j =1}^M P[S_N^{(i)} = s_{i}(N), S_T^{(j)} = s'_{j}(T)].
\end{split}$$ Note that $P[S_N^{(i)} = s_{i}(N), S_T^{(j)} = s'_{j}(T)]$ can be constructed using the independence of random walks when $i \neq j$, while for $i=j$ it is just the joint probability distribution of the $i$-th random walk. Proceeding in this way, we may construct the whole family of finite-dimensional distributions for the space process ${\mathbb{S}^A}$, which is consistent since the probabilities of the single random walks belongs to consistent families (in the sense of the Kolmogorov extension theorem, see Th. 2.1.5 in [@oksendal2013stochastic]). At this point we may replace the preliminary definition of the space process with the following which is more precise.
Let $\{S_N^{(i)}\}_{i \in I}$ be a collection of $M = |I| \in {\mathbb{N}}$ independent random walks defined on probability spaces $\{(\Omega_i,{\mathcal{E}}_i,P_i)\}_{i \in I}$. Let us define
1. $\Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}} :=\Omega_1 \times \cdots \times \Omega_M $;
2. ${\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}= \mathcal{P}(\Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}})$;
3. $\tilde{P}^A: {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^A}} \rightarrow [0,1]$ defined from the $\{P_i\}_{i \in I}$, as in or and generalisation.
The space process is the stochastic process on $(\Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}},{\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^A}},\tilde{P}^A)$ defined as the identity function, namely ${\mathbb{S}^A}(s_1,\cdots,s_M ) = (s_1, \cdots, s_M)$.
The set of all the possible configurations of points of the space process at a given time $N$ will be labeled by $\mathcal{S}(N)$.
The particle process {#sec3b}
--------------------
In this model, a particle is considered as a point-like object. At any time step $N$, it is completely described by its *position* and its *velocity*, which are assumed to be random variables.
The *position random variable*, labeled by $X_N$, is interpreted as the actual position of the particle at time $N$. Let $(\Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}},{\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^A}},\tilde{P}^A)$ be the probability space for the space process. On a probability space $(\Omega_I,{\mathcal{E}}_I,P_I)$ define an integer value discrete-time stochastic process $I_N: \Omega_I \rightarrow \{1,\cdots, M\}$, which we call *selection process*. Assume that we place the origin of a reference frame in ${\mathbb{S}^A}_N$ in the point $S^{(i_O)}_N({\mathbf{S}})$. Then we define $$\label{PosProc}
X_N(\omega) := \pi_{I_N(\omega_I)}({\mathbb{S}^A}_N({\mathbf{S}})) - S^{(i_O)}_N({\mathbf{S}}),$$ where $\pi_i$ is the projector of the $i$-th component of an $M$-tuple, and $\omega = (\omega_I, {\mathbf{S}})$ with $\omega_I \in \Omega_I$ and ${\mathbf{S}}\in \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}$. Hence we can say that $X_N = S^{(i_N)}_N - S^{(i_O)}_N$ for some $i_N \in \{1,\cdots,M\}$ and $S_N^{(i)},S^{(i_O)}_N \in {\mathbf{S}}_N$ components of a given realisation of the space process at time $N$ (the writing $x \in \mathbf{y}$“, where $x$ is a point and $\mathbf{y}$ is an $N$-tuple, should be interpreted as $x$ is a member of the $N$-tuple $\mathbf{y}$”). Thus we have the following definition:
Consider the probability space $(\Omega_I \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, {\mathcal{E}}_I \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, P^A)$ and a measurable space $({\mathbb{Z}}, \mathcal{P}({\mathbb{Z}}))$. The random variable $X_N$ is the $\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{Z}})$-measurable function $$X_N: \Omega_I \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}} \rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}$$ defined as in . $X_N$ represents the position of the particle at time $N$.
Note that on the probability space $(\Omega_I \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, {\mathcal{E}}_I \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, P^A)$ we can describe also the space process ${\mathbb{S}^A}$ by simply demanding that $P^A \circ [{\mathbb{S}^A}]^{-1} = \tilde{P}^A$. From now on in the whole discussion of model A, instead of writing $P^A$ we simply write $P$ if no confusion arises. By construction, $X_N$ is a function of the space process ${\mathbb{S}^A}$. This implies that $X_N$ and ${\mathbb{S}^A}_N$ are not two independent random variables. Indeed, assume $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{S}^A}_N({\mathbf{S}}) &= {\mathbf{S}}_N := (x_1, \cdots, x_M), \\
{\mathbb{S}^A}_N({\mathbf{S}}') &= {\mathbf{S}}_N' := (x_1',\cdots,x_M'),
\end{split}$$ and that we can fix a common origin on them, say $x_o \in {\mathbf{S}}_N \cap {\mathbf{S}}_N'$. Choose ${\mathbf{S}}$ and ${\mathbf{S}}'$ such that there exists $z + x_o \in {\mathbf{S}}_N$ but $z + x_o \notin {\mathbf{S}}_N'$, i.e. ${\mathbb{S}^A}_N({\mathbf{S}})$ and ${\mathbb{S}^A}_N({\mathbf{S}}')$ have at least one point which is not in common. Then $$P[X_N = z | {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N] \neq P[X_N = z | {\mathbb{S}^A}_N ={\mathbf{S}}_N'],$$ since the second term vanishes by construction while the first can be non-zero in general. Thus we cannot set $P[X_N = z | {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N] = P[X_N = z]$ in general, which implies $$P[X_N = z, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N] \neq P[X_N = z]P[{\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N]$$
Let us now describe the *velocity random variable*. In order to introduce this process, we need to specify how the particle moves on a physical space described with the space process introduced before. We assume that particle moves by jumps: it jumps from one of the points of the space process at time $N$ to another point of the space process at time $N+1$. These jumps are described by the transition probabilities $$\label{TransProb}
P[X_{N+1} = b | X_N = a] = \alpha(b,a),$$ where $a,b \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Once these transition probabilities are given, we can define the velocity random variable $V_N$. We set $$\label{VeloProc}
V_N := \frac{X_{N+1} - X_N}{N+1 -N} = X_{N+1} - X_N.$$ This is clearly the discrete-time version of the usual definition of velocity. Note that this physical definition makes sense because, thanks to the transition probabilities , we can describe $V_N$ from the probabilistic point of view using only information available at time $N$. More formally, the transition probabilities allows to describe $V_N$ on the same probability space of $X_N$, i.e. $(\Omega_I \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, {\mathcal{E}}_I \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, P^A)$.
Consider the probability space $(\Omega_{I}\times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, {\mathcal{E}}_I \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, P^A)$ and the measurable space $({\mathbb{Z}}, \mathcal{P}({\mathbb{Z}}))$. The velocity random variable $V_N$ is the $\mathcal{P}({\mathbb{Z}})$-measurable function $$V_N: \Omega_{I}\times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}} \rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}$$ defined in . $V_N$ represents the velocity of the particle at time $N$.
Also the velocity random variable is a function of the space process and, proceding as done for $X_N$, we may conclude that $P[V_N =c , {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N] \neq P[V_N =c]P[{\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N]$. Let us now derive the relation between the probabilities $P[V_N = c]$ and $P[X_N = a]$, in a way that is consistent with the transition probabilities . It can be done following this intuitive idea. Suppose that at time $N$ we know that the particle is in the position $X_N = a$. Then the event $A:= \{X_N = a\}$ is true, i.e. $P(A) = P[X_N = a] = 1$, which means that $P[X_N = a'|A] = \delta_{a,a'}$. Under the same conditions, one should also write that $V_N = X_{N+1} - a$, and this suggests that the probability to observe $V_N = c$ is equal to the probability to observe $X_{N+1} = a+c$, when $A$ happens. Thus, using we can write that $$P[V_N=c|A] = P[X_{N+1}=a+c|A] = \alpha(a+c,a).$$ The equation above can be confirmed in a more rigorous way.
\[conditionalVel\] Let $X_N$ and $V_N$ be the position and the velocity random variables. If $P[X_{N+1} = b|X_N =a] = \alpha(b,a)$, then $P[V_N = c| A] = \alpha(a+c,a)$ where $A = \{X_N =a\}$.
Since $V_N = X_{N+1} - X_N$, clearly $X_{N+1}$ and $X_{N}$ are conditionally independent under the event $A = \{X_N = a\}$. Let $\varphi_{V_N}(\lambda)|_A$, $\varphi_{X_{N+1}}(\lambda)|_A$ and $\varphi_{X_N}(\lambda)|_A$ be the characteristic functions of the three random variables considered here, computed with the conditional probabilities. By conditional independence we can write that $$\varphi_{V_N}(\lambda)|_A = \varphi_{X_{N+1}}(\lambda)|_A \cdot\varphi_{-X_N}(\lambda)|_A.$$ Since $$\begin{split}
\varphi_{-X_N}(\lambda)|_A &= \sum_{a'} e^{-i \lambda a'}\delta_{a,a'} = e^{-i\lambda a} \\
\varphi_{X_{N+1}}(\lambda)|_A &= \sum_{b} \alpha(b,a)e^{i \lambda b}
\end{split}$$ we have that $$\varphi_{V_N}(\lambda)|_A = \sum_{b} \alpha(b,a)e^{i\lambda (b - a)}.$$ Because $b-a \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, clearly $\varphi_{V_N}(\lambda)|_A = \varphi_{V_N}(\lambda + 2\pi)|_A$ which means that the random variable $V_N$ is a discrete random variable (as expected). The inversion formula of the characteristic function, in this case is $$P[V_N = c| A] = \lim_{T \rightarrow +\infty} \frac{1}{2T} \int_{-T}^{+T} e^{-i \lambda c}\varphi_{V_N}(\lambda)|_A d\lambda.$$ Thus $$\begin{split}
P[V_N = c| A] &= \lim_{T \rightarrow +\infty} \frac{1}{2T} \int_{-T}^{+T} e^{-i \lambda c}\sum_{b} \alpha(b,a)e^{i\lambda (b - a)} d\lambda \\
&= \sum_{b} \alpha(b,a) \lim_{T \rightarrow +\infty} \frac{1}{2T} \int_{-T}^{+T} e^{i\lambda (b - a -c)} d\lambda \\
&= \sum_{b} \alpha(b,a) \lim_{T \rightarrow +\infty} \frac{e^{iT (b - a -c)} - e^{iT (b - a -c)}}{2Ti(b-a-c)} \\
&= \sum_{b} \alpha(b,a) \lim_{T \rightarrow +\infty} \mbox{sinc}(T(b-a-c))
\end{split}$$ where $\mbox{sinc}(x) = \sin x / x$. Since $\lim_{a \rightarrow \infty} \mbox{sinc}(ax) = \delta_{x,0}$ when $x \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, we conclude that $$P[V_N = c| A] = \sum_{b} \alpha(b,a) \delta_{b-a-c , 0} = \alpha(a+c,a).$$ This concludes the proof.
At this point, we may obtain $P[V_N = c]$ simply using the Bayes theorem, namely $$\label{BayesV}
P[V_N = c] = \sum_a \alpha(a+c,a)P[X_N =a]$$ which is consistent with the transition probabilities given in the beginning. The following assumption on the transition probabilities is done $$\label{transiprobi}
P[V_N = c | X_N =a] = P[X_N = a | V_N = c],$$ i.e. the transition probabilities are *symmetric* under the exchange of their arguments. Having defined both the position and velocity random variables, we may give a precise definition of what we call particle in Model A .
A particle is a point like-object whose features at time $N$ are completely specified by the position and velocity random variables. More formally, we can say that a particle corresponds to the random vector $\mathscr{P}_N := (X_N,V_N)$. We will refer to $\mathscr{P}_N$ with the name *particle process*, when considered as a function of time.
An example of particle process is drawn in figure \[fig:PP\].
![A possible realization of the particle process is drawn in red, over the same realization of the space process considered in figure \[fig:SP\]. The position of the particle at a given time-step is given by the red point while its velocity at the same time-step is represented by the outgoing arrow.[]{data-label="fig:PP"}](PP.pdf)
Remove the space from the model
-------------------------------
In this section, we will explain what we mean with the expression remove the space from the model". In [@LC] we observed that, given three random variables $X$, $Y$ and $Z$ on the same probability space ${(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)}$, one can eliminate one of them, say $Z$, simply by conditioning with respect to the outcomes of this random variable, i.e. conditioning on the events $\{Z=z\}$. In the collection of probability spaces obtained after conditioning, the description of the random variable $Z$ is not anymore possible unless one adds the probabilities $P[Z=z]$. Such information cannot be obtained from the collection of probability spaces one has after conditioning. The statistical description of the remaining random variables can be done without influence the random variable $Z$: in this sense $Z$ is not present anymore in the probabilistic model used to describe $X$ and $Y$. However, when we deal with a stochastic process the elimination of a random variable representing it at given time, do not guarantee that we can manipulate all the remaining random variables without influence the stochastic process (which means that we can describe the remaining random variables without influence the removed process). In this case we need to add additional conditions in order to be sure that the stochastic process is not present anymore in the remaining probabilistic model. Once that we apply a procedure that is capable to do so, we say that the stochastic process is *removed from the model*.
Model A exhibits features that are interesting from the point of view of quantum mechanics when we remove the space process from the model. Before describing how to implement it mathematically, let us first explain the physical principles that motivate this removal. Model A describes a particle that jumps at random over a random distribution of points. Such a random distribution of points is assumed to be the physical space in which the particle moves: the physical space is not anymore a passive background against which physical processes take place. Preparing the particle in a given state means to perform an experimental procedure after which the statistical properties of the particle’s observables are known. In other words, the state preparation is an experimental procedure such that right after it terminates, all random variables associated to the particle’s observables have a given probability distribution. Hence, saying that a particle at time $N$ is in a given state, means that at time $N$ all probability distributions of the observables of the particle are fixed. However, assuming that the physical space is random has big consequences. Any experimental procedure happens in such a physical space. If the experimental procedure for the state preparation ends at time $N$, the probability distributions of the observables are always conditioned to the configuration of space at that time. This is because one prepares the state of the particle at time $N$, in the configuration of space that the space process assumes at that time. Hence the probability distributions that describe the particle must be always conditioned to some space configuration. If it is not so, to prepare the particle in a given state we need to have control not only on it but also on the whole space. This means that the probability distribution that describes the space process at a given time does not depend on the probabilities describing the particle after a preparation procedure. In other words, changing the probability distributions describing the particle (i.e. changing the state) does not have to modify the probability distributions describing the space process. When this happens we say that the space process is removed from model A. In order to implement that, we have to require the following:
1. The particle at time $N$ can be described only by using probabilities that are conditioned with respect to some space configuration at that time. This means that to describe the position and velocity random variables we have to use only $$\begin{split}
P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a] &:= P[X_N = a | {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N], \\
P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = c] &:= P[V_N = c | {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N],
\end{split}$$ where ${\mathbf{S}}_N$ is the configuration of the space process at time $N$.
2. The transition probabilities of any point of space (i.e. $p_{i} = P[S^{(i)}_{N+1} = a + 1|S^{(i)}_N = a]$ for all $i \in I$) cannot be changed by the preparation procedure of the particle. This means that changing the conditional probabilities of the particles, the transition probabilities of the single point of space remains fixed.
These two conditions implement the idea that the space process cannot be influenced by the preparation procedure of the particle. Note that the requirement $i)$ is needed in order to avoid that the probability of the space process at time $N$ is changed by the preparation procedure of the particle, while the requirement $ii)$ avoids that such preparation procedure alters the space process probabilities at times $N' \neq N$ (i.e. in the past or in the future). Since we are dealing with non-relativistic systems this last requirement is reasonable from the physical point of view.
Let us now describe the effects of the removal of the space process in model A from the mathematical point of view. We will focus first on the consequences of the requirement $i)$. In order to do so we need to study better the effect of conditioning on a probability space. For the interested reader, in appendix C a short review on how conditioning is described in the measure-theoretic formulation of probability theory is presented. However here we proceed following a more intuitive approach. According to the removal procedure explained above, we can describe the particle using only probabilities that are conditioned to the event $\{{\mathbf{S}}_N\}:=\{ {\mathbf{S}}\in \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}} | {\mathbb{S}^A}_N({\mathbf{S}}) = {\mathbf{S}}_N \}$. At the level of the events, this means that for the random variable $X_N$ and $V_N$ we consider only events of this kind: $\{X_N \in A\} \cap \{ {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N \}$ and $\{V_N \in B\} \cap \{ {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N \}$. For the position random variable, this means that the conditioning procedure effectively changes the sample space and the $\sigma$-algebra of its starting probability space as $$(\Omega_I \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, {\mathcal{E}}_I \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}) \rightarrow ( \Omega_I \times \{{\mathbf{S}}_N\}, \mathcal{P}(\Omega_I \times \{{\mathbf{S}}_N\}) ).$$ Let us call $\Omega_{X_N}:=\Omega_I \times \{{\mathbf{S}}_N\}$ and ${\mathcal{E}}_{X_N}:=\mathcal{P}(\Omega_I \times \{{\mathbf{S}}_N\})$. It is a known fact from probability theory that the measurable space $(\Omega_{X_N}, {\mathcal{E}}_{X_N})$ equipped with conditional probability $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = \cdot]$ defines a probability space. On this probability space $(\Omega_{X_N},{\mathcal{E}}_{X_N},P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N})$ the random variable $X_N$ can be described after conditioning on the event $\{{\mathbf{S}}_N\}$. Everythig we said till now, clearly also holds for the velocity random variable: after conditioning it can be described in a probability space $(\Omega_{V_N},{\mathcal{E}}_{V_N},P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N})$ defined in a similar manner.
Relevant for our goal is the study of the joint probabilities for $X_N$ and $V_N$, and its link with the transition probabilities after conditioning. By definition $X_N$ and $V_N$ are two random variables defined on the same probability space $(\Omega_{I}\times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, {\mathcal{E}}_I \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, P)$. This means that we can always find a joint probability distribution $P[X_N=a,V_N=c]$, which can be used to derive the transition probabilities using the usual Bayes formula. Since the space process can be described on the same probability space of $X_N$ and $V_N$, also the joint probability distribution $P[X_N = a, V_N = c, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N]$ exists. Applying the Bayes formula, we can derive the *conditional* joint probability for $X_N$ and $V_N$, namely $$P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N=a,V_N=c] := \frac{P[X_N = a, V_N = c, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N]}{P[{\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N]},$$ from which one can derive *conditional* transition probabilities $$\begin{split}
\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a) &:= P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = c|X_N =a] \\
&= \frac{P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N=a,V_N=c]}{P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a]}.
\end{split}$$ Note that $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a) \neq \alpha(c,a)$. From the point of view of the probability spaces, after conditioning we can always describe the two random variables using a single probability space. Such probability space is simply $(\Omega_{X_N} \times \Omega_{V_N}, {\mathcal{E}}_{X_N} \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{V_N}, P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N})$. On it, we can define a joint probability distribution $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = \cdot , V_N = \cdot ]$ such that $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = \cdot]$ and $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = \cdot]$ are the two marginals and $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a)$ are the transition probabilities between $V_N$ and $X_N$. Since the joint probability distribution are symmetric under the exchange of the arguments, clearly $$\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a) P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N =a] = \alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(a,c) P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = c],$$ where $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(a,c) = P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a|V_N =c]$. According to [@khrennikov2009contextual], this is a signature that we are working on a single measure-theoretic probability space. A more interesting case happens when we use the the *unconditional* transition probabilities $\alpha(a+c,a)$ and $P[X_N = a | V_N =c]$. In this case we have that $$\label{noBayes}
\alpha(a+c,a)P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N =a] \neq P[X_N = a | V_N =c] P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = c]$$ in general, which means that we cannot describe $X_N$ and $V_N$ using a single measure-theoretic probability space, *if we choose to use the unconditional transition probabilities after conditioning with respect to the space process at time $N$*. However, this does not mean that we cannot describe $X_N$ and $V_N$ after conditioning using the transition probabilities $\alpha(a+c,a)$ (we will come back on the physical reason for the use of $\alpha(a+c,a)$ instead of $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a)$ later). We can do it using two different probability spaces: one for $X_N$ and one for $V_N$. We have already seen that, after conditioning, we obtain a probability spaces for each random variables, i.e. $(\Omega_{X_N},{\mathcal{E}}_{X_N},P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N})$ for $X_N$ and $(\Omega_{V_N},{\mathcal{E}}_{V_N},P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N})$ for $V_N$. However we cannot construct a joint probability space where $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = \cdot]$ and $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = \cdot]$ are the two marginals of some joint probability distribution and $\alpha(a+c,a)$ are the transition probabilities that we obtain from the same joint probability distribution. This is exactly the content of : the joint probability we are looking for would not be symmetric in the exchange of the arguments. This is something that it is not possible in an ordinary measure space since the intersection of events in a sigma algebra is a symmetric operation (i.e. commutative). As a consequence we may conclude that the Bayes theorem cannot be used to relate the two marginals. However a relation between $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = \cdot]$ and $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = \cdot]$ can still be found [@khrennikov2005interference].
\[theoV1\] Let $\{P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a]\}_{a \in \Omega_{X_N}}$ be the probabilities describing the position of the particle at time $N$ under the condition that the space process at time $N$ is ${\mathbf{S}}_N$. If $P[X_{N+1}=b|X_N =a] = \alpha(b,a)$, then $$\label{VelocityProb}
P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N =c] = \sum_a \alpha(a+c,a)P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a] + \delta(c|X_N,{\mathbf{S}}_N)$$ where $$\label{Velocity compl}
\begin{split}
\delta(c| X_N, {\mathbf{S}}_N) &= \frac{1}{P[{\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N]} \sum_{\substack{{\mathbf{S}}_N'\\ {\mathbf{S}}_N' \neq {\mathbf{S}}_N}} \bigg[ \sum_a \alpha(a+c,a)\cdot \\
& \cdot P[X_N = a, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N'] - P[V_N=c, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N']\bigg]
\end{split}$$ which is in general different from zero.
Given $P[V_N =c]$, we can always write $$\begin{split}
P[V_N = c] = \sum_{{\mathbf{S}}_N'} P[V_N = c, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N']
\end{split}$$ and similarly $$P[X_N =a] = \sum_{{\mathbf{S}}_N'} P[X_N = a, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N'].$$ Note that the sum over all possible configurations of the space process at time $N$ is well defined, since the number of configurations is clearly countable (it is a cartesian product of a discrete process taking value on the integers). Substituting these expressions in and dividing by $P[{\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N]$, we get
$$\begin{split}
\sum_{{\mathbf{S}}_N'} \frac{P[V_N = c, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N']}{P[{\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N]} &= \sum_a \alpha(a+c,c)\sum_{{\mathbf{S}}_N'} \frac{P[X_N = a, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N']}{P[{\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N]} \\
P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N =c] + \sum_{\substack{{\mathbf{S}}_N'\\ {\mathbf{S}}_N' \neq {\mathbf{S}}_N}} \frac{P[V_N = c, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N']}{P[{\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N]} &= \sum_a \alpha(a+c,c)P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a] + \sum_a \alpha(a+c,c)\sum_{\substack{{\mathbf{S}}_N' \\{\mathbf{S}}_N' \neq {\mathbf{S}}_N}} \frac{P[X_N = a, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N']}{P[{\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N]}
\end{split}$$
Moving the second term of the LHS to the RHS, we obtain and . Note that in general is non zero since $$\begin{split}
\sum_a \alpha&(a+c,a)P[X_N = a, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N'] \\
&\neq P[V_N=c, {\mathbb{S}^A}_N = {\mathbf{S}}_N'].
\end{split}$$ This concludes the proof.
We can see that, after the conditioning on the space process, the Bayes formula cannot be used anymore to compute $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = c]$ from the probabilities of the position random variable if we want to use the transition probabilities $\alpha(a+c,a)$. We need to add a correction term which contains statistical information about the space process. Note that this correction term has the property $$\label{propDelta}
\sum_c \delta (c | X_N, {\mathbf{S}}_N) = 0,$$ which is necessary in order to preserve the normalisation of probabilities, i.e. $\sum_cP_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = c] = 1$. We also note that in general $\delta(c | X_N, {\mathbf{S}}_N) \in [-1,1]$ and in particular it can be negative. Summarising, given the transition probabilities $\alpha(a+c,a)$ we cannot describe $X_N$ and $V_N$ on a single probability space after conditioning on the space configuration at time $N$. However, the description $X_N$ and $V_N$ in a single probability space after conditioning can be always done: the price to pay is that we have to change the transition probabilities from $\alpha(a+c,a)$ to $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a)$.
At this point a legitimate question arises: can we motivate physically the choice to use $\alpha(a+c,a)$ instead $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_n}(c,a)$? Yes, if we take into account the fact that we want to remove space from the model. Indeed, in order to measure with an experimental procedure $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a)$, one would have control over space since one has to be able to prepare the space process always in the configuration ${\mathbf{S}}_N$, in order to measure $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a)$. Since the removal of space is done exactly to avoid such things, the use of $\alpha(a+c,a)$ is more reasonable from the physical point of view. We want to conclude our analysis on the consequence of the requirement $i)$ with a comment on the particle process. Since it is a random vector parametrized by time, one may be tempted to consider $\mathscr{P}_N$ as a stochastic process. This is certainly possible considering also the space process, namely before conditioning on ${\mathbf{S}}_N$. Nevertheless, after conditioning and using the transition probabilities $\alpha(a+c,a)$, we just have a collection of probability spaces and it is not trivial to assume that each of these spaces can be seen as, part of a bigger probability space describing the particle only (i.e. with no space process involved in the construction of such probability space) as the Kolmogorov extension theorem [@oksendal2013stochastic] would imply. For this reason, considering the particle process as a stochastic process, in this context, should be done with care.
Till now we explored the consequences of the requirement $i)$ for the removal of space. Conditioning with respect to the space configuration ${\mathbf{S}}_N$, we effectively eliminate the possibility to change the $P[{\mathbb{S}^A}_N={\mathbf{S}}_N]$ by varying the (conditional) probability distributions in the collection of probability spaces that describe the model. The requirement $ii)$ is added in order to avoid that by varying the probabilities of the particle we can modify the probabilities $P[{\mathbb{S}^A}_{N'} = {\mathbf{S}}_{N'}]$ when $N' \neq N$. The consequences of $ii)$ which are relevant for our analysis will be analyzed in the next section.
The entropic uncertainty relation for $X_N$ and $V_N$
-----------------------------------------------------
In this section we will analyze the basic consequence of the requirement $ii)$ for the removal of the space process in model A. From now on, we exclude that the probabilities describing the space process and its constituents have delta-like distributions. This implies that the space process of model A is not a deterministic process. We note that the whole removal procedure, which makes model A interesting to study, is meaningless in this case. The central result of this section is the following.
\[EURmodelA\] Let $X_N$ and $V_N$ be the position and velocity random variables of model A. Fixing the transition probabilities $p_i= P[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+1|S_N^{(i)} = a]$ of the points of the space process for all $i \in I$, then $$\label{EUR-ModA}
H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(X_N) + H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(V_N) \geqslant D,$$ where $D$ is a positive constant which does not depend on $\{P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a]\}_{a \in X_N(\Omega_X)}$ and $\{P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = c]\}_{c \in V_N(\Omega_V)}$.
The entropy is a non-negative quantity by definition, hence varying with respect to all $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a]$ clearly $H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(X_N) \geqslant 0$. Now consider the entropy for the random variable $V_N$ and let us study what happens when we vary with respect to all $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N=a]$. Given $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a]$, the probability $P_{V_N}[V_N=c]$ can be computed by means of the formula in theorem \[theoV1\]. On the other hand we are always free to use the conditional transition probabilities $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a)$, i.e. to work on the joint probability space of $X_N$ and $V_N$, to study how $H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(V_N)$ change varying with respect to $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N =a]$.This allow us to write $$H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(V_N) \geqslant \sum_a P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a]H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(V_N|X_N=a),$$ with $$H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(V_N|X_N=a) = - \sum_c \alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a) \log \alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a).$$ The conditional transition probabilities $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a)$ can be rewritten as follows. Consider the joint probability $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = b, X_N =a]$. In what follows, without loss of generality we set $S_N^{i_O} = 0$ at any time $N$. We can write the following
$$\begin{split}
&\mspace{80mu} P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = b, X_N = a] = \sum_{i = 1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = S_{N+1}^{(i)}| S_{N+1}^{(i)} = b, X_N =a] P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = b, X_N =a] \\
&\mspace{50mu}=\sum_{i = 1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = S_{N+1}^{(i)}| S_{N+1}^{(i)} = b, X_N =a] \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} =b| X_N =a,I_N = j]P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N =a,I_N = j]\bigg) \\
&=\sum_{i = 1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = S_{N+1}^{(i)}| S_{N+1}^{(i)} = b, X_N =a] \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = b| X_N =a,I_N = j]P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_N = j|X_N =a] P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a]\bigg)
\end{split}$$
Since the event $\{X_N =a\} \cap \{I_N = j\} = \{S_N^{(j)} = a\}$ by definition and because $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = a+c,X_N =a] = P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = c, X_N =a]$, from this decomposition we can conclude that $$\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a) =\sum_{i = 1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = S_{N+1}^{(i)}| S_{N+1}^{(i)} = b, X_N =a] \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = b| S^{(j)}_N =a]P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_N = j|X_N =a] \bigg).$$ We also note that $$\label{lemma1}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i = 1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N} &[X_{N+1} = S_{N+1}^{(i)}| S_{N+1}^{(i)} = b, X_N =a] = 1, \\
&\sum_{j=1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_N = j|X_N =a] = 1.
\end{split}$$ In what follows, we set $\gamma(i):= P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = S_{N+1}^{(i)}| S_{N+1}^{(i)} = b, X_N =a]$ and $\eta(i,j):= P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = b| S^{(j)}_N =a]$ in order to keep the notation compact. From the above decomposition of $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a)$ we can write that $$\begin{split}
H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}& (V_N|X_N = a) = - \sum_c \left( \sum_{i=1}^M \gamma(i)\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^M \eta(i,j)P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_N = j|X_N =a] \bigg) \right)
\log \left( \sum_{i=1}^M \gamma(i)\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^M \eta(i,j)P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_N = j|X_N =a] \bigg)\right).
\end{split}$$ Note that since only positive probabilities contribute to the entropy, all the $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(c,a)$ are different from zero. This implies that all the $\gamma(i)$, $\eta(i,j)$ and $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_N = j|X_N =a]$ used to compute the entropy are strictly positive. Since $f(x) = -x\log x$ is a concave function, by the Jensen inequality and using , we have $$\begin{split}
H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(V_N|X_N = a) &\geqslant \sum_c \sum_{i=1}^M \gamma(i)\left( -\bigg(\sum_{j=1}^M\eta(i,j)P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_N = j|X_N =a] \bigg)
\log \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^M \eta(i,j)P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_N = j|X_N =a] \bigg) \right) \\
&\geqslant \sum_c \left( \sum_{i=1}^M \gamma(i) \right) \min_i\left( - \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^M \eta(i,j)P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_N = j|X_N =a] \bigg)
\log \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^M\eta(i,j)P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_N = j|X_N =a] \bigg) \right) \\
&\geqslant \sum_c \min_i \left( \bigg(\sum_{j=1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_N = j|X_N =a]\bigg) \min_j \left( - \eta(i,j) \log \eta(i,j)\right) \right) \\
& = \sum_c \min_{i,j} \left( - \eta(i,j) \log \eta(i,j)\right)
\end{split}$$ where $\min_{i,j}$ means the minimum over $i,j \in \{1, \cdots, M\}$ keeping $c$ constant. Summarising, we have that $$\begin{split}
H(V_N|X_N = a) \geqslant \sum_c \min_{i,j} \left( - P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_N =a]\log P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_N =a] \right).
\end{split}$$ Note that in the RHS there is still a dependence on $a$, which can be removed by taking the minimum with respect to it. Thus we can write that $$H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(V_N) \geqslant \sum_{a} P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a] H(V_N|X_N =a) \geqslant D_1,$$ where we set $$\begin{split}
D_1 := \min_a\bigg[ \sum_c \min_{ij}\bigg( - P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_N =a]\log P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_N =a]\bigg) \bigg].
\end{split}$$ $D_1$ is a positive number, since $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_N =a] \in (0,1)$ (we exclude the case of *deterministic* space process) and only positive probabilities contribute to the entropy, as said above. To explicitly show that the $D_1$ does not depend on $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = a]$ and $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = c]$, let us study in detail the terms $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_N =a]$. Recalling that the random walks are independent and that $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_N =a] \neq 0$ only for the $S^{(j)}_N \in {\mathbf{S}}_N$, we can write that $$P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_N =a] =
\begin{cases}
0 \mbox{ if $i = j$ and $c \neq \pm 1$;} \\
p_i \mbox{ if $i = j$ and $c = 1$;} \\
1 - p_i \mbox{ if $i = j$ and $c = - 1$;} \\
P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c] \mbox{ if $i \neq j$}
\end{cases}$$ where $p_i$ and $1 - p_i$ are the transition probabilities of the $i$-th random walk, which are fixed by hypothesis. Again, the first case is excluded since only positive probabilities contribute to the entropy. What we need to check is the last case, namely $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c] $. Since in the configuration ${\mathbf{S}}_N$ there is also the $i$-th random walk, this term reduces to $$P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c] = P[S^{(i)}_{N+1} =a+c | S^{(i)}_N = e]$$ for some $e \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. The only terms of this kind that contribute to the entropy are those having $e = a + c \pm 1$, i.e. the transition probabilities of the $i$-th random walks, which are fixed by hypothesis. Thus fixing $p_i$ for all $i \in I$ implies that $D_1$ is a positive constant. Summarising we showed that $$H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(X_N) + H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(V_N) \geqslant D_1,$$ when we vary over any possible value of $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N =a]$ and when the transition probabilities of the $M$ random walks are fixed.
To conclude the proof we need to study what happens when we vary over all possible values of $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N =c]$. Similarly to the previous case, $H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(V_N) \geqslant 0$ while $H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(X_N)$ changes according with the inequality $$H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(V_N) \geqslant \sum_c P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = c] H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(X_N | V_N = c),$$ where $H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(X_N|V_N =c)$ is the entropy computed using $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(a,c) = P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N =a | V_N =c]$. From the definition of $X_N$ and $V_N$, one can conclude that $$\{X_N = a\} \cap \{V_N=c\} = \{X_N = a\} \cap \{V_N=c\} \cap \{X_{N+1} = a+c\} = \{V_N=c\} \cap \{X_{N+1} = a+c\}.$$ This implies that $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N =a, V_N =c] = P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = a+c, V_N =c]$, i.e. $$\begin{split}
\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(a,c) = P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N =a | V_N =c] = \frac{P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N =a, V_N =c]}{P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N =c]} = \frac{P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = a+c, V_N =c]}{P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N =c]}.
\end{split}$$ As before, the whole analysis reduces to the study of this term. Given $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = a+c, V_N = c]$ we can write that $$\begin{split}
& P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = a+c, V_N =c] = \sum_{i = 1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = S_{N+1}^{(i)}| S_{N}^{(i)} = a+c, V_N =c] P[S_{N+1}^{(i)} =a+c, V_N =c] \\
&=\sum_{i = 1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = S_{N+1}^{(i)}| S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c, V_N =c] \bigg(\sum_{j,d} P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} =a+c| V_N =c,I_{N} = j,X_{N+1} =d] \cdot \\
&\mspace{580mu}\cdot P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N =c,I_{N} = j,X_{N+1} =d]\bigg) \\
&= \sum_{i = 1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = S_{N+1}^{(i)}| S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c, V_N =c] \bigg(\sum_{j,d} P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| V_N =c,I_{N} = j,X_{N+1} =d] \cdot \\
&\mspace{500mu}P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_{N} = j,X_{N+1} =d|V_N =c] P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = c]\bigg).
\end{split}$$ Observing that the event $\{V_N =c\}\cap\{I_{N} = j\}\cap\{X_{N+1} =d\} = \{S^{(j)}_{N} = d - c\}$, we conclude that $$\begin{split}
\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(a,c) =\sum_{i = 1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = S_{N+1}^{(i)}| S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c, V_N =c] \bigg(\sum_{j,d} P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_{N} = d-c] \cdot\\
\cdot P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_{N} = j,X_{N+1} =d|V_N =c]\bigg).
\end{split}$$ Note that $$\label{lemma1bis}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i = 1}^M P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N} & [X_{N+1} = S_{N+1}^{(i)}| S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c, V_N =c] = 1 \\
&\sum_{j,d} P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[I_{N } = j,X_{N+1} =d|V_N =c] =1
\end{split}$$ Defining $\tilde{\gamma}(i):= P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_{N+1} = S_{N+1}^{(i)}| S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c, V_N =c]$ and $\tilde{\eta}(i,j) := P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_{N} = d-c]$, the whole analysis done in the previous case can be repeated. One has simply to replace $\gamma(i)$ with $\tilde{\gamma}(i)$, $\eta(i,j)$ with $\tilde{\eta}(i,j)$ and use instead of , obtaining $$H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(X_N|V_N =c) \geqslant \sum_a \min_{i,j,d} \left( - P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_{N} = d-c] \log P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_{N} = d-c] \right).$$ Setting $$D_2 := \min_c \sum_a \min_{i,j,d} \left( - P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_{N} = d-c] \log P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+c| S^{(j)}_{N} = d-c] \right)$$
which is a positive constant, we conclude that $$H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(X_N) + H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(V_N) \geqslant D_2,$$ when we vary over any possible value of $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = c]$ and when the transition probabilities of the $M$ random walks are fixed. Setting $D:= \min\{D_1,D_2\}$ the statement of the theorem follows. This concludes the proof.
We can better grasp the physical meaning of the inequality between entropies proved above, considering a particular case of space process. Assume that all the random walks of the space process are *identically distributed*. This means that if $p_i = P[S_{N+1}^{(i)} = a+1| S_N^{(i)} = a]$ are the transition probabilities and $\pi^{(i)}$ are the probability distributions of the initial position of all random walks, we have $$\begin{split}
p_1 &= p_2 = \cdots = p_M \\
\pi^{(1)} &= \pi^{(2)} = \cdots = \pi^{(M)}.
\end{split}$$ This implies that $P[S^{(i)}_{N} = a] = P[S^{(j)}_{N} = a]$ for any $a \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, for any $N\geqslant0$, and any $i,j \in \{1, \cdots, M\}$. Consider the value of the constant $D_1$. The $\min_i$ can be eliminated since all the probabilities are equals. Hence $$D_1 = D_2= - p\log p - (1-p) \log (1-p)$$ Thus we can conclude that $D = -p \log p -(1-p) \log (1-p)$. This is the so called binary entropy, which vanishes only if $p = 0,1$ namely if that space is a deterministic process, a case which is excluded. The physical meaning of the inequality $H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(X_N) + H_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}(V_N) \geqslant D$, in this case, is now clear: the uncertainty that we have on $X_N$ or $V_N$ must be at least equal to the uncertainty we have on a single point in the future configurations of the space process (given that at time $N$ the configuration is ${\mathbf{S}}_N$).
Construction of the Hilbert space structure for model A
-------------------------------------------------------
Theorem \[theoV1\] implies that after the removal of the space process, $X_N$ and $V_N$ are described using two distinct probability spaces if we want to use the unconditional transition probabilities $\alpha(a+c,a)$. Theorem \[EURmodelA\] tell us that under the same assumptions, the position and the velocity of the particle in model A, fulfil an entropic uncertainty relation. At this point, we may proceed algebraically and define the smallest $C^*$-algebra which is capable to describe both $X_N$ and $V_N$ after conditioning, and the entropic uncertainty relation tells us that this algebra is non-commutative [@LC]. Then, we can represent these elements of the algebra as two non-commuting operators over a Hilbert space via the GNS theorem. Despite this is a legitimate way to proceed, in this section, using the results collected in [@LC], we will use a more constructive approach. In particular, we show how to construct the operators associated to these random variables and how to define a suitable Hilbert space on which they are defined.
Consider the position random variable $X_N$. After conditioning on a particular configuration of the space process ${\mathbf{S}}_N$, $X_N$ can be seen as the as the following map between probability spaces $$\begin{CD}
(\Omega_{I} \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}},{\mathcal{E}}_{I} \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, P)|_{{\mathbf{S}}_N} @>X_N>> (\Omega_{X_N}, {\mathcal{E}}_{X_N}, \mu_{X_N})
\end{CD}$$ where $\Omega_{X_N} = X_N(\Omega_I \times \{{\mathbf{S}}_N\})$, ${\mathcal{E}}_{X_N} = \mathcal{P}(\Omega_{X_N})$ and $\mu_{X_N}:= P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N} \circ X_N^{-1}$. As we have seen in [@LC], random variables over a probability space form a commutative von-Neumann algebra which is isomorphic to an algebra of multiplicative operators over an Hilbert space. In this particular case, the random variables over $(\Omega_{X_N}, {\mathcal{E}}_{X_N}, \mu_{X_N})$ (on which $X_N$ is represented by the identity map) form the abelian von-Neumann algebra $\mathcal{V}_c(L_2(\Omega_{X_N}, \mu_{X_N}))$. Seen as element of this algebra, the random variables over $(\Omega_{X_N}, {\mathcal{E}}_{X_N}, \mu_{X_N})$ are multiplicative operators over $L_2(\Omega_{X_N}, \mu_{X_N})$.
Similar considerations hold for the velocity of the particle. The main difference is the definition of $\Omega_{V_N}$, i.e. the set of all the elementary outcomes. It is not difficult to understand that, if we fix the space process only, $\Omega_{V_N}$ seems to contain more outcomes of those one should expect. The number of outcomes of the space process is $M^2$, i.e. $\mbox{card } \Omega_{X_N} = M^2$. This because the origin and the point of ${\mathbb{S}^A}_N$ selected by the selection process $I_N$, can take $M$ different values. For the velocity process similar considerations lead to $\mbox{card} \Omega_{V_N} = M^4$. However, we have to take into account that we cannot detect the movement of the origin: $S_{N+1}^{(i_O)} - S_N^{(i_O)}$ must be set equal to $0$, and all the situations where this does not hold must be identified with it [^4]. After that the velocity can takes only $M^2$ different values (the $M$’s of $S_N^{(i_{N+1})}$ times the $M$’s of $S_N^{(i_N)}$). Thus doing that we have $\mbox{card }\Omega_{V_N} = M^2$. After this observation, we may see the velocity random variable, after conditioning to ${\mathbf{S}}_N$, as the map $$\begin{CD}
(\Omega_{I} \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^A}},{\mathcal{E}}_{I} \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^A}}, P)|_{{\mathbf{S}}_N} @>V_N>> (\Omega_{V_N}, {\mathcal{E}}_{V_N}, \mu_{V_N})
\end{CD}$$ where $\Omega_{V_N} = V_N(\Omega_I \times \{{\mathbf{S}}_N\})$, ${\mathcal{E}}_{V_N} = \mathcal{P}(\Omega_{V_N})$ and $\mu_{V_N}:= P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N} \circ V_N^{-1}$. Also in this case, the random variables over $(\Omega_{V_N}, {\mathcal{E}}_{V_N}, \mu_{V_N})$, are elements of a commutative von-Neumann algebra $\mathcal{V}_c(L_2(\Omega_{V_N}, \mu_{V_N}))$ (i.e. multiplicative operators on $L_2(\Omega_{V_N}, \mu_{V_N})$).
Thus both $X_N$ and $V_N$ can be represented by multiplicative operators on suitable Hilbert spaces. Note that the two Hilbert spaces are different and depend on the probability measure. In order to construct a common Hilbert space on which both operators are defined, we should invoke the spectral representation theorem, as explained in [@LC]. We recall that the spectral decomposition theorem tells that, given an operator $\hat{T}$, there exist a surjective isometry $\hat{U}_i: {\mathcal{H}}_i \rightarrow L_2(\sigma(\hat{T}), \mu_i)$ such that $\hat{U}_i^* \hat{T}|_{{\mathcal{H}}_i} \hat{U}_i$ is a multiplicative operator on $L_2(\sigma(\hat{T}), \mu_i)$, i.e. an element of $\mathcal{V}_c(L_2(\sigma(\hat{T}), \mu_i))$. Consider the position random variable $X_N$. We know that it is a multiplicative operator on $L_2(\Omega_{X_N}, \mu_{X_N})$, and let us now choose to parametrise the probability measure of the position random variable with the outcome of $X_N$. This can be achieved in the following way. Take $a \in \Omega_{X_N}$ and consider the probability measure $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}^{(a)}$, which is defined such that $\mu_{X_N}(c) = P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}^{(a)} \circ X_N^{-1}(c) = \delta_{a,c}$. We can parametrise the probability measure of $X_N$ with its outcomes defining $\mu_{X_N|a} :=P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}^{(a)} \circ X_N^{-1}$. Doing that we obtain a collection of Hilbert spaces $\{L_2(\Omega_{X_N}, \mu_{X_N|a})\}_{a \in \Omega_{X_N}}$. Now, the random variable $X_N$ can be represented with an operator $\hat{X}_N$, having spectrum $\sigma(\hat{X}_N) = \Omega_{X_N}$. The spectral decomposition theorem tells that there exists a collection of Hilbert spaces $\{{\mathcal{H}}_a\}_{a \in \Omega_{X_N}}$ and surjective isometries $\hat{U}_a : {\mathcal{H}}_a \rightarrow L_2(\Omega_{X_N}, \mu_{X_N|a})$, which allows to define the Hilbert space $${\mathcal{H}}(X_N) := \bigoplus_{a \in \Omega_{X_N}} {\mathcal{H}}_a$$ on which $\hat{X}_N$ can be seen as a multiplicative operator. The spectral representation theorem tells that if $\{|x_N \rangle\}$ is a basis of ${\mathcal{H}}(X_N)$ such that $| x_N \rangle \in {\mathcal{H}}_{x_N}$ for any $x_N \in \Omega_{X_N}$, then $X_N$ can be represented by the operator $$\hat{X}_N = \sum_{x_N \in \Omega_{X_N}} x_N |x_N \rangle \langle x_N |.$$ With similar considerations, for $V_N$ we obtain $${\mathcal{H}}(V_N) : = \bigoplus_{c \in \Omega_{V_N}} {\mathcal{H}}_c$$ on which the operator $\hat{V}_N$ representing the velocity random variable, is diagonal $$\label{velopMA}
\hat{V}_N = \sum_{v_N \in \Omega_{V_N}} v_N |v_N \rangle \langle v_N |.$$ At this point, we impose the condition $${\mathcal{H}}(X_N) = {\mathcal{H}}(V_N)$$ i.e. that the two Hilbert spaces are *unitary equivalent*. This is possible since the dimension of both Hilbert spaces is $M^2$: both Hilbert spaces are constructed from the spectrum of $\hat{X}_N$ or $\hat{V}_N$, and both have the same number of elements. Since Hilbert spaces of equal dimension are always isomorphic, there exists a unitary map between them, i.e. there exists $$\hat{U}: {\mathcal{H}}(V_N) \rightarrow {\mathcal{H}}(X_N),$$ such that $\hat{U}\hat{U}^* = {\hat{\mathbb{I}}}_{{\mathcal{H}}(X_N)}$ and $\hat{U}^*\hat{U} = {\hat{\mathbb{I}}}_{{\mathcal{H}}(V_N)}$. This unitary mapping allows to have, on the same Hilbert space, the operators representing the position and the velocity random variables. More precisely, take the velocity operator $\hat{V}_N$ on ${\mathcal{H}}(V_N)$ defined in , then the unitary map mentioned above allows us to write $$\begin{split}
\hat{V}_N|_{{\mathcal{H}}(X_N)} &= \hat{U} \bigg(\sum_{v \in \Omega_{V_N}} v_N |v_N \rangle \langle v_N | \bigg) \hat{U}^* \\
&= \sum_{v_N \in \Omega_{V_N}} v_N \hat{U}|v_N \rangle \langle v_N |\hat{U}^*,
\end{split}$$ which represents the velocity random variable on ${\mathcal{H}}(X_N)$, the Hilbert space constructed from the spectrum of the position operator (on which $\hat{X}_N$ is diagonal). The entropic uncertainty relation, ensures that $X_N$ and $V_N$ as operators on the same Hilbert space, do not commute. In fact, it implies [@maassen1988generalized] $$\label{Massenbound}
\max_{x_N, v_N}|\langle x_N | v_N \rangle| \leqslant e^{- \frac{D}{2}} < 1,$$ as already observed in [@LC]. Thus the two operators cannot be diagonalised on the same basis, i.e. they do not commute.
We can also represent on ${\mathcal{H}}(X_N)$ the velocity random variable directly. Indeed on this Hilbert space, we may always consider a generic basis $\{ |w_N \rangle\}_{w_N \in \Omega_{V_N}}$ and impose that $\hat{V}_N$ is diagonal on this basis, i.e. $$\hat{V}_N = \sum_{w_N \in \Omega_{V_N}} w_N | w_N \rangle \langle w_N |.$$ We can always parametrise the probability measure of $\mu_{V_N}$ using the outcome of $X_N$ simply defining $\mu_{V_N|a}:= P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}^{(a)} \circ V_N^{-1}$. Then we obtain the collection of Hilbert spaces $\{L_2(\Omega_{V_N}, \mu_{V_N|a})\}_{a \in \Omega_{X_N}}$. For a given $a \in \Omega_{X_N}$, the entropic uncertainty relation forbids to have delta-like probability measure for both operators. Indeed, considering $\hat{X}_N$, we have $$\begin{split}
\mu_{X_N| a} := \langle \psi | \hat{P}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{x_N}} \psi \rangle = \langle \psi| x_N \rangle \langle x_N | \psi \rangle = \delta_{x_N,a}
\end{split}$$ which is possible only if $| \psi \rangle = | a \rangle$. On the other hand for $\hat{V}_N$ , if $\hat{P}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{w_N}}$ is the projector on the subspace of ${\mathcal{H}}(X_N)$ associated to the eigenvalue $w_N$ (i.e. the outcome $w_N$ of the random variable $V_N$), we have $$\begin{split}
\mu_{V_N|a} :&= \langle \psi |\hat{P}_{{\mathcal{H}}_{w_N}} \psi \rangle = \langle a | w_N \rangle \langle w_N | a \rangle = |\langle a | w_N \rangle |^2.
\end{split}$$ Note that under the symmetry condition on the unconditional transition probabilities, i.e. $P[V_{N} = c| X_N = a] = P[X_N = a| V_{N} = c]$, the $\mu_{V_N|a}$ probabilities are consistent with usual interpretation of transition probabilities in quantum theory. Since the entropic uncertainty relation hold, forbids that $|w_N \rangle$ and $|x \rangle$ to be orthogonal. Again, we conclude that $X_N$ and $V_N$ can be represented on a common Hilbert space, ${\mathcal{H}}(X_N)$, using two operators $\hat{X}_N$ and $\hat{V}_N$ which cannot be diagonalised on the same basis. Note that this $\hat{V}_N$ coincides exactly with $\hat{V}_N|_{{\mathcal{H}}(X_N)}$ thanks to the existence of the unitary map $\hat{U}: {\mathcal{H}}(V_N) \rightarrow {\mathcal{H}}(X_N)$. Clearly, also $X_N$ can be represented on ${\mathcal{H}}(V_N)$ directly, following a similar procedure. In this sense the whole description is consistent: starting the construction of the Hilbert space from $X_N$ or $V_N$ does not change anything, as it should be.
Finally, we conclude by observing that the probabilistic content is now encoded in the vectors $|\psi\rangle$ of the constructed Hilbert spaces. In fact, given $|\psi \rangle \in {\mathcal{H}}(X_N)$ (or ${\mathcal{H}}(V_N)$), we can write that $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N] &= {\mbox{Tr}\left[|\psi \rangle\langle \psi | \hat{V}_N\right]} = \sum_v v {\mbox{Tr}\left[|\psi \rangle\langle \psi |v \rangle\langle v |\right]}
\end{split}$$ where $ {\mbox{Tr}\left[|\psi \rangle\langle \psi |v \rangle\langle v |\right]} = P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = v]$ is the probability distribution for $V_N$ after conditioning. The probability distribution for $V_N$ can be related with the distribution of $X_N$ as follows $$\begin{split}
P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[V_N = v] &= \sum_x \langle x |\psi \rangle\langle \psi |v \rangle\langle v | x \rangle \\
&= \sum_x \sum_{x'} \langle x |\psi \rangle\langle \psi |x' \rangle\langle x' |v \rangle\langle v | x \rangle \\
&= \sum_x \alpha(x+v,x)P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = x] \\
&\mspace{20mu}+ \sum_{x \neq x'} \langle x |\psi \rangle\langle \psi |x' \rangle\langle x' |v \rangle\langle v | x \rangle
\end{split}$$ where we used $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_N}[X_N = x] = |\langle x | \psi \rangle|^2$ and $\alpha(x+v,x) = |\langle x | v \rangle|^2$. Note that the second term in the last sum (the interference term) corresponds to the correction term $\delta(V_N|X_N,{\mathbf{S}}_N)$ in theorem \[theoV1\]. However, the method used here does not provide a way to determine uniquely the objects on ${\mathcal{H}}(X_N)$ (or ${\mathcal{H}}(V_N)$) associated to a given set of probability distributions, as already noted. In fact, the method proposed does not provide an explicit way to compute the phase of $\langle x_N | v_N \rangle$ starting from the interference term. However QRLA may indicate a possible way to do that [@khrennikov2005interference; @khrennikov2009contextual]
Final remarks and main limitations of model A {#sec3f}
---------------------------------------------
Let us conclude our presentation of model A, with some observations and a discussion of some limitations of the model.
The model is surely interesting because it is capable to derive non-commuting operators over an Hilbert space starting from a classical“ description (in probabilistic sense). Such non-commutativity, at least mathematically, seems to be related to the definition used for the two random variables of the particle process. So despite they seem reasonable definitions, we should at least argue why they seem to be related to the position and momentum operator in ordinary (non-relativistic) quantum theory. In particular, once we choose to describe a quantum particle in $L_2({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and we decide that the symmetry group of non-relativistic physics is the Galilean group, by the Stone-von Neumann theorem, we can justify that the position and momentum operator are defined as $$\hat{X}_i \psi(\mathbf{x}) = x_i \psi(\mathbf{x}) \mspace{50mu} \hat{P}_i\psi(\mathbf{x}) = - i\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}\psi(\mathbf{x}),$$ for $\psi(\mathbf{x}) \in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. Consider the 1-D case only. In quantum mechanics, the classical relation between position and momentum for a point-like particle ($p = m\dot{x}$) does not seem a priori valid. Nevertheless from the Ehrenfest theorem, we have that $$\langle P_t \rangle = m \frac{d}{dt} \langle X_t \rangle.$$ Assume that for some reason time is discrete (for example because the limited accuracy of the clock). The limit now can be replaced by an inferior and, using the Wigner quasi-probability distribution $W(x,p)$, we can write that $$P_{t} = m \inf_{\delta t} \frac{X_{t + \delta t} -X_{t}}{\delta t} \mspace{50mu} W(x,p)\mbox{-a.s.}.$$ Setting $\delta t =1$ ($\delta t$ is our unit of time) and $t = N\delta t$, we can write $P_N = m (X_{N+1} - X_N) = mV_N$. This consideration justifies, at least at the qualitative level, the use of the two random variables described in model A. An interesting feature of the model presented here is that the square of the number of points of the space process (which is removed) is equal to the dimension of the (minimal) Hilbert space on which we represent the particle process, namely $X_N$ and $V_N$. Thus, the dimension of the Hilbert space in model A seems to encode information on the removed process, in this model. We do not expect this feature to be fundamental (the Hilbert space structure seems more related to probabilistic rather than geometrical” considerations) but this observation will be useful in future.
A limitation of the model is that time is treated as a discrete parameter, a choice that does not allow to compare the model directly with non-relativistic quantum mechanics. In addition, also space appears discrete, in the sense that it can take values only over a lattice and not on the whole ${\mathbb{R}}$. Summarising we can neither derive the commutation relation , nor attempt a comparison with non-relativistic quantum mechanics using Model A, because of the following: $1)$ the Hilbert space of model A is finite dimensional, $2)$ $\hat{X}_N$ and $\hat{V}_N$ are bounded operators with discrete spectrum and, $3)$ time is discrete. However, we was able to successfully represent position and velocity (momentum) of the particle as non-commuting operators over a common Hilbert space, a key feature of non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
Model B: Continuous-time 1-D kinematics on a random space {#mB}
=========================================================
\[Part4\]
We have shown in part \[mA\] that model A exhibits very interesting features from the point of view of quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, it also has some limitations: time is a discrete parameter and the spectrum of the position operator $\hat{X}_N$ is discrete. They do not allow for a direct comparison with ordinary quantum mechanics. To allow for this comparison, one may try to generalize Model A to continuous-time random variables. Here we will show how to do it.
The space process {#Model B - space process}
-----------------
\[sec4a\]
In order to generalize model A to the continuous time case, we may start by generalizing the space process. Instead of considering the space process as a collection of random walks, we may consider their continuous limits“, i.e. Wiener processes. Let us recap the basic features of the Wiener process [@klebaner2005introduction], as done for the random walk. A *Wiener process $W_t$ starting at $y$* is a Gaussian process with mean ${\mathbb{E}}[W_t]=y$, and covariance ${\mathbb{E}}[W_tW_s] =\min(t,s)$. This is one of the possible equivalent definitions of a Wiener process, and it implies that (in the 1D case) $$P[W_t \in A] = \int_A \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}} e^{-\frac{(x-y)^2}{2t}}dx.$$ As consequence of its definition, the Wiener process $W_t$ is a continuous function of the parameter $t$ for all $t \in {\mathbb{R}}^+$, in the sense that there exists always a *continuous version* of the Wiener process (with version of a process $X_t$ ” we mean that there exists another process $Y_t$ such that $P[X_t=Y_t] = 1$ for any $t \in {\mathbb{R}}^+$, i.e. the two processes are statistically indistinguishable). For a Wiener process, the trajectories (which can be thought as the function $\omega(t) := W_t(\omega)$) have the following properties: $i)$ they are nowhere differentiable; $ii)$ they are never monotone; $iii)$ they have infinite variation in any interval; $iv)$ they have quadratic variation equal to $t$ in the interval $[0,t]$. More generally, let $C({\mathbb{R}}^+,{\mathbb{R}})$ be the space of all functions $t \mapsto f_t$ taking value on ${\mathbb{R}}$ and continuous for any $t \in {\mathbb{R}}^+$. $C({\mathbb{R}}^+,{\mathbb{R}})$ can be equipped with a norm, which allows to define open sets (i.e. a topology). As usual these open sets can be used to construct a Borel $\sigma$-algebra on $C({\mathbb{R}}^+,{\mathbb{R}})$, say $\mathscr{B}(C({\mathbb{R}}^+,{\mathbb{R}}))$. The Wiener process can be seen as the identity function on $(C({\mathbb{R}}^+,{\mathbb{R}}), \mathscr{B}(C({\mathbb{R}}^+,{\mathbb{R}}), \gamma)$ where $\gamma$ is the so called *Wiener measure*. The set of all continuous functions $f_t \in C({\mathbb{R}}^+,{\mathbb{R}})$ which does not fulfil $i)$ – $iv)$ have zero measure under $\gamma$. Such a probability space is called *Wiener space*. Finally we conclude by observing that if also the starting position $y$ is a random variable with distribution $\pi(dy)$ over ${\mathbb{R}}$, then $$P[W_t \in A] = \int_A \int_{{\mathbb{R}}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}} e^{-\frac{(x-y)^2}{2t}} \pi(dy) dx.$$
Let us now consider the space process for this model. As assumed for model A, space is discrete and evolves with time. In particular, we have the following preliminary definition which generalizes the one given for model A.
Let $\{W_t^{(i)}\}_{i \in I}$ be a collection of independent Wiener processes, where $|I| = M \in {\mathbb{N}}$. Such collection will be called *space process* for model B.
We will label this process by ${\mathbb{S}^B}$. At any given time $t \in {\mathbb{R}}^+$, the space process is a collection of $M$ points on ${\mathbb{R}}$, which are the positions of the $M$ Wiener processes: in this sense the space is discrete and evolves, in a continuous way, in time. Also in this case we may have two possible descriptions of the space: one is to consider the points with respect to the real line (we will choose this point of view, as done for model A), while the second is to describe the effects of the time evolution from the point of view of the ordering among the points" (as explained in appendix B). Because of independence, equation holds true if we simply substitute $P[S_N^{(i)} = s_{i}]$ with $P[W_t^{(i)} \in A_{i}]$, where $A_i \subset {\mathbb{R}}$ for any $i \in \{1,\cdots,M\}$, and similarly for and generalisation. Because $P[W_t^{(i)} \in A_{i}]$ can be written as the integral over $A_i$ with respect to a probability density $\rho_{W_t^{(i)}}(x_i)$, equation is replaced by the following $$\label{Pro1New}
\rho_{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}(\mathbf{S}_t) = \prod_{i = 1}^M \rho_{W_t^{(i)}}(x_{i}),$$ where $\rho_{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}(\mathbf{S}_t)$ is the probability density of the probability measure $\tilde{P}^B[ {\mathbb{S}^B}_t \in A ]$. In a similar way one can generalise and any other density for the space process. At this point, as done for model A, we may give the following definition for the space process.
Let $\{W_t^{(i)}\}_{i \in I}$ be a collection of $M = |I| \in {\mathbb{N}}$ Wiener processes defined on the Wiener spaces $\{(\Omega_i,{\mathcal{E}}_i,P_i)\}_{i \in I}$. Let us define
1. $\Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}} :=\Omega_1 \times \cdots \times \Omega_M$;
2. ${\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}$ is the Borel $\sigma$-algebra generated by the open sets of $\Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}$[^5];
3. $\tilde{P}^B: {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^B}} \rightarrow [0,1]$ defined from the $\{P_i\}_{i \in I}$, via the densities as in and generalisations.
The space process is the stochastic process on $(\Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}},{\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^B}},\tilde{P}^B)$ defined as the identity function, namely ${\mathbb{S}^B}(\omega_1,\cdots,\omega_M ) = (\omega_1, \cdots, \omega_M)$.
The set of all possible configurations of the space process at time $t$ will be labeled by the symbol $\mathcal{S}(t)$. This completes our description for the space process in model B.
The particle process {#the-particle-process}
--------------------
Again, a particle is considered as a point-like object. It jumps from one point of space to another and it is completely characterized by the *position* and *velocity* random variables.
The *position random variable*, labeled by $X_t$, is interpreted as the actual position of the particle at time $t$ with respect to a chosen origin. Hence, if $(\Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}},{\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^B}},\tilde{P}^B)$ is the probability space of the space process, $(\Omega_{I},{\mathcal{E}}_{I},P_{I})$ is a probability space on which an integer value stochastic process $I_t:\Omega_I \rightarrow \{1,\cdots,M\}$ is defined (called *section process*), and $W_t^{(i_0)}$ is a chosen origin of a reference frame on ${\mathbb{S}^B}_t$, then $$\label{PosProcCont}
X_t(\omega_{X}) := \pi_{I_t(\omega_{I})}({\mathbb{S}^B}_t({\mathbf{S}})) - W_t^{(i_0)},$$ where $\pi_i$ is the projector of the $i$-th component of an $M$-tuple, and $\omega_{X} = (\omega_{I}, {\mathbf{S}})$ with $\omega_{I} \in \Omega_{I}$ and ${\mathbf{S}}\in \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}$. Thus we have the following definition.
\[ModelB:Xdef\] Consider the probability space $(\Omega_I \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}, {\mathcal{E}}_I \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}, P^B)$ and a measurable space $({\mathbb{R}},{\mathscr{B}(\mathbb{R})})$. The random variable $X_t$ is the ${\mathscr{B}(\mathbb{R})}$-measurable function $$X_t: \Omega_I \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$$ defined as in . $X_t$ represents the position of the particle at time $t$.
Clearly, as any random variable $X_t$ induces a probability distribution $\mu_{X_t} = P^B \circ X_t^{-1}$ and, on the probability space $({\mathbb{R}},{\mathscr{B}(\mathbb{R})},\mu_{X_t})$ it can be considered as the identity function. Also in this case the space process can be described on $(\Omega_I \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}, {\mathcal{E}}_I \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}, P^B)$, by simply demanding that $P^B \circ [{\mathbb{S}^B}]^{-1} = \tilde{P}^B$. Again if no confusion arises, we omit the suffix $^B$ in the probability measure $P^B$.
In model B, the particle moves by jumps from one point to another. This time the frequency of the jumps is assumed to be infinite, which means that the particle jumps from one point to another at each instant of time. In this way, we can say that it is the continuous time generalization of the kinematics described in model A. We do not generalize the definition of the velocity process given before directly. This time we use the following definition: $$\label{ContVel}
V_t(t'):= \frac{X_{t'} - X_t}{t' - t}$$ where we always assume $t' > t$. More formally we adopt the following definition for $V_t(t')$.
\[ModelB:Vdef\] Consider the probability space $(\Omega_{I} \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}, {\mathcal{E}}_{I} \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}, P^B)$ and a measurable space $({\mathbb{R}},{\mathscr{B}(\mathbb{R})})$. Let $t,t' \in {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $t' > t$, the random variable $V_t(t')$ is the ${\mathscr{B}(\mathbb{R})}$-measurable function $$V_t(t'): \Omega_I \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}} \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$$ defined in . $V_t(t')$ represents the mean velocity of the particle in the interval $[t,t']$.
Also in this case $V_t(t')$ can be seen as the identity random variable on the probability space $({\mathbb{R}},{\mathscr{B}(\mathbb{R})},\mu_{V_t(t')})$, where $\mu_{V_t(t')} = P^B \circ V_t(t')^{-1}$. As in model A, for the description of the particle we need to introduce the transition probabilities. These allow to write that $$\label{VelProbModelB}
\mu_{V_t(t')}(v) = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}} \alpha(v,x;t') \mu_{X_t}(x)dx$$ where $\alpha(v,x;t')$ are the probability densities of $V_t(t')$ *given the event* $\{X_t = x\}$. Note that they depend also on the value of $t'$ used to define $V_t(t')$. Also in this case we assume that they are *symmetric* under the exchange of their arguments, namely $\alpha(v,x;t') = \alpha(x,v;t')$, where $\alpha(x,v;t')$ is the probability density of $X_t$ *given th event* $\{V_t(t') = v\}$. Note that this expression is nothing but the Bayes theorem for continuous random variables (see appendix C, Prop. \[PropCondProb1\]). In what follows we will omit $t'$ in $\alpha(v,x;t')$ and $\alpha(x,v;t')$ if no confusion arises.
We conclude this section defining the particle process for this model. With the definitions \[ModelB:Xdef\] and \[ModelB:Vdef\] we gave a meaning to the position and velocity *random variables*. However, they are parametrised by $t$, the physical time which we choose to treat as an external parameter. Since we have a collection of random variables parametrised by $t$, we can speak of *position and velocity stochastic process*, but with the same caution explained in section \[sec3b\].
Let $X_t$ and $V_t(t')$ be the position and velocity process. The couple $\mathscr{P}_t(t') = (X_t,V_t(t'))$ is called *particle process* of model B.
An example of particle process over a space process is drawn in figure \[fig:PPB\].
![The particle process in model B is drawn in red. The position of the particle at a given time is given by the red point while its velocity at the same time is represented by the outgoing arrow. On the back, a possible realization of an $M=6$ space process.[]{data-label="fig:PPB"}](b1)
The removal of the space process
--------------------------------
The removal of the space process in model B is done exactly as before:
1. We consider only the conditional probability densities $\mu_{X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t}(x)$ and $\mu_{V_t(t')|{\mathbf{S}}_t}(v)$ for the random variables $X_t$ and $V_t(t')$;
2. We fix the transition probabilities of the single point of space, i.e. we fix the transition probabilities $p^{(i)}(x,t'; y,t) := \rho_{W_{t'}^{(i)}|W_t^{(i)} = y}(x) $ of all the $M$ Wiener processes.
As in Model A, requirement $i)$ implies that we will always work with the densities $\mu_{X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t}(x)$ and $\mu_{V_t(t')|{\mathbf{S}}_t}(v)$, namely the probability distributions for $X_t$ and $V_t(t')$ *given the event* $\{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t = {\mathbf{S}}_t\}$. Clearly, we can define a joint probability space for $X_t$ and $V_t(t')$ after conditioning on $\{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t = {\mathbf{S}}_t\}$ and, on this joint probability space, some *conditional* transition probabilities $\alpha_{{\mathbf{S}}_t}(v,x)$ can be defined. However, if we insist in using the *unconditional probability density* $\alpha(v,x)$, no joint probability space can be defined. Indeed, we can prove the analogue of theorem \[theoV1\]. Below we will prove the theorem in a slightly more general setting of what we need later: the simple case of absolute continuous measure with respect to Lebesgue will be discussed as an example later.
\[ContV1\] Let $(\Omega_{I} \times \Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}, {\mathcal{E}}_{I} \otimes {\mathcal{E}}_{{\mathbb{S}^B}},P)$ be the probability space on which ${\mathbb{S}^B}_t$, $X_t$ and $V_t(t')$ are defined. Assume that the probability spaces for each of these random variables has the regular conditional probability property. Then $$\begin{split}
P_{{\mathbf{S}}_t}[V_t(t') \in B ] = &\int_B \int_{\Omega_{X_t}} \alpha(v,x) P_{{\mathbf{S}}_t}[X_t \in dx] \\
&+ \delta(B|X_t,{\mathbf{S}}_t)
\end{split}$$ where $\delta(B|X_t,{\mathbf{S}}_t)$ is the Radon-Nikodym derivative with respect to $P \circ[{\mathbb{S}^B}_t]^{-1} = \mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}$, of the measure $\Gamma \mapsto \Delta(B| X_t, \Gamma )$ defined as $$\label{DeltaCont}
\begin{split}
\Delta(B| X_t, \Gamma ) := &\int_{\mathcal{S}(t) / \Gamma} \bigg[\int_{\Omega_{X_t}} P[V_t(t')\in B|X_t = x] \cdot \\
&\cdot\mu_{X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t'}(dx) - P_{{\mathbf{S}}_t'}[V_t(t')\in B] \bigg]\mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}(d{\mathbf{S}}_t').
\end{split}$$ when ${\mathbf{S}}_t \in \Gamma \subset \mathcal{S}_p^\epsilon (t)$.
Since $\{V_t(t') \in B\} = \{ V_t(t') \in B \} \cup \{ {\mathbb{S}^B}_t \in \mathcal{S}(t) \}$, using the regular conditional probability property of probability space, we have $$\begin{split}
P[&\{V_t(t') \in B\} \cup \{ {\mathbb{S}^B}_t \in \mathcal{S}(t) \} ]
= P[V_t(t') \in B] \\
&={\mathbb{E}}[\chi_{\{V_t(t') \in B\}}(\omega)] \\
&= \int_{\mathcal{S}(t)} P_{{\mathbf{S}}_t'} [V_t(t') \in B] (P \circ[{\mathbb{S}^B}_t]^{-1})(d{\mathbf{S}}_t')
\end{split}$$ where $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_t'} [V_t(t') \in B]$ is the regular conditional probability $P[V_t(t') \in B| {\mathbb{S}^B}_t = {\mathbf{S}}_t']$. Take $\Gamma \subset \mathcal{S}(t)$ and set $\mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}(d{\mathbf{S}}_t') = (P \circ[{\mathbb{S}^B}_t]^{-1})(d{\mathbf{S}}_t')$, then we can write $$\begin{split}
P[V_t(t') \in B] &= \int_{\Gamma} P_{{\mathbf{S}}_t'} [V_t(t') \in B] \mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}(d{\mathbf{S}}_t') \\
&+\int_{\mathcal{S}(t) / \Gamma} P_{{\mathbf{S}}_t'} [V_t(t') \in B] \mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}(d{\mathbf{S}}_t').
\end{split}$$ Consider now the random variable $X_t$ and the $\sigma$-algebra ${\mathcal{E}}_{X_t}$. Then, by the law of conditional expectation, we can write that $$\begin{split}
P[&\{V_t(t') \in B\} \cup \{ {\mathbb{S}^B}_t \in \mathcal{S}(t) \} ] = P[V_t(t') \in B] \\
&= {\mathbb{E}}[\chi_{\{V_t(t') \in B\}}(\omega)] \\
&= {\mathbb{E}}[ {\mathbb{E}}[\chi_{\{V_t(t') \in B\}}(\omega)| {\mathcal{E}}_{X_t}] ] \\
&= \int_{\mathcal{S}(t)} \int_{\Omega_{X_t}}P[V_t(t')\in B|X_t = x] \mu_{X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t'}(dx) \mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}(d{\mathbf{S}}_t')
\end{split}$$ where we used the fact that the conditional expectation ${\mathbb{E}}[\chi_{\{V_t(t') \in B\}}(\omega)| {\mathcal{E}}_{X_t}]$ is a random variable and the disintegration theorem (see appendix C, Th. \[DisTheo\]). Then, as done before, for a given $\Gamma \subset \mathcal{S}(t)$ we can write that:
$$\begin{split}
P[V_t(t') \in B] = \int_{\Gamma}\int_{\Omega_{X_t}} P[V_t(t')\in B|X_t = x] \mu_{X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t'}(dx) \mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}(d{\mathbf{S}}_t') + \int_{\mathcal{S}(t) / \Gamma} \int_{\Omega_{X_t}} P[V_t(t')\in B|X_t = x] \mu_{X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t'}(dx) \mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}(d{\mathbf{S}}_t').
\end{split}$$
Comparing the two expressions found for $P[V_t(t') \in B]$ we obtain $$\label{Derivation1}
\int_{\Gamma} P_{{\mathbf{S}}_t'} [V_t(t') \in B] \mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}(d{\mathbf{S}}_t') = \int_{\Gamma} \int_{\Omega_{X_t}}P[V_t(t')\in B|X_t = x] \mu_{X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t'}(dx) \mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}(d{\mathbf{S}}_t') + \Delta(B|X_t,\Gamma)$$ with $$\begin{split}
\Delta(B|X_t,\Gamma) = \int_{\mathcal{S}(t) / \Gamma} \bigg[\int_{\Omega_{X_t}} P[V_t(t')\in B|X_t = x] \mu_{X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t'}(dx) - P_{{\mathbf{S}}_t'}[V_t(t')\in B] \bigg]\mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}(d{\mathbf{S}}_t').
\end{split}$$
Note that the map $\Gamma \mapsto \Delta(B|X_t,\Gamma)$ is a (signed) measure. Now we take the Radon-Nikodym derivative of with respect to the measure $\mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}$, getting $$\begin{split}
P_{{\mathbf{S}}_t} [V_t(t') \in B] &= \int_{\Omega_{X_t}}P[V_t(t')\in B|X_t = x] \mu_{X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t}(dx) \\
&+ \delta(B|X_t,{\mathbf{S}}_t)
\end{split}$$ for some fixed ${\mathbf{S}}_t \in \Gamma$ and where $$\delta(B|X_t,{\mathbf{S}}_t) = \frac{d}{d\mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}}\Delta(B|X_t,\Gamma).$$ Using in the last expression of $P_{{\mathbf{S}}_t} [V_t(t') \in B]$, we obtain the claimed result. This concludes the proof.
On the contrary to what we found for model A, where an explicit expression of $\delta(c|X_N,{\mathbf{S}}_N)$ was given, the expression we find in general for model B is purely formal. A simple case where we may compute the Radon-Nikodym derivative $\delta(B|X_t,{\mathbf{S}}_t)$ is described here. Note that trivially $$\begin{split}
\Delta(B|X_t,{\mathbf{S}}_t)= -\bigg[&\int_{\Omega_{X_t}} P[V_t(t')\in B|X_t = x] \mu_{X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t}(dx) \\
&- P_{{\mathbf{S}}_t}[V_t(t')\in B] \bigg].
\end{split}$$ Assuming that all measures in the above expression admit a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure and also $\Delta(B|X_t,\Gamma)$ admits this density, i.e. $$\Delta(B|X_t,\Gamma) = \int_B \int_\Gamma \delta(v|X_t,{\mathbf{S}}_t)dvd{\mathbf{S}}_t,$$ one can immediately derive the following relation:
$$\label{DeltaModBLebesgue}
\begin{split}
\delta(v|X_t,{\mathbf{S}}_t) &= -\bigg[\int_{\Omega_{X_t}} \alpha(v,x)\mu_{X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t}(x)dx - \mu_{V_t(t')|{\mathbf{S}}_t}(v) \bigg] \\
&= - \frac{1}{\mu_{{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}({\mathbf{S}}_t)} \bigg[\int_{\Omega_{X_t}} \alpha(v,x)\mu_{X_t,{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}(x,{\mathbf{S}}_t)dx - \mu_{V_t(t'),{\mathbb{S}^B}_t}(v,{\mathbf{S}}_t) \bigg].
\end{split}$$
This expression can be considered as the analogous of equation , found for model A. In fact, as for $\delta(c|X_N,{\mathbf{S}}_N)$, it can be computed using the joint probability densities, information that is lost after the conditioning with respect to ${\mathbb{S}^B}_t$. Thus also here, $\delta(v|X_t,{\mathbf{S}}_t)$ contains information about the space process (as in model A).
Let us now analyze the consequences of $ii)$, the following observation is useful. Consider the velocity random variable of model B. Setting $\delta t := t' - t$ we can write $$V_t(t') = V_t(t+\delta t) = \frac{X_{t + \delta t} - X_t}{\delta t}.$$ Since $t$ is a parameter, we can always rescale it in order to have $\delta t = 1$. In this case, $V_t(t+1)$ resemble the velocity random variable $V_N$ of model A. This can be done for any value of $t' > t$. To make this correspondence more concrete, we may also discretize the space process. More precisely, since the points of the space process are Wiener processes taking values on ${\mathbb{R}}$, we can partition ${\mathbb{R}}$ in intervals $\{\Delta_k\}_{k \in K}$ (i.e. $\cup_{k \in K} \Delta_k = {\mathbb{R}}$) where $K \subset {\mathbb{N}}$. At this point one can consider the discretized random variable for the space process and the position random variable. If $W_t^{(i)}$ is a point of the space process ${\mathbb{S}^B}_t$, one can define a new random variable $S_t^{(i)}:\Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}} \rightarrow K$ as $$S_t^{(i)} (\omega) := k \mspace{30mu}\mbox{if}\mspace{10mu} W_t^{(i)}(\omega) \in \Delta_k,$$ which simply reveals in which $\Delta_k$ the Wiener process is. Clearly, $P[S_t^{(i)} = k] = \int_{\Delta_k} \rho_{W_t^{(i)}}(x)dx$ and given the transition probability densities for the Wiener process, say $ p^{(i)}(x,t+1; y,t)$, the transition probabilities for $S_t^{(i)}$ are given, i.e. $$\begin{split}
P[ S_{t+1}^{(i)} &= k | S_t^{(i)} = j ]\\
&= \frac{\int_{\Delta_k}dx\int_{\Delta_j}dy p^{(i)}(x,t+1; y,t)\rho_{W_{t }^{(i)}}(y)}{\int_{\Delta_j} \rho_{W_{t }^{(i)}}(y) dy}.
\end{split}$$ At the end of this procedure one ends up with a discretized version of the space process of model B, which is equivalent to the one used in model A. The same discretization procedure can be done for the position and velocity random variables $X_t$ and $V_{t}(t+1)$. It is not difficult to realize that theorem \[EURmodelA\] can be applied and its application does not depend on the size of the sets $\{\Delta_k\}_{k \in K}$. Thus, as in the previous model, the requirement $ii)$ implies the entropic uncertainty relation between the position and the velocity random variables. Then as in model A, this relation can be used to prove that $X_t$ and $V_t(t')$, after conditioning on ${\mathbf{S}}_t$, are representable as two non-commuting operators on the same Hilbert space. This will be discussed in the next section. Let us now describe a bit further how to obtain the entropic uncertainty relation from the discretization of model B. First of all, if we want to apply the results listed in [@LC], we need to be sure that the two random variables are bounded, i.e. the set of all values they can assume is a bounded set. In fact, only in this case, they can be associated to two bounded self-adjoint operators, which are elements of a $C^*$-algebra, and the relation between non-commutativity and the entropic uncertainty relation holds true. In order to do that, we consider the restriction of the two random variables to a given subset. More precisely, given $\Lambda \subset {\mathbb{R}}= \Omega_{X_t}$, the *bounded version* of $X_t$ will be the random variable $$X_t|_{\Lambda}(\omega) := X_t(\omega) \chi_{\Lambda} (X_t(\omega))$$ where $\chi_{\Lambda}(x)$ is the indicator function of the set $\Lambda$. Similarly, we can define the bounded version of $V_t(t')|_{\Gamma}$. At this point we consider the discrete version of these random variables, similarly to what we did for the space process. Given $X_t|_{\Lambda}$, we can discretise it simply by dividing the set $\Lambda$ in $N$ parts of equals size, obtaining a partition $\{\Delta_{N,k}^X\}_{k \in K}$, $K \subset {\mathbb{N}}$, such that $|\Delta_{N,k}^{X}| = |\Delta_{N,k'}^{X}|$ for any possible $k$. We can see that the number of subsets of the partition (i,e. $N = |K|$) determines the width of the sets $\Delta_{N,k}^{X}$. The bounded and *discrete version* of $X_t$ is then defined as $$X_t^{\Delta}|_{\Lambda}(\omega) := k \mspace{30mu}\mbox{if}\mspace{10mu} X_t(\omega)|_{\Lambda} \in \Delta_{N,k}^X.$$ The same construction can be done for the bounded version of $V_t(t')$, using in general a different partition $\{\Theta_{N',j}^V\}_{j \in J}$, obtaining $V_t(t')^{\Theta}|_{\Gamma}$. It is useful to choose the partitions for $X_t$ and $V_t(t')$ compatible with the partition used for the space process. To do that it is enough to set the partition for $X_t$ and ${\mathbb{S}^B}_t$ equal and choose the partition for $V_t(t')$ consequently. Finally we also chose to set $|\Gamma| = |\Lambda|$, i.e. the size of the two set used to bound the position and velocity random variable coincides. At this point, by discretising time as explained above $X_t^{\Delta}|_{\Lambda}$ and $V_t(t+1)^{\Theta}|_{\Gamma}$ (for simplicity we simply write $V_t^{\Theta}|_{\Gamma}$) become discrete random variables similar to those used for model A. Then, applying theorem \[EURmodelA\], we know that $$\label{EURModelB}
H_{{\mathbf{S}}_t}(X_t^{\Delta}|_{\Lambda}) + H_{{\mathbf{S}}_t}(V_t^{\Theta}|_{\Gamma}) \geqslant D,$$ where $D$ is a positive constant that in general can depend on the partition chosen but not on the probability distribution of $X_t^{\Delta}|_{\Lambda}$ and $V_t^{\Theta}|_{\Gamma}$, hence thet do not depend on $\mu_{X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t}$ and $\mu_{V_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t}$. The whole construction does not depend on the partitions chosen, once they are chosen in the consistent way explained above. In particular, the above inequality holds for arbitrary partitions having small but finite size.
Construction of the Hilbert space structure for model B {#sec4f}
-------------------------------------------------------
The construction of the Hilbert space structure for model B goes more or less as in Model A. However, in this case, we have some additional technicalities due to the use of the partitions for the description of the two random variables involved. The entropic uncertainty relation , ensures that $X_t^{\Delta}|_{\Lambda}$ and $V_t^{\Theta}|_{\Gamma}$, after conditioning on ${\mathbf{S}}_t$, can be jointly described only on a non-commutative probability space, i.e. with non-commuting operators. Let us fix for the moment the partitions used. As in model A, the bounded and discrete version of the position random variable can be represented on the Hilbert space $${\mathcal{H}}(X_t|N,\Lambda) = \bigoplus_{k = 1}^N {\mathcal{H}}_k ,$$ as the diagonal operator $$\hat{X}_t (N,\Lambda) = \sum_{k=1}^N k | k \rangle \langle k |.$$ Here $| k \rangle \in {\mathcal{H}}_{k}$ and $\hat{P}^{(\hat{X}_t (N,\Lambda))}_k := | k \rangle \langle k |$ is the PVM such that $$\label{Continuospec}
P[X_t^{\Delta}|_{\Lambda} = k] = P[X_t|_{\Lambda} \in \Delta^X_{N,k}] = \langle \psi | \hat{P}^{(\hat{X}_t (N,\Lambda))}_k| \psi \rangle$$ for some $\psi \in {\mathcal{H}}(X_t|N,\Lambda)$. Similarly, the bounded and discrete version of the velocity random variable can be represented on the Hilbert space $${\mathcal{H}}(V_t|N,\Gamma) = \bigoplus_{j = 1}^N {\mathcal{H}}_j$$ (note that particular partitions considered implies that $N = N'$) as the diagonal operator $$\hat{V}_t( N , \Gamma) = \sum_{j=1}^N j | j \rangle \langle j |.$$ The two Hilbert spaces ${\mathcal{H}}(X_t|N,\Lambda)$ and ${\mathcal{H}}(V_t|N,\Gamma)$ have the same dimension and so they are unitary equivalent, i.e. there exists a unitary map $\hat{U}:{\mathcal{H}}(V_t|\Gamma)\rightarrow{\mathcal{H}}(X_t|\Lambda)$. Hence we can represent $\hat{V}_t( N , \Gamma)$ on ${\mathcal{H}}(X_t|N,\Lambda)$ and viceversa. The entropic uncertainty relation ensures that $$\label{COMREL}
[ \hat{X}_t (N,\Lambda) , \hat{V}_t( N , \Gamma) ] \neq 0$$ Let us now analyse what happens when we change the size of the partition. First, we consider the limit $N\rightarrow\infty$ which means that the size of the partitions goes to zero. Because the sets $\Delta^X_{N,k}$ shrink to a point, say $\{x\}$, we have $$\label{cruciani!!!}
\lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \langle \psi | \hat{P}^{(\hat{X}_t (N,\Lambda))}_k| \psi \rangle = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} [X_t|_{\Lambda} \in \Delta^X_{N,k}] = 0$$ for any $\psi$, i.e. any $P$. This means, by prop 9.14 of [@moretti2013spectral], $x \in \sigma_c(\hat{X}_t(\Lambda))$ (here $\hat{X}_t(\Lambda) := \hat{X}_t(\infty,\Lambda)$ ). By the arbitrariness of $x$ we conclude, as expected, that $\hat{X}_t(\Lambda)$ is a bounded operator with purely continuous spectrum. Note that the Hilbert space on which we can define $\hat{X}_t(\Lambda)$ is $${\mathcal{H}}(X_t|\Lambda) := \int^{\oplus}_{\Lambda} {\mathcal{H}}_x dx$$ which is not separable in general. Here, $\hat{X}_t(\Lambda)$ can be written as $$\hat{X}_t(\Lambda) = \int_{\Lambda} x P^{(\hat{X}_t(\Lambda))}(dx).$$ Similar conclusions hold for the operator representing the bounded and discrete velocity random variable: $\hat{V}_t(\Gamma) := \hat{V}_t(\infty,\Gamma)$ is a bounded operator with continuous spectrum. Since for any value of $N$, $\hat{X}_t(N,\Lambda)$ is the operator representing the random variable obtained by discretizing the *same* random variable $X_t|_{\Lambda}$, also the operators $\hat{X}_t(N,\Lambda)$ can be obtained by discretising the same operator $\hat{X}_t(\Lambda)$. The same holds for $\hat{V}_t(N,\Gamma)$. At this point because is valid for any possible partition chosen in the consistent way explained in the previous section (i.e. for any $N$), we can conclude that $$[ \hat{X}_t (\Lambda) , \hat{V}_t(\Gamma) ] \neq 0.$$ Since $\Gamma$ and $\Lambda$ are arbitrary, with similar considerations we may conclude that $$[ \hat{X}_t , \hat{V}_t ] \neq 0$$ where $\hat{X}_t$ is the unbounded operator on a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}(X_t) := {\mathcal{H}}(X_t|{\mathbb{R}})$ such that $\hat{X}_t (\Lambda) = \hat{P}_{\Lambda} \hat{X}_t \hat{P}_{\Lambda}$ (here $\hat{P}_\Lambda$ is the projector from ${\mathcal{H}}(X_t)$ to the Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}(X_t|\Lambda)$) and $\hat{V}_t$ is defined in a similar manner.
We conclude by observing that ${\mathcal{H}}(X_t|\Lambda)$ and ${\mathcal{H}}(V_t|\Gamma)$ may be not separable (and so also ${\mathcal{H}}(X_t)$ and ${\mathcal{H}}(V_t)$). In general, non-separable infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces are not mutually isomorphic. Thus in this case we cannot define a unitary map $\hat{U}:{\mathcal{H}}(V_t)\rightarrow{\mathcal{H}}(X_t)$ which maps the operator representations of $X_t$ and $V_t$ on ${\mathcal{H}}(V_t)$ into the corresponding operators in ${\mathcal{H}}(X_t)$. This is an effect of the possible lack of separability of the Hilbert spaces ${\mathcal{H}}(X_t)$ and ${\mathcal{H}}(V_t)$. However this does not mean that we cannot represent the velocity random variable on ${\mathcal{H}}(X_t|\Lambda)$ and vice-versa: one simply represents the velocity random variable on ${\mathcal{H}}(X_t|N,\Lambda)$ and then takes the limit. However, to have a consistent description the velocity operator obtained in this limit must be isomorphic to the operator $\hat{V}_t$ diagonal on ${\mathcal{H}}(V_t|\Gamma)$. We will refer to this problem with the name separability problem" and we will comment on it in the next section. We conclude by observing that the result obtained here, as explained in the previous section, holds for any value of $t'>t$.
Final remarks and weak points of model B {#modelB-final section}
----------------------------------------
We completed the description of model B, which can be considered as the continuous time generalization of model A. The discreteness of time was recognized as a limitation of model A for a direct comparison to ordinary quantum mechanics. Here time is a continuous parameter as in ordinary quantum mechanics but a direct comparison is still not possible. The construction presented here leads to an infinite dimensional Hilbert space which may be not separable while in ordinary quantum mechanics the Hilbert space always is. Comparing this model with model A, we can understand that this time the number of points in the space process, $M$, does not determine the dimension of the Hilbert space. After a bit of thought, one can realize that this is a consequence of the fact that we are using probability measures which admit a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure. Another consequence of this fact is the continuous spectrum of the operators representing the particle process. However, one can always imagine that, if we let the support of the probability measure shrink to a single point (hence obtainining a Dirac measure, which is not absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure), the operators have a pure point spectrum. This suggests that the real" continuity of the spectrum is obtained only in the limit $M = \infty$ and the absolute continuity is possible only in this case. One may observe the following. When $M \rightarrow \infty$ we can have two cases:
1. the points increase in a *non dense* way: their number is infinite but in any subset of ${\mathbb{R}}$ these is just a finite number of them (they behaves as numbers in ${\mathbb{N}}$ or ${\mathbb{Z}}$);
2. the points increase in a *dense* way: their number is infinite and in any subset of ${\mathbb{R}}$ there is an infinite number of them (like numbers in $\mathbb{Q}$). We will refer to this case with the name *dense-point limit*.
Note that in both cases they are assumed to be countable. In the first case, $\hat{X}_t$ can be seen as the limit of a sequence of compact operators: the spectrum is purely point-like. However, this possibility does not seem to be comparable with the usual position operator in quantum mechanics, which is just bounded (and not compact) when we restrict it to a subset of ${\mathbb{R}}$. On the other hand, the second case is more interesting. Indeed, it may give rise to bounded operators which are not compact. This suggests that to completely recover quantum mechanics, the dense-point limit must be taken.
Despite the observations done above, we still want to try a comparison with non-relativistic quantum mechanics. This time we are really closer to deriving the canonical commutation relation between position and momentum from the quantities of the model, as we will see. Assume the following:
1. The Hilbert space on which we can represent $\hat{X}_t$ is separable and infinite-dimensional, i.e. $L_2({\mathbb{R}})$;
2. There exists a self-adjoint operator $$\hat{H} = \frac{1}{2m} \nabla_{x}^2 + V(x)$$ which, together with $\hat{X}_t$, fulfils all the mathematical requirements needed to apply the Ehrenfest theorem (see [@friesecke2009ehrenfest]).
Clearly $\hat{H}$ is nothing but the ordinary hamiltonian operator in quantum mechanics. At this point, by the Ehrenfest theorem, we have the equation $$\frac{d}{dt} \langle \hat{X}_t \rangle_{\psi} = \frac{1}{m} \langle \hat{P}_t \rangle_\psi,$$ where $m$ is the mass of the quantum particle and $\psi \in L_2({\mathbb{R}})$. Consider now the velocity random variable of the model B $$V_t(t') = \frac{X_{t'} - X_t}{t' -t}.$$ Note that, after the removal of the space process, the three random variables lies in three different probability spaces and there does not exist a joint probability space where we can describe all of them (we recall that when we remove the space we use the *unconditional* transition probabilities). Thus this expression is purely formal and, in particular, it is not expected to hold at the level of the outcomes of these random variables. However, the following expression makes sense $${\mathbb{E}}[V_t(t')|{\mathbf{S}}_t] = \frac{{\mathbb{E}}[X_{t'}|{\mathbf{S}}_t] - {\mathbb{E}}[X_t|{\mathbf{S}}_t]}{t' - t}$$ since the probability measures of each expectation are defined on different probability spaces. Using the procedure explained in the previous section and under the assumption $i)$, we can jointly describe these three random variable using a non-commutative probability space. In particular, we compute the expectation using the Hilbert space structure, writing $${\mathbb{E}}[V_t(t')|{\mathbf{S}}_t] = \langle \hat{V}_t(t') \rangle_\psi = \frac{\langle \hat{X}_{t'} \rangle_\psi -\langle \hat{X}_t \rangle_\psi}{t' -t},$$ where $\psi \in {\mathcal{H}}$ with ${\mathcal{H}}$ Hilbert space constructed as in section \[sec4f\]. This time an explicit procedure to construct $\psi$ is not known. From this equation we can write that $$\lim_{t' \rightarrow t} \langle \hat{V}_t(t') \rangle_\psi = \frac{d}{dt} \langle \hat{X}_t \rangle_{\psi} = \frac{1}{m} \langle \hat{P}_t \rangle_\psi,$$ which means that the *weak*-limit $t'\rightarrow t$ of velocity operator in model B, under assumptions $i)$ and $ii)$, coincides with the momentum operator of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Note that the assumption $i)$ on the separability of the Hilbert space is crucial for this consideration. Finally, we also note that separability also solves the problem of the non-unitary equivalence of ${\mathcal{H}}(X_t)$ and ${\mathcal{H}}(V_t)$ mentioned at the end of section \[sec4f\]. Summarising, despite Model B is capable to reproduce the commutation relation between the position and velocity operators of the particle, which resembles the quantum mechanical commutation relation, it did not succeed in the derivation of . However, if in some other model (similar to model B) we can justify $i)$ and $ii)$ in some way, we can have a correspondence of the model with non-relativistic quantum mechanics.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we show how a jump-type kinematics of a point like particle together with an intrinsic stochasticity of the physical space (on which the particle moves) can give rise to a non-commutative description of the two basic observables which define the particle: its position and its velocity. In model A time is treated as a discrete parameter and this makes it impossible to have a precise comparison with the ordinary quantum mechanics. Generalizing to the continuous time case, we obtained model B. However, as pointed out in section \[modelB-final section\], even in this case we can not compare the two theories. Indeed, the Hilbert space on which we represent model B is non-separable in general. In both models we are able to obtain the same non-commutativity of ordinary quantum mechanics (at the algebraic level) but we have to conclude that this is not sufficient. It is worth to recall how this non-commutativity was obtained: *by removing the space process at a given time $t$*. Physically this requirement is very natural: any experiment which can be done to measure the probability (via frequency), can be done *in a given configuration of the space*. This means that if we assume that space really is the stochastic process described in this paper, any probability that we can measure in a laboratory is somehow conditioned to the configuration of space that we have at the time of this measurement. The fact that in our models, space is not described but removed (essentially via conditioning and not by averaging), expresses exactly this fact and is the origin of non-commutativity. We also note that in order to obtain such non-commutativity, the space process must be *random*, as the entropic uncertainty relation obtained show. Indeed, if space is a deterministic phenomenon we obtain a trivial bound. The space process seems to be central, despite it must be removed to obtain a non-commutative probability space for the particle: in this sense it plays an active role in the description of the particle despite the non-commutative probability theory obtained after its removal is not capable to describe it. In addition, in model A, the space process determines the dimension of the Hilbert space, a feature which is lost in model B. This suggests that a better understanding of the space process may show a possible solution to the non-separability problem. In particular, it can be that a careful selection of a particular class of space processes, may force" the Hilbert space to be separable. This possibility will be discussed in [@LC3].
Acknowledgements
================
The author would like to thank S. Bacchi, for many useful discussions and comments on the manuscript, G. Gasbarri, for its patience during the corrections and S. Marcantoni for many advices and his fundamental support during the final stage of this work. Other persons which indirectly contribute to this works are L. Bersani, N. D’Andrea, A. Motta, R. Truglia e M. Viganó.
Appendix
========
A - Quantum ruler {#a---quantum-ruler .unnumbered}
-----------------
Here we will describe an attempt to give a quantum mechanical description of a ruler, a model that will be called *quantum ruler*. Let us start with the formal definition. A quantum ruler of length $N \in {\mathbb{N}}$ is an $N$-particle quantum system with the following features:
1. the Hilbert space of a quantum ruler is ${\mathcal{H}}_R := \bigotimes_{i = 1}^{N} \left( L_2({\mathbb{R}}^3) \otimes {\mathbb{C}}^2 \right)_i$ and a generic state take this form $$| \psi \rangle = \psi(y_1,\cdots,y_N) \otimes | -, \cdots, - \rangle;$$
2. there exists a region of space $L \subset {\mathbb{R}}^3$ such that $\langle \psi | \hat{P}^{(\hat{\mathbf{X}})}(L) |\psi \rangle = 1$, where $$\hat{P}^{(\hat{\mathbf{X}})}(L) = \hat{P}^{(\hat{X}_1)}(L) \otimes \cdots \otimes \hat{P}^{(\hat{X}_N)}(L)$$ with $\hat{P}^{(\hat{X}_i)}(\cdot)$ is the PVM associated to the position operator of the $i$-th particle;
3. the time evolution of a quantum ruler is determined by the hamiltonian $\hat{H}_R := \sum_{i=1}^{N} \hat{T}_i + \hat{V}$, where $\hat{T}_i$ are the $i$-th particle kinetic terms and $\hat{V} \neq \sum_{i=0}^{N}\hat{V}_i$ is some potential (chosen in order to have $\hat{H}$ bounded from below);
4. before any measurement the quantum ruler is described by a bounded state of the hamiltonian operator, namely $\hat{H}_R |\psi \rangle = E_0| \psi \rangle$;
5. the measurement process of the position of a particle (call it $A$) with wave function $\phi_A(x) \in {\mathcal{H}}_A$ (which is not a particle of the quantum ruler) occurs with the following interaction hamiltonian (defined on the tensor product Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_R \otimes {\mathcal{H}}_{Part}$) $$\hat{H}_I \cdot := \sum_{i=1}^{N} g \delta(y_i - x) |+_i\rangle\langle -_i|$$ where $g$ is a real constant.
Let us explain the physical meaning of these requirements. A quantum ruler is a quantum system composed of $N$ distinguishable particles with spin. The spin degree of freedom should not be considered as the real spin of the particles, rather as labels that model the possibility to find the $i$-th particle in two distinguishable states. This is the content of the requirement $i)$. The condition $ii)$ simply means that, when considered as a single object, a quantum ruler is localised in a specific region $L$ of space. This assumption plays a marginal role in the rest of the analysis, nevertheless it expresses the basic fact that we cannot measure arbitrarily long distances with a given quantum ruler. Requirements $iii)$ and $iv)$ simply express that these particles are bounded together. Finally $v)$ describes how the quantum ruler measures a distance: by a spin flip. Given the particle $A$, the measurement of its position by the quantum ruler happens when $A$ touches one of the particles of the quantum ruler“ causing a spin flip. After this interaction the quantum ruler undergoes a projective measurement. Since the particles are distinguishable we can label them by establishing an order, and chosing an origin (the zero” of the ruler). The position of $A$ is measured by counting the number of particles between the origin and the particle of the ruler with the spin flipped, i.e. the particle of the ruler which interacted with the particle we want to measure. If this model is correct, at least in some limit, we should be able to recover the statistics of the position of particle $A$, namely $|\phi_A(x)|^2$. Here we will show how this is possible.
Let $A \subset L$ be a set. The probability to find the $i$-th particle of the ruler in this set is given by $$P[x_i \in A] = \langle \psi | {\hat{\mathbb{I}}}\otimes \cdots \otimes {\hat{\mathbb{I}}}\otimes \hat{P}^{(\hat{X}_i)}(A) \otimes {\hat{\mathbb{I}}}\otimes \cdots \otimes {\hat{\mathbb{I}}}| \psi \rangle$$ where $| \psi \rangle$ is the state of the quantum ruler. From ordinary quantum mechanics, we know that $$P[x_i \in A] = \int_A \rho_i(x) dx$$ where $\rho_i(x)$ is a density with respect to the Lebesgue measure. An example of possible probability densities of a quantum ruler is drawn in figure \[fig:1\]-$a)$.
From the figure, it is easy to understand that the quantum ruler can give us only statistical information about a possible measurement of the point $A$. Such probability distribution is showed in figure \[fig:1\]-$b)$. Note that we did not use the requirement $v)$ to arrive at this conclusion, hence we are not really describing the measurement of the position of the particle. In order to do that precisely, let us assume that we have a particle $A$, described by a wave function $\phi_A(x) \in {\mathcal{H}}_A$. The whole system (quantum ruler plus particle) will be described by the state $$|\psi_t \rangle = \psi_R(y_1,\cdots,y_N)\otimes | -, \cdots, - \rangle \otimes \phi_A(x)$$ which is an element of ${\mathcal{H}}_R \otimes {\mathcal{H}}_A$. The measurement process is modelled by the interaction hamiltonian as in point $v)$. After the interaction we perform a projective measurement to learn which spin is flipped: the number of particles between the origin (which is an arbitrarily chosen particle of the quantum ruler) and the particle with the spin flipped is our distance. Hence, if $d(O,A)$ is the distance between the origin and the particle with the spin flipped, we can write that $$P[d(O,A) = i] = P[S_i = +_i] = \langle \psi_{s} | (|+_i \rangle \langle +_i |)| \psi_{s} \rangle$$ where $|\psi_{s} \rangle$ is the total quantum state right after the interaction. We will compute $|\psi_{s} \rangle$ in interaction picture for $s-t =\delta \tau$ such that $g \delta \tau \ll 1$. In this regime we have that $$e^{-i\delta \tau \hat{H}_I} \approx {\hat{\mathbb{I}}}- ig\delta\tau\sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta(y_i - x) |+_i\rangle\langle -_i| + O(g^2\delta\tau^2)$$ Thus, setting $t = 0$ $$\begin{split}
| \psi_{\delta \tau} \rangle \approx | \psi_0 \rangle - ig\delta\tau &\sum_{i=1}^{N}\delta(y_i - x) \psi_R(y_1,\cdots,y_i,\cdots,y_N) \otimes\\
&\otimes | -, \cdots, +_i ,\cdots, - \rangle \otimes \phi_A(x) + O(g^2\delta\tau^2)
\end{split}$$ Using this result, we obtain $$\begin{split}
P[ & d(O,A) = i] = \langle \psi_{\delta \tau} | (|+_i \rangle \langle +_i |)| \psi_{\delta \tau} \rangle \\
&\approx g^2 \delta \tau^2\int \prod_{j = 1}^N dy_j dx \delta^2 (y_i - x) |\psi_R(y_1,\cdots, y_N)|^2 |\phi_A(x)|^2 \\
&= g^2 \delta\tau^2 \delta(0)\int \prod_{j = 1}^N dy_j |\psi_R(y_1,\cdots,y_{i},\cdots, y_N)|^2 |\phi_A(y_i)|^2.
\end{split}$$ The $\delta(0)$ is due to the presence of the square of the Dirac-delta in the probability density computed using the wave function evolved in the interaction picture. In order to deal with this divergent term, we require that $g^2\delta\tau^2\delta(0) \approx 1$. This requirement is in agreement with the fact that the terms $g^2\delta\tau^2$ are infinitesimal and they can be neglected in the expression of $|\psi_{\delta\tau}\rangle$. Thus we conclude that $$\label{QuantumRulerProb}
\begin{split}
P[ & d(O,A) = i] =\\
&= \int \prod_{j = 1}^N dy_j |\psi_R(y_1,\cdots,y_{i},\cdots, y_N)|^2 |\phi_A(y_i)|^2
\end{split}$$ As we can see, the probability of the outcome depends both on the ruler and particle state. We do not obtain $|\phi_A(y_i)|^2$, because we are not using a classical ruler. In order to obtain this result we may take the dense limit“, which we interpret as the following $$N\rightarrow \infty, \mspace{30mu} \eta \rightarrow \infty, \mspace{30mu} L = \mbox{costant}$$ where $\eta$ is the particle density, i.e. $\eta = N / L$. Since the ratio $N/\eta$ must remain constant, the density must go to infinity as $N$ and in the same way in any point of the volume. To realise this situation, we may imagine that as $N$ increases, the particles of the quantum ruler are described by gaussian wave functions centred around different points of space. In order to keep $\eta / N$ constant, as $N$ increases the overlaps between the gaussian should reduce. This means that the square modulus of the wave function tends to a Dirac delta. Hence, in the dense limit” we can formally write that $$|\psi_R(y_1, \cdots, y_N)|^2 \rightarrow \prod_{j = 1}^N \delta(y_j - X_j) \mbox{ for } N \gg 1,$$ where $X_j \in L$ are the points of the quantum ruler. Substituting this expression in , we obtain $P[d(O,A) = i] = |\phi_A(X_i)|^2$. If in the dense limit“ considered, we label the points of the ruler with its coordinate with respect to a chosen origin, we can suppress the index $i$ obtaining $P[d(O,A) = X] = |\phi_A(X)|^2$. Hence we can see that the quantum ruler reduces to a classical ruler (thought as a solid continuous rod) in the dense limit” described above.
#### Remark. {#remark. .unnumbered}
Note that the quantum ruler is quantum", only because the probability distributions used are derived according to the quantum formalism. It is not difficult to see that if we replace the probability distributions arising from $\psi_R(y_1, \cdots, y_N)$ with a probability distribution arising from $M$, suitably correlated, stochastic processes the whole description of the (*stochastic*, this time) ruler would be the same.
B - Distance between two points $A$ and $B$ of a random distribution of points in a set $\Lambda$ {#b---distance-between-two-points-a-and-b-of-a-random-distribution-of-points-in-a-set-lambda .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let the symbol $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$ label a random distribution of points over the set $\Lambda$. In this appendix, we will describe two possible methods to introduce a notion of distance between two points belonging to $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$. In both methods presented here, we will try to define the distance between two points $A$ and $B$ using only the other points of $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$, which we hope will clarify the expression measured on the points " used for example in section \[ModA:SPsec\].
Before introducing the two aforementioned distances, let us define what we mean with the term distance in this appendix.
\[semi-defi\] Let $G$ be a set and $d: G \times G \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^+$ be a function. Given two points $x,y \in G$, we say that $d(x,y)$ is the *distance between $x$ and $y$* if
1. $d(x,y) = d(y,x)$ for all $x,y \in G$;
2. for any $x,y \in G$, $d(x,y) = 0$ if and only if $x = y$;
Another name used in the literature for the function $d$ of the above definition is *semi-metric* and the couple $(G,d)$ is called *semi-metric space*.
Let $G$ be a set and $d : G \times G \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^+$ be a distance on it. If for any $x,y,z \in G$ $$d(x,y) + d(y,z) \geqslant d(x,z),$$ the distance is said *metric*.
As in the previous case, the couple $(G,d)$ has a particular name: *metric space*. Semi-metric spaces and metric spaces are related by the following interesting theorem [@wilson1931semi].
Let $(G,d)$ be a semi-metric space. Assume that, for any $a \in G$ and any $k \in {\mathbb{R}}^+$ there exists $r \in {\mathbb{R}}^+$ such that, given any point $b \in G$ for which $d(a,b) \geqslant k$, then $$d(a,c) + d(b,c) \geqslant r$$ holds for any $c \in G$. Then $(G,d)$ is homeomorphic to a metric space.
Hence if the conditions of this theorem are fulfilled, then there exist a continuous function between the original semi-metric and some metric space that has a continuous inverse function (i.e. an homeomorphism). Loosely speaking, the distance in a the semi-metric space can be distorted" into a distance over a metric space.
The first distance on $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$ we introduce will be called *nearest neighbourhood distance*, or *NNG-distance* for short. Let us assume that $(\Lambda,h)$ is a metric space. Let $A$, $B$ and $C$ be points in $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$, thus they are also points in $\Lambda$. In order to define the NNG distance between two points in $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$ we need to introduce a *selection procedure* which we will use to understand which is, given a point $A$, its closest point in $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$ (see figure \[fig:NNGsp\]). This selection procedure makes explicitly use of the underlying metric structure of $\Lambda$. In particular, if $A \in \mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$, its *closest point* is the point $B \in \mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$ which minimises the distance $h(x,A)$ for all $x \in \mathcal{X}(\Lambda)/\{A\}$. In symbols, the closest point to $A$ in $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$ can be defined as $$\mbox{Cl}(A|\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)) := \{x \in \mathcal{X}(\Lambda) \mbox{ }|\mbox{ } \min_{y \in \mathcal{X}(\Lambda)/\{A\} } h(y,A) = h(x,A) \} .$$
![The selection procedure for the NNG-distance in simple the case of $3$ points. In this case $C = \mbox{Cl}(A|\mathcal{X}(\Lambda))$ where $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda) = \{A,B,C\}$. Note that it depends on the underlying metric structure (euclidean in this case).[]{data-label="fig:NNGsp"}](ApB1)
The idea behind the NNG-distance of two points $A$ and $B$ is to count the number of points that we need to find to arrive in $B$, excluding all the previous closest points we found. Let us explain better this idea. Starting from $A$, the closet point is $x_1= \mbox{Cl}(A|\mathcal{X}(\Lambda))$. Clearly if $x_1$ is the closest point of $A$, then also the converse is true, i.e. $A = \mbox{Cl}(x_1|\mathcal{X}(\Lambda))$, and clearly we never reach the point $B$ by iterating this procedure. The simplest way out is to look for the closest point to $x_1$ *excluding* $A$, i.e. $x_2 = \mbox{Cl}(x_1|\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)/\{A\})$. By repeating this procedure till we do reach point $B$, we select a collection of points $D(A,B):=\{x_1,\cdots,x_M = B\}$ (the generic point of this collection is $x_i = \mbox{Cl}(x_{i-1}|\mathcal{X}(\Lambda))/\{x_{i-2},\cdots,x_1\}$) and we call $\delta(A,B)$ the number of points in this collection, i.e. $\delta(A,B) = |D(A,B)|$. However the function $\delta$ is not symmetric under the exchange of its arguments in general (see figure \[fig:NNGd\] for an example).
![An example of NNG-distance. In this case $d_1(A,B) = 7$. Note that $\delta(A,B) = 6$ (yellow line) and $\delta(B,A) = 8$ (violet line), showing that $\delta$ is not symmetric in general.[]{data-label="fig:NNGd"}](ApB2)
However, it is a known fact that any non-symmetric function can be always be symmetrised. We define the NNG-distance as a symmetrised version of $\delta$.
Let $A,B \in \mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$ be two points. The *NNG-distance* between $A$ and $B$ is defined as $$d_1(A,B) = \frac{\delta(A,B) + \delta(B,A)}{2}.$$
In general, $d_1$ is not a metric distance. Note that in the above explanation for the construction of this distance, we did not consider the case of possible ambiguities in the selection procedure, namely the possibility to have two points with the same distance. In this case, one may go on with the selection procedure using one of the two points for each ambiguity, which means constructing two (different in general) collections of points $D(A,B)$, and define the NNG-distance using the inferior of the two $\delta(A,B)$ obtained with respect to the two collections. To conclude the discussion about the NNG-distance, we give some physical motivation regarding this definition. First, the collection of points $\{x_1,\cdots,x_M\}$ can be seen as the number of particles of a (stochastic or quantum) ruler measuring the distance between $A$ and $B$. Given that, $d_1(A,B)$ can be seen as the distance covered by a particle, which can jump from one point to its closest in a fixed amount of time (i.e. with constant speed), from the point $A$ to reach the point $B$ and then come back in $A$. This resembles the radar method used in special and general relativity to define distances.
Let us now introduce the second distance on $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$ which will be called *triangular distance*, or *T-distance* for short. We have seen that the NNG-distance strongly depends on the underlying metric structure of $\Lambda$. The T-distance is an attempt to reduce this dependence. The idea is schematically explained in figure \[fig:Td\].
![An example of T-distance. In this case $d_2(A,B) = 6$. Note that the T-distance is symmetric. The collection of points $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$, $A$ and $B$ are the same used in figure \[fig:NNGd\].[]{data-label="fig:Td"}](ApB3)
The T-distance can be obtained as follows. Given the distribution of point $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$, construct all the triangles, whose vertices are the points in $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$ which do not have any point of $\mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$ inside them. In general if $\Lambda $ is a $d$-dimensional space, one constructs all the $d$-dimensional generalisation of a triangle, namely a *$(d-1)$-simplex*. If there is an ambiguity, i.e. from a set of points one can draw equivalently two couples of triangles (we are considering the $2$-D case), draw first the triangle with the smallest area, computed via *Pick’s theorem* [@pick1899geometrisches] to avoid the use of the underlying space $\Lambda$. In the $d$-dimensional case, instead of using the area, one considers the $d$-volume, which can be computed in a background independent way using the Ehrhart polynomial [@ehrhart1962geometrie]. Then the T-distance is defined as
Given two points $A,B \in \mathcal{X}(\Lambda)$, the *T-distance* between $A$ and $B$ is defined as $$d_2(A,B) = \{ \mbox{Number of triangles touched by the line $\overline{AB}$}\}.$$
Note that $d_2(A,B)$ is automatically symmetric, hence it is a semi-metric. However the triangular inequality does not hold in general, as figure \[fig:Tdvio\] shows.
![An example where the T-distance violates the triangular inequality: $d_2(A,C) + d_2(C,B) = 2 < d_2(A,B) = 5$.[]{data-label="fig:Tdvio"}](ApB4)
From the physical point of view, this distance can be interpreted as the number of particles needed to a quantum (stochastic) ruler to measure the distance between $A$ and $B$ minimizing the $d$-volume occupied“ by the reler. Indeed, the number of triangles corresponds to the number of points between $A$ and $B$ which are the vertices of the triangles as well. Other distances which are more background independent” may be available (for example one can define a distance as the smallest number of triangles constructed as before, which link, a triangle having $A$ as vertex, with another triangle having $B$ as vertex), but the discussion of them is out of the scope of this appendix.
#### Remark. {#remark.-1 .unnumbered}
The distances presented here can be applied in the 1-D case. The NNG-distance can be applied without problems while for the $T$-distance we recall that a $0$-simplex is simply a point (thus $d_2(A,B)$ is just the numbers of points between $A$ and $B$).
C - Measure-theoretic conditional probability and conditional expectation {#Appendix: measure theoretic conditional probability .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this appendix, a concise explanation of the notion of conditional expectation (and so conditional probability) in a measure-theoretic setting is given. The discussion done here is based on Sec. 2.3 of [@gudder2014stochastic] and on Ch. 5 of [@kallenberg2006foundations], which are the main references for the interested reader. A more coincised exposition of the topic can be found in Sec. 2.7 of [@klebaner2005introduction].
In order to introduce the notion of conditional expectation starting from elementary probability, consider the following elementary definition.
Let us consider a probability space $(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)$ and let $B \in {\mathcal{E}}$ be such that $P(E) > 0$. For any $A \in {\mathcal{E}}$, the *conditional probability of $A$ given $B$* is given by $$P(A|B) := \frac{P(A \cap B)}{P(B)}.$$
It is not difficult to see that, for a given $B \in {\mathcal{E}}$, the map $P(\cdot | B): A \mapsto P(A|B)$ is again a probability measure: this fact allows to interpret $P(A | B)$ as the probability that the event $A$ occurs given the fact that the event $B$ has already occurred. Now, suppose we have a collection of sets $\{B_i\}_{i \in I}$, elements of ${\mathcal{E}}$, which are mutually disjoint $B_i \cap B_j = \{\varnothing\}$ for any $i,j \in I$. The smallest $\sigma$-algebra, say ${\mathcal{E}}_0$, which contains all these sets is called *$\sigma$-algebra generated by $\{B_i\}_{i \in I}$*. In symbols, we will write ${\mathcal{E}}_0 = \sigma( \{B_i\}_{i \in I}) $. We can generalise the notion of conditional expectation given a set (i.e. an event) in the following way.
Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)$ be a probability space and let $\{B_i\}_{i \in I}$ be a family of mutually disjoint subsets of $\Omega$. Assume that for any $i \in I$, $P(B_i) >0$. Let ${\mathcal{E}}_0 = \sigma (\{B_i\}_{i \in I})$. For any $A \in {\mathcal{E}}$, the *conditional probability of $A$ given ${\mathcal{E}}_0$* is defined to be the random variable $$P(A|{\mathcal{E}}_0) (\omega) = P(A|B_i)$$ for $\omega \in B_i \in {\mathcal{E}}_0$.
We want to stress that the conditional probability with respect to a $\sigma$-algebra is a random variable and not a number, as in the initial case of conditional probability with respect to an event. The conditional probability with respect to a given $\sigma$-algebra has two important properties. First, by construction $P(\cdot | {\mathcal{E}}_0)$ is measurable with respect to ${\mathcal{E}}_0$. In addition we also have the following proposition.
Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)$ be a probability space and take a family of mutually disjoint sets $\{B_i\}_{i \in I}$ all belonging to ${\mathcal{E}}$. Let $P(\cdot|{\mathcal{E}}_0) (\omega)$ be the conditional expectation given ${\mathcal{E}}_0 = \sigma(\{B_i\}_{i \in I})$, then $$\int_{B}P(A|{\mathcal{E}}_0) (\omega)P(d\omega) = \int_{B} \chi_A(\omega) P(d\omega)$$ for all $B \in {\mathcal{E}}_0$.
Assume $B = B_i$ for some $B_i$ of the family of set generating the $\sigma$-algebra ${\mathcal{E}}_0$. In this case we can write $$\begin{split}
\int_{B_i} P(A|{\mathcal{E}}_0)(\omega) P(d\omega) &= P(A|B_i) \int_{B_i} P(d\omega) \\
&= \frac{P(A \cap B_i)}{P(B_i)} P(B_i) \\
&= \int_{\Omega} \chi_{A \cap B_i}(\omega)P(d\omega) \\
&= \int_{B_i} \chi_A(\omega) P(d\omega).
\end{split}$$ For a generic $B \in {\mathcal{E}}_0$ the result holds by additivity of the integral. Indeed a generic element of ${\mathcal{E}}_0$, if it is not an element of the family, is always the union of two or more elements of the family. This concludes the proof.
The reason why these two properties of $P(\cdot|{\mathcal{E}}_0)$ are interesting, is because they completely characterise the conditional expectation in a measure-theoretic sense, as the following proposition shows.
\[PropCondProb\] Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)$ be a probability space and take a family of mutually disjoint sets $\{B_i\}_{i \in I}$ all belonging to ${\mathcal{E}}$. Let ${\mathcal{E}}_0 = \sigma(\{B_i\}_{i \in I})$ and $A \in {\mathcal{E}}$ an event. Assume that there exists a random variable $f_A:\Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ on this probability space such that:
1. $f$ is measurable with respect to ${\mathcal{E}}_0$;
2. for any $B \in {\mathcal{E}}_0$, the following $$\int_{B} f_A P(d\omega) = \int_B \chi_A P(d\omega)$$ holds.
Then $f_A(\omega) = P( A | {\mathcal{E}}_0)(\omega)$.
Because ${\mathcal{E}}_0$ is generated by $\{B_i\}_{i \in I}$ and $f_A$ is measurable with respect to it, then $f$ is constant on each $B_i$. Then, for every $\omega \in B_i$, the second requirement implies $$\begin{split}
f_A(\omega) &= f_A(\omega) \frac{\int_{B_i} P(d\omega)}{\int_{B_i}P(d\omega)} \\
&= \frac{1}{P(B_i)} \int_{B_i} f_A(\omega) P(d\omega)\\
&= \frac{1}{P(B_i)} \int_{B_i} \chi_A(\omega) P(d\omega)\\
&= \frac{1}{P(B_i)} \int_{B_i \cap A}P(d\omega)= P(A|B_i)
\end{split}$$ which concludes the proof.
At this point, it is quite natural to define the conditional expectation with respect to an event, as the ordinary expectation value with respect to the conditional probability with respect to this event. In particular, assume that $B \in {\mathcal{E}}$, then we can define $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[ f | B ] &= \int_\Omega f(\omega) P(d\omega|B) \\
&= \int_\Omega f(\omega) \frac{P(d\omega \cap B )}{P(B)} \\
&= \frac{1}{P(B)} \int_B f(\omega) P(d\omega).
\end{split}$$ Then, we can generalise this conditional expectation to the case of a $\sigma$-algebra generated by a family $\{B_i\}_{i \in I}$. If ${\mathcal{E}}_0 = \sigma( \{B_i\}_{i \in I} )$, using the definition stated above for ${\mathbb{E}}[ f | B ]$, we define the random variable $${\mathbb{E}}[ f | {\mathcal{E}}_0 ](\omega) = {\mathbb{E}}[ f | B_i ]$$ for $\omega \in B_i$. By the proposition \[PropCondProb\], one can easily conclude that
1. ${\mathbb{E}}[ f | {\mathcal{E}}_0 ]$ is measurable with respect to ${\mathcal{E}}_0$;
2. for any $B \in {\mathcal{E}}_0$, then $$\int_{B} {\mathbb{E}}[ f |{\mathcal{E}}_0] (\omega) P(d\omega) = \int_B f(\omega) P(d\omega).$$
These two properties completely characterise the conditional expectation with respect to ${\mathcal{E}}_0$. The arguments presented till here should justify the following definition.
\[CondExpDef\] Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)$ be a probability space and let $\mathcal{F}$ be a sub-$\sigma$-algebra of ${\mathcal{E}}$, namely $\mathcal{F} \subset {\mathcal{E}}$. Consider a random variable $X:\Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$, which is integrable, i.e. $X \in L_1(\Omega,P)$. The *conditional expectation of $X$ with respect to $\mathcal{F}$*, ${\mathbb{E}}[ X | \mathcal{F}]$ is the random variable such that
1. ${\mathbb{E}}[ X | \mathcal{F} ]$ is measurable with respect to $\mathcal{F}$;
2. for any $B \in \mathcal{F}$, then $$\int_B {\mathbb{E}}[ X | \mathcal{F} ] P(d\omega) = \int_B X P(d\omega).$$
Note that $\mathcal{F}$ is a generic sub-$\sigma$-algebra without any reference to a family of sets. The existence of ${\mathbb{E}}[ X | \mathcal{F} ]$ is ensured by the Radon-Nikodym theorem and so it is unique up to $P$-null sets. Given the conditional expectation, the conditional probability can be simply defined as the conditional expectation of the characteristic function of an event, namely $$P(A|\mathcal{F}) := {\mathbb{E}}[\chi_A | \mathcal{F}].$$ It is not difficult to see that the particular cases presented in the beginning to justify the definition \[CondExpDef\] are contained in ${\mathbb{E}}[ X | \mathcal{F} ]$. This general definition allows to define the conditional expectation of a random variable with respect to the other.
Given a probability space $(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)$ a measurable space $(F,{\mathcal{F}})$ and a random variable $Y:\Omega \rightarrow F$, consider the family of set $\{ Y^{-1}(B) \}_{B \in {\mathcal{F}}}$, and call $\sigma(Y):= \sigma(\{ Y^{-1}(B) \}_{B \in {\mathcal{F}}})$. The conditional expectation of another random variable $X$ with respect to $Y$, ${\mathbb{E}}[X|Y]$, is defined as $${\mathbb{E}}[X|Y] := {\mathbb{E}}[X | \sigma(Y)].$$
From this conditional expectation we can clearly obtain the conditional probability $P_Y(A) = P( A |Y)$ setting $X = \chi_A$, where $A$ is an event. In the next proposition we will list without proof some of the basic properties of the conditional expectation.
\[PropCondProb1\] Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)$ be a probability space, $X,Y \in L_1(\Omega,P)$ integrable random variables on it and $\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G} \subset {\mathcal{E}}$ sub-$\sigma$-algebras. Then, up to $P$-null sets:
1. ${\mathbb{E}}[XY|\mathcal{F}] = X {\mathbb{E}}[Y| \mathcal{F}]$, when $X$ is $\mathcal{F}$-integrable;
2. ${\mathbb{E}}[{\mathbb{E}}[X|\mathcal{F}]] = {\mathbb{E}}[X]$, which is called *law of total expectation*;
3. ${\mathbb{E}}[ {\mathbb{E}}[X|\mathcal{F}] | \mathcal{G} ] = {\mathbb{E}}[ X | \mathcal{G} ]$, when $\mathcal{F} \subset \mathcal{G}$.
Note that $ii)$ is just a particular case of $iii)$ when $\mathcal{G}$ is the trivial $\sigma$-algebra. Finally, to conclude this appendix, we want to derive the usual formula for the conditional probability density, i.e. $$\label{CondProbForm}
\rho_{X|Y = y}(x) = \frac{\rho_{X,Y}(x,y)}{\rho_Y(y)},$$ starting from the given measure-theoretic definition of conditional expectation. In order to do that, we need to introduce the notion of *regular conditional probability*.
Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)$ be a probability space, $(F,{\mathcal{F}})$ a measurable space and $Y:\Omega \rightarrow F$ a random variable. A *probability kernel* is a function $\rho: F \times {\mathcal{E}}\rightarrow [0,1]$ such that
1. the map $y \mapsto \rho(y,A)$ is a measurable function on $(F,{\mathcal{F}})$, for any fixed $A \in {\mathcal{E}}$;
2. for any $A \in {\mathcal{E}}$, the map $A \mapsto \rho(y,A)$ is a probability measure on $(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}})$, for any fixed $y \in F$.
A probability kernel is said to be a *regular conditional probability* if in addition $$\label{RegProb}
P(A \cap Y^{-1}(B)) = \int_B \rho(y,A) (P\circ Y^{-1})(dy).$$
Probability spaces, where all conditional probabilities are regular for any random variable, are said to have the *regular conditional probability property*. Let us explain the definition above to have a better understanding of the meaning of regular conditional probability. We recall that $P \circ Y^{-1}$ is nothing but the image of the probability measure on $(F,{\mathcal{F}})$ via $Y$, namely the probability distribution of $Y$. Thus we can rewrite as $$P(A \cap Y^{-1}(B)) = \int_B \rho(y,A) \mu_Y(dy).$$ Written in this way, this formula can be seen as the continuous version" of the Bayes formula (more generally the Bayes formula can be seen as the discrete case of the law of total expectation seen in the proposition \[PropCondProb1\]). This suggests the following: $\rho(y,A) = P( A | Y = y)$. In order to make this statement rigorous we need some regularity condition on the measurable space $(F,{\mathcal{F}})$.
\[TeoAppC-WellDef\] Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)$ be a probability space and let $(F,{\mathcal{F}})$ and $(G,\mathcal{G})$ be two measurable spaces. Assume that $(G,\mathcal{G})$ is also a Borel space. Consider two random variables $Y: \Omega \rightarrow F$ and $X: \Omega \rightarrow G$. Then there exists a probability kernel $\rho: G \times {\mathcal{F}}\rightarrow [0,1]$ such that $$P(X \in A| Y = y) = \rho(y , A) \qquad P - a.s.$$ for $A \in \mathcal{G}$, which means that it is a regular conditional probability. $\rho$ is unique up to $ P\circ Y^{-1}$-null sets.
At this point, the disintegration theorem [@kallenberg2006foundations] ensures that we can compute the conditional expectation using the measure $\rho(y,A)$.
\[DisTheo\] Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)$ be a probability space, $(F,{\mathcal{F}})$ and $(G,\mathcal{G})$ be two measurable spaces and $X: \Omega \rightarrow G$ a random variable. Assume that $(F,{\mathcal{F}})$ and $(G,\mathcal{G})$ are such that the probability kernel $\rho: G \times {\mathcal{F}}\rightarrow [0,1]$ is a regular conditional probability. Consider a random variable $Y: \Omega \rightarrow G$ and set $\mathcal{T} = \sigma(Y) \subset \mathcal{G}$. If $ Z: \Omega \rightarrow F \times G$ is a ${\mathcal{E}}$-measurable function such that ${\mathbb{E}}[ |Z(X,Y)| ]< + \infty$, then $$\begin{split}
{\mathbb{E}}[Z(X,Y) | \mathcal{T}] &= {\mathbb{E}}[Z(X,Y)|Y] \\
&= \int_F Z(x,Y) \rho(Y,dx) \qquad P-a.s.
\end{split}$$
This theorem ensures that, under suitable conditions, we can use a regular probability measure to compute the conditional expectation, as the previous discussion suggested. Now we are ready to derive the conditional probability density formula . As always, given a probability space ${(\Omega,{\mathcal{E}},P)}$ and two measurable spaces $(F,{\mathcal{F}})$ and $(G,\mathcal{G})$ on which the random variables $X$ and $Y$ take values , respectively. Assume that we can define a regular probability measure $\rho(x,A)$ and that:
1. $\rho(y,A)$ can be written as $\rho(y,A) = \int_A \mu(y,x)dx$;
2. $[P \circ Y^{-1}](B)$ admits density $\rho_Y(y)$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure;
3. $[P \circ (X^{-1},Y^{-1})] (C,B)$ admits density $\rho_{X,Y}(x,y)$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure.
Then, theorem \[DisTheo\] ensures that we can compute the conditional expectation using $\rho$. Choose $A$ as the event $X^{-1}(C) :=\{X \in C\}$. By definition we can write $$P(X^{-1}(C) \cap Y^{-1}(B)) = \int_B \int_C \mu(y,x) \rho_Y(y) dxdy$$ on the other hand, if we choose $A$ as the event $\{X \in C\}$, we can write $$P(X^{-1}(C) \cap Y^{-1}(B)) = \int_{C \times B} \rho_{X,Y}(x,y) dxdy.$$ Therefore, we may conclude that up to $dxdy$-null sets $$\rho_{X,Y}(x,y) = \mu(x,y)\rho_{Y}(y)$$ namely that $\mu(x,y) = \rho_{X|Y=y}(x)$ as claimed above.
[^1]: A notable exception is the phase-space formulation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics [@fairlie1964formulation; @baker1958formulation] which does not use Hilbert spaces. However, it uses quasi-probability distributions where negative probabilities are difficult to understand from the statistical point of view.
[^2]: An interesting analogy can be made between the two possibilities explained here for the description of the space and the description of a manifold. A manifold can be studied using a coordinate system on it (internal description), or imagine that is embedded in a larger space (external description), similarly to what happens here.
[^3]: Given a set $A$, with the symbol $\mathcal{P}(A)$ we label the power set of $A$.
[^4]: More precisely, we can define an equivalence relation between $X_{N+1}$ and $X_N$: $X_{N+1} \sim X_N$ if $X_{N+1} - X_N = S^{(i_o)}_{N+1} - S^{(i_o)}_N$. In this way we restrict our attention to the intrinsic motion of the particle.
[^5]: To define an open set on $\Omega_{{\mathbb{S}^B}}$ we may use the topology induced by the norm $\|{\mathbf{S}}\| := \sup_{t \in [0,T]} |{\mathbf{S}}_t|_M$, where $| \cdot |_M$ is the $M$-dimensional euclidean norm. This is what is typically done on Wiener spaces.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we focus on developing efficient sensitivity analysis methods for a computationally expensive objective function $f(x)$ in the case that the minimization of it has just been performed. Here “computationally expensive” means that each of its evaluation takes significant amount of time, and therefore our main goal to use a small number of function evaluations of $f(x)$ to further infer the sensitivity information of these different parameters. Correspondingly, we consider the optimization procedure as an adaptive experimental design and re-use its available function evaluations as the initial design points to establish a surrogate model $s(x)$ (or called response surface). The sensitivity analysis is performed on $s(x)$, which is an lieu of $f(x)$. Furthermore, we propose a new local multivariate sensitivity measure, for example, around the optimal solution, for high dimensional problems. Then a corresponding “objective-oriented experimental design" is proposed in order to make the generated surrogate $s(x)$ better suitable for the accurate calculation of the proposed specific local sensitivity quantities. In addition, we demonstrate the better performance of the Gaussian radial basis function interpolator over Kriging in our cases, which are of relatively high dimensionality and few experimental design points. Numerical experiments demonstrate that the optimization procedure and the “objective-oriented experimental design" behavior much better than the classical Latin Hypercube Design. In addition, the performance of Kriging is not as good as Gaussian RBF, especially in the case of high dimensional problems.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, 611731 China'
- 'School of Civil and Environmental Engineering and School of Operations Research and Industrial Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA'
author:
- Yilun Wang
- 'Christine A. Shoemaker'
bibliography:
- 'references\_SA.bib'
- 'references\_Surrogate\_OPT.bib'
- 'references\_kriging.bib'
- 'references\_GO.bib'
- 'references\_DOE.bib'
title: 'Sensitivity Analysis for Computationally Expensive Models using Optimization and Objective-oriented Surrogate Approximations'
---
Sensitivity analysis ,computationally expensive function ,surrogate model ,adaptive experimental design ,global optimization.
Problem Statement, Motivations and Contributions
================================================
In this paper, we are focusing on sensitivity analysis of a black box function $f(x)$ which is defined on a hypercube $\mathcal{D}$ of $\mathbb{R}^n$. $f(x)$ is assumed to be deterministic, continuous, bounded, multimodal and computationally expensive to evaluate, where each of objective function evaluations may take minutes, hours or even days. $f(x)$ is expensive to evaluate typically because it involves high-fidelity computer simulations to study complex, real world physical phenomena, in many scientific and engineering fields [@Gorissen10SMA] including solutions of systems of partial differential equations. For example, in model parameter calibration, $f(x)$ is the discrepancy between the output of a complex simulation model prediction $Q^{\mbox{sim}}(x)$ and the observed data and $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is the to be estimated parameter vector.
Sensitivity analysis, as a what-if analysis, assesses the contribution of the variation in each input parameter $x_i (i=1, \ldots, n)$ to the variation in the objective function $f(x)$. Our goal is to provide an algorithm that will provide both local and global sensitivity information in a very computationally efficient fashion for black box computationally expensive multimodal function for which derivative information is not available. In particular, the algorithm can provide accurate solution for the follows:
1. global sensitivity results based on a specific method such as “Extended FAST" method.
2. local sensitivity: numerical univariate derivatives $\frac{f(x^f+\Delta x)-f(x^f)}{\Delta x}$ for $\Delta x =\{\Delta x_1, \Delta x_2, \ldots, \Delta x_n\}$ of variable magnitudes, for any point $x^f\in \mathbb{R}^n$ in the domain $\mathcal{D}$, and our proposed local multivariate sensitivity quantities around given $x^f$.
Here, sensitivity analysis is performed after searching for the global minimum of $f(x)$. Typically one would use $x^f=x^*$ when considering local sensitivity, where $x^*$ is the searched global minimum. We make use of surrogate approximation and optimization to achieve computational efficiency of sensitivity analysis. Traditionally, a simple sensitivity analysis of $f(x)$ is often acting as a prerequisite of optimization of $f(x)$ by screening out the very insensitive parameters, especially when $n$ is very big, for example, $n$ is hundreds. On the contrary, in this paper, we consider the situations where ones want to performs sophisticated sensitivity analysis on the remaining parameters of $f(x)$, after the above parameter screening. For example, in the field of parameter calibration, Sorooshian and Arfi studied the importance and meaning of the sensitivity analysis for the post-calibration studies [@Sorooshian82SA]. In this paper, we will focus more on how to efficiently obtain the sensitivity information of the computationally expensive function $f(x)$, based on a very limited or affordable number of function evaluation of it. One way to overcome computational difficulty is to establish a surrogate model $s(x)$ (also called response surface, metamodel) as an approximation of $f(x)$ based on an affordable number of function evaluations of $f(x)$, and then perform the function-evaluation-intensive sensitivity analysis on $s(x)$. One key point for the establishment of the surrogate surface is to properly pick the locations of the evaluation points of $f(x)$, which are also called experimental design points in statistics literature [@Kleijnen05DOESA]. In this paper, we focus on how to obtain these experimental design points, in order to make the generated response surface of better approximation accuracy for the calculation of either global sensitivity and local sensitivity quantities. In addition, we compared the performance of two typical surrogate surfaces, Radial Basis Function (RBF) interpolator and Kriging.
Relationship with Existing Work {#sec:ExistingWork}
-------------------------------
The existing work of establishing a surrogate of a computationally expensive continuous black box function $f(x)$ is mainly about global sensitivity analysis, because the traditional linear local sensitivity analysis methods do not requires a huge number of function evaluations. Though we have the limited computational budget on the number of function evaluations of $f(x)$, we do have the freedom to determine where to perform these function evaluations and what kind of surrogate is adopted to approximate $f(x)$. The process of determining the positions to perform the function evaluations is called “Experimental Design” and the determined positions are called design points. The experimental design is often related with the choice of surrogate models, which typically include polynomial response surface, rationally functions, splines, Support Vector Machines, Kriging/Gaussian Processes (GP), radial basis function interpolators or other Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) (Buhmann, 2003). Here we will briefly review some of corresponding state of the art experimental design methods [@Kleijnen05DOESA; @Kleijnen08SimulationExp; @Kleijnen08BookDOE; @Kleijnen09Review; @Queipo2005SurrogateSAandOP; @Jin00comparativestudies; @Simpson01Survey; @Shan10SurveyHEB]. For complex surrogate models, such as Kriging and artificial neural networks, it is generally believed that space-filling stochastic designs are suitable for them, because these designs try to specify the design points so that as much of the design space is sampled as possible within the allowed maximal number of function evaluation points. Space-filling designs typically include Latin hypercube design [@McKay79LHD], various optimal or orthogonal designs including Minimax and Maximin design [@Johnson90Maximin], Entropy Design [@Shewry97Entropy; @Currin91EntropyDesign] and orthogonal arrays [@Owen92OA]. As we have seen, the above mentioned space filling designs do not depend on the specific underlying simulation model [@Crary02MetaModel], and all design points are simultaneously optimized according to one of the above criteria. They are often called “the one-stage designs” [@Sacks1989DACE]. SUMO–Surrogate MOdeling Lab [@Gorissen10SMA] has implemented most of the above surrogate models and experimental designs. However, because $f(x)$ behaviors like a black box and its evaluation is computationally expensive, the shape of $f(x)$ and the optimal distribution of design points are not known up front and therefore we can not guarantee the above “evenly” distributions are best for every $f(x)$.
Contrary to one stage designs, sequentialized designs are expected to be more efficient in terms of requiring fewer function evaluations of $f(x)$ to establish a faithful surrogate model $s(x)$ [@Sacks1989DACE; @Park02sequential]. Sequential designs imply that the underlying function is better analyzed often via a surrogate model established based the function evaluations at the previous design points before determining the next design point, i.e. the design is customized for different specific underlying models. So the sequentialized design is often also called active learning, or adaptive sampling in statistical literature. Different sequentialized designs might focus on catching different features of the underlying function $f(x)$. Some recent efforts along these directions including Kriging based sequentialized designs by Kleijnen et al. [@Kleijen04DeterministicSequentialDesign; @Kleijnen09Review]. These works were based on the improved Kriging variance formulas via the bootstrapping [@Hertog06CorrectVariance; @vanBeers2008Kriging] technique or cross-validation and jackknifing techniques [@Kleijnen09Review], rather than the classic formula used in the literature e.g. [@Cressie93Kriging] and [@Sacks1989DACE; @Jones98EGO], because the classic Kriging variance formula neglects estimation of certain correlation parameters of Kriging, which makes the Kriging predictor a nonlinear estimator [@Hertog06CorrectVariance; @Kleijnen10KrigingOPT], and therefore the classic one is expected to underestimate the true variance [@Hertog06CorrectVariance; @Cressie91Book]. As for the radial basis function based emulator, Jin et al. [@Jin02SequentialSampling] presented an approach based on cross-validation; Shan [@shan10HEB; @Shan10SurveyHEB] proposed a sequentialized design for RBF surface called RBF-HDMR which integrates the radial basis function with a high dimensional model representation first proposed by Sobol [@Sobol93SA] and currently could not be applied to functions where its parameters have highly nonlinear interactions. However, Jin at al [@Jin02SequentialSampling] found that many of the current sequential sampling approaches were not necessarily better than one-stage approaches such as the optimal LHD, partially because the information based on the early created surrogate models might be misleading or incomplete, or not properly adopted. Therefore, the LHD or the optimal LHD is still widely used in the practical applications. In terms of sequential designs, we point out that most optimization algorithms belong to this family since they determine the next function evaluation point based on the knowledge of $f(x)$ provided by the previous function evaluation points, and their function evaluations can often effectively infer the major global trends of $f(x)$. As for local sensitivity analysis, it mainly provides the slope of the model output in the parameter space at a nominal point or called a base case $\bar{x}$. For example, in the field of parameter calibration of simulation model, local sensitivity analysis is able to provide some quantitative idea about the shape of the objective function in the vicinity of the estimated parameters obtained by the calibration procedure . Specifically, it helps us establish some measure of confidence in the parameters and hence the fitting criterion employed in the definition of the objective function, and detect non-identifiability of parameters, leading to appropriate modification of the simulation model [@Sorooshian82SA]. Traditionally, they are mostly based on gradients or numerical approximation of gradients at the nominal point, usually requires a small number of function evaluations, and therefore typically do not need the incorporation of surrogates. However, gradients only provide the information within a small vicinity of the nominal point for nonlinear functions and fail to take the parameter interactions into considerations. Therefore we aim to propose a new local sensitivity analysis method which takes nonlinearity and parameter interactions into consideration. Correspondingly, the required number of function evaluations increases a lot and is often even beyond the allowed computational budget. In such cases, we also turn to the help of the surrogate as the global sensitivity analysis does, and we would like to develop a tailored experimental design for this new local sensitivity analysis method with aim to reduce the size of the experimental design by giving up the global approximation property of $s(x)$ and only focusing on the local approximation tailored for calculating the local sensitivity quantities.
Our Contributions
-----------------
Our first contribution is to build a bridge between the optimization and the following sensitivity analysis, from the computational point of view, via the adoption of surrogate surfaces. Specifically, the function evaluations during optimization are not discarded. Instead, we saved and reused them for the establishment of a surrogate surface $s(x)$ of $f(x)$, i.e. the function evaluation points during the optimization are the initial experimental design points. $s(x)$ is acting as an approximation of $f(x)$ for the following sensitivity analysis, because its evaluation is computationally cheap. More important, we show that the optimization step, as an active experimental design, outperforms some classical non-adaptive experimental designs.
The second contribution is to propose a new local sensitivity analysis method (for example, around the optimal solution), and present a corresponding tailored experimental design to efficiently generate a surrogate of good local approximation property and suitable for the calculation of its sensitivity quantities. Unlike many traditional local sensitivity analysis methods which assume that $f(x)$ is nearly linear and do not take the parameter interactions into consideration, this new one ranks the parameters based on simultaneous perturbations of several parameters around the nominal point and therefore takes the nonlinearity and parameter interactions into considerations. In addition, it might consider a much larger perturbation step size than traditional local sensitivity measures.
For the high dimensional functions, the required function evaluations might still be unaffordable, though it typically required much less function evaluations than most global sensitivity analysis methods. In order to circumstance the computational difficulty, we also turn to the establishment of a surrogate model $s(x)$ as a lieu of the original function $f(x)$. However, unlike the traditional experiment design methods which are usually devised for a surrogate of a good global approximation property, we propose an idea of “objective-oriented " experimental design method, which is tailored only for better accuracy of the calculated local sensitivity measures on the generated response surface, instead of pursuit of the more strict global approximation accuracy, in order to significantly reduce the number of the required experimental design points.
The third contribution is that besides considering the issue of experimental design methods, we compare the performance of different surrogate types, especially the Gaussian RBF and Kriging in both relatively low and high dimensional problems.
The fourth contribution is that we are evaluating different experimental design methods through the accuracy of the calculated sensitivity quantities, rather than the approximation errors of the resulted surrogates as many existing works do, since the ultimate goal of establishing a surrogate is to efficiently calculate the sensitivity quantities here. In addition, we will also be considering the relatively high dimensional space, rather than very low dimensional problems ($n \le 5$), which are main targets considered in most previous work.
Paper Organization
------------------
The following part of this paper consists of $4$ sections. Section $2$ gives a detailed description of our methodology, and the new local multivariate sensitivity analysis quantities. Section $3$ demonstrates the advantages of our experimental design scheme over other alternatives through both synthetic problems and real application examples. We also compare the performance of RBF interpolator and Kriging. The summary and future work are given in Section $4$.
Our Methodology {#Sec:Methodology}
===============
We propose to reuse the available function evaluations during the optimization procedure as the initial design points for establishment of the surrogate for the following sensitivity analysis, no only because they are “free” in terms of sensitivity analysis, but also they indeed greatly improve the global approximation accuracy of the generated surrogate, as an adaptive experimental design. Next, we further extend the set of the design points by adopting other appropriate experimental design methods in order to further improve approximation property of the obtained surrogate. This choice of the extended design points are related with what kind sensitivity analysis is performed, for example, local sensitivity analysis or global sensitivity analysis. We propose a “objective-oriented" experimental design to produce a surrogate surface of a better approximation quality. We denote our sensitivity analysis framework as O3AED (Optimization and Objective-Oriented Adaptive Experimental Design for surrogates assisted sensitivity analysis). In the following parts, we first give a brief introduction to the framework, and then introduce our new local sensitivity measure around the optimal solution and its corresponding tailored experimental design method.
Algorithmic Framework of O3AED and Our Main Contributions
---------------------------------------------------------
An important feature of O3AED is to consider optimization and sensitivity analysis into an integrated framework. Optimization not only returns the optimal solution which the following local sensitivity analysis is performed around, but also provides its function evaluations for helping generate a surrogate on which the following sensitivity analysis is performed. Simply, O3AED consists of several steps listed as follows:
- [**Step 1:**]{} Search for the minimum of the objective function $f(x)$ using a global optimization algorithm, save all the executed function evaluations, and set these function evaluation points as the initial design points.
- [**Step 2:**]{} Add more design points, where evaluations of $f(x)$ will performed in order to obtain a more accurate surrogate. Depending on global sensitivity analysis or local sensitivity analysis, The ways of adding new design points may vary and be adaptive.
- [**Step 3:**]{} Construct a surrogate $s(x)$ based on the above evaluations of $f(x)$.
- [**Step 4:**]{} Perform sensitivity analysis on the surrogate $s(x)$ in place of the original computationally expensive objective function $f(x)$.
Before moving to detailed explanation of each step, we first introduce the sensitivity analysis methods used in our paper, since the implementations of Step $2$ and Step $3$ are also based on the specific sensitivity analysis methods. We first review the global sensitivity analysis method used in our paper. Then we introduce the motivation and the definition of our new local multivariate sensitivity measure, as well as its corresponding innovative experimental design method.
Brief Review of Extended FAST {#subsec:EFAST}
-----------------------------
There have existed many kinds of global sensitivity analysis methods, which might be suitable for different kinds of underlying functions. As for nonlinear and non-monotonic relationships between model inputs and outputs, the variance based methods include Sobol’ method [@Sobol93SA], classic Fourier amplitude sensitivity test (FAST) and the extended FAST [@Saltelli99ExtendedFAST] are widely used. In this paper, we take the extended FAST as the example, though other methods could be applied here. It provides a measure of fractional variance accounted for by individual variables. For each variables, Extended FAST returns two kinds of sensitivity quantities, i.e. the first order sensitivity index $S_i$ and total sensitivity index $ST_i$ where $S_i$ measures the main effect of $x_i$ on the output variance and $ST_i$ also considers the parameter interactions and is the proportion of contribution of $x_i$ to the total variance of outputs. If input variables have no internal interactions, we have $ST_i = S_i$. Otherwise, $ST_i > S_i$. $ST_i$ represents the contribution of the input variable $x_i$ to the variance of the objective function $f(x)$. The bigger $ST_i$, the more sensitive $x_i$ is.
The calculation of $ST_i$ and $S_i$ is mainly composed of high dimensional integrals. In practice, the analytic formula for them are not available due to the “black box” feature of $f(x)$ and their evaluation is often through Monte Carlo sampling, which relies on repeated random sampling to compute their results. When the problem is a high dimensional problem, a very large number of samples might be required. Therefore, even for the non-computationally expensive functions, their dimensions can not be very high, in order to make Extended FAST computationally feasible on common personal computers. For relatively low dimensional problems, Extended FAST is a very efficient method compared with many other alternatives. However, the required function evaluations of $f(x)$ might be still unaffordable when $f(x)$ is a computationally expensive function. In such cases, a surrogate might be adopted and we will compare performance of our method with that of other alternatives of experimental designs for establishing a proper surrogate model.
New Multivariate Local Sensitivity Measures and Corresponding Tailored Experimental Design {#subsec:MVMLS}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most traditional local sensitivity analysis methods are executed by varying input parameters one-at-a-time by a very small perturbation. Let $\rho$ be a fixed percentage of the range of each coordinate and the corresponding step size is $\Delta=\rho\times(b-a)$. The traditional univariate perturbation adopts a small $\rho$ and the corresponding elementary effect is defined as follows. $$\bar{x}^{(k^{+},\rho)}=[
\bar{x}_1, \ldots, \bar{x}_{k-1}, \bar{x}_k+\Delta, \bar{x}_{k+1}, \ldots, \bar{x}_n ]$$
$$\bar{x}^{(k^{-},\rho)}=[
\bar{x}_1, \ldots, \bar{x}_{k-1}, \bar{x}_k-\Delta, \bar{x}_{k+1}, \ldots, \bar{x}_n ]$$
$$\label{Def:SIkR}
SI_{k^{+}}^{1,\rho}=\left|
\frac{f(\bar{x})-f(\bar{x}^{(k^{+},\rho)})}{f(\bar{x})}\right|, \quad \quad SI_{k^{-}}^{1,\rho}=\left|
\frac{f(\bar{x})-f(\bar{x}^{(k^{-},\rho)})}{f(\bar{x})}\right|$$
In order to take the function nonlinearity into consideration, we propose to use multiple large values of $\rho$, for example $\rho=0.1, 0.2, \ldots, 0.4$.
We also expect it to help identify the nature of the parameter interactions .
Next, we also need to consider the parameter interactions and verify that they conform with our understanding of the true processes involved in order to detect suboptimal solutions [@Sorooshian82SA]. Correspondingly we perturb multiple parameters simultaneously, and we consider up to simultaneous $3$-parameter perturbation in this paper.
If two-at-a-time (TAT) perturbation is performed, the following $4$ bivariate perturbation samples are required to calculate the corresponding elementary effects. $$$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\bar{x}^{(k^{+},j^{+},\rho)}&=&[
\bar{x}_1, \ldots, \bar{x}_{i-1}, \bar{x}_i+\Delta, \bar{x}_{i+1}, \ldots, \bar{x}_{j-1}, \bar{x}_j+\Delta, \bar{x}_{j+1}, \ldots,\bar{x}_n ]\\\nonumber
\bar{x}^{(i^{+},j^{-},\rho)}&=&[
\bar{x}_1, \ldots, \bar{x}_{i-1}, \bar{x}_i+\Delta, \bar{x}_{i+1}, \ldots, \bar{x}_{j-1}, \bar{x}_j-\Delta, \bar{x}_{j+1}, \ldots,\bar{x}_n ]\\\nonumber
\bar{x}^{(i^{-},j^{+},\rho)}&=&[
\bar{x}_1, \ldots, \bar{x}_{i-1}, \bar{x}_i-\Delta, \bar{x}_{i+1}, \ldots, \bar{x}_{j-1}, \bar{x}_j+\Delta, \bar{x}_{j+1}, \ldots,\bar{x}_n ]
\\\nonumber \bar{x}^{(i^{-},j^{-},\rho)}&=&[
\bar{x}_1, \ldots, \bar{x}_{i-1}, \bar{x}_i-\Delta, \bar{x}_{i+1}, \ldots, \bar{x}_{j-1}, \bar{x}_j-\Delta, \bar{x}_{j+1}, \ldots,\bar{x}_n ]\end{aligned}$$
$$\label{Def:SIkRR}
SI_{(k^{+},j^+)}^{2,\rho}=\left|
\frac{f(\bar{x})-f(\bar{x}^{(k^{+},j^{+},\rho)})}{f(\bar{x})}\right|$$
$(\bar{x}^{(k^{+},j^{-},\rho)}, SI_{(k^{+},j^-)}^{2,\rho})$, $(\bar{x}^{(k^{-},j^{+},\rho)}, SI_{(k^{-},j^+)}^{2,\rho})$, $(\bar{x}^{(k^{-},j^{-},\rho)}, SI_{(k^{-},j^-)}^{2,\rho})$ are defined in a similar way.
If three-at-a-time (THAT) perturbation is performed, the following $8$ trivariate perturbation samples are required to calculate the corresponding elementary effects.
$$\bar{x}^{(k^{+},j^{+},i^{+},\rho)}=[\bar{x}_1, \ldots, \bar{x}_k+\Delta, \ldots, \bar{x}_{j}+\Delta, \ldots, \bar{x}_{i}+\Delta, \ldots, \bar{x}_n]$$
$$\label{Def:SIkRRR}
SI_{(k^{+},j^+,i^+)}^{3,\rho}=\left|
\frac{(f(\bar{x})-f(\bar{x}^{(k^{+},j^{+},i^{+},\rho)})}{f(\bar{x})}\right|$$
$(\bar{x}^{(k^{+},j^{+},i^{-},\rho)}, SI_{(k^{+},j^+,i^-)}^{3,\rho})$, $(\bar{x}^{(k^{+},j^{-},i^{+},\rho)}, SI_{(k^{+},j^-,i^+)}^{3,\rho})$, $(\bar{x}^{(k^{+},j^{-},i^{-},\rho)}, SI_{(k^{+},j^-,i^-)}^{3,\rho})$,\
$(\bar{x}^{(k^{-},j^{+},i^{+},\rho)}, SI_{(k^{-},j^+,i^+)}^{3,\rho})$, $(\bar{x}^{(k^{-},j^{+},i^{-},\rho)}, SI_{(k^{-},j^+,i^-)}^{3,\rho})$, $(\bar{x}^{(k^{-},j^{-},i^{+},\rho)}, SI_{(k^{-},j^-,i^+)}^{3,\rho})$,\
$(\bar{x}^{(k^{-},j^{-},i^{-},\rho)}, SI_{(k^{-},j^-,i^-)}^{3,\rho})$ are defined in a similar way.
In summary, we consider from univariate perturbations to multivariate perturbations on various perturbing sizes, in order to account for the parameter interactions and nonlinearity. We call it as MultiVariate Multi-Steps Local sensitivity analysis method (MVMSL, for short).
Let $n$ be the number of parameters, and the numbers of univariate perturbation samples, bivariate perturbation samples, trivariate perturbation samples are $2n$, $2n(n-1)$, $4n(n-1)(n-2)/3$, respectively, for a given $\rho$. Therefore, if $n$ is big, this number of function evaluations might still not be affordable, especially when $f$ is computationally expensive and ones might try multiple $\rho$ values (for example, $\rho=0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4$). In such cases, we will also turn to the surrogate model with aim to reduce the function evaluations of $f(x)$. In order to establish a suitable surrogate for the calculation of the quantities $f(\bar{x}_1, \ldots, \bar{x}_{k-1}, \bar{x}_k+\Delta, x_{k+1}, \ldots, x_n), f(\bar{x}_1, \ldots, \bar{x}_k+\Delta, \ldots, \bar{x}_{j}+\Delta, \ldots, x_n), f(\bar{x}_1, \ldots, \bar{x}_k+\Delta, \ldots, \bar{x}_{j}+\Delta, \ldots, \bar{x}_{i}+\Delta, \ldots, x_n)$ and etc., we propose to pick the allowed number of experimental design points from the set of all the univariate perturbation samples , bivariate perturbation samples and trivariate perturbation samples in a random way. A detailed explanation is in Section \[subsec:MVMLSDesign\].
As for bivariate perturbations and trivariate perturbations, one might be interested in the most few sensitive duos or triples by sorting the corresponding element effects defined as (\[Def:SIkRR\]) or (\[Def:SIkRRR\]). Meanwhile, one might be also interested in the ranks of the input variables $x_i$ $(i=1, 2, \ldots, n),$ in term of bivariate perturbations and trivariate perturbations. In the following section \[subsec:MVMLSSA\] we introduce a simple statistical way to rank the parameters. In section \[subsec:SVD\], another ranking method through the eigenvalue decomposition of the hessian matrix is also reviewed.
### The First Way to Define Local Sensitivity Indices {#subsec:MVMLSSA}
Given the element effects defined, for example, by (\[Def:SIkR\]), (\[Def:SIkRR\]), (\[Def:SIkRRR\]), we calculate the average for each combination as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Def:SIk}
SI_{i}^{1,\rho}&=&
(SI_{i^{+}}^{1,\rho} +
SI_{i^{-}}^{1,\rho})/2\\
SI_{i,j}^{2,\rho}&=&([
SI_{(i^{+},j^+)}^{2,\rho}+
SI_{(i^{+},j^-)}^{2,\rho}+
SI_{(i^{-},j^+)}^{2,\rho}+
SI_{(i^{-},j^-)}^{2,\rho}])/4\\
SI_{i,j,k}^{3,\rho}&=&([
SI_{(i^{+},j^+,k^+)}^{3,\rho}+
SI_{(i^{+},j^+,k^-)}^{3,\rho}+
SI_{(i^{+},j^-,k^+)}^{3,\rho}+
SI_{(i^{+},j^-,k^-)}^{3,\rho}\\&+&
SI_{(i^{-},j^+,k^+)}^{3,\rho}+
SI_{(i^{-},j^+,k^-)}^{3,\rho}+
SI_{(i^{-},j^-,k^+)}^{3,\rho}+
SI_{(i^{-},j^-,k^-)}^{3,\rho}])/8\end{aligned}$$
For each parameter $x_k$, we can also calculate its several sensitivity quantities based on bivariate perturbations and trivariate perturbations, respectively. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Def:SIk2}
SI_{i}^{2, \rho}&=& \frac{\sum_{j=1, j\neq i}^n SI_{(i,j)}^{2,\rho}}{n-1}\\\label{Def:SIk3}
SI_{i}^{3, \rho}&=& \frac{\sum_{j=1, j\neq i}^n\sum_{l=j+1}^{n} SI_{(i,j,l)}^{3,\rho}}{(n-1)\times(n-2)/2}\end{aligned}$$
In summary, $SI_{i}^{1,\rho}, SI_{i}^{2,\rho}, SI_{i}^{3,\rho}$ are $3$ sensitivity quantities of the input variable $x_i (i=1, 2, \ldots, n)$, in terms of univariate perturbations, bivariate perturbations, and trivariate perturbations, respectively, for a given $\rho$. The larger the sensitivity quantity, the more sensitive the corresponding input variable is.
### The Second Way to Define Local Sensitivity Indices {#subsec:SVD}
We have another way to evaluate the sensitivity ranks of the parameters by simultaneously consider the univariate perturbations and bivariate perturbations, i.e. $SI_{i}^{1, \rho}$ and $SI_{i,j}^{2,\rho}$ $(i=1,\ldots, n, j=1,\ldots, n)$, as follows.
Given the perturbation size $\rho$, we can have the following matrix univariate perturbations and bivariate perturbations. $$\begin{aligned}
H^{\rho}=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
SI^{1,\rho}_{1} &SI^{2,\rho}_{1,2}& \ldots & SI^{2,\rho}_{1,n} \\
SI^{2,\rho}_{2,1} &SI^{1,\rho}_{2} & \ldots & SI^{2,\rho}_{2,n} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
SI^{2,\rho}_{n,1} & SI^{2,\rho}_{n,2} & \ldots & SI^{1,\rho}_{n} \\
\end{array}
\right)\end{aligned}$$
An eigenvalue decomposition is performed on $H^{\rho}$. The eigenvectors corresponding to eigenvalues of large absolute value are the directions of large curvatures. In this paper, we consider the eigenvectors $U^{1}$ and $U^{2}$, which are corresponding to the two eigenvalues of the biggest absolute value. For each input variable $x_i$, its corresponding sensitivity quantities based on eigenvalue decompositions are $SI_{i}^{E,1, \rho} \doteq |U^{1}_i|$ and $SI_{i}^{E,2, \rho}\doteq|U^{2}_i|$, where $|\cdot|$ represents the absolute value. The larger $SI_{i}^{E,1, \rho} $ or $SI_{i}^{E,2, \rho}$ is, the more sensitive $x_i$ is.
### Objective-Oriented Adaptive Experimental Design Methods {#subsec:MVMLSDesign}
For the local sensitivity indices based on the multi-variate perturbation, the number of the required function evaluations can be still too large for computationally expensive functions, especially those of high dimension, even though it is already computationally much cheaper than most of global sensitivity analysis methods. Correspondingly, we also turn to the help of the surrogate, and the key point is still about how to establish a good surrogate which is well approximating the true function $f(x)$ for this specific purpose.
For $f(x)$ defined in a relatively high dimensional space with complicated input-output relationship, it is hard to get a surrogate of global approximation based on an affordable number of function evaluations. In such cases, establishing a global approximation of high fidelity might be a waste and unrealistic no matter for the one-time space filling designs or sequentialized designs are adopted. Correspondingly we proposed to develop a specific design to generate a surrogate which may be of great local approximation property and only suitable for the calculation of the function values at those MVMSL samples. In order to make the generated surrogate have a good approximation to the true function $f(x)$ at the samples, we try to make the set of the evaluation points (or called experimental design points) close to the set of samples. It is very important, especially when the perturbation step is large and a big vicinity of the prescribed point is considered. A easy way is to randomly pick a subset of the MVMSL samples as the experimental design points to generate the surrogate surface. For example, in this paper, we can choose all the one-variate perturbation samples, a randomly picked small portion of two-variate perturbation samples and three-variate perturbation samples, as the set of the experimental design points, and this kind of “constrained randomness" is very effective, demonstrated by numerical experiments in Section \[Sec:NumExp\].
Detailed Algorithmic Description
--------------------------------
### Step 1: Initialization by Optimization {#Sec:Review_OPT}
The optimization mainly aims to (1) find the optimal solution of $f(x)$, around which a local sensitivity analysis might be performed later; (2) provide its function evaluations for the generation of a surrogate model of global approximation property where sensitivity analysis can be performed on.
There have been many algorithms for minimizing computationally expensive functions with box constraints [@Rios09comparision] including scattering search, dynamically dimensioned search, simulated annealing, genetic algorithms, multi-start frameworks for local optimization such as OQNLP, and direct search methods [@Gutmann01RBF; @Jones98EGO; @VandenBerghen2005Condor; @Tolson07DDS; @Regis2007PRBF; @Kleijnen10KrigingOPT; @Regis11Constraints], response surface based evolution algorithm [@Ong03SurrogateEA; @Ong08HERBF; @Jin05Comparison] and pattern search algorithms [@Dennis97KrigingPatternSearch], and trust region algorithm [@Brekelmans05DFO; @Powell08NEWUOA]. Other popular metaheuristic optimizers include particle swarm optimization [@Kennedy95PSO], differential evolution [@Storn97DES] and etc. According to the No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems (Wolpert and Macready 1997) [@Wolpert97NFL], different methods may be fitful for different kinds of problems and no single method can all perform the best in general in terms of finding the optimal solution using a small number of function evaluations of $f(x)$. In general, most optimization algorithms can be considered as adaptive experimental designs and their performs function evaluations could reflect the global shape of $f(x)$ to certain degree.
### Step 2: Add More Design Points
Step $2$ aims to expand the set of design points initialized by the optimization step, in order to generate a more faithful surrogate model $s(x)$ for the following sensitivity analysis. Notice that Step $2$ and Step $3$ and Step $4$ are in fact closely related with each other and should be considered together. Depending on different sensitivity analysis method in Step $4$, ones might adopt corresponding experimental design methods to extended the set of design points. In the paper, we consider both global sensitivity analysis methods and local sensitivity analysis methods, respectively. As for global sensitivity analysis, since function evaluation of $f(x)$ is a very costly operation, we try to make the new design points are maximally informative. Since more experimental design points should usually be placed in regions with finer detail and less in areas where the function is smoother, sequentialized designs or active learning are usually required. For example, Kriging based methods use its prediction errors to guide the arrangement of design points concentrated to the areas which need more exploration partially due to nonlinearity. Most of the optimization algorithm, considered as sequentialized designs, also have such features when choosing the function evaluation points. However, one side effect of the sequentialized designs is often lack of enough global exploration in some complicated cases.
Correspondingly, it may also be desirable to locate some experimental design points in a way that does not assumes any knowledge of the underlying function from the previous function evaluations, in order to more encourage global exploration. In such cases, one stage space filling methods can be used cover the whole domain evenly and avoid non-exploration of certain regions, for example, the widely used Latin Hypercube Sampling related methods. A comprehensive survey about this topic was written by Shan et al. (2010) [@Shan10SurveyHEB].
In this paper, we will not use a specific sequentialized strategy to add extra design points, because one main goal of this paper is to demonstrate that the available function evaluations during the optimization step play an important role in helping generate a satisfying response surface of global approximation. Therefore we choose the widely used space filling experimental design methods such as optimal Latin Hypercube (LHD, for short) [@Ye00OSLHD] which are model-independent, to extend the set of design points, though other design methods can be also adopted here.
As for local sensitivity analysis, when a surrogate of global high fidelity is available, it can be just performed on it. However, if $f(x)$ defined in a relatively high dimensional space with complicated input-output relationship, it is hard to get a surrogate of global approximation based on an affordable number of function evaluations. Correspondingly we proposed to develop a new tailored design to reduce the size of the required experimental design points, by aiming for a surrogate of a local approximation which may be only suitable for the calculation of the targeted local sensitivity analysis quantities, but not fitful for other sensitivity methods. In this paper, we take our new local sensitivity analysis method as an example and present a specific objective-oriented adaptive experimental design method for it. The detailed description have already been presented in Section \[subsec:MVMLSDesign\] and will be more details in Section \[sec:benchmarkDesign\].
### Step 3: Establish a Surrogate Surface
There are multiple response surface families: polynomials, splines, interpolating radial basis functions, kriging, generalized linear models, neural networks, regression trees, support vector machine, and many other nonparametric approaches, ect. We have not restricted our study to linear and quadratic functions because we know that there are strong interactions at multiple orders between input parameters in many scientific and engineering fields. Meanwhile we did not use the nonparametric methods because they are originally developed for situations with huge number of sample sizes whereas the main motivation of the usage of surrogates surfaces is to significantly reduce the number of experimental design points.
For the relatively high dimensional ($n\ge 10$), nonlinear, computationally-expensive black-box functions, Kriging (Gaussian process regression) [@Cressie93Kriging; @Sacks89DACE1], Radial basis function (RBF) interpolation are mostly widely used for this kind of models. In addition, multiple kinds of surrogates can be chained together to approximate a large scale complex systems. In this paper, we will be using both the radial basis function interpolation and Kriging as the surrogate models [@Powell1992RBF] and compare their different performances in our cases.
### Step 4: Perform Sensitivity Analysis on the Surrogate Surface
As for global sensitivity analysis, we will be using Extended FAST, which has been introduced in Section \[subsec:EFAST\]. As for local sensitivity analysis, we test our new local sensitivity analysis method which has been introduced in Section \[subsec:MVMLS\], and the formulas of corresponding sensitivity quantities are given in Section \[subsec:SVD\].
Numerical Experiments {#Sec:NumExp}
=====================
Introduction to Test problems
-----------------------------
Our method will be tested on $3$ typical examples, including two synthetic problems and two from real applications, which are all nonlinear problems and the number of variables is no less than $10$. The problem dimension is much higher than most of testing problems of the existing works.
#### Test Problem $1$
This one originally appeared on the book of Hock and Schittkowski (1981) [@Hock80TestProblemsBook] to test nonlinear optimization algorithms. It was also picked out by Jin and et al. [@Jin00comparativestudies] and Shan and Wang [@shan10HEB] to demonstrate the performance of their method to establish the surrogate model. Unlike many other common synthetic testing problems used by the optimization community, we make its independent variables have drastically different sensitivities by setting much different coefficients $c_i$ and therefore is suitable as a test problem for sensitivity analysis. It is a highly nonlinear problems with the following form $$f(x)= \sum_{i=1}^{10} \exp(x_i)(c_i+x_i-\ln (\sum_{k=1}^{10}\exp(x_i)))$$ where $c_{i=1,\ldots,10}=[ -35, -28, -20, -16, -10, -6, -4, -2, -1, -0.02]
$ in our testing problem, though other settings might also be acceptable; and $x_i \in [-1,1].$
#### Test Problem 2
This is a parameter calibration problem for the simulation of the Town Brook watershed which is a 37 km2 subregion of the Cannonsville watershed (1200 km2) in the Catskill Region of New York State. The time series Y of measured stream flows and total dissolved phosphorus (TDP) concentrations used in the analysis contains 1096 daily observations (from October 1997 to September 2000) based on readings by the U.S. Geological Survey for water entering the West Branch of the Delaware River from the Town Brook watershed. We used the SWAT2005 simulator (Arnold et al. (1998)), which has been used by over a thousand agencies and academic institutions worldwide for the analysis of water flow and nutrient transport in watersheds (e.g., Eckhardt et al. (2002), Grizzetti et al. (2003), Shoemaker et al. (2007), Tolson and Shoemaker (2007b)). The water draining the Town Brook and rest of the Cannonsville watershed collects in the Cannonsville Reservoir, from which it is piped hundreds of miles to New York City for drinking water. Water quality is threatened by phosphorus pollution and, if not protected, could result in the need for a New York City water filtration plant estimated to cost over $8$ billion. For this economic reason as well as for general environmental concerns, there is great interest in quantifying the parameter uncertainty for this model.
The input information of the Town Brook simulator is discussed briefly in Tolson and Shoemaker (2007a) and in more details in Tolson and Shoemaker (2004, 2007b).
Here we only estimate $10$ flow related parameters, by minimizing the sum of squares errors between simulated flow data and measured flow data.
$$\min f(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{2192} (Y_i-y_i(x))^2$$ where $x \in [0,1]^{10}$ is the parameter of the involved simulator $y(x)$; $Y$ and $y$ are the measured data and the output of the simulator, respectively and each of it is a vector of length $2192$.
#### Test Problem 3
It is a $36$-dimensional groundwater bioremediation application involving partial differential equations [@yoon99comparison]. Bioremediation is a process to remove organic compounds or to transform them to less harmful substances by utilizing the microorganism’s catabolic (energy producing) and anabolic (cell synthesizing) activities. This process is enhanced by the injection of an electron acceptor (e.g., oxygen) or nutrients (e.g., phosphorous and nitrogen) to promote microbial growth. Efficient in situ bioremediation design attempts to insure that the well locations and pumping rates are both economical and effective at distributing the electron acceptor or nutrients throughout the system. For the objective function $f(x)$, the unknown variable $x \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ represents the well locations and pumping rates and its domain has been normalized to $[0, 1]^n$, where $n=36$.
Experimental Setup {#sec:benchmarkDesign}
------------------
In this section, we demonstrate the main points of this paper as follows: (1) function evaluations during the (global) optimization, an an adaptive experimental design, are playing an important role to help generate a high quality surrogate of global approximation. (2) For our new local sensitivity analysis, the novel corresponding tailored experimental design method is more efficient to generate a surrogate for calculation of its quantities than other state-of-art experimental design methods. (3) For relatively low dimensional problems, Kriging behaviors slightly worse than Gaussian RBF. For relatively high dimensional problems, Kriging behaviors much worse than Gaussian RBF, when the number of experimental design points is small.
### Global Sensitivity Analysis
As for the first point, O3AED uses the function evaluation points during the optimization step as the initial design points and then extends the set of design points by other available experimental design methods, in order to obtain a surrogate model of good global approximation. Here spacial filling methods [@Jin2005268; @Johnson90MiniMax; @Tang93OALHD; @Park94OptimalD; @Morris95OptimalLHD; @Ye98OCLHD; @Palmer01MBLHD; @Crary02MetaModel; @Leary03OOALHD] such as the optimal Latin Hypercube Design (LHD, for short) [@Ye00OSLHD] is adopted to generate the extra design points in Step $2$, though other design methods could be adopted. The number of function evaluations during optimization is denoted to be $N_{OPT}$. The number of the extra design points generated in Step $2$ is denoted as $N_{EXT}$. Then we generate a surrogate model $s(x)$ based on the $N_{OPT}+N_{EXT}$ function evaluations of $f(x)$ and perform corresponding sensitivity analysis on it.
One important feature of O3AED is to reuse the function evaluations during the optimization step to help generate of a surrogate of good global approximation property. Therefore, we are comparing O3AED with other classic experimental designs for generating a well-approximating surrogate, without the adoption of optimization. Here we use the optimal LHD [@Ye00OSLHD] and it generates $N_{OPT}+N_{EXT}$ design points for fair comparison. The comparison of O3AED with LHD in terms of Extended FAST is performed in Test Problems $1$ and $2$ in Section \[subsec:NumResults\]. The important role of function evaluations during optimization which can be considered as an adaptive experimental design, is well demonstrated. In addition, in Test Problem $2$, we also compare the performance of the Gaussian RBF and Kriging as surrogate surfaces.
Finally, as for Extended FAST, besides the above two surrogate based methods, another alternative is to directly calculate its quantities using $N_{OPT}+N_{EXT}$ samples on $f(x)$, without the help of surrogates. This method is denoted as “DIRECT”. As we have known, Extended FAST typically requires a huge number of function evaluations in order for the accuracy of the calculated sensitivity quantities, and such an alternative is expected to have a poor accuracy.
### Local Sensitivity Analysis
As mentioned before, for local sensitivity analysis, it is often wasteful to get a surrogate of a good global approximation property, or even impossible to establish such a surrogate due to a very limited number of function evaluations of $f(x)$, especially for relatively high dimensional problems with complex input-output relationships. Therefore we use the specific objective-oriented adaptive design introduce in Section \[subsec:MVMLS\] in Step $2$ of O3AED to add these extra design points. Specifically, when we extended design points are uniformly randomly picked a small portion of MVMSL points. Instead of focusing on the global approximation of the surrogate over the whole domain, our new experimental design method tries to establish a surrogate, which is only of good approximation at the MVMSL points. So it is expected to require less design points than LHD when the same accuracy at the MVMSL points are achieved. The advantages of O3AED in terms of this kind of “objective oriented" experimental design over the optimal LHD to add these extra design points are illustrated via Test Problem $3$ in Section \[subsec:NumResults\].
Evaluation criteria
-------------------
We evaluate the their performances of different experimental design methods and surrogate surfaces, by comparing their calculated sensitivity quantities with the true or “gold standard” sensitivity quantities. For Extended FAST, the analytic values of $ST_i$ and $S_i$ are often hard or impossible to obtain, especially for black-box functions. Therefore, in order to compare the performances of the above algorithms, we execute a large number (for example, $10000\times d$) of evaluations of $f(x)$ in order to obtain good estimate of them and take these estimates as the “gold standard” or references, though such a large number of evaluations are often computationally prohibitive for practical computationally expensive functions. The second column of Table \[Tab: N\_FunEvals\] is the number of the performed function evaluations of $f(x)$ when calculating the “gold standard” Extended FAST quantities. As for MVMLS, their true values are those calculated on $f(x)$, instead of the surrogate $s(x)$. The sixth column of Table \[Tab: N\_FunEvals\] is the number of the performed function evaluations of $f(x)$ when calculating the true MVMLS quantities for one given perturbation step. Correspondingly, we evaluate different computational methods by calculating Relative Error (Rel\_Err) of the calculated sensitivity measures. $$Rel\_Err (M)=\frac{\sqrt{\sum_{i}^n (S_i^{M}-S_i^{R})^2}}{\sqrt{\sum_{i}^n (S_i^{R})^2}},$$ where $S^{M}$ is sensitivity quantity calculated by either surrogated assisted methods based on O3AED and LHD, or “DIRECT” method, and $S_i^{R}$ is the “gold standard” value of the corresponding sensitivity quantity. The smaller Rel\_Err, the better the corresponding computational method is. The third, fourth and fifth columns of Table \[Tab: N\_FunEvals\] are number of function evaluations of $f(x)$ performed by O3AED , LHD and “DIRECT” for the Extended FAST, respectively. The seventh and eighth columns of Table \[Tab: N\_FunEvals\] are number of function evaluations of $f(x)$ performed by O3AED, and LHD for MVMSL (for one perturbation step), respectively.
As for MVMSL, given a perturbation step $\rho$, each parameter might have $3$ sensitivity indices $SI_{i}^{1, \rho}, SI_{i}^{2, \rho}$, and $SI_{i}^{3, \rho}$, based on one-at-a-time perturbation, two-at-a-time perturbation, and three-at-a-time perturbation, respectively. That is to say, $S_i^{M}$ and $S_i^{R}$ can be calculated values of $SI_{i}^{1, \rho}$, or $SI_{i}^{2, \rho}$, or $SI_{i}^{3, \rho}$, calculated based on the true function $f(x)$ and the surrogate $s(x)$, respectively.
As for MVMSL, we also would like to introduce another evaluation criteria, called matching rate. Basically, we evaluate whether the $s_3$ ($s_3=100$, for example) most sensitive duos or triples (for example, $SI_{(k^{+},j^+, i^+)}^{3,\rho}$) can be detected based on the surrogate, since we are usually interested in them. The matching rate is the measurement or the percentage of the correctness. Specifically, for each perturbation $\rho$, since we had calculated $SI_{(k^{+},j^+, i^+)}^{3,\rho},$ $SI_{(k^{+},j^-, i^+)}^{3,\rho}$ and etc, we can sorted them for most sensitive to least sensitive. We compare the first $s_3$ ($s_3=100$, for example) most sensitive one calculated by the response surface $s(x)$ with those based on the true function $f(x)$, and calculate its matching rate, denoted as $\gamma_3^{\rho}$, which is the number of correctly detected over $s_3$ (i.e. $0\le \gamma_3^{\rho} \le 1$). The higher $\gamma_2^{\rho}$ or $\gamma_3^{\rho}$, the better quality of the generated surrogate $s(x)$.
Experimental Results {#subsec:NumResults}
--------------------
### Test Problem 1 {#subsec:examaple1}
The optimization algorithm applied to this test problem is the multistart pattern search method. The particular multistart approach we used was multi level single linkage (MLSL) method [@Rinnooy97MLSL] and the pattern search algorithm [@Torczon97Pattern] was implemented in the Matlab Genetic Algorithm and Direct Search Toolbox. The maximum number $N_{OPT}$ of function evaluation of $f(x)$ is $100$. For the Extended FAST, O3AED only uses the function evaluations during the optimization to generate the surrogate model and no extra design points are generated, which means that $N_{EXT}=0.$, i.e. Step $2$ of O3AED is skipped. For fair comparing the number of design points of the optimal LHD is therefore $N_{OPT}+N_{EXT}=100$. For “DIRECT" method, we are using $650$ samples on $f(x)$, instead of $N_{OPT}+N_{EXT}=100$, because the minimum number of samples for the Extended FAST implemented by Facilia [@Ekstrom05Eikos] is $65n=650$, where $n$ is the dimension of the problem and $n=10$ here.
The results of the Extended FAST are showed in Table \[Tab: EFAST\_Jin\]. For each method, we ranked the sensitivity quantities in a descending order and listed the corresponding input variables. We also calculated the RSSE (Relative Root of Sum of Square Errors) of the calculated sensitivity quantities. The smaller RSSE, the better the method is expected to be. We can see that our method O3AED is the best among the three computationally feasible candidate methods. Notice that even though $650$ samples are used for the “DIRECT" method rather than $100$ samples, its performance is still much worse than O3AED, partially because it fails to take advantages of the underlying smoothness of $f(x)$, which is well made use of by the establishment of a surrogate.
### Test Problem $2$
The optimization algorithm applied to this test problem is the stochastic RBF optimization algorithm, with the maximum number $N_{OPT}$ of function evaluation of $f(x)$ being $150$. Extended FAST is performed to compare O3AED and two other alternatives.
O3AED adds $500$ extra design points by the optimal LHD in Step 2, i.e. $N_{EXT}=500.$ Correspondingly, for the alternative, the pure optimal LHD, the number of design points is therefore $N_{OPT}+N_{EXT}=650$ for fair comparison and we use the Gaussian RBF as the surrogate surface. For the “DIRECT" Method, we are still using $650$ samples on $f(x)$. For our experimental design method, we compare the performance of using Gaussian RBF and Kriging as the surrogate surfaces. The results are showed in Tables \[Tab: EFAST\_TB2\] and \[Tab: EFAST\_TB2-2\], where the $ST_i$ and $S_i$ are presented, respectively. For each method, we sorted the calculated values of the sensitivity quantities from largest to smallest and the corresponding parameter index. We also calculated the RSSE (relative root of square errors) of the calculated sensitivity quantities. The smaller Rel\_Err, the better the method is. We can see that our experimental design method O3AED is the best among the three candidate methods. This experiment verify that the function evaluations of optimization helps capture the global shape of $f(x)$ in an effective way. In addition, we also observed that the global approximation performance of Kriging is not as good as Gaussian RBF using the same experimental design in this case.
### Test Problem $3$
This test problems has $36$ parameters and is used to test the performance of O3AED in terms of calculating MVMSL quantities. In this example, we show the advantages of using “objective oriented" adaptive experimental design to add extra experiment design points of Step $2$ of O3AED. Specifically, in this example, we adopted the local stochastic RBF method [@Regis2007SRBF] where $N_{OPT}=600$ function evaluations were executed and set $\rho=0.2$ as an example, though other value of $\rho$ might be also applicable. In Step $2$ of O3AED, we set all the $2n$ MVMSL univariate perturbation points, and $45n$ randomly picked MVMSL two-variable perturbation points and $40n$ randomly picked MVMSL three-variable perturbation points as the experimental design points to establish a surrogate. Therefore, O3AED adds $2n+45n+40n=3132$ function evaluations of $f(x)$. Notice that without surrogate, $59712$ function evaluations of $f(x)$ is required, which is around $16$ times computational cost than the above two methods based on the surrogate models.
As an alternative, ones can add the extra experimental design points using the optimal LHD, without considering the definition of MVMSL. For fair comparison, the same number ($2n+45n+40n$=3131) design points through the optimal LHD within the neighborhood ( $\rho$=0.2) of the optimal solution are generated.
Tables \[Tab: MVMLS\_GWB1\] and \[Tab: MVMLS\_GWB1-2\] show the obtained MVMLS quantities based on the surrogate surfaces based on O3AED and LHD, which are the two ways to generate the extra experimental design points besides those of the optimization procedure. In addition, we also compare the performance of Gaussian RBF and Kriging for the experimental design method “O3AED".
We see that the results by O3AED and Gaussian RBF are much more accurate than that of the combination of O3AED and Kriging. It shows that in cases of high dimensional nonlinear problems and very few experimental design points, the performance of Kriging degrades a lot. Furthermore, we can see that the MVMSL-specific design adopted in O3AED to add the extra design points, behaviors much better than the optimal LHD.
Table \[Tab: MVMLS\_GWB2\] shows the obtained sensitivity quantity of $x_i$ based on the absolute value of the $i$th component of the eigenvector of the matrix $H^{\rho}$ using $\rho=0.2$. Here we consider the eigenvectors $U^{1,\rho}$ and $U^{2,\rho}$, which correspond to the two eigenvalues of the largest magnitude and second largest magnitude, respectively. We also calculated the Rel\_Err (relative root of square errors) of the calculation of these two eigenvectors. We can see that O3AED is much better than LHD, because its resulted rank is more close to the true rank. In addition, the calculated sensitivity quantities corresponding to O3AED have a much smaller Rel\_Err. Therefore, we can see that the sensitivity-specific design “O3AED" is more promising.
Conclusion and Future work
==========================
In this paper, we present a framework to bridge the optimization and sensitivity analysis for computationally expensive functions via the adoption of the surrogate models. The optimization and sensitivity analysis of the objective function $f(x)$ are performed sequently. The optimization procedure can be considered as an objective-oriented adaptive experimental design, where the objective is to fast catch the global shape of $f(x)$. Its function evaluations are reused in order to help generate a faithful surrogate model $s(x)$, which is a lieu of $f(x)$ for the purpose of sensitivity analysis. Optimization, as adaptive design, is showed to be a more effective experimental design method for the optimal LHD. Furthermore, we propose an objective-oriented adaptive experimental design method for our proposed local multi-variate sensitivity analysis measures for high dimensional problems. It aims to make the generated response surface of better accuracy for the calculation of the corresponding local sensitivity analysis measures than that based on the optimal LHD. We also demonstrate the advantage of Gaussian RBF over Kriging in cases of relatively high dimensionality and few experimental design points. In the future, we would like to extend the idea of objective-oriented experimental design to other response surface assisted problems.
Acknowledgements
================
This work was supported by the 973 project No. 2015CB856000, the Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant Nos. 11201054, 91330201 and by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities ZYGX2012J118, ZYGX2013Z005.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this work we obtain a version of the Procesi-Rasmyslov Theorem for the algebra of semi-invariants of representations of an arbitrary quiver with dimension vector $(2,2,\ldots,2)$.'
address: '117463, Novoyasenevsky pr-t, 32-1-559, Moscow, RussiaMoscow State University, department of Higher AlgebraEmail: [email protected]'
author:
- Stanislav Fedotov
title: 'Semi-invariants of 2-representations of quivers'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
We work over a base field $\Bbbk$ of characteristic zero. A quiver $Q$ is a directed graph, determined by two finite sets $Q_0$ (the set of “vertices”) and $Q_1$ (the set of “arrows”) with two maps $h,t: Q_1\rightarrow Q_0$ which indicate the vertices at the head and tail of each arrow. A representation $(W, \varphi)$ of $Q$ consists of a collection of finite dimensional $\Bbbk$-vector spaces $W_v$, for each $v\in Q_0$, together with linear maps $\varphi_a:
W_{ta}\rightarrow W_{ha}$, for each $a\in Q_1$. The dimension vector $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}^{Q_0}$ of such a representation is given by $\alpha_v = \dim_{\Bbbk}{W_v}$. A morphism $f:(W_v,
\varphi_a)\rightarrow (U_v,\psi_a)$ of representations consists of linear maps $f_v: W_v\rightarrow U_v$, for each $v\in Q_0$, such that $f_{ha}\varphi_a = \psi_af_{ta}$, for each $a\in Q_1$. Evidently, it is an isomorphism if and only if each $f_v$ is.
Having chosen vector spaces $W_v$ of dimension $\alpha_v$, the isomorphism classes of representations of $Q$ with dimension vector $\alpha$ are in natural one-to-one correspondence with the orbits of the group $$GL(\alpha) := \prod_{v\in Q_0}GL(W_v)$$in the representation space $$\operatorname{Rep}(Q,\alpha) := \bigoplus_{a\in Q_1}\operatorname{Hom}(W_{ta},W_{ha}).$$
This action is given by $(g\cdot\varphi)_a~=~g_{ha}\varphi_ag^{-1}_{ta}$, where $g =
(g_v)_{v\in Q_0}\in GL(\alpha)$. Note that the one-parameter subgroup $\Delta = \{(tE,\ldots,tE)\}$ acts trivially.
One can also consider the action of the smaller group $SL(\alpha) =
\prod_{v\in Q_0}SL(W_v)$ on $\operatorname{Rep}(Q,\alpha)$; $SL(\alpha)$-invariant functions on $\operatorname{Rep}(Q,\alpha)$ are usually called semi-invariants. In this work we study generators of the algebra $\Bbbk[\operatorname{Rep}(Q,\alpha)]^{SL(\alpha)}$. Recall that generators of $\Bbbk[\operatorname{Rep}(Q,\alpha)]^{GL(\alpha)}$ are given by the Procesi-Razmyslov Theorem.
[@Claudio Theorem 3.4], [@Razz] For an arbitrary quiver $Q$ and dimension vector $\alpha$ the algebra $\Bbbk[\operatorname{Rep}(Q,\alpha)]^{GL(\alpha)}$ is generated by the traces of oriented cycles of length not greater than $(\sum_v{\alpha_v})^2$. All relations among them can be deduced from Cayley-Hamilton polynomials.
As for the algebra $\Bbbk[\operatorname{Rep}(Q,\alpha)]^{SL(\alpha)}$, we only have several descriptions of its spanning sets; the main approaches are presented in [@Domokos], [@DW] and [@Sch]. In this work we describe a generating set for the algebra of 2-representations of an arbitrary quiver, i.e., of representations with dimension vector $(2,2,\ldots,2)$, in the spirit of the Procesi-Rasmyslov Theorem.
For a matrix $A$ we will, as usually, denote by $\widehat{A}$ its adjoint matrix, i.e., the matrix consisting of cofactors to the elements of $A^T$. If $A_F$ is the matrix of a linear map $F:
U\rightarrow V$, then it is convenient to assume that its adjoint matrix defines a linear map from $V$ to $U$.
Consider a quiver $Q$. Let $Q_0 = \{1,\ldots,n\}$ and $Q_1 =
\{a_1,\ldots,a_s\}$. To $Q$ we associate the quiver $\widetilde{Q}$ with $\widetilde{Q}_0 = Q_0$ and $\widetilde{Q}_1 =
\{a_1,\ldots,a_s\}\cup\{b_1,\ldots,b_s\}$, where $hb_i = ta_i$, $tb_i = ha_i$. For each representation $(W, \varphi)$ of $Q$, consider the [*associated representation*]{} of $\widetilde{Q}$ with the same spaces $W_v$ and maps $\varphi_{a_i}$ and $\varphi_{b_i} =
\widehat{\varphi}_{a_i}$. By a [*route*]{} in $Q$ we mean an oriented cycle in $\widetilde{Q}$. For example, any cycle in $Q$ is a route. We say that a route is [*simple*]{}, if no edge appears twice in the corresponding oriented cycle. The [*trace of a route*]{} is the trace of the corresponding cycle in $\widetilde{Q}$ in the associated representation.
For a quiver $Q$ and a dimension vector $\alpha = (2, 2, \ldots, 2)$ the algebra $\Bbbk[\operatorname{Rep}(Q,
\alpha)]^{SL(\alpha)}$ is generated by the traces of simple routes.
[**Example 1.**]{} Let $Q$ be the quiver $\xymatrix{
1\ar@<1ex>[r]^a\ar@<-1ex>[r]_b & 2}.$ Denote by $|X|$ the determinant of a matrix $X$. By Theorem 2 the algebra $\Bbbk[\operatorname{Rep}(Q, (2,2))]^{SL(2)\times SL(2)}$ is generated by $\operatorname{tr}{\varphi_a\widehat{\varphi}_a} = 2|\varphi_a|$, $\operatorname{tr}{\varphi_b\widehat{\varphi}_b} = 2|\varphi_b|$ and $\operatorname{tr}{\varphi_a\widehat{\varphi}_b}$ (note that $\operatorname{tr}{\varphi_b\widehat{\varphi}_a} =
\operatorname{tr}\widehat{\varphi_a\widehat{\varphi}_b} =
\operatorname{tr}\varphi_a\widehat{\varphi}_b$). So, if $\varphi_a =
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}x_{11} & x_{12}\\ x_{21} & x_{22}
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, $\varphi_b =
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}y_{11} & y_{12}\\ y_{21} & y_{22}
\end{smallmatrix}\right)$, then $$\Bbbk[\operatorname{Rep}(Q, (2,2))]^{SL(2)\times SL(2)} =
\Bbbk[2x_{11}x_{22} - 2x_{12}x_{21}, 2y_{11}y_{22} - 2y_{12}y_{21},
x_{11}y_{22} - x_{12}y_{21} - x_{21}y_{12} + x_{22}y_{11}].$$
Our arguments use the description of a spanning set of the algebra $\Bbbk[\operatorname{Rep}(Q), \alpha]^{SL(\alpha)}$ devised by Domokos and Zubkov [@Domokos]; we briefly recall it in Section 2. In Sections 3 and 4 we obtain a formula expressing the determinant of a $2$-block matrix as a polynomial in the traces of associated routes. In Section 5 we prove Theorem 2.
The author hopes to use the information received about the basic semi-invariants to generalize King’s construction [@Kinge] in the way similar to [@Cox].
The author thanks I.V. Arzhantsev for the idea of the work and useful discussions.
The Domokos-Zubkov Theorem
==========================
Let us recall the results of [@Domokos]. Let $Q_0 =
\{1,\ldots,n\}$. Fix a dimension vector $\alpha$ and two tuples $\overline{\imath} =
(i_1,\ldots,i_k)$ and $\overline{\jmath} = (j_1,\ldots,j_l)$ of integers from $1$ to $n$ (possibly repeating) such that $(\alpha_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_k}) = (\alpha_{j_1} + \ldots +
\alpha_{j_l})$, and consider all possible matrices of size $(\alpha_{i_1} + \ldots + \alpha_{i_k})\times (\alpha_{j_1} + \ldots
+ \alpha_{j_l})$ of form $$A_{\overline{\imath}\,\overline{\jmath}} \quad:=\quad
\begin{matrix}
& \begin{matrix}
i_1\phantom{A_1} & \ldots & \phantom{A_1}i_s\phantom{A_1} & \ldots & \phantom{A_1}i_k
\end{matrix}\\
\begin{matrix}
j_1\\
\vdots\\
j_r\\
\vdots\\
j_l
\end{matrix} &
\begin{pmatrix}
y_{11}F_{11} & \ldots & y_{1s}F_{1s} & \ldots & y_{1k}F_{1k}\\
\vdots & & \vdots & & \vdots\\ y_{r1}F_{r1} & \ldots & y_{rs}F_{rs}
& \ldots & y_{rk}F_{rk}\\ \vdots & & \vdots & & \vdots\\
y_{l1}F_{k1} & \ldots & y_{ks}F_{ls} & \ldots & y_{lk}F_{lk}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{matrix}, \eqno{(3)}$$ where $y_{rs}$ are formal variables, and each matrix $F_{rs}$ may be either $0$, or the matrix of a map, that corresponds to an arrow going from the $i_s$-th vertex to the $j_r$-th one, or an identity matrix if $i_s = j_r$. For a fixed representation $(W, \varphi)$ a matrix of form (3) defines a map from $W_{i_1}\oplus\ldots\oplus
W_{i_k}$ to $W_{j_1}\oplus\ldots\oplus W_{j_k}$. Moreover, its determinant is a polynomial in variables $y_{rs}$ with $SL(\alpha)$-invariant coefficients: $|A_{\overline{\imath}\overline{\jmath}}| =
\sum_{\overline{\mu}}y^{\overline{\mu}}h_{\overline{\mu}}(x_{pq}^{rs})$, where $\overline{\mu} = (\mu_{ij})_{i,j = 1}^{k, l}$ are multidegrees, and $x^{rs}_{pq}$ are matrix elements of the matrices $F_{rs}$.
[@Domokos Thm. 4.1] The algebra $\Bbbk[\operatorname{Rep}({Q},\alpha)]^{SL(\alpha)}$ is spanned by semi-invariants $h_{\overline{\mu}}(x_{pq}^{rs})$.
Thus all basic semi-invariants of ${Q}$ are given by coefficients of monomials in variables $y_{rs}$ in determinants of block matrices of form (3). We will describe them precisely for $\alpha =
(2,2,\ldots,2)$.
Block matrices and associated routes
====================================
For a matrix $X = \left(\begin{smallmatrix}x_{11} & x_{12}\\x_{21} &
x_{22}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ its adjoint matrix $\widehat{X}$ equals $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}x_{22} & -x_{12}\\-x_{21} &
x_{11}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. Recall that for $X,Y\in
\operatorname{Mat}_{2\times 2}(\Bbbk)$ we have $\operatorname{tr}{X\widehat{Y}} =
\operatorname{tr}{\widehat{X}Y} = \operatorname{tr}{X}\operatorname{tr}{Y} - \operatorname{tr}{XY}$, $\operatorname{tr}{\widehat{X}} =
\operatorname{tr}{X}$ and $\widehat{XY} = \widehat{Y}\widehat{X}$.
Let $X,Y,Z\in\operatorname{Mat}_{2\times 2}(\Bbbk)$. Then
1. $\operatorname{tr}{X^2Y} = \operatorname{tr}{X}\operatorname{tr}{XY} - |X|\operatorname{tr}{Y}$;
2. $\operatorname{tr}{XYXZ} = \operatorname{tr}{XY}\operatorname{tr}{XZ} - |X|\operatorname{tr}{Y\widehat{Z}}$.
It suffices to prove a polynomial identity for the elements of a Zariski open subset. Hence, we may assume that all matrices are invertible. By the Cayley-Hamilton Theorem for two by two matrices we have $$X^2 - (\operatorname{tr}{X})X + |X|E = 0.$$ Multiplying this equality by $Y$ and taking the trace of the product received, we get (1). If $Y$ is invertible, it follows that $$\operatorname{tr}{XYXZ} = \operatorname{tr}{((XY)^2Y^{-1}Z)} = \operatorname{tr}{XY}\operatorname{tr}{(XY\cdot Y^{-1}Z)} -
|XY|\operatorname{tr}{Y^{-1}Z}=$$ $\phantom{AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA}=
\operatorname{tr}{XY}\operatorname{tr}{(XZ)} - |X|\operatorname{tr}{\widehat{Y}Z}.$
Consider a matrix $Z \in \operatorname{Mat}_{2k\times 2k}(\Bbbk)$ divided into blocks $X_{ij}$ of size $2\times 2$. To $Z$ we associate a quiver $\Gamma$ with $\Gamma_0 = \{1,\ldots,k\}\cup\{-1,\ldots,-k\}$, $\Gamma_1 = \{a_{ij}\mid i,j = 1,\ldots,k\}$, $ha_{ij} = i$ and $ta_{ij} = - j$. A route in $\Gamma$ defines a sequence of matrices: if an arrow goes from $-j$ to $i$, we take $X_{ij}$, and if it goes from $k$ to $-l$, we take $\widehat{X}_{kl}$. Thus constructed sequences we call [*routes in*]{} $Z$. The [*adjoint*]{} for a given route $P = (X_1,\ldots,X_N)$ is $\widehat{P} =
(\widehat{X}_N,\ldots,\widehat{X}_1)$. Observe that any cyclic permutation of factors as well as taking the adjoint route does not change the trace of the product of matrices along a route. We say that two routes are [*equivalent*]{} if there is such a transformation turning one of them into another. We claim that the determinant of $Z$ is a polynomial in traces of its routes. To prove this we need to introduce the following construction.
[**Construction.**]{} The determinant of $Z$ equals $|Z| =
\sum_{\sigma\in S_{2k}}(-1)^{\sigma}z_{1\,\sigma(1)}\cdot
z_{2\,\sigma(2)}\cdot\ldots\cdot z_{2k\,\sigma(2k)}$. To each summand $z_{\sigma} := z_{1\,\sigma(1)}\cdot
z_{2\,\sigma(2)}\cdot\ldots\cdot z_{2k\,\sigma(2k)}$ we assign the [*associated route set*]{} $\mathcal{P}_{\sigma}$ constructed as follows. Let $z_{1\,\sigma(1)}$ be in a block $X_{1s_1}$. 1a) if $z_{2\,\sigma(2)}$ is in the same block as $z_{1\,\sigma(1)}$, then add to $\mathcal{P}_{\sigma}$ the route $(\widehat{X}_{1s_1},X_{1s_1})$ and consider the submatrix $Z^{1\,2}_{\sigma{(1)}\,\sigma(2)}$ accessory to $X_{1s_1}$;
1b) let $z_{2\,\sigma(2)}$ be in some other $X_{1s_2}$. In this case we consider the factor $z_{t_3\,\sigma(t_3)}$ that lies in the same block column as $z_{2\,\sigma(2)}$, i.e., in some $X_{r_3s_2}$; 2) consider the factor $z_{t_4\,\sigma(t_4)}$ lying in the same block row as the previous one, i.e., in some $X_{r_3s_4}$; 3) continue this process as long as it is possible, alternating horizontal and vertical shifts;
4\) there comes a moment when we can not make another, some $N$-th shift. If it were the time to move vertically (respectively horizontally), then we have arrived to some $p$-th block column (respectively to a $p$-th block row) for the second time. But in each block column (except the $s_1$-th) and in each block row we have already chosen two blocks (and hence, two factors of $z_{\sigma}$), so it is impossible to get there again. Therefore just before the algorithm failed we had arrived to the $s_1$-th block column. It follows that $N$ is even (because the last shift had been horizontal) and moreover, the last considered block was some $X_{r_Ns_1}$;
5\) consider the route $P =
(\widehat{X}_{1s_1},X_{1s_2},\widehat{X}_{r_3s_2},X_{r_3s_4},\ldots,
X_{r_ns_1})$ (all odd factors are adjoint). We add it to $\mathcal{P}_{\sigma}$ and pass to the submatrix matrix $Z_{\overline{P}}$ of size $(k - N)\times(k - N)$ containing all the factors of $z_{\sigma}$ that we have not used yet.
Note that the construction is not unique: we may take various starting elements and choose one of two possible directions of circuit. These transformations correspond to cyclic permutations of the routes and/or taking the adjoint routes, hence not changing their equivalence classes.
[**Example 2.**]{} We illustrate the construction for the block matrix $Z = (X_{rs})_{r,s = 1}^3$ and the permutation $\sigma =
\left(\begin{smallmatrix}1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6\\3 & 4 & 1 & 5 & 2 &
6\end{smallmatrix}\right)$:
$$\xymatrix{z_{11} & z_{12} & {\mathbf z_{13}}\ar[dr] & z_{14} & z_{15} & z_{16}\\
z_{21} & z_{22} & z_{23} & {\mathbf z_{24}} & z_{25} & z_{16}\\
{\mathbf z_{31}}\ar[drrrr] & z_{32} & z_{33} & z_{34} & z_{35} & z_{36}\\
z_{41} & z_{42} & z_{43} & z_{44} & {\mathbf z_{45}}\ar[ddr] & z_{46}\\
z_{51} & {\mathbf z_{52}} & z_{53} & z_{54} & z_{55} & z_{56}\\
z_{61} & z_{62} & z_{63} & z_{64} & z_{65} & {\mathbf
z_{66}}\ar[ullll]}$$
The summand $z_{\sigma}$ equals $z_{13}z_{24}z_{31}z_{45}z_{56}z_{61}$. Starting at $z_{13}$, we next take the factor $z_{24}$. Since both of them are in the same block $X_{12}$, we add to $\mathcal{P}_{\sigma}$ the route $(\widehat{X}_{12},X_{12})$ and consider the submatrix $Z^{12}_{34} = \left(\begin{smallmatrix} X_{21} & X_{23}\\
X_{31} & X_{33}\end{smallmatrix}\right)$. Here we start at $z_{31}$, then take $z_{45}$. This element is in the second block column of $Z^{12}_{34}$; we should take another factor lying in this column, that is $z_{66}$, and then the factor from the same block row as $z_{66}$; it is $z_{52}$. Thus we add to $\mathcal{P}_{\sigma}$ the route $(\widehat{X}_{21},X_{23},\widehat{X}_{33},X_{31})$. Finally, $\mathcal{P}_{\sigma} = \{(\widehat{X}_{12},X_{12}),\,
(\widehat{X}_{21},X_{23},\widehat{X}_{33},X_{31})\}$
Observe that different permutations may correspond to the same associated route sets. Namely, for $k = 1$ there are two permutations and only one route. We say that two route sets $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{S}$ are equivalent if their elements are pairwise equivalent. Now, take a representative from each equivalence class of route sets received by our construction; denote the collection by $\mathcal{P}_k$.
The determinant of a $2$-block matrix
=====================================
Define the [*length function*]{} $l(P)$ as the number of factors of $P$, and the [*index*]{} given by $$\nu(P)\ =\
\begin{cases} 1, &\mbox{if $P$ is of form $(\widehat{X}_{ij},X_{ij})$ or $(X_{ij},\widehat{X}_{ij})$},\\
0, &\mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$
Assume that $Z = (X_{rs})_{r,s = 1}^k\in\operatorname{Mat}_{2k\times
2k}(\Bbbk)$ is a $2$-block matrix, i.e., it is divided into blocks $X_{rs}$ of size $2\times 2$. Then the following equality holds: $$|Z|\ =\ \sum_{\mathcal{P}\in\mathcal{P}_k}\prod_{P\in\mathcal{P}}(-1)^{\frac12l(P) - 1}
2^{-\nu(P)}\operatorname{tr}{P}.\eqno{(4)}$$
Both sides of (4) there are polynomials in matrix elements of $X_{ij}$. We claim that each $z_{\sigma}$ from the left side occurs in the right side with the same coefficient.
The product $\prod_{P\in\mathcal{P}}2^{-\nu(P)}\operatorname{tr}{P}$ equals a sum of monomials $\pm z_{\sigma}$, where $\sigma$ run through such permutations that every $z_{p,\sigma(p)}$ lies in an element of some route $P\in\mathcal{P}$.
First prove the lemma for $\mathcal{P} =
\{P\}$, $\nu(P) = 0$.
Note that a transposition of block rows or block columns changes neither $|Z|$, nor the right side of (4). Hence we may assume that $P =
(\widehat{X}_{11},X_{12},\widehat{X}_{22},X_{23},\ldots,\widehat{X}_{kk},X_{k1})$.
The polynomial $\operatorname{tr}{P}$ is a sum of monomials in matrix elements of blocks $X_{ij}$ of the following form $$(\widehat{X}_{11})_{p_1p_2}(X_{12})_{p_2p_3}(\widehat{X}_{22})_{p_3p_4}(X_{23})_{p_4p_5}
\ldots(\widehat{X}_{k,k})_{p_{2k-1}p_{2k}}(X_{k,1})_{p_{2k}p_1}.\eqno{(5)}$$ Such a product equals some $z_{\sigma}$ whenever each pair of its factors does not lie in one row or in one column. By construction of $P$ only some $(X_{q,q+1})_{p_{2q}p_{2q + 1}}$ and $(\widehat{X}_{q+1,q+1})_{p_{2q+1}p_{2q+2}} =
(X_{q+1,q+1})_{\tilde{p},\tilde{q}}$ may lie in the same block column. They are in the same column if and only if $\tilde{q} =
2q+1$. But for $X, Y\in\operatorname{Mat}_{2\times 2}(\Bbbk)$ we have $$X\widehat{Y} = \begin{pmatrix}
x_{11}y_{22} - x_{12}y_{21} & - x_{11}y_{12} + x_{12}y_{11}\\
x_{21}y_{22} - x_{22}y_{21} & - x_{21}y_{12} + x_{22}y_{11}
\end{pmatrix},$$ and $b\ne d$ holds in all the products $x_{ab}y_{cd}$ that occur here. The same argument may be used to prove that every two factors of (5) do not lie in the same row.
If $\nu(P) = 1$, i.e., $P = (\widehat{X}_{rs},X_{rs})$, we have $\operatorname{tr}{P} = 2|X_{rs}|$. This gives rise to the factors $2^{-\nu(P)}$ in (4).
Assume that there is more than one route in $\mathcal{P}$. Each route $\mathcal{P} = \{P_1,\ldots,P_m\}$ determines a collection of block submatrices $Z_{P_1},\ldots,Z_{P_m}$ such that each $P_i$ is entirely situated in $Z_{P_i}$ and each block row and each block column of $Z$ intersects with a unique $Z_{P_i}$. By transpositions of block rows and columns we can make all the blocks $Z_{P_i}$ diagonal. Now it is evident that $\prod_{P\in\mathcal{P}}2^{-\nu(P)}\operatorname{tr}{P}$ equals a sum of products $z_{\sigma_1}\ldots z_{\sigma_m}$, where $z_{\sigma_q}$ are summands of $|Z_{P_q}|$ and $\sigma_j$ is associated to $P_j$.
Thus the right side of (4) is a linear combination of $z_{\sigma}$.
Each monomial $z_{\sigma}$ occurs in $\prod_{P\in\mathcal{P_{\sigma}}}2^{-\nu(P)}\operatorname{tr}{P}$ with nonzero coefficient.
Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\mathcal{P}_{\sigma} = \{P\}$ with $P = (\widehat{X}_{r_1s_1},
X_{r_1s_2},\widehat{X}_{r_3s_2}, \ldots,\\ X_{r_{2k}s_1})$. Denote by $z_{\sigma,q}$ the factor of $z_{\sigma}$ lying in the $q$-th element of $P$. Fixing the row containing $z_{\sigma,1}$, we determine the row, in which $z_{\sigma,2}$ lies: it is the second row of a pair ($2r_1 - 1$, $2r_1$). Similarly, the choice of the column containing $z_{\sigma,2}$ determines in which column $z_{\sigma,3}$ lies, and so on. Finally, knowing the column containing $z_{\sigma,2k}$ we learn in which column $z_{\sigma,1}$ lies. Consequently, all the permutations $\tau$ with $\mathcal{P}_{\tau} = \mathcal{P}_{\sigma}$ are parametrised by tuples $\xi(\tau) = (\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_k)\in(\mathbb{Z}_2)^{2k}$. Further, if we interchange the $(2r_1 - 1)$-th and the $2r_1$-th rows of $Z$, then $\xi_1$ becomes $1-\xi_1$ and the other elements of a tuple do not change. Thus there exists a sequence of such permutations sending a product $z_{\sigma}$ to any $z_{\tau}$ with the same associated set. It is only left to understand, how these transformations change $\operatorname{tr}{P}$. If we interchange the $(2s_q - 1)$-th and the $2s_q$-th columns, it only influences the fragment $(X_{r_{q-2}s_q},\widehat{X}_{r_qs_q})$. But for $X, Y\in
\operatorname{Mat}_{2\times 2}(\Bbbk)$ we have $$X\widehat{Y} = \begin{pmatrix}
x_{11} & x_{12}\\
x_{21} & x_{22}\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} y_{22} & -y_{12}\\
-y_{21} & y_{11}\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
x_{11}y_{22} - x_{12}y_{21} & - x_{11}y_{12} + x_{12}y_{11}\\
x_{21}y_{22} - x_{22}y_{21} & - x_{21}y_{12} + x_{22}y_{11}
\end{pmatrix},$$ and after the permutation: $$\begin{pmatrix}
x_{12} & x_{11}\\
x_{22} & x_{21}\end{pmatrix} \widehat{\begin{pmatrix} y_{12} & y_{11}\\
y_{22} & y_{21}\end{pmatrix}} =
\begin{pmatrix}
x_{12}y_{21} - x_{11}y_{22} & - x_{12}y_{11} + x_{11}y_{12}\\
x_{22}y_{21} - x_{21}y_{22} & - x_{22}y_{11} + x_{21}y_{12}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Comparing the results we see that both products contain the same members, yet with different signs. So a transposition multiplies $\operatorname{tr}{P}$ by $(-1)$. The same argument works for transformations of columns. Hence all $z_{\tau}$ with $\mathcal{P}_{\tau} = \{P\}$ occur in $\operatorname{tr}{P}$ with nonzero coefficient, which in fact equals $\pm 1$.
It is clear that the same $z_{\sigma}$ can not occur as a summand in $\prod_{S\in\mathcal{S}}2^{-\nu(S)}\operatorname{tr}{S}$ and $\prod_{P\in\mathcal{P}}2^{-\nu(P)}\operatorname{tr}{P}$ for two different sets $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{S}$ in $\mathcal{P}_{k}$. Therefore each $z_{\sigma}$ occurs in both sides of (4) with coefficient $\pm 1$. It remains to prove that these signs are the same.
Assume as before that $\mathcal{P}_{\sigma} = {P}$, where $P =
\widehat{X}_{11}X_{12}\widehat{X}_{22}\ldots X_{l(P),1}$. We know that if $\mathcal{P}_{\tau} = \mathcal{P}_{\sigma}$, then there exists a permutation of rows and columns of $Z$ multiplying both sides of (4) by the same number $1$ or $(-1)$ and transforming $z_{\sigma}$ into $z_{\tau}$. So the question is whether the coefficients of a fixed $z_{\sigma_0}$ are the same. Consider $\sigma_0 = (1, 2, 3, \ldots, 2l(P) - 1 , 2l(P))$. Then the coefficient of $z_{\sigma_0}$ in $|Z|$ equals $(-1)^{\sigma_0} =
-1$. As for the right side, multiply the summand $$\pm z_{12}z_{23}\ldots z_{2l(P) - 1,2l(P)}z_{2l(P),1} = (\widehat{X}_{11})_{21}(X_{12})_{21}(\widehat{X}_{22})_{21}(X_{23})_{21}\ldots
(\widehat{X}_{l(P),l(P)})_{21}(X_{l(P),1})_{21}$$ by $(-1)^{\frac12
l(P) - 1}$. We have $(X_{q,q+1})_{21} = z_{2q, 2q + 1}$ and $(\widehat{X}_{qq})_{21} = - z_{2q - 1, 2q}$, so the total sign is $(-1)^{\frac12 l(P) - 1}(-1)^{\frac12 l(P)} =
-1$. This completes the proof of Proposition 1.
Proof of Theorem 2
==================
Recall that by Theorem 3 the algebra $\Bbbk[\operatorname{Rep}({Q},
\alpha)]^{SL(\alpha)}$ is generated by the coefficients of monomials in $y_{rs}$ in determinants of block matrices of form (3). So it is only left to prove that these are precisely the traces of routes associated to those matrices.
It is easy to see that in the determinant of $\left(y_{rs}X_{rs}\right)_{r,s = 1}^k$ the coefficient of $y_{r_1s_1}\ldots y_{r_ks_k}$ equals the alternating sum of all such $z_{\sigma}$ that there exists a $\tau\in S_{2k}$, for which every $z_{p\,\sigma(p)}$ is in $X_{r_{\tau(p)}s_{\tau(p)}}$. Observe that each block row and each block column contains precisely two blocks $X_{r_ps_p}$ and hence these blocks are elements of a route from some set $\mathcal{P}$. Now from the proof of Proposition 1 it is clear that the coefficient of $y_{r_1s_1}\ldots y_{r_ks_k}$ equals $\prod_{P\in\mathcal{P}}(-1)^{\frac12l(P) - 1} 2^{-\nu(P)}\operatorname{tr}{P}$.
Now prove that traces of the routes under consideration are semi-invariants. If $\widehat{X}_1,\ldots,\widehat{X}_N$ are all the adjoint factors of a route $P$ (with multiplicities), then $$\operatorname{tr}{P} = \operatorname{tr}{\widehat{X}_1P_1\ldots\widehat{X}_NP_N} =
|X_1|\cdot\ldots\cdot|X_N|\operatorname{tr}{X_1^{-1}P_1\ldots X_N^{-1}P_N},$$ where $P_i$ are products of the remaining elements of $P$. Since $\operatorname{tr}{X_1^{-1}P_1\ldots X_N^{-1}P_N}$ is a rational invariant, $\operatorname{tr}{P}$ and $|X_1|\cdot\ldots\cdot |X_N|$ have the same weight.
Further, if a factor $X$ appears twice in a route $P$, then by Lemma 1 we have $$\operatorname{tr}{P} = \operatorname{tr}{XP_1XP_2} = \operatorname{tr}{XP_1}\operatorname{tr}{XP_2} -
\frac12\operatorname{tr}{\widehat{X}X}\operatorname{tr}{P_1\widehat{P}_2}.$$ The sequence $(P_1,\widehat{P}_2)$ is a route yielding that $\operatorname{tr}{P_1\widehat{P}_2}$ is a semi-invariant. So the algebra of semi-invariants is generated by traces of simple routes. Theorem 2 is proved.
Observe that the trace of a route containing a pair $\widehat{\varphi}_a$, $\widehat{\varphi}_b$ with $ha = tb$, $ta =
hb$ may be excluded from the generating set. Indeed, such a route is of form $(\widehat{\varphi}_a,P,\widehat{\varphi}_b,S)$, where $P$ and $S$ are subroutes. But for $X,Y\in\operatorname{Mat}_{2\times 2}(\Bbbk)$ Lemma 1 implies that $|X|\operatorname{tr}{Y\widehat{Z}} = \operatorname{tr}{XY}\operatorname{tr}{XZ} -
\operatorname{tr}{XYXZ}$. Therefore, $$\operatorname{tr}{\widehat{\varphi}_aP\widehat{\varphi}_bS} =
\frac1{|\varphi_a|}|\varphi_a|\operatorname{tr}{\widehat{\varphi}_aP\widehat{\widehat{S}\varphi_b}}
=
\frac1{|\varphi_a|}(\operatorname{tr}{\varphi_a\widehat{\varphi}_aP}\operatorname{tr}{\varphi_a\widehat{S}\varphi_b}
- \operatorname{tr}{\varphi_a\widehat{\varphi}_aP\varphi_a\widehat{S}\varphi_b})
=$$ $$= \frac1{|\varphi_a|}(|\varphi_a|\operatorname{tr}{P}(\operatorname{tr}{\varphi_a\varphi_b}\operatorname{tr}{S}
- \operatorname{tr}{\varphi_b\varphi_aS}) -
|\varphi_a|(\operatorname{tr}{\varphi_bP\varphi_a}\operatorname{tr}{S} -
\operatorname{tr}{\varphi_bP\varphi_aS})) =$$$$=
\operatorname{tr}{\varphi_a\varphi_b}\operatorname{tr}{P}\operatorname{tr}{S} - \operatorname{tr}{P}\operatorname{tr}{\varphi_b\varphi_aS}
- \operatorname{tr}{S}\operatorname{tr}{\varphi_a\varphi_bP} + \operatorname{tr}{\varphi_bP\varphi_aS}.$$ If the initial product $\widehat{\varphi}_aP\widehat{\varphi}_bS$ were assigned to a route, then $P$ and $S$ should map from $W_{ha}$ to $W_{ha}$ and from $W_{ta}$ to $W_{ta}$ respectively: $$\xymatrix{W_{ta}\ar@/_1pc/[rrr]_{S} &
W_{ha}\ar[l]_{\widehat{\varphi}_a} & W_{ha}\ar[l]_{P} &
W_{ta}\ar[l]_{\widehat{\varphi}_{b}}}.$$ So the products whose traces we take in the final formula are also associated to routes.
Finally, note that for 3-representations Theorem 2 does not hold. Indeed, consider the quiver
$$\xymatrix{1\ar[rr]^{a}\ar[d]_{d}\ar[drr]_(0.7){u} &&
2\ar@<1ex>[d]^{b_1}\ar[dll]^(0.7){v}\\
4 && 3\ar@<1ex>[u]^{b_2}\ar[ll]^{c}}$$ and the dimension vector $(3, 3, 3, 3)$. The coefficient $F$ of $\prod_{i,j}y_{ij}$ in the determinant of the block matrix $$Z =
\begin{pmatrix} y_{11}\varphi_{a} & y_{12}E &
y_{13}\varphi_{b_2}\\
y_{21}\varphi_{u} & y_{22}\varphi_{b_1} & y_{23}E\\
y_{31}\varphi_{d} & y_{32}\varphi_{v} & y_{33}\varphi_{c}
\end{pmatrix}$$ is not invariant, and its total degree with respect to the variables of each $\varphi$ equals 1. On the other hand, the trace of a route is not invariant if and only if the route contains an adjoint matrix. The total degree of a trace with respect to the variables from this matrix is at least 2. Thus the subalgebra generated by the traces of routes does not contain $F$.
[99]{}
Geometric Invariant Theory via Cox rings. — J. Pure Appl. Algebra [**213:1**]{} (2009), 154-172 Semi-invariants of quivers and saturation for Littlewood-Richardson coefficients. — J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**13:3**]{} (2000), 467-479 Semi-invariants of quivers as determinants. — Transformation Groups [**6:1**]{} (2001), 9-24 Moduli of representations of finite-dimensional algebras. — Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2) [**45(180)**]{} (1994), 515-530 The invariant theory of $n\times n$ matrices. — Adv. Math. [**19**]{} (1976) 306-381 Trace identities of full matrix algebras over a field of characteristic zero. — Math. USSR, Izv. [**8**]{} (1974), 727-760 Semi-invariants of quivers for arbitrary dimension vectors. — Indag. Math. (N.S.) [**12**]{} (2001), 125-138
[^1]: Supported by grant RFFI 09-01-90416 - Ukr-f-a
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove that, in dimensions greater than $2$, the generic metric is not a Hessian metric and find a curvature condition on Hessian metrics in dimensions greater than $3$. In particular we prove that the forms used to define the Pontryagin classes in terms of the curvature vanish on a Hessian manifold. By contrast all analytic Riemannian $2$-metrics are Hessian metrics.'
author:
- 'Shun-ichi Amari[^1]'
- 'John Armstrong[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'dualflat.bib'
title: Curvature of Hessian manifolds
---
Introduction
============
A Riemannian metric $g$ is called a Hessian metric if there exist local coordinates such that $g$ can be written as the Hessian of some convex potential function $\phi$. This paper is motivated by the question of determining whether or not a given metric $g$ is Hessian.
Hessian metrics have been shown to play an important role in a variety of applications. For example they arise in the study of optimization [@nesterov1994interior], statistical manifolds [@amari] and, via special Kähler manifolds, in string theory [@hitchin1999moduli; @freed1999special].
A recurring theme in the study of Hessian metrics is that of duality. The Legendre–Fenchel transform provides a basic notion of duality for convex functions [@rockafellar] which has many important applications. This duality manifests itself in Hessian geometry in the study of affine connections.
Given any affine connection ${\overline}{{\nabla}}$ on a Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$, we define the “$g$-dual connection” ${\overline}{{\nabla}}^*$ by: $$g( {\overline}{{\nabla}}_X Y, Z ) = g( Y, {\overline}{{\nabla}}^*_X Z ).$$ The Levi–Civita connection is self dual. A $g$-dually flat structure is a pair of $g$-dual connections which are both flat. A metric locally admits a $g$-dually flat structure if and only if it is Hessian. To see why, one simply needs to know that the geodesics of $g$-dually flat connection define local coordinates with respect to which $g$ is a Hessian metric and the converse is also true [@shima; @amari]. This gives a dictionary between Hessian geometry and the geometry of affine connections. This dictionary is not entirely trivial: for example, the duality between ${\overline}{{\nabla}}$ and ${\overline}{{\nabla}}^*$ translates into the Legendre transform of the potential $\phi$. As we shall see, results which are easy to prove from the perspective of affine connections can be harder to understand from the perspective of Hessian geometry and vice versa.
The issue of determining whether a metric $g$ is a Hessian metric was raised in [@furuhata; @amari] in the language of $g$-dually flat connections. They posed the following basic questions:
Let $(M,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold, does there always exist a dually flat structure on $M$, i.e. a pair of $g$-dual flat, torsion-free affine connections?
If the answer to Problem 1 is negative, find conditions and invariants which characterize the spaces for which this is possible.
We interpret these questions as being essentially local questions. So these problems are equivalent to determining whether $g$ is a Hessian metric. We will show that the answer to Problem 1 is positive in dimension $2$ and negative in dimensions greater than $2$. These results have been found independently by Robert Bryant [@bryant] and follow from applications of general Cartan–Kähler theory.
We also find an explicit curvature condition which must hold for a dually flat structure to exist in dimensions greater than or equal to $4$ and examine its implications. In particular we will prove that the [*Pontryagin forms*]{} must vanish on a Hessian manifold. (We define the Pontryagin [*forms*]{} to be the closed forms defined using polynomials in the curvature tensor which provide representatives for the Pontryagin [*classes*]{}). Thus we obtain a topological obstruction to the existence of a Hessian metric.
The existence of a Hessian metric does not imply the global existence of a $g$-dually flat structure. For example, quotients of hyperbolic space always admit a Hessian metric but may have non-vanishing Euler characteristic which means that they cannot admit a flat connection. The problem of determining whether a manifold $M$ admits any global dually flat structure was considered in [@ay] — but as we have seen this is quite a different problem to determining if it admits a Hessian metric.
The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section \[section:counting\] we prove that the generic metric of dimension ${\geqslant}3$ is not a Hessian metric. In Section \[section:curvature\] we find the curvature obstruction and examine its implications. In Section \[section:cartanKahler\] we prove that all analytic $2$-metrics are Hessian.
A counting argument for Problem 1 {#section:counting}
=================================
In dimension $n {\geqslant}3$, a generic Riemannian metric $(M^n,g)$ does not admit a compatible dually flat structure, even locally.
If $(M^n,g)$ admits a dually flat structure then, in the neighbourhood of any point $p$, there exist local coordinates $x:M^n \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^n$ and a potential $\phi$ such that in these coordinates the metric satisfies: $$g_{ij} = \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x_i \partial x_j}.$$ Thus the $k$-jet of $g$ at $p$ is determined by the $(k+2)$-jet of $x$ and $\phi$ at $p$.
If we fix some reference coordinates around $p$, then the coordinate function $x$ is defined by $n$ real valued functions in $n$ variables. The coordinate $\phi$ is a single real valued function of $n$ variables. Thus the dimension of the space of $(k+2)$-jets of $(x,\phi)$ at $p$ is equal to: $$\dim J_{k+2}(x,\phi):=\sum_{i=0}^{k+2} (n+1) \dim (S^i T_p) =
\sum_{i=0}^{k+2} (n+1)\binom{ n + i - 1}{i}.$$
In these same reference coordinates, the metric $g$ is defined by $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ real valued functions. So the space of $k$-jets of metrics at $p$ has dimension given by: $$\dim J_{k}(g):=\sum_{i=0}^k \frac{n(n+1)}{2} \dim (S^i T_p) =
\sum_{i=0}^{k} \frac{n(n+1)}{2}\binom{ n + i - 1}{i}.$$ Thus: $$\dim J_{k}(g) - \dim J_{k+2}(x,\phi) =
(n+1)(a_{k,n} - b_{k,n} )$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
a_{k,n} & := & \left( \frac{n}{2}-1 \right) \sum_{i=1}^k \binom{n+1-i}{i}, \\
b_{k,n} & := & \binom{n+k}{k+1} + \binom{n+k+1}{k+2}.\end{aligned}$$ For fixed $n>2$, $a_{k,n}$ grows as order $k^n$ whereas $b_{k,n}$ grows as order $k^{n-1}$. So for sufficiently large $k$, $\dim J_{k}(g) > \dim J_{k+2}(x,\phi)$.
It follows that if $n>2$, for sufficiently large $k$, the generic $k$-jet of a metric tensor does not admit any compatible dually flat structure no matter how one extends this $k$-jet to a smooth metric.
This counting argument can be summarized by saying that the number of metrics depends upon $\frac{1}{2}n(n+1)$ functions of $n$ variables, whereas the data for a Hessian structure depends upon only $n+1$ functions of $n$ variables [@bryant]. Our dimension counting merely makes this argument precise.
A curvature obstruction in dimensions ${\geqslant}4$ {#section:curvature}
====================================================
Our aim in this section is to find more concrete obstructions to the existence of Hessian metrics. The key results are the following [@shima]:
Let $(M,g)$ be a Riemannian manifold. Let ${\nabla}$ denote the Levi–Civita connection and let ${\overline}{{\nabla}} = {\nabla}+ A$ be a $g$-dually flat connection. Then
(i) The tensor $A_{ijk}$ lies in $S^3 T^*$. We shall call it the [*$S^3$-tensor*]{} of ${\overline}{{\nabla}}$.
(ii) The $S^3$-tensor determines the Riemann curvature tensor as follows: $$\label{eqn:curvatureFromS3}
R\indices{_{ijkl}} = -g^{ab} A\indices{_{ika}}A\indices{_{jlb}}
+ g^{ab} A\indices{_{ila}}A\indices{_{jkb}}.$$
$A \in T^* {\otimes}T^* {\otimes}T$. The condition that ${\overline}{{\nabla}}$ is torsion free is equivalent to requiring that $A \in S^2 T^* {\otimes}T$. Using the metric to identify $T$ and $T^*$, the condition that ${\overline}{{\nabla}}$ is dually torsion free can be written as $A \in S^3 T^*$.
Expanding the formula ${\overline}{R}_{XY}Z = {\overline}{{\nabla}}_X {\overline}{{\nabla}}_Y Z - {\overline}{{\nabla}}_Y {\overline}{{\nabla}}_X - {\overline}{{\nabla}}_{[X,Y]}Z$ in terms of ${\nabla}$ and $A$, one obtains the following curvature identity: $$\label{eqn:coordinateFreeCurvature}
{\overline}{R}_{XY} Z = R_{XY} Z + 2( {\nabla}_{[X}A)_{Y]}Z + 2 A_{[X}A_{Y]}Z.$$ Here ${\overline}{R}=0$ is the curvature of ${\overline}{{\nabla}}$ and the square brackets denote anti-symmetrization. Since ${\overline}{{\nabla}}$ is dually flat ${\overline}{R}=0$.
Continuing to use the metric to identify $T$ and $T^*$, the symmetries of the curvature tensor tell us that $R \in \Lambda^2 T {\otimes}\Lambda^2 T$. On the other hand, $({\nabla}_{[\cdot}A)_{\cdot]} \in \Lambda^2 T {\otimes}S^2 T$. Thus if one projects equation onto $\Lambda^2 T {\otimes}\Lambda^2 T$ one obtains the curvature identity .
We define a quadratic equivariant map $\rho$ from $S^3 T^* \longrightarrow \Lambda^2 T^* {\otimes}\Lambda^2 T^*$ by: $$\rho( A_{ijk} ) = -g^{ab} A\indices{_{ika}}A\indices{_{jlb}}
+ g^{ab} A\indices{_{ila}}A\indices{_{jkb}}$$
In dimensions $>4$ the condition that $R$ lies in the image of $\rho$ gives a non-trivial necessary condition for a metric $g$ to be a Hessian metric.
$\dim S^3 T = \binom{ n+2 }{n-1} = \frac{1}{6}n(1+n)(2+n)$. The dimension of the space of algebraic curvature tensors, ${\cal R}$, is $\dim {\cal R}=\frac{1}{12}n^2(n^2-1)$. So ${\dim \cal R} - \dim S^3 T = \frac{1}{12}n(n-4)(1+n)^2$. This is strictly positive if $n>4$.
Rather more surprisingly, the condition that $R$ lies in the image of $\rho$ gives a non-trivial condition in dimension $4$. In dimension $4$, $\dim S^3 T = \dim {\cal R} = 20$ and yet we will see that the dimension of the image of $\rho$ is only $18$. This can be tested heuristically by computer experiment: pick a “random” tensor $A \in S^3 T^*$ and compute the rank of the derivative $\rho_*$ at $A$. The result is almost certain to be $18$, giving strong evidence for the claim.
To prove the claim rigorously we wish to write the curvature conditions in dimension $4$ in a more explicit form.
One possible approach to finding explicit curvature conditions is to use Gröbner bases. Let $\rho^{\mathbb{C}}: S^3 T^* {\otimes}{\mathbb{C}}\longrightarrow \Lambda^2 {\otimes}\Lambda^2 {\otimes}{\mathbb{C}}$ be the complexification of the map $\rho$. One can think of the image of $\rho^{\mathbb{C}}$ as being a complex algebraic variety parameterized by $\rho^{\mathbb{C}}$. What we seek is a set of algebraic equations on the curvature that define this variety. In theory, therefore, one can then use the well known “implicitization” algorithm described in [@cox2007ideals] to find implicit equations for the image of $\rho^{\mathbb{C}}$. These implicit equations would be precisely the curvature conditions we seek. While this approach proves the existence of the desired curvature conditions, it does not perform sufficiently well in practice. For example we have attempted to implement this brute force strategy using Singular (together with some more or less obvious modifications to improve the efficiency) without success.
An alternative strategy is to use the ${SO}(n)$ equivariance of the problem to enumerate all the possible equivariant conditions on a given power of the curvature tensor and search, by brute force, amongst these conditions. Let us describe this approach in more detail.
Let ${\cal R}$ denote the space of algebraic curvature tensors. The $p$-th power of the curvature must lie in $S^p{\cal R}$. So an equivariant $p$-th order condition on the curvature must be given by an equivariant linear map $\phi: S^p({\cal R}) \longrightarrow V$ for some representation $V$ of ${SO}(n)$. We search for these conditions systematically. For each $p$, we decompose $S^p(\cal R)$ into irreducible components under ${SO}(n)$. For each irreducible representation $V$, let $m$ be the multiplicity with which it occurs in the decomposition into irreducibles. We can correspondingly define $m$ independent maps $\phi_1, \phi_2, \ldots \phi_m$ from $S^p(\cal R)$ to $V$. Pick a finite sequence of random tensors $\{t_i\} \in S^3 T^*$ so that the set of vectors $\{ \phi_1( \rho(t_i) ) {\oplus}\phi_2( \rho( t_i) ) {\oplus}\ldots {\oplus}\phi_m( \rho(t_i)) \}$ has the maximum possible rank: more precisely, keep adding random vectors to the sequence $\{t_i\}$ until the rank stops increasing. Write $r_i=\rho(t_i) \in {\cal R}$. Add algebraic curvature tensors $r_j$ to the finite sequence $\{ r_i \}$ so that the set of vectors $\{ \phi_1( r_j) {\oplus}\phi_2( r_j) {\oplus}\ldots {\oplus}\phi_m( r_j) \}$ has maximal rank. It is now a simple matter of linear algebra to find the linear conditions satisfied by the terms $\{\phi_a( \rho(t_i) )\}$ that are not satisfied by the $\{ \phi_a( r_j ) \}$.
Because of the use of random generation of tensors, in theory, one cannot be certain that a curvature “identity” discovered in this way holds in general or that all curvature identities will be found by this approach. However, once one has identified a candidate curvature identity, it is easy to verify it by brute force symbolic algebra. It is also easy to tell one has identified all the curvature identities implied by the condition $R \in \rho^{\mathbb{C}}$ by dimension counting.
While, this brute force algorithm is not particularly pretty it is effective — at least in dimension $4$. Since $\hbox{Spin}(4) = {SU}(2) \times {SU}(2)$ the representation theory of ${SO}(4)$ is quite simple, so the above strategy is not hard to implement. We have not attempted to implement the strategy in higher dimensions.
Here is the result.
The space of possible curvature tensors for a Hessian $4$-manifold is $18$ dimensional. In particular the curvature tensor must satisfy the identities: $$\label{eqn:pontryagin1}
\alpha( R\indices{_{ija}^b}R\indices{_{klb}^a} ) = 0$$ $$\label{eqn:cubic}
\alpha( R\indices{_{iajb}}R\indices{_{k}^{b}_{cd}}R\indices{_{l}^{dac}} - 2R\indices{_{iajb}}R\indices{_{kc}^{a}_{d}}R\indices{_{l}^{dbc}} ) = 0$$ where $\alpha$ denotes antisymmetrization of the $i$, $j$, $k$ and $l$ indices.
Using a symbolic algebra package, write the general tensor in $S^3 T^*$ with respect to an orthonormal basis in terms of its $20$ components. Compute the curvature tensor using equation . One can then directly check the above identities.
In fact, equation is simple to prove by hand. Moreover, it generalizes to higher dimensions. To make the proof as vivid as possible, we introduce a graphical notation that simplifies manipulating symmetric powers of the $S^3$-tensor $A$ (this is based on the notation given in the appendix of [@penroseAndRindler]). When using this notation we will always assume that our coordinates are orthonormal at the point where we perform the calculations so we can ignore the difference between upper and lower indices of ordinary tensor notation.
Given a tensor defined by taking the $n$-th tensor power of the $S^3$-tensor tensor $A$ followed by a number of contractions we can define an associated graph by:
- Adding one vertex to the graph for each occurrence of $A$;
- Adding an edge connecting the vertices for each contraction between the vertices;
- Adding a vertex for each tensor index that is not contracted and labelling it with the same symbol used for the index. Join this vertex to the vertex representing the associated occurrence of $A$.
When two tensors written in the Einstein summation convention are juxtaposed in a formula, we will refer to this as “multiplying” the tensors. This multiplication corresponds graphically to connecting labelled vertices of the graphs according to the contractions that need to be performed when the tensors are juxtaposed. Since this multiplication is commutative, and since the $S^3$-tensor is symmetric, one sees that there is a one to one correspondence between isomorphism classes of such graphs and equivalently defined tensors.
We can use these graphs in formulae as an alternative notation for the tensor represented by the graph. For example, we can write the curvature identity graphically as $$\label{graphicalCurvatureIdentity}
R_{ijkl} =
-
\scriptsize{
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$i$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$j$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$k$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (p1) at (0,1) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (2,1) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (j) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (p2);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
+
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$i$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$j$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$k$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (p1) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (1.3,0.7) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-][draw=white,double=black,very thick] (j) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (p2) ;
\end{tikzpicture}
}
}
.$$ As an extended example, here is a graphical proof that the first Bianchi identity follows from equation : $$\begin{gathered}
R_{ijkl} + R_{jkil} + R_{kijl} \\
\begin{aligned}
& =
-
\scriptsize{
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{ \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$i$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$j$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$k$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (a) at (1,1) {};
\coordinate (p1) at (0,1) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (2,1) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (j) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (a);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
+
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$i$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$j$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$k$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (a) at (1,0.7) {};
\coordinate (p1) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (1.3,0.7) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-][draw=white,double=black,very thick] (j) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (a);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
-
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{ \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$j$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$k$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$i$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (a) at (1,1) {};
\coordinate (p1) at (0,1) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (2,1) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (j) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (a);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
+
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$j$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$k$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$i$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (a) at (1,0.7) {};
\coordinate (p1) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (1.3,0.7) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-][draw=white,double=black,very thick] (j) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (a);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
-
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{ \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$k$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$i$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$j$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (a) at (1,1) {};
\coordinate (p1) at (0,1) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (2,1) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (j) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (a);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
+
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$k$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$i$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$j$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (a) at (1,0.7) {};
\coordinate (p1) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (1.3,0.7) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-][draw=white,double=black,very thick] (j) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (a);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
} \\
& =
-
\scriptsize{
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{ \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$i$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$j$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$k$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (a) at (1,1) {};
\coordinate (p1) at (0,1) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (2,1) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (j) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (a);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
+
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$i$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$j$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$k$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (a) at (1,0.7) {};
\coordinate (p1) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (1.3,0.7) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-][draw=white,double=black,very thick] (j) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (a);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
-
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{ \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$i$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$j$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$k$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (a) at (1,1) {};
\coordinate (p1) at (1,2.0) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (1,0.0) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (j) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (a);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
+
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$i$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$j$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$k$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (a) at (1,1) {};
\coordinate (p1) at (0,1) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (2,1) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (j) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (a);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
-
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{ \begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$i$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$j$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$k$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (a) at (1,0.7) {};
\coordinate (p1) at (0.7,0.7) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (1.3,0.7) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-][draw=white,double=black,very thick] (j) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (a);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
+
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$i$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$j$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$k$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$l$};
\coordinate (a) at (1,1) {};
\coordinate (p1) at (1,2.0) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (1,0.0) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (j) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (a);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (a);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
} \\
& = 0.
\end{aligned}\end{gathered}$$ The last line follows because the H’s, I’s and X’s cancel.
With this notation understood, let us now prove a generalization of equation .
The Pontryagin forms (i.e. the closed forms given as polynomials in the curvature tensor that represent the Pontryagin classes) vanish on a Hessian manifold.
We need to briefly recall the theory of characteristic classes in order give a more formal definition of the Pontryagin forms. See [@milnorandstasheff] for a less brisk account.
An invariant polynomial $P$ defined on $n \times n$ complex matrices is a polynomial in the coefficients of the matrix that satisfies $P(TXT^{-1})=P(X)$ for every non singular matrix $T$. Given a complex $k$ dimensional vector bundle $V$ with a local trivialization $s^1, s^2, \ldots s^k$ and a connection ${\nabla}$ we can write the curvature of ${\nabla}$ as $F s^i = \Omega_{ij} s^j$ where each $\Omega_{ij}$ is a complex valued two form. Since the algebra of even degree forms is commutative, it makes sense to evaluate the polynomial $P$ on $\Omega$. The result is a form of degree $2k$ which we will denote as $P(F)$. The requirement that $P$ is an invariant polynomial ensures that this definition is independent of the choice of trivialization. The key results in the theory of characteristic classes are that P(F) is closed and that the de Rham cohomology class of P(F) is independent of the choice of connection. We will refer to this cohomology class as the characteristic class associated with P.
Let $P_k$ denote the invariant polynomial given by the coefficient of $t^k$ in the expansion of $\det(I + tA)$. If we understand the eigenvalues of a matrix to mean the diagonal entries of a conjugate matrix in Jordan normal form, then the polynomial $P_k$ is associated with the $k$-th elementary symmetric function in the eigenvalues.
The associated characteristic class is related to the $k$-th Chern class $c_k$ of the bundle $V$ by: $$[P_k(F)] = (2 \pi i)^k c_k(V).$$ For our purposes we could take this as the definition of the Chern class.
The Pontryagin classes, $p_k$, of a real vector bundle $E$ are defined in terms of the Chern classes of the complexificiation: $$p_k(E) = (-1)^k c_{2k}( E {\otimes}{\mathbb{C}}).$$ The Pontryagin classes of a manifold are the Pontryagin classes of the complexified tangent space.
This completes our review of the theory of characteristic classes. We can now define the [*Pontryagin forms*]{} of a Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ to be the forms $P_{\sigma_{2k}}(R)$ where $R$ is the Levi–Civita connection.
Let $X\indices{_a^b}$ be any matrix. We define an invariant polynomial $Q_k$ by $k$ contractions: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_k(X) & = & X\indices{_{a_1}^{a_2}} X\indices{_{a_2}^{a_3}} X\indices{_{a_3}^{a_4}} \ldots X\indices{_{a_{k-1}}^{a_k}} X\indices{_{a_{k}}^{a_1}} \\
& = & \lambda_1^k + \lambda_2^k + \ldots + \lambda_n^k\end{aligned}$$ where the $\lambda_i$ are the eigenvalues of $X$.
The general theory of symmetric polynomials shows that any symmetric polynomial can be written as as sum and product of the $Q_k$. Thus all the Chern forms, $P_k(F)$, are generated by sums and products of the forms $Q_k(F)$.
Thus to prove our result we need to show that the tensor $$\begin{gathered}
Q^p_{i_1 i_2 \ldots i_{2p}} = \\
\sum_{\sigma \in S_{2p}} \operatorname{sgn}( \sigma )
R\indices{_{i_{\sigma(1)}{i_{\sigma(2)}}{a_1}}^{a_2}}
R\indices{_{i_{\sigma(3)}{i_{\sigma(4)}}{a_2}}^{a_3}}
R\indices{_{i_{\sigma(5)}{i_{\sigma(6)}}{a_3}}^{a_4}}
\ldots
R\indices{_{i_{\sigma(2p-1)}{i_{\sigma(2p)}}{a_p}}^{a_1}}\end{gathered}$$ vanishes on a Hessian manifold.
We can rewrite the curvature identity as: $$R_{i_1i_2ab} = \sum_{\sigma \in S_{2}} -\operatorname{sgn}( \sigma )
\scriptsize{
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i) at (0,2) {$i_{\sigma(1)}$} ;
\node (j) at (2,2) {$i_{\sigma(2)}$};
\node (k) at (0,0) {$a$};
\node (l) at (2,0) {$b$};
\coordinate (p1) at (0,1) {};
\coordinate (p2) at (2,1) {};
\draw [-] (i) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (k) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (j) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (l) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (p2);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
}.$$ Thus we can replace each $R$ in the formula for $Q^p$ with an ‘H’. The legs of adjacent H’s are then connected. The result is: $$\begin{gathered}
Q^p_{i_1 i_2 \ldots i_{2p}} = \\
(-1)^p \sum_{\sigma \in S_{2p}}
\operatorname{sgn}(\sigma)
\scriptsize{
\raisebox{-0.5\height}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\node (i1) at (0,2) {$i_{\sigma(1)}$};
\coordinate (p1) at (0,1) {};
\node (i2) at (2,2) {$i_{\sigma(2)}$};
\coordinate (p2) at (2,1) {};
\node (i3) at (4,2) {$i_{\sigma(3)}$};
\coordinate (p3) at (4,1) {};
\node (i4) at (6,2) {$i_{\sigma(4)}$};
\coordinate (p4) at (6,1) {};
\node (i5) at (8,2) {$i_{\sigma(5)}$};
\coordinate (p5) at (8,1) {};
\node (i6) at (10,2) {$i_{\sigma(6)}$};
\coordinate (p6) at (10,1) {};
\node (p7) at (12,1) {\ldots};
\node (i2nm1) at (14,2) {$i_{\sigma(2p-1)}$};
\coordinate (p2nm1) at (14,1) {};
\node (i2n) at (16,2) {$i_{\sigma(2p)}$};
\coordinate (p2n) at (16,1) {};
\draw [-] (i1) -- (p1);
\draw [-] (i2) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (i3) -- (p3);
\draw [-] (i4) -- (p4);
\draw [-] (i5) -- (p5);
\draw [-] (i6) -- (p6);
\draw [-] (i2nm1) -- (p2nm1);
\draw [-] (i2n) -- (p2n);
\draw [-] (p1) -- (p2);
\draw [-] (p2) -- (p3);
\draw [-] (p3) -- (p4);
\draw [-] (p4) -- (p5);
\draw [-] (p5) -- (p6);
\draw [-] (p6) -- (p7);
\draw [-] (p7) -- (p2nm1);
\draw [-] (p2nm1) -- (p2n);
\draw [-] (0,1) arc (-180:-90:1) -- (15,0) arc (-90:0:1);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
}.\end{gathered}$$ Since the cycle $1 \rightarrow 2 \rightarrow 3 \ldots \rightarrow 2p \rightarrow 1$ is an odd permutation, one sees that $Q^p=0$.
The Pontryagin classes, therefore, give a topological obstruction to the existence of a Hessian metric in dimensions ${\geqslant}4$. Note that it is possible to manufacture topologically interesting manifolds that admit Hessian metrics. This is true because: all analytic $2$-manifolds are Hessian (as we will prove later); all products of Hessian manifolds are Hessian manifolds; all hyperbolic manifolds are Hessian.
The graphical notation is not essential to proving the above result. Nevertheless we find it illuminates the proof. We note that similar graphs have been used to good effect in papers such as [@hitchin2001curvature] and [@garoufalidis1998some].
While equation generalizes easily to higher dimensions, equation does not hold in dimensions ${\geqslant}5$. To see this, simply pick a random tensor in $S^3 T^*$ for $n=5$ and numerically check whether holds: in all probability it will not. Since the equation does not hold in higher dimensions, the graphical proof technique cannot work in this case.
Note that we do not claim that equations and provide a sufficient condition for a $4$-d curvature tensor to be the curvature tensor of some Hessian manifold. We have only considered the complex algebraic map $\rho^{\mathbb{C}}$. In real algebraic geometry, one cannot expect to translate a parametric representation of a variety into a set of implicit equations, one can only expect to find a set of implicit inequalities. Algorithms do exist [@basu] to solve such problems but they are not particularly efficient.
Although we cannot prove our conditions are sufficient in dimension $4$, we can at least prove the corresponding result in dimension $3$.
In $3$ dimensions, all possible Riemann curvature tensors occur as the curvature tensor of a Hessian metric.
First note that given a tensor $A \in S^3 T^*_p$ we can find a Hessian metric whose $S^3$-tensor at $p$ is given by $A$. This true because the $S^3$-tensor is determined (up to raising and lowering of indices and a constant) by $\partial_i \partial_j \partial_k \phi$ where $\phi$ is the potential defining the Hessian metric. So to prove the theorem we simply need to show that $\rho$ is surjective in dimension $3$. Dimension counting suggests that this is likely to be true but does not give a proof.
In $3$ dimensions, the curvature tensor is determined entirely by the Ricci tensor. Since any symmetric matrix can be diagonalized using orthogonal transformations, we can choose an orthonormal basis $\{ e_1, e_2, e_3 \}$ for the cotangent space such that the Ricci tensor is given by $r = \lambda_1 e_1^2 + \lambda_2 e_2^2 + \lambda_3 e_3^2$.
We define $\rho_2$ to be the composition of $\rho$ with the contraction $R\indices{_{ijk}^l} \rightarrow R\indices{_{iak}^a}$ used to define the Ricci tensor.
Now consider symmetric tensors $A$ of the following form: $$A = a_1 e_1^3 + a_2 e_2^3 + a_3 e_3^3 + b_{13} e_1^2 e_3 + e_2^2 e_1 + e_2^2 e_3 + b_{31} e_3^2 e_1.$$ A straightforward computation (which it is easiest to get a computer to perform) shows that for such an $A$ we have: $$\rho_2( A ) = \alpha e_1^2 + \beta e_2^2 + \gamma e_3^2 + \delta e_1 e_3$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha & = & 8 (1 - (1 + 3 a_3) b_{13} + b_{13}^2 + b_{31}^2 - 3 a_1 (1 + b_{31})) \, , \\
\beta & = & -8 (-2 + 3 a_1 + 3 a_3 + b_{13} + b_{31}) \, , \\
\gamma & = & 8 (1 + b_{13}^2 - 3 a_3 (1 + b_{13}) - b_{31} - 3 a_1 b_{31} + b_{31}^2) \, , \\
\delta & = & -8 (-1 + b_{13} + b_{31}) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $\alpha - \gamma$ does not contain any quadratic terms. So to find $A$ of this form with $\rho_2(A)$ equal to $r$ we must solve the three linear equations $\alpha - \gamma = \lambda_1 - \lambda_3$, $\beta=\lambda_2$ and $\delta=0$ and the quadratic equation $\alpha = \lambda_1$. If one first solves the linear equations to find expressions for $a_1$, $b_{13}$ and $b_{31}$ in terms of the $\lambda_i$ and $a_3$ one can then use the quadratic equation to find an expression for $a_3$ in terms of the $\lambda_i$. In fact a cancellation occurs in the quadratic terms and one obtains a linear equation for $a_3$.
The end result is that, so long as $\lambda_1 \neq \lambda_3$ we always have a solution of the form: $$\begin{aligned}
a_3 & = & \frac{\lambda_1^2 + 16 \lambda_2 - \lambda_1 \lambda_2 - 16 \lambda_3 -
2 \lambda_1 \lambda_3 + \lambda_2 \lambda_3 +
\lambda_3^2}{48 (\lambda_1 - \lambda_3)} \\
a_1 &=& \frac{1}{24} (8 - 24 a_3 - \lambda_2) \\
b_{13} &=& 3 a_3 +\frac{1}{16}( - \lambda_1 + \lambda_2 + \lambda_3) \\
b_{31} &=& 1 - 3 a_3 + \frac{1}{16}(\lambda_1 - \lambda_2 - \lambda_3)\end{aligned}$$
The only case that is not covered by this result is when the Ricci tensor is diagonal. In this case it is easy to show that one can take $A$ defined by:
$$A = \frac{20 - \lambda}{48} e_1^3 + e_2^2 e_1 + \frac{4-\lambda}{16} e_3^2 e_1 + e_1 e_2 e_3$$
We end this section on curvature identities by raising some questions.
(i) Can one find a short proof of equation that does not require any use of a computer?
(ii) Can one efficiently find all the explicit curvature conditions that must be satisfied by a Hessian metric in a fixed dimension $n {\geqslant}5$? Can one find all the curvature conditions that hold for all $n$?
(iii) For large enough $n$, is the condition that the curvature lies in the image of $\rho$ a sufficient condition for a metric to be Hessian?
All analytic 2 metrics are Hessian {#section:cartanKahler}
==================================
In this section we will prove that all analytic 2 manifolds $(M,g)$ are Hessian. This result has been obtained independently by Bryant [@bryant]. The proof is an application of Cartan–Kähler theory. See [@bryant1991exterior] or [@seiler] for an overview of Cartan–Kähler theory. Our presentation is closer to that of Seiler.
Let $V$ and $W$ be vector bundles over an n-dimensional manifold $M^n$ and let $D:\Gamma(V) \longrightarrow \Gamma(W)$ be an order $k$ differential operator mapping sections of $V$ to sections of $W$. Equivalently, $D$ is a mapping from $k$-jets of $V$ at $p$ to elements of $W_p$.
Recall that one has the exact sequence $0 \longrightarrow S^k T^* {\otimes}V \longrightarrow J_{k}(V) \longrightarrow J_{k-1}(V) \longrightarrow 0$. This exact sequence is a consequence of the fact that derivatives commute. It tells us that a $k$-jet is determined by a $(k-1)$-jet together with an element of the $k$-th symmetric power.
As a result of this exact sequence, the highest order terms of the differential operator $D$ defines a map $\sigma: S^k T^*_p {\otimes}V_p \longrightarrow W_p$ called the [*symbol*]{} of the differential operator. We will assume from now on that the differential operator is quasilinear so the symbol is a linear map.
Note that if the symbol is onto then any $(k-1)$-jet can be extended to a $k$-jet solution of the equation $D(v)=w$. We will generalize this observation.
By differentiating the equation $D(v)=w$ one can obtain a $(k+1)$-th order differential equation. The top order term of this equation defines the first prolongation of the symbol $\sigma_1$. This is a map $\sigma_1: S^{k+1} T^* {\otimes}V \longrightarrow T^* {\otimes}W$. More generally, one can differentiate the equation $i$ times to get the $i$-th prolongation of the symbol $\sigma_i:S^{k+i} T^* {\otimes}V \longrightarrow S^i T^* {\otimes}W$. If all of the first $i$ prolongations of the symbol are onto then any $k$-th jet solution of the differential equations can be extended to a $(k+i)$-th jet solution.
On the other hand, if a particular prolongation of the symbol is not onto then this indicates that one may have found an obstruction to the local existence of solutions to the differential equation. The calculation in the previous section fits this pattern: the curvature identities we used are all consequence of the fact that derivatives commute, equivalently they are algebraic consequences of the fact that the symbol acts on the symmetric power of $T^*$.
When one wishes to prove that $\sigma_i$ is onto for all $i$ one can use [*Cartan’s test*]{} which we will now describe. Given a differential equation as above and a basis $\{v_1, v_2, \ldots v_n\}$ for $T^*M$, define the map: $$\sigma_{i,m}: S^{k+i} \langle v_1, v_2, \ldots v_m \rangle {\otimes}V_p \longrightarrow S^i T^*_p {\otimes}W_p$$ to be the restriction of $\sigma_i$. Define $g_{i,m}:= \dim \ker
\sigma_{i,m}$. If one can find a basis $\{v_1, v_2, \ldots v_n\}$ and a number $\alpha$ such that $\sigma_i$ is onto for all $i {\leqslant}\alpha$ and such that $g_{\alpha,n} = \sum_{\beta=0}^k g_{\alpha-1
\beta}$ then the differential equation is said to be involutive. It turns out that this implies that $\sigma_{\alpha+i}$ is onto for all $i$. If one is working in the analytic category, one can then prove that solutions to the differential equation exist [@goldschmidt1967b; @guilleminSternberg; @cartan].
We illustrate these ideas by proving that any analytic Riemannian metric on a $2$-manifold locally admits a $g$-dually torsion free flat connection — in other words it is Hessian.
Any analytic Riemannian metric on a $2$-manifold locally admits a $g$-dually torsion free flat connection.
The existence of such a connection is equivalent to finding a tensor $A \in T^* {\otimes}T^* {\otimes}T$ with:
(i) $R_{X,Y}Z + 2 {\overline}{{\nabla}}_{[X} A_{Y]} Z + 2 A_{[X}A_{Y]} Z = 0$ for all vectors $X$, $Y$ and $Z$.
(ii) $\iota(A) \in S^3 T^*$ where $\iota:T^* {\otimes}T^* {\otimes}T \longrightarrow T^* {\otimes}T^* {\otimes}T^*$ is the isomorphism determined by raising the final index using the metric.
It is well known [@amari] that if these conditions hold then ${\overline}{{\nabla}}$ will also be torsion free and flat.
We choose an analytically varying orthonormal basis $\{e^1, e^2\}$ for $T^*$ with dual basis $\{e_1,e_2\}$. We write tensors with respect to this basis using indices and we will use the Einstein summation convention. So for example we have $R = R\indices{_{ijk}^l} {\otimes}e^i {\otimes}e^j {\otimes}e^k {\otimes}e_l$. In this index notation, we can write our curvature condition as follows: $$R\indices{_{ijk}^l} + 2 {\nabla}_{[i} A\indices{_{j]k}^l} + A\indices{_{i \alpha}^l} A\indices{_{jk}^\alpha} A\indices{_{j \alpha}^l}A\indices{_{ik}^\alpha} = 0.$$ If we raise the $k$ index using the metric and then antisymmetrize over $k$ and $l$ we get $$R\indices{_{ij}^{kl}} + A\indices{_{i \alpha}^l} A\indices{_{j}^{k \alpha}}
- A\indices{_{j \alpha}^{l}} A\indices{_{i}^{k \alpha}}
- A\indices{_{i \alpha}^k} A\indices{_{j}^{l\alpha}}
+ A\indices{_{j \alpha}^k} A\indices{_{i}^{l\alpha}} = 0.
\label{eqn:curvatureCondition}$$ Symmetrizing over $k$ and $l$ on the other hand yields: $${\nabla}\indices{_{[i}} A\indices{_{j]}^{(kl)}} = 0
\label{eqn:derivativeCondition}$$ where the parentheses indicate symmetrization.
In two dimensions, the space $\Lambda^2 T {\otimes}(\Lambda^2 T)^* $ is one dimensional, so the map sending a tensor with indices $B\indices{_{ij}^{kl}}$ to $B\indices{_{ab}^{ab}}$ is an isomorphism. Applying this isomorphism to equation yields the equivalent condition: $$s - 2 A\indices{_{i \alpha}^j} A\indices{_{j}^{i \alpha}}
- 2 A\indices{_{j \alpha}^{j}} A\indices{_{i}^{i \alpha}} = 0.
\label{eqn:curvatureCondition2}$$ where $s=R\indices{_{ij}^{ij}}$ is the scalar curvature. The condition $\iota(A) \in S^3 T^*$ allows us to write: $$\begin{aligned}
\iota(A) & = & a \, e^1 \odot e^1 \odot e^1 + b \, e^1 \odot e^1 \odot e^2 \\
&& {}+ c\, e^1 \odot e^2 \odot e^2 + d \, e^2 \odot e^2 \odot e^2
\end{aligned}$$ for some functions $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$. We can then rewrite equation as: $$s - \frac{4}{9}( 3 a c + 3 b d - b^2 - c^2 ) = 0$$ If we assume that $c \neq 0$ we can solve this last equation to compute $a$ in terms of $b$, $c$, $d$ and $s$. This allows us to write the equations for a $g$-dually torsion free flat connection with $c\neq 0$ as a differential equation in the three real functions $b$, $c$ and $d$. Equation will be automatically satisfied. So we need only consider equation . Because of its symmetries this has three independent components. If we write $x_i$ for the derivative of a function $x$ in the direction $e_i$ then the three components of can be written to highest order as: $$\begin{aligned}
-3 a_2 + b_1 = \alpha b_2 + \beta c_2 + \gamma d_2 + b_1 & = & \hbox{ terms without derivatives} \\
-b_2 + c_1 & = & \hbox{ terms without derivatives } \\
-c_2 + 3 d_1 & = & \hbox{ terms without derivatives } \\\end{aligned}$$ Here $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are functions depending upon $s$, $b$, $c$, and $d$. The precise formulae are not important for our purposes.
If we think of $(b,c,d)$ as defining a section of the trivial ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ bundle, the condition that $(b,c,d)$ defines a $g$-dually flat connection is a first order differential equation with symbol $\sigma:T+p^* {\otimes}{\mathbb{R}}^3 \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^3$ given by: $$\sigma = \left( \begin{array}{c c c c c c}
1 & 0 & 0 & \alpha & \beta & \gamma \\
0 & 1 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 3 & 0 & -1 & 0
\end{array} \right) .$$ Here we have used the standard basis $\{v_1, v_2, v_3\}$ for ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ and the basis $\{e^1 {\otimes}v^1, e^1 {\otimes}v^2, e^1 {\otimes}v^3,
e^2 {\otimes}v^1, e^2 {\otimes}v^2, e^2 {\otimes}v^3 \}$ for $T^* {\otimes}{\mathbb{R}}^3$.
We conclude that $\sigma$ has rank 3. Since $\sigma$ is onto there is no obstruction to extending any $0$-jet $(b,c,d)$ with $c \neq 0$ to a $1$-jet solution of our differential equation.
With respect to the basis $\{ e^1, e^2 \}$ for $T^*$ the matrix of $\sigma_{0,1}$ is simply: $$\sigma = \left( \begin{array}{c c c}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 3
\end{array} \right).$$ So $g_{0,1}=0$ and $g_{0,2}=3$.
The first prolongation of the symbol, $\sigma_1$ is similarly easy to calculate. $\sigma_1: S^2 T^* \longrightarrow T^* {\otimes}{\mathbb{R}}^3$ is given by: $$\sigma_1 = \left(
\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
1 & \alpha & 0 & 0 & \beta & 0 & 0 & \gamma & 0 \\
0 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 3 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & \alpha & 0 & 0 & \beta & 0 & 0 & \gamma \\
0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 3 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ This matrix is written with respect to the basis $\{ e^1 \odot e^1 {\otimes}v^1, e^1 \odot e^1 {\otimes}v^2, e^1 \odot e^1 {\otimes}v^3,
e^1 \odot e^2 {\otimes}v^1, e^1 \odot e^2 {\otimes}v^2, e^1 \odot e^2 {\otimes}v^3, e^2 \odot e^2 {\otimes}v^1, e^2 \odot e^2 {\otimes}v^2, e^2 \odot e^2 {\otimes}v^3 \}$ for $S^2 T^* {\otimes}{\mathbb{R}}^3$ and the same basis for $T^* {\otimes}{\mathbb{R}}$ that we used earlier.
By permuting columns, one can transform this matrix for $\sigma_1$ into echelon form. Thus it has rank $6$ irrespective of $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$. So $g_{0,1} + g_{0,2} = g_{1,2}$. The result now follows by Cartan’s test.
[^1]: RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Saitama 351-0198, Japan
[^2]: Dept. of Mathematics, King’s College London, UK.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'M. Dadina, C. Vignali, M. Cappi, G. Lanzuisi, G. Ponti, B. De Marco, G. Chartas, M. Giustini'
date: 'Received ; Accepted'
title: 'XMM-Newton reveals a Seyfert-like X-ray spectrum in the z=3.6 QSO B1422+231'
---
[Matter flows from the central regions of quasars during their active phases are probably responsible for the properties of the super-massive black holes and that of the bulges of host galaxies. To understand how this mechanism works, we need to characterize the geometry and the physical state of the accreting matter at cosmological redshifts, when QSO activity is at its peak.]{} [We aim to use X-ray data to probe the matter inflow at the very center of a quasar at z=3.62. While complex absorption, the iron K emission line, reflection hump and high-energy cut-off are known to be almost ubiquitous in nearby AGN, only a few distant objects are known to exhibit some of them.]{} [The few high quality spectra of distant QSO have been collected by adding sparse pointings of single objects obtained during X-ray monitoring campaigns. This could have introduced spurious spectral features due to source variability and/or microlensing. To avoid such problems, we decided to collect a single epoch and high-quality X-ray spectrum of a distant AGN. We thus picked-up the z=3.62 quasar B1422+231 whose flux, enhanced by gravitationally lensing, is proven to be among the brightest lensed quasars in X-rays (F$_{2-10 keV}\sim$10$^{-12}$erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$).]{} [The X-ray spectrum of B1422+231 is found to be very similar to the one of a typical nearby Seyfert galaxy. Neutral absorption is clearly detected (N$_{H}\sim$5$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ at the redshift of the source) while a strong absorption edge is measured at E$\sim$7.5 keV with an optical depth of $\tau\sim$0.14. We also find hints of the FeK$\alpha$ line in emission at E$\sim$6.4 keV line (EW$\lesssim$70 eV) and a hump is detected in the E$\sim$15-20 keV energy band (rest-frame) in excess of what predicted by a simple absorbed power-law.]{} [The spectrum can be best-modeled with two rather complex models; one assumes the presence of ionized and partially covering matter along the line of sight while the other is characterized by the presence of a reflection component. We argue that the reflection seems more plausible here on a statistical basis. In this scenario, the primary emission of B1422+231 is most probably dominated by the thermal Comptonization of UV seed photons in a corona with kT$\sim$40 keV. We also detected a reflection component with relative direct-to-reflect normalization r$\sim$1. These findings confirm that gravitational lensing is effective to obtain good quality X-ray spectral information of quasar at high-z, moreover they support the idea that the same general picture characterizing active galactic nuclei in the nearby Universe is valid also at high redshift.]{}
Introduction
============
High-energy observations are used to study the geometry and physical condition of matter in the inner regions of active galactic nuclei (AGN), since X-rays are thought to originate from close to the central supermassive black hole ((SMBH, see Antonucci 1993; Fabian 2000). In nearby Seyfert or radio galaxies, in fact, absorption due to cold matter along the line of sight imprints a low energy cut-off in their X-ray spectra (Smith & Done 1996; Bassani et al. 1999, Cappi et al. 2006, Dadina 2007, 2008). In addition, most AGN observed with sufficient statistics also reveal the presence of a smoothed spectral curvature due to warm matter below $\sim$4 keV (Piconcelli et al. 2005). X-ray spectra of local AGN often display emission features which are diagnostic of both the geometry of the matter infalling onto the SMBH and the emission mechanism acting in producing the high-energy emission itself (Nandra & Pounds, 1994; Smith & Done, 1996; Perola et al. 2002; Cappi et al. 2006; Dadina 2008; Malizia et al. 2014; Fabian et al. 2015). The most prominent of these features is the iron line at 6.4-6.9 keV. It may appear shifted in energy and skewed by relativistic effects whose strength depends on the vicinity of the line production region to the SMBH (Tanaka et al. 1995; see, Fabian et al. 2000 for a review on the topic). In addition, a hump due to the reflection of the primary emission by the matter surrounding the SMBH (Lightman & White 1988; Guilbert & Rees 1988) is usually seen at E$\sim$20-40 keV (Perola et al. 2002; Dadina 2008). Broad band (0.1-200 keV) X-ray observations of nearby AGN allowed also to measure the presence of a high-energy cutoff E$_C$ at E$\sim$70-200 keV (Perola et al. 2002; Dadina 2008; Malizia et al. 2014; Fabian et al. 2015). This feature is expected in the so called “two-phase models” for the production of the high-energy photons in radio-quiet AGN. In this scenario, optical-UV seed photons coming from the accretion disk are Comptonized into the X-ray band by the electrons forming a hot corona that sandwiches the accretion disk itself. The electrons have a thermal energy distribution and the shape of the emerging X-ray spectrum displays a high-energy cut-off at E$_{cut-off}\sim$2$\times$kT$_{e^{-}}$ (Haardt & Maraschi 1993; Haardt, Maraschi & Ghisellini 1994; Petrucci et al. 2001).
At intermediate (z$\geq$0.1) and high (z$\geq$1) redshift, X-ray spectra of QSO often display only absorption and/or FeK$\alpha$ line in emission (Vignali et al. 2006), the latter being sometimes associated with Compton-thick absorbers (Vignali et al. 2010, 2014). In the framework of unified models (UM) for AGN (Antonucci 1993), at least at the zero-th order, the only differences between low- and high-z AGN should be due to cosmological evolution of the environment in which the SMBHs are embedded. Some confirmation of this picture have been effectively obtained. No strong evidence of evolution of the intrinsic X-ray properties of QSO with redshift has been observed (Vignali et al. 2005, but see Saez et al. 2008 for a suggested limited evolution of the photon index with z while the measurement of a different evolution between absorbed and non-absorbed sources (Aird et al. 2015) seems to indicate that the circumnuclear environment may evolve, as expected, with z. Similarly, the presence of a strong correlation between the X-ray photon index and the Eddington luminosity of quasars (Lu & Yu 1999, Shemmer et al. 2006, 2008; Risaliti, Young & Elvis 2009; Fanali et al. 2013; Brightman et al. 2013) has been explained in the framework of the two-phase model for the production of X-rays (Pounds, Done & Osborne 1995) thus indicating that it acts both in the nearby and distant Universe. Furthermore, there have been recent claims that reflected and relativistically blurred components are also present in the X-ray spectra of some high-z (z$\geq$2) and lensed QSO after stacking many and sparse X-ray observations of each sources (Reis et al. 2014; Reynolds et al. 2014; Walton et al. 2015, but see also Chartas et al. 2007, Chartas et al. 2016). Moreover, transient and variable absorption iron lines linked to hot and fast outflowing gas (ultra fast outflows, aka UFO) and with quite similar characteristics were observed in the rest frame 7-10 keV spectra of both nearby Seyferts (Pounds et al. 2003; Dadina et al. 2005; Tombesi et al 2010a, 2010b; Gofford et al. 2013) and in an handful of bright/distant (z$\geq$1) QSO (Chartas et al. 2002, 2003, 2007, 2014; Lanzuisi et al. 2012; Vignali et al. 2015).
The above mentioned evidences are consistent with the idea that the emission mechanism does not dramatically change over cosmic time, while some evolution with redshift may be present for the properties of the matter flows around SMBH. High signal-to-noise X-ray spectra are fundamental to fully characterize the environment in the central engines of AGN at high-redshift and how they evolve throughout cosmological time. Since we measure a tight correlation between the mass of the galaxies bulges and the mass of their central SMBH (Kormendy & Richstone, 1995; Magorrian et al. 1998; Ferrarese & Merritt, 2000; Merritt & Ferrarese, 2001; Marconi et al. 2004), we now know that a feedback mechanism must be at work. However, to fully understand how this works, we must constrain the physical conditions of the objects in epochs where both QSO and starburst activity were at their highest (Boyle et al. 1988; Madau et al. 1996; Brandt & Hasinger 2005 and references therein). For example, the measurement and characterization of UFO at high- z is of crucial importance to understand when and how the feed- back mechanism between the SMBH and the host galaxy bulges has set-up and how it has evolved along cosmic time.
The spectroscopic X-ray studies that allowed the detection of UFO and relativistically blurred features of the most distant objects mentioned above, took advantage of the fact that all the studied QSO, except for HS 1700+6416 and PID352 (Lanzuisi et al. 2012; Vignali et al 2015), are lensed. Thus they display magnified emission and this allows the collection of X-ray spectra of higher signal-to-noise (S/N). While waiting for the next generation of large collecting area X-ray telescopes such as Athena (Nandra et al. 2013), the usage of “cosmic lenses” may play a crucial role to extend at high redshift studies that are up to now limited to the nearby Universe. We present here the first high-quality X-ray spectrum, obtained with a single XMM-Newton observation of B1422+231, of a lensed and radio-loud (R$_{L}\sim$300, but see section 3.1 for a discussion on this point) QSO at z=3.62 (Patnaik et al. 1992; Misawa et al. 2007). Its four images are all within $\sim$5”, thus the source is “point-like” for XMM-Newton, and the magnification factor has been estimated to be between $\mu\sim$15-76 (Kormann et al. 1994; Chiba 2002; Raychaudhury et al. 2003; Assef et al. 2011). For this work we assume a magnification factor of $\mu\sim$15-20, a range of values that is common for the majority of the works presented above. A broad H$\beta$ emission line has been observed in its optical spectrum and the mass of the central SMBH has been estimated to be $\sim 5\times10^{9} M\sun$ using single epoch CIV measurements (Greene et al. 2010) and later confirmed using also other optical lines (Assef et al. 2011). The X-ray spectrum of the source was previously presented in Misawa et al (2008) that analyzed poor quality spectra obtained with Chandra and XMM-Newton[^1]. In these low S/N spectra, B1422+231 displayed rather typical and almost featureless X-ray spectra with a photon index $\Gamma\sim$1.6, with only hints of absorption (N$_{H}\leq$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$) at low energies and an observed and integrated flux of F$_{2-10 keV}\sim$9$\times$10$^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$.
Data reduction and analysis
===========================
XMM-Newton pointed at B1422+231 on July 31, 2014. The data reduction has been performed using the package SAS-14. The high background periods have been cleaned by excluding the first 2 ks of the pointing, so as to eliminate the first high peak of soft protons and then applying a filter on the count-rate (0.65 and 0.2 c/s for pn e MOS respectively). After this filtering, we obtained a net exposure of $\sim$65, 74.2 and 64.3 ks with pn, MOS1 and MOS2 respectively. Source counts have been extracted from circular regions with radii of 30 and 40 arcsec for pn and MOS detectors respectively allowing to collect 25.8, 8.2 and 7.8 k-counts with pn, MOS1 and MOS2 respectively. Background counts were extracted from source free circular regions larger than that centered on the source but in the same chip of the source.
No variability has been detected at more than 75-80% significance level and the observed average flux is F$_{2-10 keV} \sim 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ once the data are fitted with a power-law absorbed by the Galactic column density (model \#1 in Table 1). This yields an observed integrated luminosity L$_{2-10 keV} \sim$6$\times10^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (we use H$_0$=70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_M$=0.286 and $\Omega_{\lambda}$=0.714). Errors are reported at 90% confidence level in table \#1 and throughout the paper.
--- ------------------------ ------------------------ -------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------ -----------------
N$_{H}$ $\Gamma$ E$_{FeK\alpha}$ $\sigma_{FeK\alpha}$ EW$_{FeK\alpha}$ $\chi^2$/d.o.f.
(E$_{edge}$) ($\tau_{edge}$)
10$^{21} cm^{-2}$ keV (keV) eV eV
1 1.61$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ 1282/1189
2 3.42$^{+1.12}_{-1.11}$ 1.66$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ 6.35$^{+0.18}_{-0.22}$ $\leq$0.48 62$^{+48}_{-34}$ 1256/1185
3 2.37$^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ 1.65$^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ 6.38$^{+0.13}_{-0.20}$ $\leq$0.38 $\leq$69 1228/1183
(7.48$^{+0.20}_{-0.23}$) (0.14$^{+0.04}_{-0.04}$)
--- ------------------------ ------------------------ -------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------ -----------------
: Phenomenological models: Column 1: Model number; Column 2: absorbing column in excess of the Galactic value; Column 3: photon index; Column 4: energy centroid of the emission Gaussian line (E$_{edge}$ in the lower row of model \#3); Column 5: Line width (1$\sigma$) ($\tau_{edge}$ in the lower row of model \#3 ; Column 6: Line equivalent width; Column 7: $\chi^2$/degrees of freedom.[]{data-label="tab1"}
The spectral analysis of the source has been performed averaging the data over the entire good time exposure and grouping the data so as to have 20 counts in each spectral bin. As a sanity check, however, all the results presented below have been tested also using data collected only in the first, middle and last third of the observation and no differences were found. This has been done to detect, if any, evidences of time-dependent spectral variations that, in principle, could be related to either the intrinsic source’s variability or the “microlensing” phenomenon (Paczynski 1986; Wambsganss 1990).
In Fig. 1 the data-to-model ratio expressed in terms of standard deviations is shown (rest-frame energy). The data are fitted using the model \#1 of table 1 which consists of a simple power law absorbed (phabs model in Xspec) by Galactic column density (N$_H$=3.2$\times$10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$, Kalberla et al. 2005). The X-ray spectrum of the source clearly displays three main features: 1) a low energy cut-off due to an absorption component in excess of the Galactic one; 2) a dip in counts at E$\sim$7-8 keV plus the possible presence of a feature in emission at E$\sim$6.5 keV; 3) an excess-hump at E$\sim$15-30 keV.
[**Complex absorber model:**]{} Column 1: Model name; Column 2: absorbing column in excess to the Galactic value; Column 3: photon index; Column 4: column density of the warm absorber; Column 5: covering factor of the warm absorber; Column 6: ionization parameter of the warm absorber; Column 8: energy of the Gaussian line in emission (rest frame); Column 8: width of the Gaussian line in emission (rest frame); Column 9: equivalent width of the Gaussian line in emission (rest frame); Column 10: $\chi^2$/degrees of freedom.
------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------ -----------------
Complex absorber N$_{H,cold}$ $\Gamma$ N$_{H, warm}$ C$_f$ Log($\xi^{a}$) E$_{FeK\alpha}$ $\sigma_{FeK\alpha}$ EW$_{FeK\alpha}$ $\chi^2$/d.o.f.
10$^{21} cm^{-2}$ 10$^{21} cm^{-2}$ keV keV eV
8.84$^{+2.16}_{-2.15}$ 1.95$^{+0.09}_{-0.09}$ 961$^{+11}_{-12}$ 0.43$^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$ 2.00$^{+0.21}_{-0.58}$ 6.36$^{+0.36}_{-0.32}$ $\leq$822 38$^{+30}_{-30}$ 1207/1182
------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------ -----------------
$^{a}$ $\xi$ expressed in erg s$^{-1}$ cm
\[tab1\]
---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------ ------------------------ -------------- -----------------
Reflection dominated N$_{H}$ $\Gamma$ E$_{cut-off}$ r $\theta$ $\chi^2$/d.o.f.
10$^{21} cm^{-2}$ keV degrees
4.57$^{+1.79}_{-1.73}$ 1.81$^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ 80$^{+34}_{-19}$ 1.10$^{+0.31}_{-0.31}$ 45$^{fixed}$ 1207/1186
---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------ ------------------------ -------------- -----------------
To perform phenomenological tests on the presence of these features we first added an in-situ (z=3.62) extra-column in absorption and a Gaussian line in emission (model \#2 in Table 1), since they are known to be common in the X-ray spectra of AGN (Nandra & Pounds 1994; Smith & Done 1996; Vignali et al. 2006). We obtained a $\Delta\chi^2\sim$15 for a single parameter of interest when a cold absorber is added to model \#1 of Table 1 and $\Delta\chi^2\sim$9 for three parameters of interest for the Gaussian line in emission. Moreover, to test the significance of the count drops at E$\sim$7.5-8 keV, we used an absorption edge (model \#3 in Table 1). Overall we obtain that the simultaneous detection of an intrinsic absorber and of an edge is significant at more than 99%[^2] confidence level ($\Delta\chi^2\sim$28 with respect to model \#2 of Table 1, see also the upper panels of Fig.2) while the strength of the detection of a Gaussian line in emission depends on the presence of the absorption edge in the underlying model: the line in emission is detected at high significance when the dip of counts at $\sim$7.5 keV is not modeled (model \#2 in Table 1) but it is detected at only $\sim$97% confidence level when the absorption edge is modeled (see lower-left panel in Fig. 2 and the parameters of model \#3 in Table 1). In any case, if the width of the line is left free to vary, we obtain that it is consistent with being narrow.
The parameters obtained with this simple and phenomenological modeling of the data are well in agreement with what previously presented by Misawa et al. (2008) who analyzed X-ray spectra with few hundreds of counts. In particular, the high-energy continuum is recorded to be rather flat ($\Gamma\sim$1.6) and absorbed by a column density of cold matter with N$_H$$\sim$2.4$\times$10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. Both these values are well within the range and upper limits previously reported (Misawa et al. 2008). It is worth considering, however, that all these features are unable to account for the hump at energies higher than 10 keV (lower-right panel of Fig. 2) and this indicates that more complex modeling of the data is needed.
Finally, to further test the possible presence of the above mentioned spectral features, we analyzed the RGS data using standard techinques. The main goal was to test the intrinsic width of the emission line. However, we obtained a poor quality RGS spectrum (we obtained $\sim$5000 source plus background counts, only $\sim$20% of which due to the source) that is plotted in Fig. 3. Using model \#1 in table 1 as undelying continuum, we thus checked that the intensity of emissione line and the optical depth of the absorption edge are consistent with what obtained with EPIC instruments. No further constraints on the parameters of the emission line are obtained.
A complex absorbing system?
---------------------------
To simultaneously model the detected features we first assumed an absorption dominated scenario. The absorption edge measured at E$\sim$7.5 keV, in fact, may indicate that the primary emission of B1422+231 intercepts along the line of sight some cold/ionized matter that only partially covers the central engine of the source. This would introduce an underestimate of the total absorber and, thus, the appearance in the data of the spurius edge at E $\geq$7.1 keV. To study this scenario, we used the [*zxipcf*]{} model (Reeves et al. 2008) within $Xspec$ which is able to well reproduce the data (see left panel of Fig. 4 and the upper panel of Table 2) once it is combined to cold absorber (see table 2). We also used pre-compiled Xstar tables, namely mtab1e 8, 21, 22 and 25 (each obtained using a ionizing flux with power-law spectra with $\Gamma$=2, i.e. similar to what obtained here in the ionized absorption scenario) that have turbulence velocities from 100 to 3000 km/s and cover large ranges of absorbing columns (N$_H\sim$10$^{20-24}$ cm$^{-2}$). We tested both partial and complete absorption scenarios never obtaining spectral fits with $\chi^2$ values better than those obtained with [*zxipcf*]{}.
The FeK$\alpha$ (E$_{FeK\alpha}\sim$6.4 keV) line is only marginally detected in this case with a 90% upper limit of EW$\lesssim$70 eV (rest-frame). This value is well in agreement with what is expected if the line is produced in the cold absorber itself (EW$\sim$30 eV, Makishima 1986; Leahy & Creighton, 1993). It is also consistent with what is measured for the broad component of the FeK$\alpha$ line in nearby type I AGN (EW$\sim$75 eV, de La Calle P[é]{}rez et al. 2010) or nearby radio-galaxies (Grandi & Palumbo 2004, 2007). Nonetheless, it is slightly lower than what is expected if the presence of a standard accretion disk in the inner core of B1422+231 is assumed (EW$\sim$100-120 eV for type I AGN, Matt, Perola & Piro, 1991). The edge and the hump at energies above 10 keV are here accounted for by the presence of the partially covering and warm component with high column density (N$_H\sim$10$^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$, Log($\xi$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm)$\sim$2 and C$_f\sim$0.4). In the left panel of Fig. 4 the data-to-model ratio expressed in terms of standard deviation as a function of rest-frame energy are presented. Some features may still be present at E$\sim$15 keV (rest frame). It is worth noting, however that in the observed frame this corresponds to E$\sim$2-3 keV, i.e. an energy band where instrumental absorption edges could well be important[^3] (but see the end of sect. 2.2 for a more detailed discussion on this topic).
Is a reflection component present?
----------------------------------
Both the $\sim$7.5 keV edge and the $\sim$15-20 keV hump could be due to the presence in the X-ray spectrum of B1422+231 of a reflection component. To test its presence we used the $Pexmon$ model in $Xspec$ (Nandra et al. 2007) which consistently models the continuum hump at energies above 10 keV and the associated emission lines[^4]. Given the limited statistics available, we fixed some of the variables of the model: the inclination angle of the reflecting system with respect to the line of sight was fixed to $\Theta$=45$^{\circ}$ and the abundance of all elements were set equal to solar (once left free to vary, the inclination angle was statistically unconstrained, while the abundance was found to be larger than $\sim$0.3 solar at 90% confidence level with a $\Delta\chi^2\sim$0.5 for one more parameter of interest and for a best value Abund$\sim$0.95 solar). As reported in the lower panel of table 2, this model provides an excellent fit of the data (see also right panel of Fig. 4). As often observed in nearby Seyfert galaxies and radio galaxies, after the addition of the reflection component, the slope of the primary power-law steepens reaching values ($\Gamma\sim$1.8) commonly observed in the nearby Universe (Dadina 2008, Cappi et al. 2006) and perfectly consistent with what is predicted in the two-phase scenario (Haardt, Maraschi & Ghisellini, 1997). Moreover, taking advantage of the large redshift of B1422-231, we are able to measure a high-energy cut-off (E$_c\sim$80 keV, see Table 2 and left panel of Fig. 5). The reflection component is measured at a good significance level (right panel of Fig. 5), and the relative intensity of the reflected component with respect to the direct continuum is r$\sim$1, i.e. consistent with a 2$\pi$ coverage of the reflector. We also tested the hypothesis of relativistically blurred reflection by smearing the $Pexmon$ component with a relativistic kernel (namely kdblur in Xspec) but the data did not statistically require the addition of such effect.
As for the case of complex absorber, some residuals remain at $\sim$15 keV even in the reflection scenario (see right panel of Fig. 4). We first tried to test its statistical importance. Since the residuals in the reflection scenario seem more peaked than in the complex absorption case, we first added a broad Gaussian in emission and found that the fit improvement is poor ($\Delta\chi^2\sim4$ for three more parameters of interest). This indicates that the addition of such feature is not, statistically speaking, required by the data. The energy of the line, moreover, is found to be E$\sim$2.7 keV (observed frame) and this suggests that at least part of the residuals may be due to problems of calibrations around the AU M edge due to the mirror coating (E$\sim$2.5 keV). On more robust physical basis, we also tested the addition of another reflection component due, for example, to the contribution of the putative torus and/or accretion disk, without finding any significant improvement in the fit. If we check for the ionization state of reflector using XILLVER model in Xspec (García et al. 2014) we find that the ionization parameter is consistent with zero and lower than Log($\xi$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm)$\leq$2.2. We finally stress here that some sort of “spectral noise” may be also introduced by the fact that we are observing a quadruple lensed object. This means that the light paths of the four images may be different and for this reason each of the four images may show slightly different X-ray spectra.
Searching for hints of outflowing matter
----------------------------------------
We also tested, both in the absorption and reflection scenarios the possible presence of out-flowing matter that could be responsible for blue-shifted absorption at energies close to that of the absorption edge. Following Tombesi et al. (2010) and Chartas et al. (2003) we first modeled this component with a simple Gaussian in absorption. The method consists in performing a blind search over the entire X-ray spectrum of a narrow absorption Gaussian line and then checking their statistical strength by performing Monte-Carlo simulations. The simulations always found that the significance of the absorption lines is slightly lower than that calculated with the F-test (Tombesi et al. 2010). Here we adopt a simplified version of this procedure, without Monte-Carlo simulations, since we found that the feature is, statistically speaking, not required by the data (see Fig. 6). We had a similar result adopting a P-Cygni profile to simultaneously model the emission line and the absorption edge as recently observed in PDS 456 (Nardini et al. 2015). In this case we used the model by Done et al. (2007). This component, when added to the simply absorbed power-law is not able to model all the spectral complexity observed between 6-8 keV (rest-frame) while, when added in the complex absorption and reflection scenario, it does not allow to significantly improve the modeling of the data ($\Delta\chi^2\lesssim2.5$ for three more parameters of interest when the P-Cygni profile model is added to the complex absorber scenario).
Discussion
==========
In this paper we presented the complex X-ray spectrum of the distant (z=3.62) and lensed QSO B1422+231. The magnification factor $\mu\sim$15-20 (Kormann et al. 1994, Assef et al. 2011) and the long XMM-Newton pointing allowed us to obtain a very high quality X-ray spectrum considering the distance of the target (D$_L$=32.2 Gpc). The XMM-Newton pointing, in fact, allowed to collect in a single observation $\sim$40 kcounts (considering the three EPIC instruments on board XMM-Newton) in the 0.3-10 keV (observer frame) energy range. This is one of the best single epoch X-ray spectrum of high-z QSO ever obtained. To our knowledge, the only observations of high redshift QSO of comparable quality are those obtained with XMM-Newton for the lensed QSO APM 08279+5255 (z=3.92, see Saez & Chartas 2011 for a list of X-ray observations of the source) with $\sim$16.5 kcounts for their deepest XMM-Newton observation.
The integrated X-ray flux recorded during the $XMM$-$Newton$ pointing presented here is F$_{2-10 keV}\sim$$10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ that corresponds to an unobscured luminosity of L$_{2-10 keV}\sim$7.3$\times$10$^{46}$ erg/s. The source, however, is known to be magnified by a factor $\mu\sim$15-20 (Kormann et al. 1994; Assef et al. 2011). We can thus estimate the intrinsic luminosity to be L$_{2-10 keV}\sim$5$\times$10$^{45}$ erg s$^{-1}$ which translates to L$_{bol}\sim$4.5-9.4$\times$10$^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$ once the bolometric correction ($k_{bol}$ ranges between $\sim$ 9-15 depending on the spectral index which, here, is found to range between $\Gamma \sim 1.65-1.95$ depending on the modeling of the data, Marchese et al. 2012) is also taken into account. This implies that the source is apparently emitting at $\sim$7-15% of its Eddington luminosity ($L_{Edd}\sim$6.5$\times$10$^{47}$ erg s$^{-1}$). The measured 2-10 keV luminosity is rather typical of what is measured for lensed objects (Misawa et al. 2008) and it is also comparable to what is measured for a sample of radio quiet QSOs observed with XMM-Newton (L$_{2-10 keV}\sim$0.4-7$\times$10$^{46} erg s^{-1}$, Page et al. 2005) at redshift between z$\sim$2-4 and it is at the lowest end of the range of luminosities measured for radio loud objects (L$_{2-10 keV}\sim$0.5-70$\times$10$^{46} erg s^{-1}$, Page et al. 2005), suggesting that the source brightness is not experiencing, in X-rays, extreme boosting effects.
The spectral analysis of the X-ray data clearly demonstrates that the spectrum of B1422+231 is complex and shows some highly significant features such as a low-energy cut-off due to absorption, a deep dim of counts at E$\sim$7-7.5 keV (rest-frame) and a “hump” at E$\sim$ 20-30 keV plus a low energy cut-off. We also have indications of the presence of an iron emission line at E$\sim$6.4 keV. All these evidences point towards the possible presence of a partial coverer (complex absorption scenario) and/or a reflection component (reflection scenario), i.e. towards the fact that we are observing a “Seyfert-like” X-ray spectrum. This scenario is further suggested by the detection of absorption in X-rays due to intervening matter as observed in nearby Seyferts. This component is apparently at odd with what predicted by the unified models of AGN (Antonucci 1993) when considering the presence of broad emission lines in the optical spectrum of B1422+231, and thus its “type I” nature is taken into account. It is worth considering, however, that also in the local Universe it is not unusual to observe type I Seyferts absorbed in X-rays (see for example the cases of NGC 4151 and of NGC 4051, Warwick et al. 1993 and Ponti et al. 2006 respectively). In recent years, moreover, long term monitoring of sources displaying characteristics of type I objects from optical-UV to X-rays for decades, may suddenly change their X-ray properties to that typical of type II objects, and maintain them for years (see for example the cases of H0557-385 and NGC 5548, Coffey et al. 2014; Kaastra et al. 2014).
The complex X-ray spectrum of B1422+231, moreover, seems to be in contrast with the fact that the source has been defined to be radio-loud (Misawa et al. 2008) and, thus, a strong or even dominant jet component producing an almost featureless spectrum may be expected also in X-rays. We thus investigated the radio-loudness of B1422+231 using the parameter defined by Kellermann et al. (1989), , where the optical wavelength and the radio frequency are in the source rest frame. Typical radio-loudness values are $>100$ for radio-loud quasars and $<10$ for radio-quiet quasars. The rest-frame 5 GHz flux density was computed from the 1.4 GHz flux density value of 352 mJy reported by Tinti et al. (2005), extrapolated to 5 GHz rest frame assuming a radio power-law slope of $\alpha=0.9$ as reported in Orienti et al. (2007), where . The rest-frame 4400 Å flux density was computed by adopting the composite quasar spectrum presented in Vanden Berk et al. (2001) to convert the broadband Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) $ugriz$ measurements to the flux density at the rest wavelength of 4400Å (see $\S$2.2 of Vignali, Brandt and Schneider 2003 for further details). We obtain $R\approx90$, which indicates that B1422$+$231 is only moderately radio loud.
On the other side, the rather-steep radio continuum measured by Orienti et al. (2007) with the VLA ($\alpha\sim$0.9) could indicate that the source is highly inclined in the plane of the sky. In this case the radio emission should be dominated by the lobes and not by the jet which is not pointing toward us, thus reconciling the radio- and X-ray properties of the target. Nonetheless VLBI imaging of B1422+231 does not allow the detection of any extended structures at more they $\sim$1-2 milliarcsec (Dallacasa, private communication). This means that the physical dimensions of the radio-source should be smaller than $\sim$10-20 kpc at the redshift of the source. We cannot probe to small enough scales to show that B1422+231 has intrinsic small radio-emitting regions such as those found in CoreG or FR0 sources (Baldi, Capetti & Giovannini 2015) since the angular resolution of the VLBI is at the limit of the typical dimension of such sources. CoreG radio emitting regions have typical dimensions $\lesssim$10-20 kpc and we should be able to probe even smaller angular scales to exclude extended emission on the scales of the order $\sim$1-3 kpc that are typical of FR0 (Baldi, Capetti & Giovannini 2015). Overall, the radio properties of B1422+231 prevent to firmly assess of the nature of the source. While the polarization in the radio-band and the radio flux variability, even if very small, may suggest the blazar nature of the source, the steady radio spectral shape and the low polarization at low frequencies point toward the fact that B1422+231 may be a genuinely young radio source (Orienti et al. 2007, Orienti & Dallacasa 2008). To this evidence, we add the fact that, as most probably happens in the optical, also the X-ray band is dominated by the emission due to a disk component thus implying that the jet is not dominating at all frequencies. We finally note that also 4C74.26 the closest powerful radio-loud quasar displays a “Seyfert-like” X-ray spectrum (Grandi et al. 2006; Fukazawa et al. 2011).
The two best-fit scenarios
--------------------------
As mentioned above, the X-ray spectrum of B1422+231 is strongly characterized by the presence of features similar to those commonly observed in nearby Seyfert galaxies and possibly indicating that the primary emission is affected by complex absorption and/or reflection.
In the complex absorption scenario, we obtain that the primary engine is absorbed by a cold absorber with a column density of N$_H\sim$10$^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ which completely covers the region were the X-ray photons originate plus a ionized ($\xi\sim$100 erg s$^{-1}$ cm and N$_H\sim$10$^{24}$ cm$^{-2}$) partial coverer that hides only $\sim$40% of this region (C$_f\sim$0.4). Adopting this model, we obtain that the putative FeK$\alpha$ line is not detected at 99% confidence level (EW$\lesssim$70 eV at 90% confidence) but its strength is still consistent with what is expected for the observed absorbing column (Makishima 1986; Leahy & Creighton, 1993; Matt, Perola & Piro, 1991). The partial covering of the central engine suggests that in the core of B1422+231 there are intervening clouds that are able to partially block the line of sight. This is similar to what is observed in nearby AGNs. In some Seyfert galaxies, clouds, probably the same forming the broad line regions, have been observed while crossing the line of sight and producing eclipses (Risaliti et al. 2007). Similarly, in other objects, the changes of absorbing column have been associated to outflowing clouds (Coffey et al. 2014; Kaastra et al. 2014; Arav et al. 2015). The changes in the absorption properties are thought to be responsible for at least part of the well known AGN variability seen in X-rays (see for example the case of NGC 1365, Risaliti et al. 2005, 2009; see also Miller et al. 2008, 2010, Markowitz et al. 2014). In this scenario, assuming that the density of these clouds are typical for the broad line regions BLR (n$\sim$10$^{9}$ cm$^{-3}$) and taking the luminosity of the source obtained above ($\sim$5$\times$10$^{46}$ erg s$^{-1}$), it turns out that they are at d$\sim$7$\times$10$^{17}$ cm, corresponding to $\sim$5000r$_{g}$ or $\sim$0.1pc from the source of X-ray photons, i.e. at a distance that is only $\sim$half of the expected average distance of the BLR for a QSO of the given L$_{bol}$ (in accordance to what found for the eclipsing cloud in NGC 1365 d$\sim$100r$_g$, Risaliti et al., 2007). An even looser limit is obtained following Tarter et al. (1969), under the assumption that d$_{max}\lesssim$L$_{ion}/\xi N_H$. If L$_{ion}$=L$_{2-10 keV}$, we obtain the d$_{max}\sim$4$\times$10$^{18}$ cm, i.e. one order of magnitude larger than what was obtained before. In both cases, the values obtained are in good agreement with results obtained by Tombesi et al (2012) in constraining the production region of UFOs detected in nearby AGN and by Markowitz et al. (2014) in constraining the distance of the clouds forming the torus. It is worth considering, however, that in this picture eclipsing episodes are responsible for the different observed X-ray flux states at which the sources are detected and that these episodes are generally related to cold clouds (Risaliti et al. 2007; Markowitz 2014; Coffey et al. 2014; Kaastra et al. 2015). Using archival data, we are unable to detect any variations of the absorbing column density. Moreover, the X-ray flux of B1422+231 observed during the 2014 observation is not significantly different from what previously measured, i.e. no long term variability has been detected. We also failed to detect significant short-term variability and no dominating flux dip is measured thus leaving us without indications of eclipsing episodes. It is worth considering, however, that the detection of strong variability, especially the short-time scale one, is here disfavored by both redshift of the source and by the mass of its SMBH (M$_{SMBH}\sim5\times$10$^{9}$M$_{\sun}$, Greene et al. 2010).
Under the reflection scenario we obtained a value of $\chi^2$ almost identical to the one obtained with the complex absorption model but with a lower number of free parameters (see Table 2). The spectral index, once the spectral complexities have been taken into account with $Pexmon$, is found to be steep ($\Gamma\sim$1.8) and in agreement with what on average measured in the AGN in the nearby Universe (Perola et al. 2002; Cappi et al. 2006; Dadina 2008). This value is well within the range of photon index predicted for Seyfert galaxies (Haardt et al. 1994) and observed in QSO at intermediate and high redshift for objects with Eddington luminosity similar to that of B1422+231 (Brigthman et al. 2013). Most interestingly, the adoption of the $Pexmon$ model (Nandra et al. 2007) allows us to consistently fit the hump due to the reflection of the primary continuum onto the matter surrounding the central engine and the associated emission lines. In this framework, taking advantage of the source redshift and of the XMM-Newton sensitivity, we are able to measure both the high-energy cut-off (E$_c\sim$80 keV) and the normalization between the primary emission and the reflected component (r$\sim$1) that indicates that the reflecting matter covers $\sim$50% of the sky as seen by the source of X-ray photons. These values are well within the range measured in nearby Seyferts (Perola et al. 2002; Dadina 2008). To our knowledge, this is the first AGN for which we are able to perform such measurements at z$\geq$3 (but see Lanzuisi et al. 2016 for the possible detection of such features in the X-ray spectrum of a z$\sim$2 QSO). This allows us to probe the geometry of the accreting matter around a SMBH at ages when the QSOs activity was at its peak, thus possibly opening new opportunities to test the SMBH-galaxy feedback and formation models (King & Pounds 2015 and references therein). The detection of the high-energy cut-off, moreover, allows us to infer the temperature of the putative Comptonizing corona (kT$\sim \frac{E_{cut-off}}{2}$) and its optical depth that, following eq.1 in Petrucci et al. (2001) is $\tau\sim$0.3 for B1422+231. It is worth noting, however, that the kT values derived from $Pexmon$, that is derived from $Pexrav$ (Magdziarz & Zdziarski 1995) must be considered to be, in general, under-estimated and $\tau$ over-estimated. This is because of the spherical and isotropic geometry assumed in this model. A more realistic slab and anisotropic geometry of Comptonization model should drive towards different values of E$_{c}$ and $\tau$ and the value presented above must be taken with cautions.
Summary and conclusions
=======================
We can summarize our findings as follow: 1) the coupling of the magnification factor due to gravitational lensing and the sensitivity of XMM-Newton allowed us to obtain a very high-quality X-ray spectrum of a QSO at z=3.62. This technique is thus proved to be useful to directly probe the physical properties of the matter surrounding the SMBH at high redshift, i.e. at the peak of both QSO and starburst activities; 2) the source X-ray spectrum is certainly complex displaying strong and highly significant signatures of both emission and absorption components; 3) the spectrum is equally well fitted by either a complex absorption model and a reflection model.
Even if we have no firm indication of which of the two best-fit models proposed here is the right one, we favor the reflection dominated interpretation because a) we do not detect any hint of variability both on short and long time scale so that the presence of passing and partially absorbing clouds seems to be disfavored and b) the reflection model is better on a pure statistical basis allowing to obtain a good modeling of the data with fewer parameters. In this scenario, we stress that we have been able to measure the strength of the reflection component (r$\sim$1) and the temperature of the Comptonizing corona inferring that the geometry and the physical state of the matter around the SMBH hosted in the z=3.62 B1422+231 QSO are similar to what measured in nearby Seyfert galaxies.
We thank the anonymous referee for her/his helpful comments that helped to improve the manuscript. This work is based on observations obtained with XMM-Newton, an ESA science mission with instruments and contributions directly funded by ESA Member States and the USA (NASA). MD thanks Paola Grandi, Daniele Dallacasa for useful discussions. MD and MC aknowledge financial support from the Italian Space Agency under grant ASI-INAF I/037/12/0 and extended PRIN INAF 2012. GL acknowledges financial support from the CIG grant “eEASY” n. 321913, from ASI-INAF 2014-045-R.0 and ASI/INAF I/037/12/0–011/13 grants. GP thanks the DLR: the Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie/Deutsche Zentrum für luft-un Raumfahrt (BMWI/DLR, FKZ 50 OR 1408).
Aird, J., Coil, A. L., Georgakakis, A., et al. 2015, , 451, 1892
Antonucci, R. 1993, , 31, 473
Arav, N., Chamberlain, C., Kriss, G. A., et al. 2015, , 577, A37
Assef, R. J., Denney, K. D., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2011, , 742, 93
Baldi, R. D., Capetti, A., & Giovannini, G. 2015, , 576, A38
Bassani, L., Dadina, M., Maiolino, R., et al. 1999, , 121, 473
Boyle, B. J., Shanks, T., & Peterson, B. A. 1988, , 235, 935
Brandt, W. N., & Hasinger, G. 2005, , 43, 827
Brightman, M., Silverman, J. D., Mainieri, V., et al. 2013, , 433, 2485
Cappi, M., Panessa, F., Bassani, L., et al. 2006, , 446, 459
Chartas et al. , 2016, Astron. Nach. AN 337, No. 4/5, 356-361
Chartas, G., Brandt, W. N., Gallagher, S. C., & Garmire, G. P. 2002, , 579, 169
Chartas, G., Brandt, W. N., & Gallagher, S. C. 2003, , 595, 85
Chartas, G., Eracleous, M., Dai, X., Agol, E., & Gallagher, S. 2007, , 661, 678
Chartas, G., Hamann, F., Eracleous, M., et al. 2014, , 783, 57
Chiba, M. 2002, , 565, 17
Coffey, D., Longinotti, A. L., Rodr[í]{}guez-Ardila, A., et al. 2014, , 443, 1788
Dadina, M., Cappi, M., Malaguti, G., Ponti, G., & de Rosa, A. 2005, , 442, 461
Dadina, M. 2007, , 461, 1209
Dadina, M. 2008, , 485, 417
de La Calle P[é]{}rez, I., Longinotti, A. L., Guainazzi, M., et al. 2010, , 524, A50
Done, C., Sobolewska, M. A., Gierli[ń]{}ski, M., & Schurch, N. J. 2007, , 374, L15
Fabian, A. C., Iwasawa, K., Reynolds, C. S., & Young, A. J. 2000, , 112, 1145
Fabian, A. C., Lohfink, A., Kara, E., et al. 2015, , 451, 4375
Fanali, R., Caccianiga, A., Severgnini, P., et al. 2013, , 433, 648
Ferrarese, L., & Merritt, D. 2000, , 539, L9
Fukazawa, Y., Hiragi, K., Mizuno, M., et al. 2011, , 727, 19
Garc[í]{}a, J., Dauser, T., Lohfink, A., et al. 2014, , 782, 76
Gofford, J., Reeves, J. N., Tombesi, F., et al. 2013, , 430, 60
Grandi, P., Malaguti, G., & Fiocchi, M. 2006, , 642, 113
Grandi, P., & Palumbo, G. G. C. 2004, Science, 306, 998
Grandi, P., & Palumbo, G. G. C. 2007, , 659, 235
Greene, J. E., Peng, C. Y., & Ludwig, R. R. 2010, , 709, 937
Guilbert, P. W., & Rees, M. J. 1988, , 233, 475
Haardt, F., & Maraschi, L. 1993, , 413, 507
Haardt, F., Maraschi, L., & Ghisellini, G. 1994, , 432, L95
Haardt, F., Maraschi, L., & Ghisellini, G. 1997, , 476, 620
Kaastra, J. S., Kriss, G. A., Cappi, M., et al. 2014, Science, 345, 64
Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, D., et al. 2005, , 440, 775
Kellermann, K. I., Sramek, R., Schmidt, M., Shaffer, D. B., & Green, R. 1989, , 98, 1195
King, A., & Pounds, K. 2015, , 53, 115
Kormann, R., Schneider, P., & Bartelmann, M. 1994, , 286, 357
Kormendy, J., & Richstone, D. 1995, , 33, 581
Lanzuisi, G., Giustini, M., Cappi, M., et al. 2012, , 544, A2
Lanzuisi, G., Perna, M., Comastri, A., et al. 2016, arXiv:1604.02462
Leahy, D. A., & Creighton, J. 1993, , 263, 314
Lightman, A. P., & White, T. R. 1988, , 335, 57
Lu, Y., & Yu, Q. 1999, , 526, L5
Madau, P., Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M. E., et al. 1996, , 283, 1388
Magdziarz, P., & Zdziarski, A. A. 1995, , 273, 837
Magorrian, J., Tremaine, S., Richstone, D., et al. 1998, , 115, 2285
Makishima, K. 1986, The Physics of Accretion onto Compact Objects, 266, 249
Malizia, A., Molina, M., Bassani, L., et al. 2014, , 782, L25
Marchese, E., Della Ceca, R., Caccianiga, A., et al. 2012, , 539, A48
Marconi, A., Risaliti, G., Gilli, R., et al. 2004, , 351, 169
Markowitz, A. G., Krumpe, M., & Nikutta, R. 2014, , 439, 1403
Matt, G., Perola, G. C., & Piro, L. 1991, , 247, 25
Merritt, D., & Ferrarese, L. 2001, , 320, L30
Miller, L., Turner, T. J., & Reeves, J. N. 2008, , 483, 437
Miller, L., Turner, T. J., Reeves, J. N., & Braito, V. 2010, , 408, 1928
Misawa, T., Charlton, J. C., Eracleous, M., et al. 2007, , 171, 1
Misawa, T., Eracleous, M., Chartas, G., & Charlton, J. C. 2008, , 677, 863
Murphy, K. D., & Yaqoob, T. 2009, , 397, 1549
Nandra, K., Barret, D., Barcons, X., et al. 2013, arXiv:1306.2307
Nandra, K., O’Neill, P. M., George, I. M., & Reeves, J. N. 2007, , 382, 194
Nandra, K., & Pounds, K. A. 1994, , 268, 405
Nardini, E., Reeves, J. N., Gofford, J., et al. 2015, Science, 347, 860
Orienti, M., & Dallacasa, D. 2008, , 479, 409
Orienti, M., Dallacasa, D., & Stanghellini, C. 2007, , 475, 813
Paczynski, B. 1986, , 301, 503
Page, K. L., Reeves, J. N., O’Brien, P. T., & Turner, M. J. L. 2005, , 364, 195
Patnaik, A. R., Browne, I. W. A., Walsh, D., Chaffee, F. H., & Foltz, C. B. 1992, , 259, 1P
Perola, G. C., Matt, G., Cappi, M., et al. 2002, , 389, 802
Petrucci, P. O., Haardt, F., Maraschi, L., et al. 2001, , 556, 716
Piconcelli, E., Jimenez-Bail[ó]{}n, E., Guainazzi, M., et al. 2005, , 432, 15
Protassov, R., van Dyk, D. A., Connors, A., Kashyap, V. L., & Siemiginowska, A. 2002, , 571, 545
Ponti, G., Miniutti, G., Fabian, A. C., Cappi, M., & Palumbo, G. G. C. 2006, Astronomische Nachrichten, 327, 1055
Pounds, K. A., Done, C., & Osborne, J. P. 1995, , 277, L5
Pounds, K. A., Reeves, J. N., King, A. R., et al. 2003, , 345, 705
Raychaudhury, S., Saha, P., & Williams, L. L. R. 2003, , 126, 29
Reeves, J., Done, C., Pounds, K., et al. 2008, , 385, L108
Reis, R. C., Reynolds, M. T., Miller, J. M., & Walton, D. J. 2014, , 507, 207
Reynolds, M. T., Walton, D. J., Miller, J. M., & Reis, R. C. 2014, , 792, L19
Risaliti, G., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., Baldi, A., & Zezas, A. 2005, , 623, L93
Risaliti, G., Elvis, M., Fabbiano, G., et al. 2007, , 659, L111
Risaliti, G., Young, M., & Elvis, M. 2009, , 700, L6
Saez, C., & Chartas, G. 2011, , 737, 91
Saez, C., Chartas, G., Brandt, W. N., et al. 2008, , 135, 1505
Shemmer, O., Brandt, W. N., Netzer, H., Maiolino, R., & Kaspi, S. 2006, , 646, L29
Shemmer, O., Brandt, W. N., Netzer, H., Maiolino, R., & Kaspi, S. 2008, , 682, 81
Smith, D. A., & Done, C. 1996, , 280, 355
Tanaka, Y., Nandra, K., Fabian, A. C., et al. 1995, , 375, 659
Tarter, C. B., & Salpeter, E. E. 1969, , 156, 953
Tinti, S., Dallacasa, D., de Zotti, G., Celotti, A., & Stanghellini, C. 2005, , 432, 31
Tombesi, F., Cappi, M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2010a, , 521
Tombesi, F., Sambruna, R. M., Reeves, J. N., et al. 2010b, , 719, 700
Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al. 2001, , 122, 549
Vignali, C., Alexander, D. M., & Comastri, A. 2006, , 373, 321
Vignali, C., Alexander, D. M., Gilli, R., & Pozzi, F. 2010, , 404, 48
Vignali, C., Brandt, W. N., & Schneider, D. P. 2003, , 125, 433
Vignali, C., Brandt, W. N., Schneider, D. P., & Kaspi, S. 2005, , 129, 2519
Vignali, C., Iwasawa, K., Comastri, A., et al. 2015, , 583, A141
Vignali, C., Mignoli, M., Gilli, R., et al. 2014, , 571, A34
Walton, D. J., Reynolds, M. T., Miller, J. M., et al. 2015, , 805, 161
Wambsganss, J. 1990, Ph.D. Thesis,
Warwick, R. S., Sembay, S., Yaqoob, T., et al. 1993, , 265, 412
[^1]: Chandra pointed the source three times collecting 426, 244 and 762 counts respectively. XMM-Newton observed the source for $\sim$5 ks only and the source fell on a EPIC-pn chip gap precluding the use the pn data. The two EPIC-MOS collected $\sim$195 counts each (Misawa et al. 2008).
[^2]: The intervals of confidence reported here are calculated using the F-test which is known to be inaccurate and, in particular, slightly optimistic (Protassov et al. 2002). Here we use the F-test probabilities as mere indications of the strength of the putative spectral features.
[^3]: see XMM-Newton Users’ Handbook at http://xmm.esac.esa.int
[^4]: See also Murphy & Yaqoob 2009 for a discussion on the possible underestimation of the reflection component once assuming slab geometries, as done in $pexmon$, for the reflector
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[*Location based services*]{} (LBS) have become very popular in recent years. They range from map services (e.g., Google Maps) that store geographic locations of points of interests, to online social networks (e.g., WeChat, Sina Weibo, FourSquare) that leverage user geographic locations to enable various recommendation functions. The public query interfaces of these services may be abstractly modeled as a $k$NN interface over a database of two dimensional points on a plane: given an arbitrary query point, the system returns the $k$ points in the database that are nearest to the query point. In this paper we consider the problem of obtaining [*approximate estimates*]{} of SUM and COUNT aggregates by only querying such databases via their restrictive public interfaces. We distinguish between interfaces that return location information of the returned tuples (e.g., Google Maps), and interfaces that do not return location information (e.g., Sina Weibo). For both types of interfaces, we develop aggregate estimation algorithms that are based on novel techniques for precisely computing or approximately estimating the Voronoi cell of tuples. We discuss a comprehensive set of real-world experiments for testing our algorithms, including experiments on Google Maps, WeChat, and Sina Weibo.'
author:
- 'Weimo Liu$^\dag$, Md Farhadur Rahman$^\ddag$, Saravanan Thirumuruganathan$^\ddag$, Nan Zhang$^\dag$, Gautam Das$^\ddag$\'
bibliography:
- 'mapco.bib'
title: Aggregate Estimations over Location Based Services
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
LBS with a $k$NN Interface
--------------------------
[*Location based services*]{} (LBS) have become very popular in recent years. They range from map services (e.g., Google Maps) that store geographic locations of points of interests (POIs), to online social networks (e.g., WeChat, Sina Weibo, FourSquare) that leverage user geographic locations to enable various recommendation functions. The underlying data model of these services may be viewed as a database of tuples that are either POIs (in case of map services) or users (in case of social networks), along with their geographical coordinates (e.g., latitude and longitude) on a plane.
However, third-party applications and/or end users do not have complete and direct access to this entire database. The database is essentially “hidden”, and access is typically limited to a restricted public web query interface or API by which one can specify an arbitrary location as a query, which returns at most $k$ nearest tuples to the query point (where $k$ is typically a small number such as 10 or 50). For example, in Google maps it is possible to specify an arbitrary location and get the ten nearest Starbucks. Thus, the query interfaces of these services may be abstractly modeled as a “nearest neighbor” $k$NN interface over a database of two dimensional points on a plane: given an arbitrary query point, the system returns the $k$ points in the database that are nearest to the query point.
In addition, there are important differences among the services based on the type of information that is returned along with the $k$ tuples. Some services (e.g., Google maps) return the locations (i.e., the $x$ and $y$ coordinates) of the $k$ returned tuples. We refer to such services as [*Location-Returned LBS*]{} (LR-LBS). Other services (e.g., WeChat, Sina Weibo) return a ranked list of $k$ nearest tuples, but suppress the location of each tuple, returning only the tuple ID and perhaps some other attributes (such as tuple name). We refer to such services as [*Location-Not-Returned LBS*]{} (LNR-LBS).
Both types of services impose additional querying limitations, the most important being a per user/IP limit on the number of queries one can issue over a given time frame (e.g., by default, Google map API imposes a query rate limit of 10,000 per user per day).
Aggregate Estimations
---------------------
For many interesting third-party applications, it is important to collect [*aggregate statistics*]{} over the tuples contained in such hidden databases $-$ such as [*sum*]{}, [*count*]{}, or [*distributions*]{} of the tuples satisfying certain selection conditions. For example, a hotel recommendation application would like to know the average review scores for Marriott vs Hilton hotels in Google Maps; a cafe chain startup would like to know the number of Starbucks restaurants in a certain geographical region; a demographics researcher may wish to know the gender ratio of users of social networks in China etc.
Of course, such aggregate information can be obtained by entering into data sharing agreements with the location-based service providers, but this approach can often be extremely expensive, and sometimes impossible if the data owners are unwilling to share their data. Therefore, in this paper we consider the problem of obtaining [*approximate estimates*]{} of such aggregates by only querying the database via its restrictive public interface. Our goal is to minimize [*query cost*]{} (i.e., ask as few queries as possible) in an effort to adhere to the rate limits imposed by the interface, and yet make the aggregate estimations as accurate as possible.
The closest prior work is [@DKA+11]. This approach is based on generating random point queries, estimating the area of the [*Voronoi cell*]{} [@de2000computational] of the returned top-1 tuple for each query, and estimating the aggregate from these top-1 tuples by making corrections for sampling bias using the area of the Voronoi cell. However, there are several limitations of this work. First, this approach works only for LR-LBS, but does not work for LNR-LBS, and is thus inapplicable over a large variety of location based services such as WeChat and Sina Weibo that do not return precise location or distance information. Second, the approximate nature of the technique used for estimating the area of a Voronoi cell makes the overall aggregate estimation [*inherently biased*]{}. Third, the method only uses the top-1 returned tuple for each query in its calculations (the remaining $k-1$ tuples are ignored) thus leading to inefficiency in the estimation procedure. We discuss this and other related work in §\[sec:relWork\].
Outline of Technical Results
----------------------------
[**Results over LR-LBS Interfaces:**]{} We first describe our results over LR-LBS interfaces. Like [@DKA+11], our approach is also based on generating random point queries and computing the area of Voronoi cells of the returned tuples, but a key differentiator is that our approach provides an efficient yet [*precise*]{} computation of the area of Voronoi cells. This procedure is fundamentally different from the approximate procedure used in [@DKA+11] for estimating the area of Voronoi cells, and is one of the significant contributions of our paper. This leads to [*unbiased estimations*]{} of SUM and COUNT aggregates over LR-LBS interfaces; in contrast, the estimations in [@DKA+11] have inherent (and unknown) sampling bias.
Moreover, we also leverage the top-$k$ returned tuples of a query (and not just the top-1) by generalizing to the concept of a [*top-$k$ Voronoi cell*]{}, leading to significantly more efficient aggregate estimation algorithms. We also developed four different techniques for reducing the estimation error (and thereby estimation error) over LR-LBS interfaces: faster initialization, leveraging history, variance reduction through dynamic selection of query results, and a Monte Carlo method which leverages current knowledge of upper/lower bounds on the Voronoi cell without sacrificing the unbiasedness of estimations.
We combine the above ideas to produce Algorithm LR-LBS-AGG, a completely unbiased estimator for COUNT and SUM queries with or without selection conditions. We note that AVG queries can be computed as SUM/COUNT.
[**Results over LNR-LBS Interfaces:**]{} We also consider the problem of aggregate estimations over LNR-LBS interfaces. To the best of our knowledge, this is a novel problem with no prior work. Recall that such type of $k$NN interfaces only return a ranked list of the top-$k$ tuples in response to a point query, and location information for these tuples is suppressed. None of the prior work for LR-LBS interfaces can be extended to LNR-LBS interfaces. For such interfaces, we develop aggregate estimation algorithms that are not completely bias-free, but can guarantee an arbitrarily small sampling bias. The key idea here is the inference of a tuple’s Voronoi cell to an arbitrary precision level with a small number of queries from [*merely the ranks of the returned tuples*]{}.
On a related note, we also show how one can infer the position of a tuple in LNR-LBS, again at a level of arbitrary precision - a problem, while of independent interest, is also critical for enabling the estimations of aggregates that feature selection conditions on tuples’ locations (e.g., the COUNT of social network users within 10 meters of major highways). We also study a subtle extension to cases where $k > 1$; in particular we study the challenge brought by this case by the (possibly) concave nature of top-$k$ Voronoi cells, and develop an efficient algorithm to detect potential concaveness and guarantee the accuracy of the inferred Voronoi cell.
We combine the above ideas to produce Algorithm LNR-LBS-AGG, an estimator for COUNT and SUM queries with or without selection conditions. Unlike Algorithm LR-LBS-AGG, this estimator may be biased, but the bias can be controlled to any arbitrary desired precision. As before, we note that AVG queries can be computed as SUM/COUNT.
Summary of Contributions
------------------------
- Location based services have become very popular in recent years, and aggregate estimation over such “hidden” databases with their restricted $k$NN query interfaces is an important problem with numerous applications. In our work, we consider both LR-LBS (locations returned) as well as the more novel LNR-LBS (locations not returned) interfaces.
- For LR-LBS interfaces, we develop Algorithm LR-LBS-AGG for estimating COUNT and SUM aggregates with or without selection conditions. It represents a significant improvement over prior work along multiple dimensions: a novel way of precisely calculating Voronoi cells lead to completely unbiased estimations; top-$k$ returned tuples are leveraged rather than only top-1; several innovative techniques developed for reducing error and increasing efficiency.
- For LNR-LBS interfaces, we develop Algorithm LNR-LBS-AGG for estimating COUNT and SUM aggregates with or without selection conditions.This is a novel problem with no prior work. The estimated aggregates are not bias-free, but the sampling bias can be controlled to any desired precision. Among several key ideas, we show how a Voronoi cell can be inferred to an arbitrary degree of precision from merely the ranks of returned tuples to point queries.
- Our contributions also include a comprehensive set of real-world experiments. Specifically, we conducted online tests over a number of real-world LBS, e.g., Google Maps (LR-LBS) for estimating the number of Starbucks in US (and compared the results with the ground truth published by Starbucks); WeChat and Sina Weibo for estimating the percentage of male/female users in China.
Background {#sec:pre}
==========
Model of LBS {#subsec:lbsModels}
------------
A location based service (LBS) supports $k$NN queries over a database $D$ of tuples with location information. These tuples can be points of interest (e.g. Google Maps) or users (e.g. WeChat, Sina Weibo). A $k$NN query $q$ takes as input a location (e.g., longitude/latitude combination), and returns the top-$k$ nearest tuples selected and ranked according to a pre-determined ranking function. Since the only input to a query is a location, we use $q$ to also denote the query’s location without introducing ambiguity. Most of the popular LBS follow $k$NN query model. For most parts of the paper, we consider the ranking function to be Euclidean distance between the query location and each tuple’s location. Extensions to other ranking functions are discussed in §\[subsec:lbsConstraints\].
Note that tuples in an LBS system contain not only location information but other many other attributes - e.g., a POI in Google Maps includes attributes such as POI name, average review ratings etc. Depending on which attributes of a tuple are returned by the $k$NN interface - more specifically, whether the location of a tuple is returned - we can classify LBS into two main categories:
[**LR-LBS:**]{} A Location-Returned-LBS (LR-LBS) returns the precise location for each of the top-$k$ returned tuples, along with possibly other attributes. Google Maps, Bing Maps, Yahoo! Maps, etc., are prominent examples of LR-LBS, as all of them display the precise location of each returned POI. Note that some LBS may return a variant of the precise locations - e.g., Skout and Momo returns not the precise location of a tuple, but the precise distance between the query location and the tuple location. We consider such LBS to be in the LR-LBS category because, through previously studied techniques such as trilateration (e.g., [@LZG+13]), one can infer the precise location of a tuple with just 3 queries.
[**LNR-LBS:**]{} A Location-Not-Returned-LBS (LNR-LBS), on the other hand, does [*not*]{} return tuple locations - i.e., only other attributes such as name, review rating, etc., are returned. This category is more prevalent among location based social networks (presumably because of potential privacy concerns on precise user locations). Examples here include WeChat, which returns attributes such as name, gender, etc., for each of the top-$k$ users, but not the precise location/distance. Other examples include Sina Weibo, WeChat, etc., which feature a similar query return semantics.
[**Common Interface Features and Limitations:**]{} Generally speaking, there are two ways through which an LBS (either LR- or LNR-LBS) supports a $k$NN query. One is an interactive web or API interface which allows a location to be explicitly specified as a latitude/longitude pair. Google Maps is an example to this end. Another common way is for the LBS (e.g., as a mobile app) to directly retrieve the query location from a positioning service (such as GPS, WiFi or Cell towers) and automatically issue a $k$NN query accordingly. In the second case, there is no explicit mechanism to enter the location information. Nonetheless, it is important to note that, even in this case, we have the ability to issue a query from any arbitrary location [*without*]{} having to physically travel to that location. All mobile OS have debugging features that allow arbitrary location to be used as the output of the positioning (e.g., GPS) service.
Many LBS also impose certain interface restrictions: One is the aforementioned top-$k$ restriction (i.e., only the $k$ nearest tuples are returned). Another common one is a [*query rate limit*]{} - i.e., many LBS limit the maximum number of $k$NN queries one can issue per unit of time. For example, by default Google Maps allows 10,000 location queries per day while Sina Weibo allows only 150 queries per hour. This is an important constraint for our purpose because it makes the [*query-issuing*]{} process the bottleneck for aggregate estimation. To understand why, note that even with the generous limit provided by Google Maps, one can issue only 7 queries per minute - this 8.6 second per query overhead[^1] is orders of magnitude higher than any offline processing overhead that may be required by the aggregate estimation algorithm. Thus, this interface limitation essentially makes [*query cost*]{} the No. 1 performance metric to optimize for aggregate estimation. An LBS might impose other, more subtle constraints - e.g., a maximum coverage limit which forbids tuples far away (say more than 5 miles away) from a query location to be returned. We shall discuss about these constraints in §\[subsec:lbsConstraints\].
Voronoi Cells
-------------
[*Voronoi cell*]{} [@de2000computational] is a key geometry concept used extensively by our algorithms developed in the paper. Thus, we introduce this concept here as part of the preliminaries. Consider each tuple $t \in D$ as a point on a Euclidean plane bounded by a box $B$ (which covers all tuples in $D$). We have the following definition.
\[Voronoi Cell\] Given a tuple $t \in D$, the Voronoi cell of $t$, denoted by $V(t)$, is the set of points on the $B$-bounded plane that are closer to $t$ than any other tuple in $D$.
Note that the $B$-bound ensures that each Voronoi cell is a finite region. The Voronoi cells of different tuples are mutually exclusive - i.e., the [*Voronoi diagram*]{} is the subdivision of the plane into regions, each corresponding to all query locations that would return a certain tuple as the nearest neighbor[^2].
For the purposes of our paper, we define an extension of the Voronoi cell concept to accommodate the top-$k$ (when $k > 1$) query return semantics. Specifically, given a tuple $t \in D$, we define the [*top-$k$ Voronoi cell*]{} of $t$, denoted by $V_k(t)$, as the set of query locations on the plane that return $t$ as one of the top-$k$ results. There are four important observations about this concept:
First, the top-$k$ Voronoi cells for different tuples are no longer mutually exclusive. Each location $l$ belongs to exactly $k$ top-$k$ Voronoi cells corresponding to the top-$k$ tuples returned by query over $l$. Second, our concept of top-$k$ Voronoi cells is [*fundamentally different*]{} from the $k$-th ordered Voronoi cells in geometry [@de2000computational] - each of which is formed by points with the exact same $k$ closest tuples. The difference is illustrated in Figure \[fig:topKVoronoiDiagrams\] - while each colored region is a $k$-th ordered Voronoi cell, a top-$k$ Voronoi cell may cover multiple regions with different colors. For example, the top-2 Voronoi cell for tuple A is marked by a red border and consists of two different $k$-th ordered Voronoi cells (AB and AE).
Third, while both top-1 Voronoi cells and $k$-th order Voronoi cells are guaranteed to be convex [@de2000computational], the same does not hold for top-$k$ Voronoi cells when $k > 1$. For example, from Figure \[fig:topKVoronoiDiagrams\] we can see that the aforementioned top-$2$ Voronoi cell for tuple A is concave. Fourth, a top-$k$ Voronoi cell tend to contain many more edges than a top-1 Voronoi cell. As we shall discuss later in the paper, the larger number of edges and the potential concaveness makes computing the top-$k$ Voronoi cell of a tuple $t$ more difficult.
Problem Definition
------------------
In this paper, we address the problem of aggregate estimations over LBS. Specifically, we consider aggregate queries of the form <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Select Aggr($t$) From $D$ Where</span> [*Cond*]{} where <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Aggr</span> is an aggregate function such as SUM, COUNT and AVG that can be evaluated over one or more attributes of $t$, and [*Cond*]{} is the selection condition. Examples include the COUNT of users in WeChat or AVG rating of restaurants in Texas at Google Maps.
There are two important notes regarding the selection condition [*Cond*]{}. First, we support any selection condition that can be independently evaluated over a single tuple - i.e., it is possible to determine whether a tuple $t$ satisfies [*Cond*]{} based on nothing but $t$. Second, for both LR- and LNR-LBS, we support the specification of a tuple’s location as part of [*Cond*]{} - even when such a location is not returned, like in LNR-LBS. This is possible thanks to what we shall discuss in §\[subsec:tuplePositionComputation\] - i.e., even with LNR-LBS, one can derive the location of a tuple to arbitrary precision after issuing a small number of queries. As such, we support aggregates such as the percentage of female WeChat users in Washington, DC).
In most part of the technical sections, we focus on aggregates without selection conditions - the straightforward extensions to various types of selection conditions will be discussed in §\[sec:ext\].
[**Performance Measures:**]{} The performance of an aggregate estimation algorithm is measured in terms of efficiency and accuracy. Given the query-rate limit enforced by all LBS, the efficiency is measured by [*query cost*]{} - i.e. the number of queries and/or API calls that the algorithm issues to LBS. Often, we are given a fixed budget (based on the rate limits) and hence designing an efficient algorithm that generates accurate estimates within the budgetary constraints is crucial. The accuracy of an estimation $\tilde{\theta}$ of an aggregate $\theta$ could be measured by the standard measure of [*relative error* ]{} $|\tilde{\theta} - \theta|/\theta$. Note that, for any sampling-based approach (like ours), the relative error is determined by two factors: [*bias*]{}, i.e. $|E(\tilde{\theta} - \theta)|$ , and [*variance*]{} of $\tilde{\theta}$. The mean squared error, MSE of the estimation is computed as MSE = bias$^2$ + variance.
An interesting question often arises in practice is how we can determine the relative error achieved by our estimation. If the population variance is known, then one can apply standard statistics techniques to compute the confidence interval of aggregate estimations[@freedman2009statistical]. Absence of such knowledge, a common practice is to approximate the population variance with [*sample*]{} variance, which can be computed from the samples we use to generate the final estimation and use Bessel’s correction [@freedman2009statistical] to correct the result.
LR-LBS-AGG {#sec:lrlbsagg}
==========
In this section, we develop LR-LBS-AGG, our algorithm for generating unbiased SUM and COUNT estimations over an LR-LBS query interface. Specifically, we start with introducing our key idea of precisely computing the (top-$k$) Voronoi cell of a given tuple, which enables the unbiased aggregate estimations. While this idea guarantees unbiasedness, it may require a large number of queries per (randomized) estimation, leading to a large estimation variance (and therefore, error) when the query budget is limited. Hence we develop four techniques for reducing the estimation error while [*maintaining*]{} the complete unbiasedness of aggregate estimations. Finally, we combine all ideas to produce Algorithm LR-LBS-AGG at the end of this section.
Key Idea: Precisely Compute Voronoi Cells {#sec:lrk}
-----------------------------------------
[**Reduction to Computing Voronoi Cells:**]{} We start by describing a baseline design which illustrates why the problem of aggregate estimations over an LBS’s $k$NN interface ultimately boils down to computing the volume of the Voronoi cell corresponding to a tuple $t$. As an example, consider the estimation of COUNT(\*) (over a given region) through an LR-LBS with a top-1 interface.
We start by choosing a location $q$ uniformly at random from the region, and then issue a query at $q$. Let $t$ be the tuple returned by $q$. Suppose that we can compute the Voronoi cell of $t$ (as defined in §\[sec:pre\]), say $V(t)$. A key observation here is that the sampling probability of $t$, i.e., the probability for the above-described randomized process to return $t$, is exactly $p(t) = \frac{|V(t)|}{|V_0|}$ where $|V(t)|$ and $|V_0|$ are the volume of $V(t)$ and the entire region, respectively. Note that knowledge of $p(t)$ directly leads to a completely unbiased estimation of COUNT(\*): $r = 1/p(t)$, because $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Exp}(r) = \sum_{t \in D} p(t) \cdot \frac{1}{p(t)} = |D|, \label{equ:uce}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathrm{Exp}(\cdot)$ is the expected value of the estimation (taken over the randomness of the estimation process), and $|D|$ is the total number of tuples in the database. From (\[equ:uce\]), one can see that every SUM and COUNT aggregate we support can be estimated without bias - the only change required is on the numerator of estimation. Instead of having 1 as in the COUNT(\*) case, it should be the evaluation of the aggregate over $t$ - e.g., if we need to estimation SUM($A_1$) where $A_1$ is an attribute, then the numerator should be $t[A_1]$, i.e., the value of $A_1$ for $t$. If the aggregate is COUNT with a selection condition, then the numerator should be either 1 if $t$ satisfies the condition, or 0 if it does not. One can see from the above discussions that, essentially, the problem of enabling unbiased SUM and COUNT estimations is reduced to that of [*precisely*]{} computing the volume of $V(t)$, i.e., the Voronoi cell of a given tuple $t$.
[**Computing Voronoi Cells:**]{} For computing the Voronoi cell of a given tuple, a nice feature of the LR-LBS interface is that it returns the precise location of every returned tuple. Clearly, if we can somehow “collect” all tuples with Voronoi cells adjacent to that of $t$, then we can precisely compute the Voronoi cell of $t$ based on the locations of these tuples (and $t$). As such, the key challenges here become: (1) how do we collect these tuples and (2) how do we know if/when we have collected all tuples with adjacent Voronoi cells to $t$? Both challenges are addressed by the following theorem which forms the foundation of design of Algorithm LR-LBS-AGG.
\[thm:lr\] Given a tuple $t \in D$ and a subset of tuples $D^\prime \subseteq D$ such that $t \in D^\prime$, the Voronoi cell of $t$ defined according to $D^\prime$, represented by $P^\prime$, is the same as that according to the entire dataset $D$, denoted by $P$, if and only if for all vertices $v$ of $P^\prime$, all tuples returned by the nearest neighbor query issued at $v$ over $D$ belong to $D^\prime$.
First, note that there must be $P \subseteq P^\prime$, because for a given location $q$, if there is already a tuple $t^\prime$ in $D^\prime$ that is closer to $q$ than $t$, then there must at least one tuple in $D$ that is closer to $q$ than $t$. Second, if $P \neq P^\prime$ (i.e., $P \subset P^\prime$), then there must at least one vertex of $P^\prime$, say $v$, that falls outside $P$. i.e. there must exist a tuple $t_0 \in (D \backslash D^\prime)$ that is closer to $v$ than all tuples in $D^\prime$.
[**Example 1:**]{} Figure \[fig:thm1\_illustration\] provides an illustration for Theorem \[thm:lr\]. In order to compute the Voronoi cell of the tuple corresponding to the red dot, it suffices to know the location of the adjacent tuples. Since each Voronoi edge is a perpendicular bisector between the adjacent tuples, the entire Voronoi cell can be computed as the convex shape induced by the intersections of the edges.
Theorem \[thm:lr\] answers both challenges outlined above: it tells us when we have collected all “adjacent” tuples - when all vertices of $t$’s Voronoi cell computed from the collected tuples return only collected tuples. It also tells us how to collect more “adjacent” tuples when not all of them have been collected - any vertex which fails the test naturally returns some tuples that have not been collected yet, adding to our collection and starting the next round of tests.
According to the theorem, a simple algorithm for constructing the exact Voronoi cell for $t$ is as follows: We start with $D^\prime = \{t\}$. Now the Voronoi cell is the entire region (say an extremely large rectangle). We issue queries corresponding to its four vertices. If any query returns a point we have not seen yet - i.e., not in $D^\prime$ - we append it to $D^\prime$, recompute the Voronoi cell, and repeat the process. Otherwise, if all queries corresponding to vertices of the Voronoi cell return points in $D^\prime$, we have obtained the real Voronoi cell for $t \in D$. One can see that the query complexity of this algorithm is $O(n)$, where $n$ is the number of points in the database $D$, because each query issued either confirms a vertex of the final Voronoi cell (which has at most $n - 1$ vertices), or returns us a new point we have never seen before (there are at most $n - 1$ of these too). It is easy to see that the bound is tight - as one can always construct a Voronoi cell that has $n - 1$ edges and therefore requires $\Omega(n)$ top-1 queries to discover (after all, each such query returns only 1 tuple). An example here is when $t$ is in the center of a circle, on which the other $n - 1$ points are located. Algorithm \[alg:lrlbsagg\_baseline\] shows the pseudocode of the baseline approach which we improve in Section \[sec:rer\].
\[alg:lrlbsagg\_baseline\] query budget is not exhausted $q$ = location chosen uniformly at random; $t$ = query($q$) $V(t) = V_0$; $D'=\{t\}$ [**repeat**]{} till $D'$ does not change between iterations [**for**]{} each vertex $v$ of $V(t)$: $D'=D'\cup$ query$(v)$ Update $V(t)$ from $D'$ Produce aggregate estimation using samples
[**Example 2:**]{} Figure \[fig:lr\_lbs\_agg\_illstration\] provides a simple run-through of the algorithm for a dataset with 5 tuples $\{t_1, \ldots, t_5\}$. Suppose we wish to compute $V(t_4)$. Initially, we set $D'=\{t_4\}$ and $V(t_4)=V_0$, the entire bounding box. We issue query $q_1$ that returns tuple $t_5$ and hence $D'=\{t_4, t_5\}$. We now obtain a new Voronoi edge that is the perpendicular bisector between $t_4$ and $t_5$. The Voronoi cell after step 1 is highlighted in light grey. In step 2, we issue query $q_2$ that returns $t_4$ resulting in no update. In step 3, we issue query $q_3$ that returns $t_3$. $D'=\{t_3, t_4, t_5\}$ and we obtain a new Voronoi edge as the perpendicular bisector between $t_3$ and $t_4$ depicted in dark medium gray. In step 4, we issue query $q_4$ that returns $t_2$ resulting in the final Voronoi edge depicted in dark grey. Further queries over the vertices for $V(t_4)$ does not result in new tuples concluding the invocation of the algorithm.
[**Extension to $k > 1$:**]{} Interestingly, no change is required to the above algorithm when we consider the top-$k$ Voronoi cell rather than the traditional, i.e., top-1 Voronoi cell. To understand why, note that Theorem \[thm:lr\] directly extends to top-$k$ Voronoi cells - as a top-$k$ Voronoi computed from $D^\prime$ still must completely cover that for $D$; and any vertex of the top-$k$ Voronoi from $D^\prime$ which is outside that from $D$ must return at least one tuple outside $D^\prime$. We further describe how to leverage $k>1$ in Sections \[subsec:lrkgt1\] and \[subsec:lnrkgt1\].
Error Reduction {#sec:rer}
---------------
Before describing the various error reduction techniques we develop for aggregate estimations over LR-LBS, we would like to first note that, while we use the term “error reduction” as the title of this subsection, some of the techniques described below indeed focus on making the computation of a Voronoi cell more efficient. The reason why we call all of them “error reduction” is because of the inherent relationship between efficiency and estimation error - if the Voronoi-cell computation becomes more efficient, then we can do so for more samples, leading to a larger sample size and ultimately, a lower estimation error (which is inversely proportional to the square root of sample size[@freedman2009statistical]).
### Faster Initialization {#sec:fip}
A key observation from the design in §\[sec:lrk\] is its bottleneck: the initialization process. At the beginning, we know nothing about the database other than (1) the location of tuple $t$, and (2) a large bounding box corresponding to the area of interest for the aggregate query. Naturally, $D^\prime = \{t\}$, leading to the initial Voronoi cell being the bounding box, and our first four queries being the corners of these bounding boxes. Of course, the tentative Voronoi cell will quickly close in to the real one with speed close to a binary search - i.e., the average-case query cost is at $\log$ scale of the bounding box size. Nonetheless, the initialization process can still be very costly, especially when the bounding box is large.
To address this problem, we develop a [*faster initialization*]{} technique which features a simple idea: Instead of starting with $D^\prime = \{t\}$, we insert four fake tuples into $D^\prime$, say $D^\prime = \{t, t^\mathrm{F}_1, \ldots, t^\mathrm{F}_4\}$, where $t^\mathrm{F}_1$, $\ldots$, $t^\mathrm{F}_4$ form a bounding box around $t$. The size of the bounding box should be conservatively large - even though a wrongly set size will not jeopardize the accuracy of our computation - as we shall show next.
By computing the initial Voronoi cell from $D^\prime$ and then issue queries corresponding to its vertices, there are two possible outcomes: One is that these queries return enough real tuples (besides $t$, of course) that, after excluding the fake ones from $D^\prime$, we still get a bounded Voronoi cell for $t$. One can see that, in this case, we can simply continue the computation while having saved a significant number of initialization queries. The other possible outcome, however, is when the bounding box is set too small, and we do not have enough real tuples to “bound” $t$ with a real Voronoi cell. Specifically, in the extreme-case scenario, all four vertices of the initial Voronoi cell could return $t$ itself. In this case, we simply revert back to the original design, wasting nothing but four queries.
One can see that the faster initialization process still guarantees the exact computation of a tuple’s Voronoi cell. It has the potential to save a large amount of initialization queries in the average-case scenario, while in the worst case, it wastes at most four queries. Algorithm \[alg:fast\_init\] provides the pseudocode for faster initialization strategy.
\[alg:fast\_init\] $t$; $V(t)$ $D'=\{t, t_1^F, t_2^F, t_3^F, t_4^F\}$; Update $V(t)$ based on $D'$ all queries over vertices of $V(t)$ return $t$, [**then return**]{} $V_0$ till $D'$ does not change between iterations [**for**]{} each vertex $v$ of $V(t)$: $D'=D'\cup$ query$(v)$ Update $V(t)$ from $D'$ $V(t)$
[**Example 3:**]{} Figures \[fig:fast\_init\_succ\] and \[fig:fast\_init\_fail\] show two different scenarios where the strategy is successful and not successful respectively based on whether the bounding box due to fake tuples is conservatively large. Given a small dataset with tuples $\{t_1, \ldots, t_5\}$, we initialize them with a bounding box corresponding to fake tuples $\{f_1, \ldots, f_4\}$. In Figure \[fig:fast\_init\_succ\], the initial bounding box is tight enough and results in the computation of the precise $V(t_4)$ with much lower query cost (i.e. only tuples $\{t_3, t_5\}$ are visited as against tuples $\{t_2, t_4, t_5\}$ for the example of Algorithm \[alg:lrlbsagg\_baseline\]. On the other hand, if the bounding box is not tight (as in Figure \[fig:fast\_init\_fail\]), then queries over all the vertices of the bounding box return $t_4$. We then revert back to the original bounding box $V_0$ that covers the entire region.
### Leverage history on Voronoi-cell computation {#sec:lhi}
Another natural optimization is to leverage the information that is gleaned from computing the Voronoi cells of past tuples to compute a tighter initial Voronoi cell. Recall that our algorithm to compute Voronoi cell of a tuple $t$ (i.e $V(t)$), using Theorem \[thm:lr\] starts with an initial Voronoi cell that is an extremely large bounding box that covers the entire plane that then converges to $V(t)$. In the process of computing this Voronoi cell, our algorithm retrieved additional new tuples (by issuing queries for each vertex of the bounding box). Notice that for a LBS with static tuples (such as POIs in Google Maps), the results of location query ordered by distance remains static. Hence it is not necessary to restart every iteration of the algorithm with the same large bounding box. Specifically, when computing the Voronoi cell for the next tuple, we could leverage history by starting with a “tighter” initial bounding box whose vertices are the set of tuples that we have seen so far. In other words, we reuse the tuples that we have seen so far and make them as input to further rounds. Notice that this approach remains the same for both $k=1$ and $k>1$. Since the location of each tuple in top-$k$ are returned in LR-LBS, each of these tuples could be leveraged. As we see more tuples, the initial Voronoi cell becomes more granular resulting in substantial savings in query cost. Algorithm \[alg:leverage\_history\] provides the pseudocode for the strategy. While the pseudocode uses the simple perpendicular bisector half plane approach[@de2000computational], it could also use more sophisticated approaches such as Fortune’s algorithm[@de2000computational] to compute the bounding box around tuple $t$ using the tuples from historic queries.
\[alg:leverage\_history\] $t$ and $H$ (set of tuples obtained from historic queries) Bounding box $V'(t)$ $V'(t) = V_0$ each tuple $h \in H$ Update $V'(t)$ with perpendicular bisector between $h$ and $t$ $V'(t)$ with the tightest bounding box around $t$
[**Example 4:**]{} As part of computing $V(t_4)$ (see Example 1), we have the locations of $t_2, \ldots, t_5$. Using this information, we can compute the initial bounding box for $t_2$ (shown in red around $t_2$ in Figure \[fig:leverage\_history\]) [*offline*]{} - i.e. without issuing any queries.
### Variance reduction with larger $k$ {#subsec:lrkgt1}
When the system has $k > 1$, we can of course still choose to use the top-1 Voronoi cell as if only the top result is returned. Or we can choose from any of the top-$h$ Voronoi cells as long as $h \leq k$. While intuitively it might appear that using all $k$ returned tuples is definitely better than using just the top-1, the theoretical analysis suggests otherwise - indeed, whether top-1 or top-$h$ Voronoi cell is better depends on the exact aggregate being estimated - specifically, whether the distribution of the attribute being aggregated is better “aligned” with the size distribution of top-1 or top-$h$ Voronoi cells. To see why, simply consider an extreme-case scenario where the aggregate being estimated is AVG(Salary), and the salary of each user (tuple) is exactly proportional to the size of its top-1 Voronoi cell. In this case, nothing beats using the top-1 Voronoi cells as doing so produces zero variance and thus zero estimation error.
Having said that, however, many aggregates can indeed be better estimated using top-$h$ Voronoi cells, because the sizes of these top-$h$ cells are more uniform than those of the top-1 cells, which can vary extremely widely (see Figure \[fig:starbucksVoronoiDiag\] in the experiments section for an example), while many real-world aggregates are also more uniformly distributed than the top-1 cell volume (again, see experiments for justification). But simply increasing $h$ also introduces an undesired consequence: recall from §\[sec:pre\] that the larger $h$ is, the more “complex” the top-$h$ Voronoi cell becomes - in other words, the more queries we have to spend in order to pin down the exact volume of the Voronoi cell.
Thus, the key is to make a proper tradeoff between the benefit received (i.e., smaller variance per sample) and the cost incurred (i.e., larger query cost per sample). Our main idea is a combination of two methods: leveraging history in §\[sec:lhi\] and upper/lower bound approximation in §\[sec:lub\]. Specifically, for each of the $k$ returned tuples, we perform the following process:
Consider $t_i$ returned as the No. $i$ result. We need to decide which version of the Voronoi cell definition to use for $t_i$. The answer can be anywhere from 1 to $k$. To make the determination, for all $h \in [2, k]$, we compute $\lambda_h(t_i)$, the upper bound on the volume of the top-$k$ Voronoi cell of $t_i$, as computed from all historically retrieved tuples. Then, we choose the largest $h$ which satisfies $\lambda_h(t_i) \leq \lambda_0$, where $\lambda_0$ is a pre-determined threshold (the intuitive meaning of which shall be elaborated next). Let the chosen value be $h(t_i)$. If none of $h \in [2, k]$ satisfies the threshold, we take $h(t_i) = 1$. Then, if $h(t_i) \leq i$, we compute the top-$h$ Voronoi cell for $t_i$. The final estimation from the $k$ returned results becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{t_i: h(t_i) \leq i \leq k} \frac{Q(t_i)}{|V_h(t_i)|} \label{equ:es2}\end{aligned}$$ for any SUM or COUNT query $Q$, where $|V_h(t_i)|$ is the volume for the top-$h$ Voronoi cell of $t_i$.
We now explain the intuition behind the above approach, specifically the threshold $\lambda_0$. First, note that if the top-$h$ (say top-1) Voronoi cell of $t_i$ is already large, then there is no need to further increase $h$. The reason can be observed from the above-described justification of variance reduction - note that a large top-1 Voronoi cell translates to a large selection probability $p$ - i.e., a small $1/p$ which adds little to the overall variance. Further increasing $h$ not only contributes little to variance reduction, but might actually increase the variance if $1/p$ is already below the average value.
Second, admittedly, $\lambda_h(t_i)$ is only an upper-bound estimate - i.e., even though we showed above that an already large top-$h$ Voronoi cell does not need to have $h$ further increased, there remains the possibility that $\lambda_h(t_i)$ is large because of an overly loose bound (from history), rather than the real volume of the Voronoi cell. Nonetheless, note that this is still a negative signal for using such a large $h$ - as it means that we have not thoroughly explored the neighborhood of $t_i$. In other words, we may need to issue many queries in order to reduce our estimation (or computation) of $|V_h(t_i)|$ from $\lambda_h(t_i)$ to the correct value. As such, we may still want to avoid using such a large $h$ in order to reduce the query cost.
While the above explanation is heuristic in nature it is important to note that, regardless of how we set $h(t_i)$, the estimation we produce for SUM and COUNT aggregates in (\[equ:es2\]) is always unbiased.
\[alg:variance\_reduction\] $H$; [**Output:**]{} Aggregate estimate from all top-$k$ tuples $q$ = location chosen uniformly at random each tuple $t_i$ returned from query($q$) $h(t_i)$ = $\max \{h | h \in [2, k], \lambda_h(t_i) \leq \lambda_0 \}$ $h(t_i) = 1$ if no $h$ satisfied the condition $\lambda_h(t_i) \leq \lambda_0$ Generate estimate for $t_i$ using Equation \[equ:es2\]
### Upper/lower bounds on Voronoi-cell {#sec:lub}
Note that in the entire process of Voronoi-cell computation (barring the very first step of the faster initialization idea discussed in §\[sec:fip\]), we maintain a tentative polygon that covers the entire real Voronoi cell - i.e., an upper bound on its volume. What often arises in practice, especially when computing top-$k$ Voronoi cells (which tend to have many edges), is that even though the bounding polygon is very close to the real Voronoi cell in volume, it has far fewer edges - meaning we still need to issue many more queries to pin down the exact Voronoi cell.
The key idea we develop here is to avoid such query costs [*without*]{} sacrificing the accuracy of our aggregate estimations. Specifically, consider a simple Monte Carlo approach which chooses uniformly at random a point from the current bounding polygon, and then issues a query from that point. If the query returns $t$ - i.e., it is in the Voronoi cell of $t$, we stop. Otherwise, we repeat this process. Interestingly, the number of trials it takes to reach a point that returns $t$, say $r$, is an unbiased estimation of $|V^\prime(t)|/|V(t)|$, where $|V^\prime(t)|$ and $|V(t)|$ are the volumes of the bounding polygon and the real Voronoi cell of $t$, respectively. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{Exp}(r) &= \sum^{\infty}_{i=1} \left[i \cdot \left(1 - \frac{|V(t)|}{|V^\prime(t)|}\right)^{i-1} \cdot \frac{|V(t)|}{|V^\prime(t)|}\right] =
\frac{|V^\prime(t)|}{|V(t)|}.\end{aligned}$$
In other words, we can maintain the unbiasedness of our estimation without issuing the many more queries required to pin down the exact Voronoi cell. Instead, when $V^\prime(t)$ is close enough to $V(t)$, we can simply use call upon above-described method which, in most likelihood, requires just one more query to produce an unbiased SUM or COUNT estimation. For example, we can simply multiply the number of trials $r$ by $|V_0|/|V^\prime(t)|$, where $|V_0|$ is the volume of the entire region under consideration, to produce an unbiased estimation for COUNT(\*). Other SUM and COUNT aggregates can be estimated without bias in analogy.
Before concluding this idea, there is one more optimization we can use here: a lower bound on the top-$k$ Voronoi cell of $t$. In the following, we first discuss how to use such a lower bound to further reduce query cost, and then describe the idea for computing such a lower bound. Note that once we have knowledge of a region $R$ that is covered entirely by the real (top-$k$) Voronoi cell, if in the above process, we randomly choose a point $q$ (from $V^\prime(t)$) which happens to belong in $R$, then we no longer need to actually query $q$ - instead, we immediately know that $q$ must belong to $V(t)$ and can produce an unbiased estimation accordingly. This is the cost saving produced by knowledge of a lower bound $R$.
To understand how we construct this lower bound region, a key understanding is that, at anytime during the execution of our algorithm, we have tested certain vertices of $V^\prime(t)$ which are already confirmed to be part of $V(t)$. Consider such a vertex $v$. Let $C(v, t)$ be a circle with $v$ being the center and the distance between $t$ and $v$ being the radius. Note that we are guaranteed to have [*observed all tuples*]{} within $C(v, t)$. This essentially leads to a lower-bound estimation of $V(t)$. Specifically, a point $q$ is in this lower-bound region if and only if $C(q, t)$, i.e., a circle centered on $q$ with radius being the distance between $q$ and $t$, is entirely covered by the union of $C(v, t)$ for all vertices $v$ of $V^\prime(t)$ that have been confirmed to be within $V(t)$. As such, for any $q$ in this region, we can save the query on it in the above process.
[**Example 5:**]{} The upper bound $V'(t_4)$ of $V(t_4)$ after Step 3 in the Example 2 (i.e. run-through of Algorithm LR-LBS-AGG-Baseline) is shown in Figure \[fig:upper\_lower\_bounds\] as a quadrilateral with red edges. The three lower vertices of $V'(t_4)$ are guaranteed to be in $V(t_4)$ using the criteria described above and hence the polygon induced by them provides a lower bound estimate for $V(t_4)$.
Algorithm LR-LBS-AGG
--------------------
By combining the baseline idea for precisely computing the Voronoi cells with the 4 techniques for error reduction, we can design an efficient algorithm LR-LBS-AGG for aggregate estimation over LR-LBS. Algorithm \[alg:lrlbsagg\] shows the pseudocode for LR-LBS-AGG.
\[alg:lrlbsagg\] query budget is not exhausted $q$ = location chosen uniformly at random [**for**]{} each tuple $t_i$ in query($q$) Compute optimal $h$ for $t_i$ Construct initial $V_h(t_i)$ using Algorithms \[alg:fast\_init\] and \[alg:leverage\_history\] $D'$= vertices of $V_h(t_i)$ [**repeat**]{} till $D'$ is not updated or Voronoi bound is tight [**for**]{} each vertex $v$ of $V_h(t_i)$: $D'=D'\cup$ query$(v)$ Update $V_h(t_i)$ and $V'_h(t_i)$ from $D'$ Produce aggregate estimation using samples
LNR-LBS-AGG {#sec:lnrlbsagg}
===========
Voronoi Cell Computation: Key Idea {#subsec:lnrk}
----------------------------------
We now consider the case where only a ranked order of points are returned - but not their locations. We shall start with the case of $k = 1$, and then extend to the general case of $k > 1$.
We start by defining a primitive operation of “binary search” as follows. Consider the objective of finding the Voronoi cell of a tuple $t$ in the database. Given any location $c_1$ and $c_2$ (not necessarily occupied by any tuple), where $c_1$ returns $t$, consider the half-line from $c_1$ passing through $c_2$. Since a Voronoi cell is convex and $c_1$ resides within the Voronoi cell, this half-line has one and only one intersection with the Voronoi cell - which is associated with one or two edges of the Voronoi cell. We define the primitive operation of [*binary search*]{} for given $c_1, c_2$ to be the binary search process of finding one Voronoi edge associated with the intersection. Please refer to Appendix \[sec:appendixBSearch\] for the detailed design of this process.
Naturally, such a binary search process is associated with an error bound on the precision of the derived edge. For example, we can set an upper bound $\epsilon$ on the maximum distance between any point on the real Voronoi edge (i.e., a line segment) and its closest point on the derived edge, which we refer to as the [*maximum edge error*]{}, and use $\epsilon$ as the objective of the binary search operation. One can see that the number of queries required for this binary search is proportional to $\log(1/\epsilon)$. See Appendix \[sec:appendixBSearch\] for exact query cost.
Given this definition, we now show that one can discover the Voronoi cell of $t$ (up to whatever precision level afforded to us by the binary search operation) with a query complexity of $O(m \log(1/\epsilon))$, where $m$ is the number of edges for the Voronoi cell. Here is the corresponding process:
We start with one query at point $q$ which returns $t$. Then, we construct $4$ points that bound $q$ (say $q_1: \langle x(q)-1,y(q)\rangle$, $q_2: \langle x(q)+1,y(q)\rangle$, $q_3: \langle x(q),y(q)-1\rangle$, $q_4: \langle x(q),y(q)+1\rangle$, where $x(\cdot)$ and $y(\cdot)$ are the two dimensions, e.g., longitude and latitude, of a location, respectively) and call upon the binary search operation to find the corresponding Voronoi edges intercepting the half lines from $q$ to $q_1, \ldots, q_4$, respectively. One can see that, no matter what the discovered edges might be, they must form a closed polygon[^3] which we can use to initiate the testing process described in §\[sec:lrk\]. If all vertices pass the test, then we have already obtained the Voronoi cell of $t$. Otherwise, for each vertex (say $v$) that fails the test, we perform the binary search operation on the location of $v$ to discover another Voronoi edge. We repeatedly do so until all vertices pass the test - at which time we have obtained the real Voronoi cell - subject to whatever error bound specified for the binary search process (as described above).
To compute the query cost of this process, a key observation is that each call of the binary search process after the initial step (i.e., a call caused by a vertex failing the test) increases the number of discovered (real) edges for the Voronoi cell by 1. Thus, the number of times we have to call the binary search process is $O(m)$, leading to the overall query-cost complexity of $O(m \log(1/\epsilon))$. For the estimation error, we have the following theorem.
The estimation bias for COUNT(\*) is at most $$\begin{aligned}
|E(\tilde{\theta} - \theta)| \leq \sum_{t \in D} \frac{\epsilon^2 - 2 \cdot d(t) \cdot \epsilon}{(d(t) - \epsilon)^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $d(t)$ is the nearest distance between $t$ and another tuple in $D$, and $\epsilon$ is the aforementioned maximum edge error.
Estimation bias for other aggregates can be derived accordingly (given the distribution of the attribute being aggregated). One can make two observations from the theorem: First, the smaller maximum edge error $\epsilon$ is or the large inter-tuple distance $d(t)$ is, the smaller the bias will be. Second, we can make the bias arbitrarily small by shrinking $\epsilon$ - which leads to a log-scale increase of the query cost.
Algorithm \[alg:lnrlbsagg\] shows the pseudocode for LNR-LBS-AGG that also utilizes some of the error reduction ideas from §\[sec:rer\].
\[alg:lnrlbsagg\] query budget is not exhausted $q$ = location chosen uniformly at random; $t$=query($q$) Construct four points $q_1, \ldots , q_4$ bounding $t$ $e_i$ = Binary-Search($q_i$) $\forall i \in [1, 4]$ $V(t)$ = closed polygon from Voronoi edges $e_1, \ldots, e_4$ $D'$= vertices of $V(t)$ [**repeat**]{} till $D'$ is not updated [**for**]{} each vertex $v$ of $V(t)$: $D'=D'\cup$ query$(v)$ Find Voronoi edges $\forall d \in D'$ and update $V(t)$ Produce aggregate estimation using samples
[**Example 6:**]{} We consider the same dataset as Example 1, except that in LNR-LBS the locations of tuples are not returned. Figure \[fig:lnr\_lbs\_agg\_illstration\] shows a run-through of the algorithm by which one of the Voronoi edges of $V(t_4)$ is identified. Initially, the bounding box contains the entire region, i.e. $V_0$. $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ are two lines starting from $t_4$ constructed as per Algorithm \[alg:bsearch\]. $p_1$ and $p_2$ are mid points of small line segments on $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ such that points on either side of them return different tuples when queried. The new estimated Voronoi edge is computed as the line segment connecting $p_1$ and $p_2$. Please refer to Appendix-\[sec:appendixBSearch\] for further details.
{height="35mm" width="50mm"}
Extension to $k > 1$ {#subsec:lnrkgt1}
--------------------
A complication brought by the rank-only return semantics is the extension to cases with $k > 1$. Specifically, recall from §\[sec:pre\] that the (extended) top-$k$ Voronoi cell might be [*concave*]{} when $k > 1$. In the case LR-LBS case, this does not cause any problem because, at any moment, our derived top-$k$ Voronoi cell is computed from the exact tuple locations of all observed tuples and (therefore) completely covers the real top-$k$ Voronoi cell. For LNR-LBS case, however, this is no longer the case: Since we unveil the top-$k$ Voronoi cell edge after edge, if we happen to come across one of the “concave edges” early, then we may settle on a sub-region of the real top-$k$ Voronoi cell. Figure \[fig:lnrlbsaggConcave\] demonstrates an example for such a scenario.
Fortunately, there is an efficient fix to this situation. To understand the fix, a key observation is that any “inward” (i.e., concave) vertex of a top-$k$ Voronoi cell, say that of $t$, must be at a position with equal distance to three tuples, one of them being $t$ (Note: this might not hold for “outward” vertices). This property is proved in the following lemma.
Any inward vertex of the top-$k$ Voronoi cell of $t$ must be of equal distance to $t$ and two other tuples in the database.
Consider a partition of the entire region into [*base cells*]{}, each of which returns a different combination of top-$k$ tuples. One can see that the top-$k$ Voronoi cell of $t$ must be the union of one or more adjacent base cells. In addition, for general positioning (i.e., barring special positions such as bounding edges, etc.), any vertex of the top-$k$ Voronoi cell is formed by three edges (of some base cells in the partition). Now consider the three edges which form an inward vertex $v$, denoted by $e_1, e_2, e_3$. Note that, given $v$ is inward, one of the three edges must be inside the top-$k$ Voronoi cell of $t$. Let this edge be $e_1$. One can see that both $e_2$ and $e_3$ separate the top-$k$ Voronoi cell from the outside - i.e., $\forall i \in \{1, 2\}$, we have locations on one side of $e_i$ returning $t$ in top-$k$ while locations on the other side do not. That is, each of $e_2$ and $e_3$ must be the perpendicular bisector of the line segment connecting $t$ and another tuple in the database. Let these two tuples be $t_2$ and $t_3$ for $e_2$ and $e_3$, respectively. In other words, $v$ must have equal distance to $t$, $t_2$ and $t_3$.
Given this property, the extension to $k > 1$ becomes straightforward: Let $D^\prime$ be the set of all tuples we have observed which appear along with $t$ in the top-$k$ result of a query answer. Let $t \in D^\prime$. First, note that if the polygon we output is not the top-$k$ Voronoi cell of $t$, then it must be a sub-region of it missing at least one inward vertex. According to the above lemma, each inward vertex is formed by two perpendicular bisectors, each between $t$ and another tuple. A key observation here is that at least one of the [*missed*]{} inward vertices must be entirely formed by tuples in $D^\prime$. The reason is simple: if no missed inward vertex satisfies this property, then we must have found the correct top-$k$ Voronoi cell of $t$ over $D^\prime$ - i.e., what we get so far must be a super-region of the correct top-$k$ Voronoi of $t$ over the entire database, contradicting our previous conclusion that it is a sub-region.
Now our task is reduced to finding such a missing inward vertex. Note that this is equivalent with finding the perpendicular bisector of $t$ and every other tuple in $D^\prime$ - as once these perpendicular bisectors are identified, the rest is simply getting their intersections which can be done offline. For each tuple in $D^\prime$, we either have already identified the perpendicular bisector through one of the previous calls to the binary search process - or we can initiate a new one as follows.
Specifically, to find the perpendicular bisector of $t$ and $t^\prime \in D^\prime$, note that $t^\prime$ being in $D^\prime$ means that (1) at least one of the vertices of the polygon we currently have must return $t^\prime$, and (2) at least one of the vertices of the polygon we currently have must not return $t^\prime$. In other words, there must exist an edge of our current polygon which has two vertices once returning $t^\prime$ and the other does not - i.e., this edge intercepts with the perpendicular bisector of $t$ and $t^\prime$. As such, we simply need to return the binary search process over this edge to find the perpendicular bisector, and then use it to update our polygon. We repeat this process iteratively until we have enumerated all perpendicular bisectors of $t$ and other nodes in $D^\prime$ - at which time we can conclude that there is no missing inward vertex. In other words, we have found the top-$k$ Voronoi cell of $t$. One can see that the query complexity of this process remains at $O(m \log(1/\epsilon))$, as every new binary search process called will return us a new edge for the top-$k$ Voronoi cell.
Tuple Position Computation {#subsec:tuplePositionComputation}
--------------------------
Another important problem in the LNR-LBS case is the computation of a tuple’s position, since such information is not returned in query answers as in the LR-LBS case. As discussed in the introduction, this problem can be of independent interest - it can also be called upon as a subroutine for aggregate query processing when the selection condition involves a tuple’s location. For example, one might be interested in the number of WeChat users within 20 meters of major highways (i.e., those who are likely driving). To estimate this aggregate, we need to compute the location of a tuple (i.e., a WeChat user) in order to determine whether it satisfies the selection condition for the aggregate query.
![Demonstration of Tuple Position Computation[]{data-label="fig:r2l"}](diagrams/r2l.pdf)
Once we compute the Voronoi cell for a tuple $t$, the computation of $t$’s exact location takes only two additional calls to the binary search process. The key idea of this computation is demonstrated in Figure \[fig:r2l\]. The figure depicts one vertex of the top-1 Voronoi cell of $t_1$. Let the vertex (at the center of the figure) be the origin point $o$. The figure includes two edges of the Voronoi cell, $d_1$ and $d_3$, corresponding to the perpendicular bisector of $(t_1, t_2)$ and $(t_1, t_3)$, respectively. Note that since $o$ is of equal distance to $t_1$, $t_2$, and $t_3$, it must be attached to a third edge which is part of the Voronoi cell for $t_2$ and $t_3$ - this is depicted as $d_2$ in the figure.
In the following, we describe the computation of $t_1$’s location in three steps: First, we show that, with knowledge of $d_1$, $d_2$ and $d_3$, one can readily compute the line from $o$ to $t_1$ - i.e., the angle $a$ in the figure. Note that this indicates as long as one can do the same for another vertex of the Voronoi cell (say $o^\prime$), then the location of $t_1$ can be derived as the intersection of two lines: $(o, t_1)$ and $(o^\prime, t_1)$. Of course, in practice we only know $d_1$ and $d_3$ from the Voronoi cell computation, not $d_2$. Thus, we demonstrate in the second step that deriving $d_2$ from $d_1$ and $d_3$ takes only a single call to the binary search process.
First, to understand how angle $a$ can be derived from $d_1$, $d_2$, $d_3$, a key observation from Figure \[fig:r2l\] is that the lines from $o$ to any two tuples must form equal angle to the Voronoi edge between them - e.g., $(o, t_1)$ and $(o, t_3)$ must form equal angles to $d_3$. In other words, the angle between $(o, t_3)$ and $d_3$ is also $a$. Equipped with this observation, it becomes obvious that: $$\begin{aligned}
(a + b) + (b + c) + (c + a) &= 2\pi\\
\Rightarrow a + b + c &= \pi\end{aligned}$$ Since $b+c$ is exactly the angle between $d_1$ and $d_2$, we can easily compute $a$ as $\pi - (b+c)$. As such, we computed the line from $o$ to $t_1$ based on knowledge of only $d_1$, $d_2$ and $d_3$.
Now we explain how one can compute $d_2$ - the only one of the three edges not part of the Voronoi cell of $t_1$ - with a single call to the binary search process. Note from the fact that we have computed both $d_1$ and $d_3$ that we must have issues at least one query which returns $t_2$ as the top result, say $q_2$, and a query which returns $t_3$ on the top, say $q_3$. Obviously, $d_2$ intercepts the line segment between $q_2$ and $q_3$ exactly once. Thus, we simply need to call the binary search process over $(q_2, q_3)$ to derive $d_2$ and enable the computation of $t_1$’s exact location. One can see that, overall, the query complexity for computing both the Voronoi cell and the location of a tuple remains $O(m \log(1/\epsilon))$, where $m$ is the number of edges for its Voronoi cell.
Discussions {#sec:ext}
===========
Aggregates with Selection Conditions {#subsec:selCondn}
------------------------------------
In most of the previous discussions, we considered aggregates without selection conditions (i.e., every tuple in the bounding region is aggregated). There is indeed a straightforward extension to aggregates with selection conditions - specifically, there are two possible scenarios:
The first is when the selection condition can be “passed through” to LBS. For example, if our goal is to COUNT <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">“Starbucks”</span> within the bounding region, the selection condition <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Name = ‘Starbucks’</span> can be passed through to LBS - i.e., we simply append to each query we issue the exact same selection condition as the aggregate, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Name = ‘Starbucks’</span>. One can see that no other change is required to the aggregate estimation process.
The other scenario is when the LBS does [*not*]{} support the selection condition. For example, if we want to COUNT all businesses with at least an average review score of four stars within the bounding region, then we cannot simply pass this selection condition to an LBS that does not support filtering by average review scores. In this case, we simply need to “post-process” the selection condition - e.g., for the above example, this means that after randomly choosing a query and obtain the returned tuple (as in §\[sec:lrk\]), we first determine if the tuple satisfies the filtering condition. If so, we continue with the original process and return the same estimation. Otherwise, we return 0 (i.e., the aggregate query applied over the returned tuple, again divided by the sampling probability) as the estimation. One can see that the result remains an unbiased estimation for the aggregate, now with selection conditions.
In the experiments, we shall demonstrate online tests over real-world LBS on aggregates with selection conditions in both categories - e.g., COUNT of <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Starbucks</span> over Google Maps, which can be passed through, and COUNT(restaurants) that are open on Sundays, which cannot.
Leveraging External Knowledge
-----------------------------
In previous discussions, we focused on how to process the results returned by a randomly chosen query (e.g., how to compute the top-$k$ Voronoi cell of a returned tuple). The way the initial query is chosen, however, remains a simple design of choosing a location uniformly at random from the bounding region. Admittedly, without any knowledge of the distribution of tuple locations, uniform distribution appears the natural choice. Nonetheless, in real-world applications, we often have certain [*a priori*]{} knowledge of the tuple distributions, which we can leverage to optimize the sampling distribution of queries.
For example, if our goal is to estimate an aggregate, say COUNT, of Point-Of-Interests (POIs, e.g., restaurants) in the US, a reasonable assumption is that the density of POIs in a region tends to be positively correlated with the region’s population density. Thus, we have two choices: either to sample a location uniformly at random - which leads to POIs in rural areas to be returned with a much higher probability (because their Voronoi cells tend to be larger); or to sample a location with probability proportional to its population density - which hopefully leads to a more-or-less uniform selection probabilities over all POIs. Clearly, the second strategy is likely better for COUNT estimation, as a more uniform selection probability distribution directly leads to a smaller estimation variance (and therefore error). For example, in the extreme-case scenario where all POIs are selected with equal probability, our COUNT estimation will be precise with zero error. Thus, an optimization technique we adopt in this case is to design the initial sampling distribution of queries according to the population density information retrieved from external sources, e.g., US Census data [@uscensusdata].
There are two important notes regarding this optimization: First, no matter if the external knowledge is accurate or not, the COUNT and SUM estimations we produce always remain unbiased. This is obvious from (\[equ:uce\]) in §\[sec:lrk\], which guarantees unbiasedness no matter what the sampling distribution $p(t)$ is. Second, the optimal sampling distribution depends on both the tuple distribution and the aggregate query itself. For example, if we want to estimate the SUM of review counts for all POIs, then the optimal sampling distribution is to sample each tuple with probability proportional to its review count (as this design produces zero estimation variance and error). Given the difficulty of predicting the aggregate (e.g., review COUNT in this case) ahead of time, leveraging external knowledge is better considered as heuristics (a very effective one nonetheless, as we shall demonstrate in experimental results) rather than a practice that guarantees the reduction of estimation errors.
Special LBS Constraints {#subsec:lbsConstraints}
-----------------------
We now consider two special constraints that are enforced by the query interfaces of some real-world LBS. The first one is a [*maximum radius*]{} on the returned results - i.e., the distance between the query location $q$ and the returned tuples is bounded by a pre-determined threshold $d_{\max}$. If no tuple in the database falls within the circle centered at $q$ with radius $d_{\max}$, then the query returns empty. Google Maps and Weibo both enforce this constraint, with the threshold being 50 KM [@googleplacesapi] and 11 KM[^4], respectively.
Interestingly, no change is required for our algorithms (both LR-LBS-AGG and LNR-LBS-AGG) to handle this situation. One can see that, as long as a query result is non-empty, the nearest neighbor is always returned, enabling the usage of our algorithms. When a query returns empty, we simply return 0 as the COUNT or SUM estimation (for this sample query). The unbiasedness is unaffected - note from (\[equ:uce\]) in §\[sec:lrk\] that unbiasedness is guaranteed no matter if the sampling probability $p(t)$ of all tuples sum up to 1 or not - as long as each tuple still has a positive probability to be returned. With this constraint, there is $\sum_t p(t) < 1$ with the remaining probability returning 0 - still leading to an unbiased SUM or COUNT estimation.
The second constraint we have observed from real-world LBS is a more complex ranking function that involves not only the distance between query location and a tuple but also other factors such as the static rank of certain attributes for the tuple. Google Places API is an example here, as it allows ranking by “prominence” which takes into account both distance and tuple popularity[^5].
For this constraint, the applicability of our results is no longer straightforward. The key challenge here is that the area returning a tuple may become segregated across many disjoint regions, making it extremely difficult to compute the sampling probability ($p(t)$ in (\[equ:uce\]) in §\[sec:lrk\]) for a tuple. To understand why, consider an example where tuples are ranked according to the SUM of two scores, one is distance, awarding a higher score to a tuple closer by, but 0 to tuples more than 50 miles away. The other is a static score such as popularity. What might happen here is that the most popular tuple (in the bounding region, say US) is returned by queries on all places without a tuple within 50 miles (say the middle of a desert in Nevada). Clearly, it becomes extremely difficult to enumerate all the disjoint regions that return this tuple.
Fortunately, for LR-LBS in practice, it is still highly likely for our LR-LBS-AGG algorithm to successfully handle the constraint - because the algorithm works properly as long as the nearest neighbor is always included in the top-$k$ results. Since an LR-LBS returns tuple locations, we can always post-process the query answer to obtain the nearest neighbor according to distance, and then apply our algorithm. Given that $k \gg 1$ in real-world LBS, we anticipate a near-certain probability for the nearest neighbor to be included in the top-$k$ results, thus enabling LR-LBS-AGG.
Extension to Higher Dimensions
------------------------------
While LBS in practice is mostly confined to 2D, we would like to point out here (if only for theoretical interests) that our algorithm readily applies to $k$NN queries over higher-dimensional data where Euclidean distance is used as the ranking function. Specifically, note that for LR-LBS, Theorem \[thm:lr\] holds no matter what dimensionality the tuple locations have - as a higher-dimensional Voronoi cell computed from a subset of tuples still completely encompasses the real one. Similarly, all the optimizations discussed in §\[sec:rer\] readily apply as well. For LNR-LBS-AGG, the only change required is on the binary search process: instead of finding the perpendicular bisecting [*line*]{} between two tuples as in the 2D case, we now need to find the perpendicular bisecting $(d-1)$-dimensional plane in the $d$-dimensional case. Correspondingly, each vertex of the $d$-D Voronoi cell is now the interception of $\left(d \atop 2\right)$ such $(d-1)$-dimensional planes. In other words, we still only need two vertices of the Voronoi cell to derive a tuple’s location in LNR-LBS - enabling the usage of LNR-LBS-AGG.
Experimental Results {#sec:exp}
====================
Experimental Setup {#sec:expSetup}
------------------
[**Hardware and Platform:**]{} All our experiments were performed on a quad-core 2.5 GHz Intel i7 machine running Ubuntu 14.10 with 16 GB of RAM. The algorithms were implemented in Python.
[**Offline Real-World Dataset:**]{} To verify the correctness of our results, we started by testing our algorithms locally over OpenStreetMap [@openstreetmap], a real-world spatial database consisting of POIs (including restaurants, schools, colleges, banks, etc.) from public-domain data sources and user-created data.
We focused on the USA portion of OpenStreetMap. To enrich the SUM/COUNT/AVG aggregates for testing, we grew the attributes of POIs (specifically, restaurants and schools) by “JOINing” OpenStreetMap with two external data sources, Google Maps[@googleplacesapi] and US Census [@uscensusdata]. Specifically, we added for each (applicable) restaurant POI its review ratings from Google Maps; and each school POI its enrollment number from US Census. The US Census data is also used as the (optional) external knowledge source - i.e., to provide the population density data for the optimization technique discussed in §\[sec:ext\].
Note that we have complete access to the enriched dataset and full control over its query interface. Thus, we implemented a $k$NN interface with ranking function being the Euclidean distance; returned attributes either containing all attributes including location (for testing LR-LBS) or without location (for LNR-LBS); and varying $k$ to observe the change of performance for our algorithms.
[**Online LBS Demonstrations:**]{} In order to showcase the efficacy of our algorithms in real-world applications, we also conducted experiments [*online*]{} over 3 very popular real-world LBS: Google Maps [@googleplacesapi], WeChat[@wechat], and Sina Weibo[@weibo]. Each of these services has at least hundreds of millions of users. Unlike the offline experiments, we do not have direct access to the ground-truth aggregates due to the lack of partnership with these LBS. Nonetheless, we did attempt to verify the accuracy of our aggregate estimations with information provided by external sources (e.g., news reports) - more details later in the section.
In online experiments for LR-LBS, we used Google Maps, specifically its Google Places API [@googleplacesapi], which takes as input a query location (latitude/longitude pair) and (optionally) filtering conditions such as keywords (e.g., “Starbucks”) or POI type (e.g., “restaurant”), and returns at most $k = 60$ POIs nearby, ordered by distance from low to high, with location and other relevant information (e.g., review ratings) returned for each POI.
For LNR-LBS, we tested WeChat and Sina Weibo using their respective Android apps. Both directly fetch locations from the OS positioning service and search for nearby users, with WeChat returning at most $k = 50$ and Sina Weibo returning $k = 100$ nearest users. Unlike Google Maps, these two services do [*not*]{} return the exact locations of these nearby users - but only provide attributes such as name, gender, etc.
An implementation-related issue regarding WeChat is that, unlike its mobile apps, its API does not support nearest-neighbor search. Thus, we conducted our experiments by running its Android app (with support for nearest-neighbor search) on the official Android emulator, and used the debugging feature of location spoofing to issue queries from different locations. We then used the MonkeyRunner tool[^6] for Android emulator to interact with the app - i.e., sending queries and receiving results. Specifically, to extract query answers from the Android emulator, we first took a screenshot of the query-answer screen, and then parsed the results through an OCR engine, tesseract-ocr[^7].
[**Algorithms Evaluated:**]{} We mainly evaluated three algorithms in our experiments: LR-LBS-AGG and LNR-LBS-AGG from §\[sec:lrlbsagg\] and §\[sec:lnrlbsagg\], respectively, along with the only existing solution for LR-LBS (note there is no existing solution for LNR-LBS), which we refer to as LR-LBS-NNO [@DKA+11]. LR-LBS-NNO has a number of tuneable parameters - we picked the parameter settings and optimizations from [@DKA+11] that provided the best performance. We also tested variants of our algorithms that lack certain variance-reduction techniques discussed in §\[sec:lrlbsagg\] and the weighted sampling in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of these techniques.
[**Performance Measures:**]{} As discussed in §\[sec:pre\], we measure efficiency through query cost, i.e., the number of queries issued to the LBS. Our estimation accuracy is measured experimentally by relative error. Each data point is obtained as the average of 25 runs.
Experiments over Real-World Datasets {#subsec:expOffline}
------------------------------------
![Voronoi Decomposition of Starbucks in US[]{data-label="fig:starbucksVoronoiDiag"}](figures/starbucksVoronoiDiag.png)
[**Unbiasedness of Estimators:**]{} Our first experiment seeks to show the unbiasedness of our estimators for LR-LBS-AGG and LNR-LBS-AGG even after incorporating the various error reduction strategies. LR-LBS-NNO is known to be unbiased from [@DKA+11] after an expensive bias correction step. Figure \[fig:algo\_conv\_rate\] shows a trace of the three algorithms when estimating COUNT of all restaurants in US by plotting the current estimate periodically after fixed number of queries have been issued to LBS. We can see that LR-LBS-NNO has a high variance and takes significantly longer to converge while our estimators quickly converge to the ground truth much before LR-LBS-NNO. This indicates that the error reduction techniques successfully reduce the variance of our estimators.
[**Query Cost versus Relative Error:**]{} We start by testing the key tradeoff - i.e., query cost vs. relative error - for all three algorithm over various aggregates. Specifically, Figures \[fig:ws\_relErrorVsQC\_Count\], \[fig:ws\_relErrorVsQC\_Count\_restaurants\], \[fig:ws\_relErrorVsQC\_sum\] and \[fig:ws\_relErrorVsQC\_avg\] show the results for four queries, COUNT of schools in US, COUNT of restaurants in US, SUM of school enrollments in US, and AVG of restaurant ratings in Austin, Texas, respectively. One can see that not only our LR-LBS-AGG algorithm significantly outperform the previous LR-LBS-NNO [@DKA+11] in all cases, even our algorithm for the LNR-LBS case achieves much better performance than the previous algorithm (despite the lack of tuple locations in query results).
[**Query Cost versus LBS Size:**]{} Figure \[fig:ws\_NVsQC\_Count\] shows the impact of LBS database size (in terms of number of POIs or users) on query cost to estimate the COUNT of schools in US for a fixed relative error of 0.1 . We varied the database size by picking a subset of the database (such as 25%, 50%, etc) uniformly at random and estimating the aggregate over it. As expected for a sampling-based approach, the increase in database size do not have any major impact and only results in a slight increase in overall query cost (due to the more complex topology of Voronoi cells).
[**Query Cost versus $k$:**]{} Figure \[fig:ws\_KVsQC\_Count\] shows how the value of $k$ (the number of tuples returned by $k$-NN interface) affects the query cost. Again, we measure the query cost required to achieve a relative error of 0.1 on the aggregate COUNT of schools in US. We compared an variant that leverages our variance reduction strategy that adaptively decides which subset of tuples (i.e. $h$ of top-$k$) to use with fixed variants that uses all the top-$k$ tuples. As expected, our adaptive strategy has a lower query cost and consistently achieves a saving of 10% of query cost.
[**Efficacy of Error Reduction Strategies:**]{} We started by verifying the effectiveness of weighted sampling using external knowledge - Figure \[fig:weighted\_uniform\_sampling\_count\] compares the performance of the two sampling strategies - uniform and weighted - while estimating the COUNT of schools in US. One can see that the weighted sampling variants result in significant savings in query cost.
In our final set of experiments, we evaluated the efficacy of the various error reduction strategies we described in the paper. We compared 5 different variants of our algorithm for LR-LBS ranging from no error reduction strategies (LR-LBS-AGG-0) to sequentially adding them one by one in the order discussed in the paper culminating in LR-LBS-AGG that incorporates all of them. Figure \[fig:ws\_seq\_opt\] shows the results of this experiment. As expected the first two strategies of faster initialization and leveraging history caused a significant reduction in query cost. We observed that the results for LNR-LBS were very similar.
Online Demonstrations {#subsec:expOnline}
---------------------
[**Google Places:**]{} Our first online demonstration of LR-LBS-AGG was on Google Places API and estimating two aggregates with different selection conditions. The first involves selection conditions that can be passed over to LBS (COUNT of Starbucks in US) while the second involves aggregates with selection condition that cannot be passed over (see §\[sec:ext\] for discussion) such as COUNT of restaurants in Austin, Texas that are open on Sundays.
Table \[tbl:onlineExp\] shows the results of the experiments. We also verified the accuracy of our estimates for first aggregate (COUNT of Starbucks) through the public release of Starbucks Corp[@starbucksRef]. One can see from the table that, with just 5000 queries, LR-LBS-AGG achieves very accurate estimations ($< 5\%$ relative error) for the count.
To provide an intuitive illustration of the execution of our algorithm, we also continued the estimation of COUNT(“Starbucks”) until enumerating all Starbucks in the US. Figure \[fig:starbucksVoronoiDiag\] demonstrates the Voronoi diagram constructed by our algorithm at the end. One can see the vastly different sizes of Voronoi cells - spanning hundreds of thousands km$^2$ in rural areas and smaller than 1km$^2$ in urban cities, justifying the effectiveness of weighted sampling.
[**WeChat and Sina Weibo:**]{} We estimated two aggregates, (1) total number of users and (2) gender ratio, over two LNR-LBS, WeChat and Sina Weibo, respectively. Table \[tbl:onlineExp\] shows the results of the experiments. One can observe from the table that our estimations quickly converge to a narrow range (+/- 5%) after issuing a small number of queries (10000). While we do not have access to the ground truth this time, we do note an interesting observation from our results: the percentage of male users is much higher on WeChat than on Sina Weibo - an observation verified by various surveys in China [@wechatweiboref]. We would like to note that the COUNT aggregate measures the number of users who have enabled the location feature of WeChat and Weibo respectively and is different from the number of registered or active accounts.
[**LBS**]{} [**Aggregate**]{} [**Estimate**]{} [**Query Budget**]{}
--------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------ ----------------------
Google Places COUNT(Starbucks in US) 12023 5000
Google Places COUNT(restaurants in Austin TX and open on Sundays) 2856 5000
WeChat COUNT(WeChat users in China) 338.4 M 10000
WeChat Gender Ratio of WeChat users in China 67.1:32.9 10000
Weibo COUNT(Weibo users in China) 44.6 M 10000
Weibo Gender Ratio of Weibo users in China 50.4:49.6 10000
: Summary of Online Experiments[]{data-label="tbl:onlineExp"}
[**Localization Accuracy:**]{} As a final set of experiments, we also evaluated the effectiveness of our Tuple position computation approaches in tracking real world users. Specifically, we sought to identify the precise location of [*static*]{} objects located across the region. We conducted this experiment over Google Places in US and WeChat in China. We treated Google Places as LNR-LBS by ignoring the location provided its API. We sought to identify the location of 200 randomly chosen POIs after issuing at most 100 queries for each POI. For WeChat, we positioned our user at 200 diverse locations within China (typically in Urban places) and sought to identify the location. Since the precise location of the POI/user is known, we can compute the distance between actual and estimated positions. Figure \[fig:tracking\_accuracy\] shows the result of the experiments. The results show that more than 80% of the POIs were located within 20m of the exact location and every POI was located within a distance of 75m. Due to the various location obfuscation strategies employed by WeChat, we achieved an accuracy of 50m or lower only 45% of the time. We still were able to locate user within 100m almost all the time. While our theoretical methods could precisely identify the location, the discrepancy in real-world occurs due to various external factors such as obfuscation, coverage/localization limits etc.
Related Work {#sec:relWork}
============
[**Analytics and Inference over LBS:**]{} Location based Services (LBS) such as map services (Google Maps) and location based social networks (such as FourSquare, WeChat, Sina Weibo) are becoming popular in recent years. The prior work on analytics over LBS focussed exclusively on the LR-LBS scenario. The closest prior work is [@DKA+11] that seeks to estimate COUNT and SUM aggregates over LR-LBS using a nearest neighbor oracle. It then corrects the bias by using the area of the Voronoi cell using an approach that is very expensive. Aggregate estimation over LBS such as FourSquare that does not provide nearest neighbor oracle interface could be done using [@WHL14; @LSW+12]. [@LSW+12] proposed a random region sampling method with an unknown estimation bias that could be eliminated using techniques from [@WHL14]. However, none of them work for LNR-LBS. There has been work on inferring the location and other private information of users of LBS. [@LZG+13] proposed trilateration based methods to infer the location of users even when the LBS only provided relative distances. There has been other extensive work[@de2013unique; @ma2013privacy; @srivatsa2012deanonymizing; @zang2011anonymization] on inferring location information and re-identification of users although none of them are applicable for the LBS models studied in this paper.
[**Aggregate Estimations over Hidden Web Repositories:**]{} There has been a number of prior work in performing aggregate estimation over static hidden databases. [@DJJ+10] provided an unbiased estimator for COUNT and SUM aggregates for [*static*]{} databases with form based interfaces. [@DDM:07; @DZD:09; @DZD:10; @LTZD:14] describe efficient techniques to obtain random samples from hidden web databases that can then be utilized to perform aggregate estimation. Recent works such as [@LWA12; @DBLP:conf/edbt/WangA11] propose more sophisticated sampling techniques so as to reduce the variance of the aggregate estimation. For hidden databases with keyword interfaces, prior work have studied estimating the size of search engines [@BG:06; @Zhang:2011:MSE:1989323.1989406; @zhang2013mining] or a corpus [@BFJ+:06; @SZS+:06].
Final Remarks
=============
In this paper, we explore the problem of aggregate estimation over location based services that are increasingly popular. We introduced a taxonomy of LBS with $k$-NN query interface based on whether location of the tuple is returned (LR-LBS) or not (LNR-LBS). For the former, we proposed an efficient algorithm and various error reduction strategies that outperforms prior work. We initiate study into the latter by proposing effective algorithms for aggregation and inferring the position of tuple to arbitrary precision which might be of independent interest. We verified the effectiveness of our algorithms by using a comprehensive set of experiments on a large real-world geographic dataset and online demonstrations on high-profile real-world websites.
Binary Search Process {#sec:appendixBSearch}
=====================
[**Design of Binary Search:**]{} Given the half-line $\ell$ from $c_1$ passing through $c_2$, we conduct the binary search as follows. First, we find $c_\mathrm{b}$, the intersection of this half-line with the bounding box. Then, we perform a binary search between $c_1$ and $c_\mathrm{b}$ to find a segment of the half-line with length at most $\delta$, say with two ends being $c_3, c_4$ (with the distance between $c_3$ and $c_4$ at most $\delta$), such that while $c_3$ returns $t$, $c_4$ returns another tuple, say $t^\prime$. This step takes at most $\log(b/\delta)$ queries, where $b$ is the perimeter of the bounding box.
Then, we consider two half-lines $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$, both of which start from $c_1$ and form an angle of $-\arcsin(\delta^\prime/r)$ and $+\arcsin(\delta^\prime/r)$ with $\ell$, respectively, where $\delta^\prime$ is a pre-determined (small) threshold and $r$ is the distance between $c_1$ and $c_4$. For each $\ell_i$, we perform the above binary search process to find a (at most) $\delta$-long segment that returns $t$ on one end and $t^\prime$ on the other. Note that such a process might fail - e.g., there might no point on $\ell_i$ which returns $t^\prime$. We set two rules to address this situation: First, we terminate the search for $\ell_i$ if we have reached a segment shorter than $\delta$, with one end returning $t$ and the other returning a tuple other than $t^\prime$. Second, we move on to the next step as long as (at least) one of $\ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ gives us a satisfactory $\delta$-long segment. If neither can produce the segment, we terminate the entire process and output the following (estimated) Voronoi edge: the perpendicular bisector of $(c_3, c_4)$.
Now suppose that $\ell_1$ produces a satisfactory segment of at most $\delta$ long. Let this segment be $(c_5, c_6)$. We simply return our (estimated) Voronoi edge as the line that passes through: (1) the midpoint of $(c_3, c_4)$, and (2) the midpoint of $(c_5, c_6)$. One can see that the overall query cost of the binary search process is at most $3\log(b/\delta)$.
Algorithm \[alg:bsearch\] provides the pseudocode for Binary Search process.
\[alg:bsearch\] Tuple $t$, Locations $c_1, c_2$ where query($c_1$) returns $t$ An edge of $V(t)$ $c_b$ = Intersection of half-line $c_1$, $c_2$ with bounding box Find $c_3, c_4$ s.t. $dist(c_3,c_4)<\delta$ and $query(c_3) \neq query(c_4)$ $r=dist(c_1, c_4)$ Construct lines $\ell_1, \ell_2$ from $c_1$ with angles $\pm \arcsin(\delta'/r)$ $(c_5, c_6)$ = line segment on $\ell_1$ or $\ell_2$ with $dist(c_5, c_6) < \delta$ and query$(c_5) \neq$ query$(c_6)$ none exists, return perpendicular bisector of $(c_3, c_4)$ return line segment passing through midpoints of $(c_3, c_4)$ and $(c_5, c_6)$
[**Error Bound on Edge Estimation:**]{} We have the following theorem on the error bound of this binary search process:
\[thm:eee\] For a given tuple $t$ and query location $c_1$ which returns $t$, for any other location $c_2$, the Voronoi cell of $t$ must have an edge $\ell_\mathrm{V}$ that intercepts half-line $(c_1, c_2)$ such that the maximum edge error for estimating $\ell_\mathrm{V}$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon \leq \max (2\delta^\prime, b \cdot \sin(\arctan(\delta/\delta^\prime))).\end{aligned}$$ In other words, for every point $p \in \ell_\mathrm{V}$, there exists a point $p^\prime$ on our estimated Voronoi edge $\ell^\prime_\mathrm{V}$ generated from $(c_1, c_2)$ (i.e., $p^\prime \in \ell^\prime_\mathrm{V}$), such that $$\begin{aligned}
d(p, p^\prime) \leq \max (2\delta^\prime, b \cdot \sin(\arctan(\delta/\delta^\prime))),\end{aligned}$$ where $d(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the Euclidean distance between two points. In addition, for every vertex $v$ of $\ell_\mathrm{V}$, if line segment $(t, v)$ intercepts $\ell^\prime_\mathrm{V}$, then the interception point $v^\prime$ must satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
d(t, v) - d(t, v^\prime) \leq \max (2\delta^\prime, b \cdot \sin(\arctan(\delta/\delta^\prime))). \label{equ:eee}\end{aligned}$$
A simple observation from the theorem is that the binary search process can reach an arbitrary precision level - i.e., for any given upper bound on $d(p, p^\prime)$, say $d_\mathrm{U}$, we can set $\delta^\prime = d_\mathrm{U}/2$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\delta \leq \tan\left(\arcsin\left(\frac{d_\mathrm{U}}{b}\right)\right) \cdot \frac{d_\mathrm{U}}{2}\end{aligned}$$ to satisfy the bound. Since both $\tan$ and $\arcsin$ can be bounded from both sides by a polynomial of its input (through Taylor expansion), one can see that the corresponding query complexity is $O(\log(b/d_\mathrm{U}))$, leading to the following corollary on the maximum error edge defined in §\[sec:lrlbsagg\].
\[thm:ee2\] The query cost required for achieving a maximum edge error of $\epsilon$ is $O(\log(b/\epsilon))$ - i.e., $O(\log(1/\epsilon))$ when we consider the bounding box size $b$ to be constant.
[**Error Bound on Voronoi Cell Volume Estimation:**]{} A direct corollary from Theorem \[thm:eee\] is an error bound on the estimated volume of a Voronoi cell. Note from our design of LNR-LBS-AGG that our estimated Voronoi cell is always a subregion of the real one. This, in combination with (\[equ:eee\]) in Theorem \[thm:eee\], leads to the following corollary.
\[thm:ee3\] For a given tuple $t$, the ratio between the volume of the estimated Voronoi cell $V^\prime(t)$ and the real one $V(t)$ satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{d - \epsilon}{d}\right)^2 \leq \frac{|V^\prime(t)|}{|V(t)|} \leq 1\end{aligned}$$ where $d$ is the nearest distance between $t$ and another tuple in the database, and $\epsilon$ is the maximum edge error.
[^1]: Of course, one can shorten it with multiple IP addresses and API accounts - but similarly, one can use parallel processing to speed up offline processing as well.
[^2]: We assume general positioning[@de2000computational] - i.e., no two tuples have the exact same location and no four points on the same circle.
[^3]: In the extreme-case, some edges of this polygon might be part of the bounding box.
[^4]: <http://open.weibo.com/wiki/2/place/nearby/users>
[^5]: Note that Google Places API also supports traditional distance-based ranking, enabling the direct usage of our algorithms.
[^6]: <http://developer.android.com/tools/help/monkeyrunner_concepts.html>
[^7]: <https://code.google.com/p/tesseract-ocr/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present X-ray observations of the field containing Nova Puppis 1942 (CP Pup) and Nova Puppis 1991 (V351 Pup), done with [*ASCA*]{} in 1998, and with [*XMM-Newton*]{} in 2005. The X-ray and UV luminosity of CP Pup seem to have remained approximately constant since the last X-ray observations of the 1980’ies, while the optical luminosity has decreased. The X-ray properties of this nova are explained by a high mass white dwarf accreting at low rate, in agreement with the nova theory given the large amplitude and other characteristics of the 1942 outburst. Assuming a distance of 1600 pc, the X-ray luminosity of CP Pup is L$_{\rm x}=$2.2 $\times 10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1}$ in the 0.15-10 keV range covered with EPIC, compatible with a magnetic system. The RGS grating spectrum shows a few prominent emission lines, and it is fitted with a cooling flow with mass accretion rate $< 1.6 \times 10^{-10}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$. We detected also the O VII complex at 21.6-21.8 Å that does not arise in the cooling flow. Most likely this feature originates in a wind or in the nova shell. The RGS and EPIC spectra are fitted only with thermal models with a very high shock temperature, T$>$60 keV, indicating a white dwarf with M$>$1.1 M$_\odot$. The X-ray flux is modulated with the spectroscopic period of 1.47 hours detected in the optical. Since CP Pup is not an eclipsing system, this is better understood if magnetic accretion occurs: we discuss this possibility and its implications in detail. V351 Pup (N Pup 1991) was detected with [*XMM-Newton*]{}, but not with [*ASCA*]{}. It is a faint, non-super-soft X-ray source with luminosity L$_{\rm x} \simeq 3 \times 10^{31}$ erg s$^{-1}$, a factor of 50 less than measured with ROSAT in 1993.'
author:
- 'M. Orio'
- 'K. Mukai'
- 'A. Bianchini'
- 'D. de Martino'
- 'S. Howell'
title: 'New X-ray observations of the old nova CP Puppis and of the more recent nova V351 Pup'
---
Introduction
============
In this article we describe [*ASCA*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations of two novae in the same field in the Puppis region, Nova Puppis 1942 (CP Pup) and Nova Puppis 1991 (V351 Pup). Classical novae are Cataclysmic Variables (CV), that is close, interacting binaries containing a white dwarf (WD) that accretes matter from a companion, which is usually still on the main sequence or slightly evolved. In novae, at the bottom of the accreted envelope hydrogen burning is ignited in a thin shell, first the p-p and later the CNO cycle. The process becomes explosive because of the degeneracy conditions of the material, compressed on the small surface of the WD. A thermonuclear flash follows, and an optically thick wind that ejects most or all the accreted material (see Starrfield et al. 2000 for a review). The more massive the WD is, the smaller its surface, and the sooner the pressure sufficient to initiate the thermonuclear runaway is reached. The nova theory makes very definite predictions on the correlation of the binary system parameters and the properties of the outburst. The main parameters that determine its properties and recurrence time are the mass accretion rate and the white dwarf mass m(WD) (note that all novae are recurrent phenomena even if only very few, the “recurrent novae” are repeated over a human lifetime). The abundances and the thermal state of the WD at the onset of accretion are also important. In a series of papers (especially Kovetz & Prialnik 1994, Prialnik & Kovetz 1995, Yaron et al. 2004, Epelstein et al. 2007) clear correlations between these parameters and the outburst characteristics are found. Thus, having a remarkable and detectable manifestation in their outburst, novae allow us to test the evolutionary models that apply to all CV and to related systems, included the “single degenerate” progenitors of type Ia supernovae.
X-ray observations are a powerful tool to study the following phenomena in novae: a) Violent, energetic mechanisms in the shell shortly after the outburst (e.g. Nelson et al. 2008), or even a long time later (Balman 2006); b) The WD atmospheric temperature, abundances and effective gravity, after the ejecta clear up sufficiently to allow detection of the X-ray supersoft, luminous central source (e.g. Ness et al. 2003, Nelson et al. 2008); c) The accretion process in quiescence. The shocked material in the disk, or in a magnetically funneled accretion stream, emits X-rays (e.g. Mukai & Orio 2005). In order to study accretion, we proposed X-ray observations of the two objects we describe in this paper, as a test of the nova theory which is largely based on the modalities of accretion.
CP Pup: a puzzling nova
-----------------------
CP Puppis appeared as a truly astonishing object in 1942, leaving the astronomers of that time wondering for a while whether it was a Galactic supernova. The outburst is described in the Payne-Gaposhkin’s book “Classical Novae”. In 1942 it rose from fainter than 17th magnitude to V=-0.2, raising to maximum during at least 3 days after the discovery. The time for a decay by 3 magnitudes (t$_3$) was one of the shortest ever measured for a nova, only 6.5 days. The velocities measured from the full width at half maximum of the initial absorption lines, and of the emission lines that appeared soon thereafter, reached at most 1200 km s$^{-1}$, which is lower than measured for other luminous novae. The ejected shell was resolved for the first time 14 years after the outburst (see Williams 1982 and references therein), indicating a distance of about 1.6 kpc and a maximum absolute luminosity M$_{\rm V}$=-10.5, a factor of $\simeq$400 above the Eddington luminosity of a 1 M$_\odot$ star (L$_{\rm Edd}$). Downes & Dürbeck (2000) discussed the possible errors in determining the distance of a shell that is not expanding uniformly, but is made of blobs with different velocity. These authors placed CP Pup at a lower distance of 1140 pc, and Cohen & Rosenthal (1983) even at only 850 pc. A distance compatible with a peak luminosity below 100 L$_{\rm Edd}$ is in any case very unlikely. Another unusual characteristic of CP Pup were the Fe \[II\] lines that still appeared in the spectrum simultaneously with high excitation lines, including even coronal lines. The energetics initially reminded of a supernova. If we were witnessing such an event today, probably we would initially suspect an accretion induced collapse of a white dwarf, or merging compact objects. Despite the peculiarities outlined above, the optical spectrum was typical for a classical nova, and as such CP Pup is classified.
The distance obtained from the maximum magnitude versus rate of decline relationship (MMRD) is much larger than the range of values derived from the nebular parallax. For this and several other reasons CP Pup has long been suspected to host a magnetic WD. Because of the apparent disk-like structure, it may be an “intermediate polar” (hereafter IP) rather than a “polar” (e.g. a diskless system, see discussion in Balman et al. 1995 and references therein). It is doubtful whether the MMRD holds for magnetic novae (see for instance the description of DQ Her by Payne Gaposhkin, 1964). Orio et al. (1992) suggested that magnetic rotator effects may cause the ejection of the accreted envelope more quickly and efficiently than in other novae. In fact the outburst amplitude of V1500 Cyg, a polar, was also very large, about 16 mag, and the outburst of the IP GK Per had an amplitude of $\simeq$14 mag despite the high luminosity at quiescence (due to an unusual subgiant secondary). The unambiguous classification of also CP Pup as a magnetic system would be further evidence of the role of the magnetic field in nova outbursts.
Several unusual characteristics of the quiescent CP Pup point in the direction of an IP nature. The outburst of 1942 can best be explained with a high mass white dwarf (e.g., Prialnik and Kovetz 1995, see discussion below). However, assuming that the radial velocities variations of the emission lines in the quiescent optical spectrum indicate the orbital motion of the compact object, and that the width of the lines is due to the Keplerian velocity of the disk, an embarrassingly low mass of the white dwarf is obtained, M$<$0.2 M$_\odot$. The data are rather complex, and we will summarise them as follows. At quiescence, two photometric periods have been measured, 0.061-0.062 days, and 0.06834 days (Bianchini 1985a and b, Warner 1985, O’Donoghue et al. 1985, White et al. 1993). From the radial velocity of the He II line at 4686 Å and the Balmer lines, White et al. (1993) measured a spectroscopic period of 0.06129 days. In the most recent work, Bianchini et al. (2008, in preparation, and hereafter B08) detect a mean spectroscopic period of 0.0612643 days (1.47 hours), coincident within the errors with the period reported by White et al. (1993), and other aliases of this period. In 1987 a photometric period of CP Pup was measured to be 11% longer than the spectroscopic period (White et al. 1993). However in 1993 Patterson & Warner (1998) found instead two other photometric periods, of which the first was equal to the spectroscopic one and the second was unstable, but generally longer than the spectroscopic period by only $\simeq$2%. The last authors interpret this as a “superhump” (due to disk precession), which is often detected in non-magnetic cataclysmic variables (CV). However, another possible interpretation is that the longer photometric period is due to the rotation of the WD that has become asynchronous after the nova outburst, like the polar Nova V1500 Cyg after the 1975 outburst (Diaz & Steiner 1991). Balman et al. (1995) reported an X-ray flux modulation with the spectroscopic period. This is suggestive of a magnetic system, since X-ray orbital modulations are not observed in non-magnetic CV with inclination less than 60$^{\rm o}$ (Baskill et al. 2005). The evidence however was not conclusive, because the orbital period of CP Pup is uncomfortably close to the rotation period of 94 minutes of the [*ROSAT*]{} spacecraft.
The spectroscopic period of 1.47 hours is interpreted as the orbital period in the literature, which we also adopt as our baseline interpretation (we will review this assumption later, and present an alternative interpretation). In this baseline scenario, it is one of the two shortest orbital periods of all novae. Most of the known orbital periods of classical novae are longer than 3 hours, i.e. above the period gap. CP Pup is only matched by GQ Mus (Nova Mus 1983) with 1.42 hours, and there are only 5 other novae with orbital periods below 3 hours (Diaz & Bruch 1997).
The lack of eclipses places a constraint on the inclination, $i\leq$65$^{\rm o}$. With the measured radial velocities and line widths, there simply is no way to place a massive white dwarf in a non-eclipsing system with such a short orbital period. O’Donoghue et al. (1989) conclude that the WD mass should be M$_{\rm WD}\leq$0.2 M$_\odot$. Moreover, if the modulation of the infrared flux with a period close to the spectroscopic one is due to an ellipsoidal variation (Szkody & Feinswog 1988), the upper limit on the inclination is [*i*]{}$\leq$35$^{\rm o}$. This implies that a Roche lobe filling secondary secondary has mass $\leq$0.2 M$_\odot$, and that the upper limit for the WD is less than a tenth of a solar mass! This is a clear inconsistency: in the first place, this WD mass is much lower than the minimum WD mass in the Galaxy and it is difficult to explain such an amount of mass loss from the WD. Moreover, H-burning would not even start on the surface of such a low mass WD, thus, a classical nova eruption could not occur. This puzzle may originate, first of all, in an incorrect interpretation of the IR modulation. At a distance of $\sim$1 kpc, a 0.2 M$_\odot$ secondary star (M5V, M$_{\rm V}$=14.7, M$_{\rm K}$=8.5) would have a distance modulus m-M=10, yielding a K$\simeq$18.5 magnitude of the secondary. Szkody and Feinswog measured K=13.4 for CP Pup, a value completely inconsistent with the assumed short orbital period secondary and one which cannot be reconciled as ellipsoidal variations. Only if CP Pup was 95 pc away, the assumed 0.2 M$_\odot$ secondary star could then account for the observed IR modulations. A different physical mechanism that may cause the IR light curve modulation is beamed cyclotron radiation. Although up to now the cyclotron humps in IR have only been observed for the higher magnetic field systems, the polars, this phenomenon is not yet ruled out in IP’s. The cyclotron hump does produce an IR modulation like the one observed in CP Pup. One example is AR UMa (Howell et al. 2001), where the visual and infrared double-humped light curves are caused by beamed cyclotron radiation, although initially at least the visual modulations were initially ascribed to ellipsoidal variations. Another example is HU Aqr, another polar, where the IR light curve is explained partially by cyclotron emission and the light curve is very complex to model (Howell et al. 2002).
The secondary star spectrum is not detected in optical or infrared, therefore the secondary is thought to be a main sequence star, because subgiants or giants have clear spectral signatures at distances of order of 1 kpc. If the measured spectroscopic period is orbital and CP Pup is not a triple or multiple system, the most likely reason for the absurd result of the disk accretor model is simply that the accretion is funneled by a magnetic field and does not occur through the disk. The saddled line profiles show that a disk exists, however if the innermost part of the accretion disk is disrupted by the magnetic field of an IP, the radial velocity is not measured close to the WD, but at the Alfvèn radius.
Finally, we do not rule out that the radial velocities measurements are inaccurate because the emission lines are contaminated by multiple components. The optical spectrum does show very complex velocity profiles, with multiple components in the emission lines (B08); some of these components may be produced in a hot spot on the WD or in an accretion stream rather than in the disk. B08 describe these possibilities in detail, but they conclude that assuming that CP Puppis is an IP and that the 1.47 hours period is orbital does not completely resolve the issue. Analysing new spectroscopic and photometric data taken over several years, B08 find that the structure of the emission lines is very complex and the velocity of the inner disk was not accurately determined, alleviating somewhat the “mass function problem”, but at the same time making the study of the system extremely difficult.
When we proposed observing CP Pup with [*XMM-Newton*]{}, one of our aims was to resolve the mass problem, possibly revealing the spin period of a magnetic WD. One of the characteristics signatures of IP systems is in fact that the X-ray flux is usually modulated with the rotation period of the WD, which does not rotate synchronously with the orbital period like in “polar” systems. Typical spin periods of IP are of the order of tens of minutes. A new X-ray observation of CP Pup also had a broader scope than learning the details of a single system. Because of the selection effect due to the outburst amplitude, classical novae are observed at larger distances than other CV, and they are rather faint at quiescence. Up to now, only one classical nova, V603 Aql, has yielded a grating spectrum in X-rays (Mukai & Orio 2005). X-ray grating spectra are a fundamental tool in order to study how accretion occurs. Therefore, another important aim we had was to broaden the statistics, obtaining another term of comparison to learn how accretion occurs in novae. CP Pup is the third brightest classical nova in X-rays at quiescence, after V603 Aql and GK Per.
V351 Pup: a cooling nebula?
---------------------------
V351 Pup was discovered in outburst in 1991 December 27 (Camilleri 1992). It was a moderately fast classical nova, with t$_2$ and t$_3$ of 16 and 40 days, respectively and ejection velocity $\simeq$2000 km s$^{-1}$ on average (Shore et al. 1992, Sonneborn et al. 1992). It was also a neon nova (Pachoulakis & Saizar 1995).
An X-ray flux in the 0.2-2.4 keV range F$_{\rm x}=3 \times 10^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ was measured with [*ROSAT*]{} 16 months after the outburst (Orio et al. 1996). The spectrum was quite hard in the [*ROSAT*]{} range and Orio et al. (1996) suggested that the X-ray emission could originate either in the cooling nova shell, or be due to renewed accretion. In Orio et al. (2001) we already announced and discussed that the nova was not detected with [*ASCA*]{}, with a strict upper limit of 10$^{-13}$ erg cm$^{2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the 0.7-10 keV energy range. We concluded in that paper that the first interpretation is definitely the most likely, because the shell cools and disappears as X-ray source, while accretion is expected to continue. We present here a new detection of V351Pup with XMM-Newton, but the data are far poorer in quality than the CP Pup ones, so we will discuss this object in less detail.
The new X-ray observations of CP Pup
====================================
In the first rows of Table 1 (before the double line dividing the Table in two parts) we give details concerning the X-ray observations of CP Pup done before 1998. The new observations are below the double line. The first of these observations was serendipitously made with the [*ASCA*]{} GIS (Gas Imaging Spectrometers, see Tanaka et al. 1994) on 1998/11/6, during a 50 ksec long exposure of V351 Pup. CP Puppis was in the GIS field of view. The second new observation, of much better quality, was a pointing of CP Pup with [*XMM-Newton*]{} on 2005/6/4, with an exposure time slightly longer than 50 ksec. V351 Pup was at the very edge of the field of view of the EPIC-pn and MOS-1. The [*XMM-Newton*]{} data are exceptionally good for a relatively faint CV like CP Pup. A grating spectrum, albeit with low S/N, has been observed with the RGS. CP Pup is only the second quiescent nova for which a grating X-ray spectrum exists at quiescence, although the S/N is not as high as it was for V603 Aql (Mukai & Orio 2005).
The [*ASCA*]{} observation
--------------------------
Since CP Pup was 15 arcminutes off-axis, it was observed only with the [*ASCA*]{} GIS detectors, but not with the SIS. The data reduction was performed with FTOOLS, the spectra were fitted with XSPEC (Arnaud 1996). The spectra are shown in Fig. 1. The quality of the data is poor, but it allows a useful comparison with the previous [*Einstein*]{} and [*ROSAT*]{} observations (see first part of Table 1). Table 1 gives the count rates and the unabsorbed flux derived assuming the best-fit single components thermal models of Balman et al. (1995) for the [*ROSAT*]{} data. The best fit with three temperature components to both GIS detectors (with reduced $\chi^2$=1) indicates a 0.7-10 keV unabsorbed flux 6.2 $\times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$. In the 0.7-2.4 keV band the flux is 2 $\times 10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$, within the 3$\sigma$ errors of the fits to the [*ROSAT*]{} data. However, with all models the fit temperature is unbound, because the best fit is obtained with the plasma temperature, or the highest temperature component, equal to the upper limit allowed by the model. The 2$\sigma$ error in the flux indicated in the Table is also limited at this value. The ASCA flux is in agreement with the unabsorbed flux measured in the [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations described below. We note that three-temperature APEC model that best fits the the [*XMM-Newton*]{} EPIC spectra (see Table 1 and Section 2.2), yields approximately the same parameters for [*ASCA*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{}, including the unabsorbed flux. The latter has about the same value in the multiple temperature fit and with the simple one-component models used for the initial comparison with [*ROSAT*]{} (which is also a good fit given the quality of the data).
[*XMM-Newton*]{}: The spectra
-----------------------------
Table 1 gives also the basic results of the [*XMM-Newton*]{} observation of CP Pup. The data were extracted using XMM-SAS version 6.5 including only single and double events (PATTERN$\leq$4), and the conservative screening criterion FLAG=0. The spectra were fitted with XSPEC. The RGS spectra are shown in Fig. 2, and at first glance appear strikingly similar to the [*Chandra*]{} grating spectra of V603 Aql (Mukai & Orio 2005). We identify a few emission lines beyond reasonable doubts, even if the S/N is too poor to measure line width and possible shifts. The prominent emission lines are marked in Fig. 2: Ne X $\lambda$12.13, Fe XXV $\lambda$15.01, O VIII $\lambda$18.97 and the O VII complex at 21.5-22 Å. Lines of Si, possibly Si XIV $\lambda$6.18, Si XIII $\lambda$6.65, and Mg XII $\lambda$8.42, all observed in the V603 Aql spectrum (Mukai & Orio 2005) may also be present but are not clearly resolved. The RGS-1 and RGS-2 count rate differ because of the different missing chips. The RGS-2 includes the $\approx$10.5-14 Å region where the continuum is high and there is the strongest line, Ne X at 12.13 Å, so the count rate is higher than for the RGS-1. The detection of emission lines is very important, because it allows us to test whether the spectrum can be fitted with a more realistic model than a thermal plasma with one or more temperature components, a “cooling flow” model. We used the MKCFLOW model in XSPEC, a steady state, continuously cooling multi-temperature plasma (see Mushotzky & Szymkowiak 1988, and Mukai et al. 2003). This model includes less free parameters than multi temperature thermal bremsstrahlung models in XSPEC, because it uses the emission lines strengths and ratios. The parameters are the lowest and highest temperature, the global metal abundance, the redshift, and the mass accretion rate through the cooling flow. We specify a distance of 1600 pc using the redshift parameter, which the MKCFLOW model interprets as the cosmological redshift and hence an indicator of the distance. MKCFLOW fits well the spectra of different types of CV, and especially those of non-magnetic accretors (Mukai et al. 2003). This model is particularly interesting to us also because, assuming that all accreting matter cools via optically thin thermal X-ray emission, the mass accretion rate trough the cooling flow represents the mass transfer rate onto the WD, a fundamental parameter in the nova thermonuclear runaway models. MKCFLOW yields the best fit to the RGS data. It fits the RGS better than the model used for the EPIC data, the multi-temperature APEC model in XSPEC (see description below). In Fig. 2 we how the fit to the RGS data with the MKCFLOW model and a single absorber, and the fit parameters are given in Table 1. This fit is formally acceptable, with $\chi ^2$=1, and abundances twice solar, even if the emission lines still seem more prominent than in the model, especially Ne X at 12.13 Å, Ne IX at 13.5 Å, O VIII at 18.97 Å and the He-like O VII complex at 21.5-22 Å. The latter is typical of those magnetic systems whose X-ray spectrum cannot be fitted with the cooling flow model, but it has been observed also in a non magnetic CV, the dwarf nova WX Hydri in which it has been attributed to a wind (Perna et al. 2003). Although with our S/N we do not measure a broadening of the O VII line like Perna et al. (2003) did, we note that we cannot reproduce the observed ratio of O VIII line at 18.97 Å and O VII by varying the temperatures and O abundance. We suggest that also for CP Pup O VII is most likely originated in a wind, or in the circumstellar shell of the ejecta. It certainly does not appear to originate in the accreted material. The other lines mentioned above, especially Ne X are all very prominent also in the V603 Aql spectrum (Mukai & Orio 2005). For V603 Aql, Mukai & Orio hypothesized that an overabundance of Ne in the material accreted from the secondary explains the high flux of the Ne lines. Since CP Pup had a long-lasting extended shell that was repeatedly observed in optical images (e.g. Williams et al. 1982), we do not rule out that the X-ray flux and the emission lines may be partially produced also in the ejecta. The nebula of Nova GK Per emits X-rays even more than a century after the outburst (Balman 2005). DQ Her and RR Pic also showed some extended X-ray emission (Mukai et al. 2003, Balman & Küpcü-Yoldas, 2004). However, the contribution of the shell to the X-ray flux in these novae does not exceed 20%, so we can reasonably assume that at least 80% of the X-ray emission is due to the point source.
In the different thermal models in XSPEC N(H) does not exceed 2 $\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, the upper limit to the column density to CP Pup indicated also by Balman et al. (1995). The best fit value we obtained for the normalization parameter is = 9.4 $\times 10^{-11}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, but it depends on the distance. For d=1600 pc, the 3 $\sigma$ upper limit is $\leq 1.6
\times 10^{-10}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, and conservatively we will assume this as upper limit to the mass transfer rate this nova. However even at the lowest estimated distance, 850 pc, the 3 $\sigma$ upper limit is only $\leq 8 \times 10^{-11}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, the same value obtained for V603 Aql (Mukai & Orio 2005). Thus, the possible range of values is thought to be rather on the low side for a classical nova. The other interesting result we obtain is the high maximum temperature, which is not constrained (80 keV is the maximum value allowed in MCKFLOW), consistently with the spectral fits to the broad band spectra (see also below). One important reason is that that the Ne X H-like line at 12.13 Å is much stronger than the Ne IX He-like triplet around 13.5 Å. H-like lines are emitted over a wider range of temperature than He-like line, and are stronger in a multi-temperature plasma with a wide range of temperatures.
Although values as low as 10 keV are within the 2 $\sigma$ error bars because the temperature is not well constrained by the RGS spectra, the high temperature is confirmed by fitting the broad band spectra of the EPIC instruments and [*ASCA*]{} with either MCKFLOW or a multi-temperature APEC model in XSPEC (see Table 1). The APEC code in XSPEC calculates the emission spectrum from a collisionally ionized diffuse gas, using as parameters the plasma temperature in keV, abundances of several elements (C, N, O, Ne, Mg, Al, Si, S, Ar, Ca, Fe, Ni), the redshift, and the electron and proton density. More information can be found at http://hea-www.harvard.edu/APEC/. The best fit is obtained with a three-temperature APEC model for the EPIC spectra for the individual instruments or for all the detectors together, with or without RGS. It is not surprising that APEC fits the broad band spectra better, because MKCFLOW does not yield a very meaningful fit where emission lines are not resolved. The EPIC spectra on the other hand cover the much larger energy range 0.15-10 keV, so the maximum temperature (i.e., the shock temperature) is better constrained, yet the best fit is still obtained with a component at the maximum allowed value, 64 keV. We find that the three [*EPIC*]{} spectra together can only be fitted assuming a temperature component T$_{\rm max} \geq$50 keV, a 3 $\sigma$ lower limit. In a fit to the EPIC broad band spectra with MKCFLOW, not included in Table 1 because it is worse than the APEC fit (the reduced $\chi^2$ value is 1.3), the minimum temperature is also in agreement with the RGS result, and the values are even lower, =3 $\times$ 10$^{-12}$ M$_\odot$ year$^{-1}$ and = 3.7 $\times$ 10$^{-12}$ M$_\odot$ year$^{-1}$ respectively for the EPIC pn and MOS data, = 6.9 $\times$ 10$^{-12}$ M$_\odot$ year$^{-1}$ for the [*ASCA*]{} data. There is only an upper limit for the visual luminosity before the outburst, V$<$17 (Payne Gaposhkin 1964), and CP Pup is currently at much higher optical luminosity than before the outburst, as we discuss in Section 3.1, so it seems very unlikely that this low value is explained with the “hibernation” model (Shara et al. 1986). The fact that this nova has not completely returned to the quiescent visual luminosity after so many years probably indicates that shortly before the eruption was even less high than now, after 65 years.
We remark again that [*ASCA*]{} flux of 1998 (see Table 1) is in agreement with the [*XMM-Newton*]{} results for all thermal models. The [*ROSAT*]{} and [*Einstein*]{} flux was not well constrained, but it was within the 3$\sigma$ limits assuming most models. The flux could not be well determined in those short observations with narrow bandpass (especially [*ROSAT*]{}) that only sampled the low tail of the X-ray spectrum. Variations in N(H) or small changes in the minimum temperature of the cooled plasma may also produce a discrepancy.
We note that the iron K$\alpha$ complex is detected in the EPIC spectrum (see Fig. 3). The H-like line and the He-like complex (as a whole) are resolved and like for other CV, a fluorescent line at 6.4 keV is also present, that is not produced in the thermal plasma model. It originates in “cold” iron, in any ionization state, and is due to scattering of X-rays (see discussion by Hellier & Mukai, 2004). In the EPIC-pn spectrum this line seems to be broad and we note that it shows a hint of a large red wing (perhaps extending as much as 200 eV to the red), suggestive of the “Compton down-shifted” shoulder like the one detected in GK Per (Hellier & Mukai 2004). The H-like line appears to be quite less prominent than the He-like complex, like for Ne in the RGS range. The best fit to the EPIC spectra is obtained with an APEC thermal model with three temperature components. Adding a new component does not improve the fit. The minimum value obtained for the temperature in the RGS MKCFLOW fit is 0.8 keV, and the coolest temperature component is at 0.9 keV in the fits to the EPIC instruments. The intermediate component temperature in the APEC model fits to the EPIC data, like for the ASCA data, is around 5-6 keV for the different instruments.
The most significant parameters obtained from the spectral fits are and the highest temperature is T $\geq$50 keV for all models fitted to the spectra of all detectors. This temperature represents the best estimate of the shock temperature. Following Wu et al. (2003, and references therein), in a magnetic CV the shock temperature in keV is related to M$_{\rm WD}$ by a simple relationship:
$$kT \approx 26 \times (0.5/\mu) ({\rm M}_{\rm WD}/{\rm M}_\odot) (10^9 {\rm cm}/{\rm R}_{\rm WD})$$
where $\mu$ is the mean molecular weight. For $\mu \simeq$0.5, if there is no significant expansion of the accreted envelope (that is, the WD radius is not extremely bloated, which however would cool the envelope layers and disrupt the continuity of H burning) the post-shock temperature exceeds 60 keV only for M$_{\rm WD} >$ 1.1 M$_\odot$, a lower limit for the WD mass. The lower limit to the WD mass is even [*higher*]{} if CP Pup is not a magnetic accretor. For the case of a disk accretor in which half of the shock energy is dissipated in radiation, Luna & Sokoloski (2007, and see references therein) show that the maximum temperature exceeds 50 keV if M$_{\rm WD} >$ 1.3 M$_\odot$, assuming no significant variation in radius during quiescent hydrogen burning.
Timing analysis for CP Pup
==========================
We do not observe for CP Pup the type of irregular aperiodic variability on minutes time scales that was observed for V603 Aql, but there is a prominent peak in the Fourier spectrum of the EPIC-pn and EPIC-MOS light curves, corresponding to three periods that are very close the spectroscopic one: 0.0602587 days for the pn, and 0.0616597 days for MOS 1, 0.0620440 days for MOS 2. The 1$\sigma$ uncertainties in the determination of these periods are about 7 minutes, so not only are these three periods well within each other’s statistical errors, but they are also in agreement with the spectroscopic period determined by B08, 0.0612643 days. We also split the EPIC pn light curve in three energy ranges, 0.2-0.8 keV, 0.8-2 keV, and 2-10 keV. The most prominent peak corresponds to periods of 0.0601676 d, 0.0612797 d, and 0.0594426 d, in each of the three bands respectively. These three periods are all consistent within the statistical error in the determination. Fig. 5 shows the EPIC-pn light curve in the 0.2-10 keV range folded with the period of B08. In Fig. 6 we show instead the light curves of the three energy bands indicated above, folded with the best X-ray period obtained in the whole wavelength range. It is evident that the largest modulation is in the 0.8-2 keV range. Using the ephemeris of B08, T$_0$= JD 2450157.6405 and the above period, there seems to be a small phase shift between optical-spectroscopic and X-ray period (see Fig.5). The maximum individual value in the X-ray light curve is measured at spectroscopic phase $\phi$=0.1, however the fit with a sine function, with an amplitude modulation of (24.8$\pm$0.1)% with respect to the average value, indicates a maximum at phase 0.0180$\pm$0.0006. The curve shown in Fig. 5 is a fit with a reduced $\chi^2$=1, but it may not be meaningful, since there is an error of 0.017 s in the determination of the spectroscopic period, which may add up to even 20% of the period in $\simeq$10 years. The spectroscopic phase 0.0 is defined as the epoch of red-to-blue crossing of the emission line radial velocity curve. In the baseline interpretation, the spectroscopic period is the orbital period and phase 0.0 corresponds to the inferior conjunction of the secondary. High inclination non-magnetic CVs have an X-ray minimum around phase 0.0 (eclipse) or around phase 0.75 (dips). Orbital modulations of X-ray flux have also been observed in many IPs at similar phases (e.g., Parker et al. 2006).
We used discrete Fourier transformation techniques for a period search. Due to the periods of very high cosmic background that we had to exclude (approximately a total 35% of the exposure time), we also used the CLEAN algorithm (Roberts et al. 1987) to eliminate spectral peaks originating from the temporal distribution of the data. The CLEANed power spectrum does not show any other significant peaks, so we rule out modulations of the X-ray flux on time scales of tens of minutes, characteristic of the rotation periods of many IP’s. We conclude that we could not prove the magnetic nature of CP Pup by detecting the WD spin period in X-rays.
To better examine the spectral variations during the orbital period, we plotted the count rate ratio in the 0.2-0.8 keV, most effected by absorption, over the count rate in the 2-10 keV band, least effected by absorption, and folded this ratio with the spectroscopic period. We do find a modulation of this softness ratio, but the fit with sinusoidal functions in this case would not be good (attempts to do it yield a large $\chi^2$). The curve seems to be asymmetric around the maximum measured value, that falls again at spectroscopic phase $\simeq$0.1. Like for many magnetic CV, this asymmetry may be real and due to how accretion occurs. This modulation of the softness ratio is consistent with absorption modulating the X-ray flux, but the situation may be rather complex with several different emitting regions. We extracted the the RGS spectra only at X-ray phases 0.10-0.25 and 0.75-1, and then we repeated the exercise for X-ray phase 0.25-0.75, to study the “bright” and “faint” half of the period, and we found no difference in the emission lines strength in the RGS spectra, even if the count rate is lower in the faint time. Thus the explanation in terms of varying absorption along the line of sight may be too simplistic.
[crrrrrrr]{} Instrument & Year & Bandpass & Count rate & Model & N(H) (10$^{21}$ & T & Flux (10$^{-12}$\
& & (keV) & (cts s$^{-1}$) & & cm$^{-2})$ & (keV) & erg s$^{-1}$)\
IPC & 1980 & 0.2-4 & 0.060$\pm$0.006 & TB & 1(F) & 4 & 3.0\
[*ROSAT*]{} PSPC & 1990 & 0.2-2.4 & 0.061$\pm$0.021 & & & &\
(survey) & & & & & & &\
[*ROSAT*]{} PSPC & 1992 & 0.1-2.4 & 0.067$\pm$0.004 & TB & $<$2 & 3 & 3.0$^{+8}_{-2}$\
& & 0.1-2.4 & & RS & $<$2 & 1 & 0.9$^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$\
GIS-2 & 1998 & 0.7-10 & 0.0203$\pm$0.0009 & RS & 1(F) & 64 & 6.1$^{+0.3}_{-1.2}$\
& & 0.7-2.4 & & RS & 1(F) & 64 & 2.0\
[*ASCA*]{} GIS-3 & 1998 & 0.7-10 & 0.0412$\pm$0.0012 & RS & 1(F) & 64 & 6.1$^{+0.3}_{-1.2}$\
[*ASCA*]{} GIS-2/3 & 1998 & 0.7-10 & & TB & 1(F) & 199 & 6.4$\pm$1.2\
& & 0.7-2.4 & & TB & 1(F) & 199 & 2.0\
[*ASCA*]{} GIS-2/3 & 1998 & 0.7-10 & & 3T & 2.3 & 64 & 6.7$\pm$2.0\
& & 0.7-2.4& & 3T & 2.3 & 64 & 2.0$\pm$1.9\
RGS-1 & 2005 & 0.33-2.5 & 0.0195$\pm$0.0015 & MKCF & 1.92 & 78 & 2.3$\pm$0.2\
RGS-2 & 2005 & 0.33-2.5 & 0.0249$\pm$0.0016 & MKCF & 1.92 & 78 & 2.3$\pm$0.2\
RGS-1/2 & 2005 & 0.33-2.5 & & 3T & 1.6(F) & 77 & 1.4$\pm$0.2\
EPIC-pn & 2005 & 0.15-10 & 1.3090$\pm$0.0074 & 3T & 1.43 & 64 & 6.8$\pm$0.7\
& & 0.15-2.4 & & 3T & 1.43 & 64 & 2.4$\pm$0.1\
MOS-1 & 2005 & 0.3-10 & 0.3782$\pm$0.0036 & 3T & 1.73 & 64 & 7.3$\pm$0.8\
MOS-2 & 2005 & 0.3-10 & 0.4251$\pm$0.0035 & 3T & 1.73 & 64 & 7.3$\pm$0.8\
MOS & 2005 & 0.3-2.4 & & 3T & 1.73 & 64 & 2.4$\pm$0.2\
All EPIC & 2005 & 0.3-10 & & 3T & 1.53 & 64 & 6.9$\pm$0.7\
& & 0.3-2.4 & & 3T & 1.53 & 64 & 2.4$\pm$0.3\
All XMM & 2005 & 0.33-2.5 & & 3T & 1.34 & 64 & 2.2$\pm$0.3\
[crrrrrr]{} Filter & Initial time & JD & Exposure (s) & Magnitude & $\phi$ & $\Delta\phi$\
U & 15:09:50 & 2453526.1318287 & 1008 & 14.133$\pm$0.005 & 0.94 & 0.19\
U & 16:14:59 & 2453526.1770718 & 1000 & 14.090$\pm$0.005 & 0.68 & 0.19\
U & 17:20:08 & 2453526.2223148 & 1001 & 14.084$\pm$0.005 & 0.42 & 0.19\
B & 18:25:17 & 2453526.2675579 & 1001 & 15.414$\pm$0.007 & 0.16 & 0.19\
B & 19:30:27 & 2453526.3128125 & 1001 & 15.389$\pm$0.007 & 0.89 & 0.19\
UVW1 & 21:35:35 & 2453526.3997106 & 2001 & 14.154$\pm$0.006 & 0.31 & 0.38\
UVW1 & 22:27:25 & 2453526.4357060 & 4999 & 14.123$\pm$0.004 & 0.90 & 0.94\
UVW1 & 1:09:13 & 2453526.5480671 & 2001 & 14.137$\pm$0.006 & 0.60 & 0.38\
UVM2 & 2:31:03 & 2453526.6048958 & 3124 & 14.602$\pm$0.013 & 0.66 & 0.59\
UVM2 & 4:11:37 & 2453526.6747338 & 2000 & 14.572$\pm$0.016 & 0.67 & 0.38\
CP Pup: Optical Monitor measurements and comparison with IUE
------------------------------------------------------------
Photometry was done during the X-ray exposures with the Optical Monitor and the B, U, UVW1 and UVM2 filters. The exposures were all longer than 1000 seconds, which is a significant fraction of the $\simeq$5290 s spectroscopic and putative orbital period, so no variability was detected in any of the filters in two or three successive exposures. The results are reported in Table 2. In the optical range, there are few terms of comparison, but we note that the USNO magnitudes in 1978 were B=14.1 and R=13.7, and Fig. 3 of White et al. (1993) shows that in 1987, CP Pup had an average value of B$\simeq$14.8, with a total amplitude of the photometric modulation of about 0.43 magnitudes. The magnitude B=15.4 in Table 2 is significantly higher, and implies that CP Pup is slowly returning to pre-outburst luminosity. Photometric monitoring is strongly encouraged to understand the long term evolution of this nova.
While the B magnitude shows a significant decrease, the UV flux seems to have remained approximately constant in recent years. CP Pup was observed with IUE. Exposures with the SWP (Short Wavelength Prime Camera) and with the LWP (Long Wavelength Prime Camera) were taken on 1986 February 26 and a SWP exposure was done on 1992 May 27. In order to compare the flux, we have to refer to the measurements with the LWP, which partially overlaps with the OM filters. The LWP flux in the range of the UVW1 filter is (1.01$\pm 0.3) \times 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$ Å$^{-1}$ (averaged on an exposure of 5100 s, a time comparable with the spectroscopic period). The OM magnitudes in Table 2 for the UVW1 OM filter (2450-3200 Å, effective wavelength=2910 Å) correspond to a flux 8.50 $\times 10^{-15}$ Å$^{-1}$ erg cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$ Å$^{-1}$ and the UVM2 flux (2000-2600 Å, effective wavelength=2310 Å) is 6.45 $\times 10^{-15}$ erg cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$ Å$^{-1}$ . The OM exposures were about 1000 s long, covering a significant portion of the spectroscopic phase. We conclude that there is no evidence of flux change in the common wavelength range covered by IUE-LWP and by the UV filters of the OM between 1986 and 2005. We will make a few other comments about the IUE archival spectra, that we examined in detail. Matching SWP and LWP spectra of 1986 to evaluate the absorption is not possible because the data are very noisy in the 2200 Å region. The two SWP exposures of different epochs are comparable in length (18000 s in 1986 and 18900 s in 1992) but in 1992 the SWP spectrum showed approximately a decrease by 30%, so there may be variability on long time scales. Although the SWP spectra had poor S/N, emission lines of N V, O I, C III, Si IV, C IV, He II, N IV and possibly O V at 1372 Å were definitely detected. Other IP, and all magnetic CV in general, show the same emission lines (Howell et al. 1999), but a reliable characterization of the spectra, with the poor S/N obtained, is not possible.
Discussion of the CP Pup results
================================
We find that the X-ray spectrum of CP Pup indicates a very high maximum temperature (unbound by the models), consistent with a very high mass WD. Equation (1) yields M$_{\rm WD}>1.1$ M$_\odot$ for an IP. Under “standard” assumptions for accretion only through a disk, we derive M$_{\rm WD}>1.3$ M$_\odot$. We also find that the WD must be accreting at relatively low rate compared to the estimates for other novae, $<1.6 \times
10^{-10}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$. Since we do not observe a hot central source, the secondary is not irradiated and it is reasonable to assume that is still, or has returned to, the pre-outburst level. The value we derive for is in agreement with the models of Prialnik & Kovetz (1994) and Kovetz & Prialnik (1995) for a fast nova on a high mass WD. The nova parameter space was explored by this group in the two papers above and in Yaron et al. (2005). According to these authors t$_2$ and t$_3$ are inversely proportional to the WD mass, and a large amplitude nova with moderately high ejection velocity occurs on a massive WD only if $\leq 10^{-10}$ M$_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$, which is believed to be lower than of most novae. CP Pup fits this predictions very well. In Epelstein et al. (2007) the authors make another prediction, namely that a massive WD becomes increasingly much hotter with the number of nova outbursts it experiences. A luminous and fast eruption is only possible at the beginning of the outbursts’ cycle. If this is true, CP Pup must be at the beginning of the nova cycle, and the next outburst (which however will occur in more than 10$^5$ years due to the low ) will already be less luminous. In any case, the large WD mass coupled with low probably explains why the ejecta velocity was not as high as in some other large amplitude, luminous novae. In this respect our X-ray observations nicely confirm the nova theory.
We measured an X-ray flux modulation of about 50% amplitude with the optical spectroscopic period, generally thought to be the orbital period . We note that also the optical and IR modulations have approximately the same amplitude. This similar behavior in very different energy bands cannot be easily explained with the superhump model, neither with ellipsoidal variations.
If the inclination of CP Puppis is less than 35$^{\rm o}$, as inferred with the ellipsoidal variation interpretation of the light curve (see Section 2), no orbital modulations are expected for a disk accretor. Thus, our baseline interpretation, that the 1.47 hour spectroscopic period is the orbital period, encounters a series of difficulties. If CP Pup is non-magnetic, then the emission line radial velocity curves suggest an unrealistically low-mass white dwarf, and we have no explanation for the X-ray “orbital” modulation. If CP Pup is an IP, the X-ray “orbital” modulation is less of a problem, since X-ray orbital modulations are much more common in IPs, with multiple origins being discussed (Parker et al. 2006). However, in this case, the complete lack of the spin period (at P$<$1.47 hr) is a severe problem.
We therefore propose an alternative scenario, in which the 1.47 hour spectroscopic period is the spin period of the magnetic white dwarf, and the true orbital period has never been detected in the observations to date. In this case, we have indeed detected the WD spin in X-rays, and more optical observations are needed instead to discover the true orbital period of CP Pup. Without invoking superhumps, the difference in spectroscopic and photometric periods of CP Pup is naturally explained if the modulations of the flux and of the spectral lines are caused by variations in the accretion disk, as it is periodically illuminated by the hot polar caps of an IP while the WD rotates. One possible model is the one by Chanan et al. (1978) proposed by Penning (1985) to explain the radial velocity periods of four different IPs. Another example of spectral line variations in a rotating WD is the EX Hya, another IP (Belle et al. 2005). The optical emission lines in these systems vary periodically because of the illumination effect, so that the phasing of the X-ray flux with the optical spectroscopic period is quite close. This interpretation avoids the mass problem for CP Pup, and explains why the attempt to determine the mass of the WD from the mass function, assuming that the spectroscopic period is the orbital one, gives an unreasonable result.
The question is of course why the true orbital period has remained undetected and in which range it should be searched. The system has a sizable disk, because the optical emission lines often show the saddled profile. In an IP, the disk is disrupted at the Alfvèn radius. If the spin period is about an hour and a half, the orbital period is expected to be at least $\approx$10 times larger. We also note that, if the photometric period is the beat of the orbital and spin period, the orbital period turns out to be 16.17 hours. However, CP Pup has an undetected secondary. With an orbital period larger than 10 hours, the secondary is evolved and is always detected in CV at d$\leq$2 kpc. The non-detection of the secondary in the optical spectrum therefore puts another serious constraint on the length of the orbital period. It seems difficult to admit that it is sufficiently longer than a night-time span to have not been detected yet in 3-4 nights runs.
Could the orbital period instead be short and yet have gone undetected in optical? It seems that this may be true only if CP Pup is an EX Hya-like system, that is an IP with spin period that is shorter by only less than 40% than the orbital one (Norton et al. 2004, 2008). Instead of a real accretion disk, in these systems there is a “ring-like” structure, rotating at non-Keplerian velocity. The possibility that disk of CP Pup is a thin ring of this kind is indeed intriguing. The profile of the optical emission lines of CP Pup is not very definite and simple to interpret (B08). The emission lines of the proto-type system EX Hya (Belle et al. 2005) appear to have a saddled profile like expected in “traditional” disks, and observed for the optical emission lines in the CP Pup optical spectrum. In a EX Hya type system, orbital and spin period can be even very close in length. This may be the case of CP Pup. For the time being, this is only a speculative suggestion, but it certainly deserves renewed optical monitoring to be explored.
Nova Puppis 1991
================
The [*ASCA*]{} upper limit to the X-ray flux of this nova is 10$^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the 0.3-10 keV range, much below the value F$_{\rm x}=3 \times 10^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ observed with [*ROSAT*]{} in 1993 April. We detected V351 Pup in 2005 serendipitously with [*XMM-Newton,*]{} at the edge of the EPIC detectors. The MOS1 count rate is 0.0015$\pm$0.0004 cts s$^{-1}$. The source is even more peripheral in the pn observation, and is not fully observed, so the count rate is only 0.0032$\pm$0.0010 cts s$^{-1}$. The flux measured with the MOS is 6 $\times 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the 0.2-10 keV range. Assuming a Raymond-Smith model of thermal plasma emission with the value of the column density 2 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ measured by Orio et al. (1996), the unabsorbed flux is F$_{\rm x} = 7 \times 10^{-14}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. a factor of 50 less than in 1993 April. The X-ray luminosity does not exceed 3 $\times$ 10$^{31}$ erg s$^{-1}$ in the [*XMM-Newton*]{} observation. The most likely interpretation is that the X-ray flux was due to the ejecta back in 1993, which by 2005 had cooled. The X-ray emission observed in 2005 is most likely due to accretion, although the poor quality of the data does not allow any definite conclusion.
Conclusions
===========
CP Puppis is only the second classical nova for which an X-ray grating spectrum could be obtained at quiescence. Even if with low S/N, this spectrum shows strong emission lines which probably mainly arise in a cooling flow, either in the thermal plasma of disk or of accretion columns of a magnetic WD. There is at least one emission complex (O VII at 21.6-21.8 Å), that most likely arises instead in a wind from the system, or in a circumstellar nebula. CP Pup had a very large outburst amplitude, a short t$_3$, and only moderately high ejection velocity. Examining a number of theoretical papers quoted above, we find that these characteristics are explained by the upper limit to the mass accretion rate $< 1.6 \times 10^{-10}$ M$_\odot$ year$^{-1}$, and by the lower limit for the WD mass, M(WD)$>$1.1 M$_\odot$, obtained by fitting the X-ray spectra. The X-ray observation of this nova at quiescence therefore confirm the nova theory, offering a rare possibility to probe it in detail. The models of WD thermonuclear burning and runaways are also at the base of type Ia SN studies, and testing them is important for all aspects of modern astrophysics, including cosmology.
The puzzle of the WD mass of CP Puppis is not solved yet. With our observations, we could not demonstrate univocally that the WD is magnetic and the disk is disrupted far from the WD, however the high L$_{\rm x}$ is typical for an IP. The only point we found against the magnetic nature is relevant only if the detected X-ray modulation is orbital: the X-ray orbital modulation of CP Pup is larger at intermediate energy (0.8-2 keV), although in known IP’s the amplitude of orbital modulations generally decreases with energy (e.g. Hellier et al. 1993, Parker et al. 2006). On the other hand, the mere existence of an X-ray flux modulation with the optical-spectroscopic period argues in favor of an IP, no matter how it is interpreted. If it is orbital, it would not be detected in a non-eclipsing disk accretor. If it is rotational, detection of the WD spin is indeed expected for an IP. The high WD mass is also proof that the non-magnetic, disk accretor model does not work for CP Pup. It cannot be ruled out that all the observed periodicities at different wavelengths, including our X-ray modulation, are related to the WD rotation and the true orbital period has never been detected. This suggestion, for the time being, is only a working hypothesis that will need to be supported by further observations, especially by long optical photometric campaigns.
Finally, we also detected V351 Pup 14 years after the outburst, at least 50 times less luminous than 12 years earlier. This seems to indicate that the much larger hard X-ray luminosity at that time was due to the ejected shell, which had already cooled in 2005. Nova shells are known to be conspicuous X-ray sources after the outburst (see for instance the shell emission of RS Oph, Nelson et al. 2008) and in most novae they seem to cool very rapidly (Orio et al. 2001). An upper limit for the cooling time of the V351 Pup shell is 6 and a half years, the time elapsed between the [*ROSAT*]{} and [*ASCA*]{} observation.
[*Facilities:*]{}
Balman, S. 2005, ApJ,627, 933 Balman, S., & Küpcü-Yoldas, A. 2004, in Magnetic Cataclysmic Variables, editors S. Vrielmann ad M. Cropper, ASP Conf. Proc. 315, 172 Balman, S., Orio, M., & Ögelman, H. 1995, ApJ, 449, L47 Belle, K.E., et al. 2005, AJ, 129, 1985 Baskill, D.S., Wheatley, P.J, & Osborne, J.P. 2005, MRAS, 357, 626 Bianchini, A., Friedjung, M. & Sabbadin, F. 1985a, IBVS 2650 Bianchini, A., Friedjung, M. & Sabbadin, F. 1985b, Bianchini, A., et al. 2008, preprint in Recent results on Cataclysmic Variables, ESA SP-236, 77, Noordwijk Chanan, G.A., Nelson, J.E., & Margon, B. 1978, ApJ, 226, 963 Cohen, J.G., & Rosenthal,A.J. 1983, ApJ, 268,689 Diaz, M.P., Bruch, A. 1997, A&A, 322, 807 Diaz, M.P., & Steiner, J.E. 1991, 103, 964 Downes, R.A., Dürbeck, H.W. 2000, AJ, 120, 2007 Epelstein, N., Yaron, O., Kovetz, A., Prialnik, D. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1449 Hellier, C., Garlick, M.A., Mason, K.O. 1993, MNRAS, 260, 299 Hellier, C., & Mukai, K. 2001, MNRAS, 352, 1037 Howell, S., Cash, J., Mason, K.O., & Herzog, A.B. 1999, AJ, 115, 1014 Howell, S., Ciardi, D.R., Sirk, M.M. & Schwope, A.D. 2002, AJ, 123, 420 Howell, S., Gelino, D.M., & Harrison, T.E. 2001, AJ, 121, 482 Kellogg, E., Baldwin, J.R., & Koch, D. 1975, ApJ, 199, 299 Kovetz, A. & Prialnik, D. 1994, ApJ, 424, 319 Livio, M., Shankar A., & Truran, J. 1988. ApJ, 330, 264 Luna, J.G.M., & Sokoloski, J.L. 2007, ApJ, 671, 741 Mukai, K., Still, M., & Ringwald, F. 2003, ApJ Mukai, K., & Orio, M. 2005, ApJ, 622, 602 Mushotzki, R., & Szmkowiak, 1988, in Cooling Flows in Clusters and Galaxies, A. Fabian ed., Kluwer, 53 Nelson, T., Orio, M., Cassinelli, J., Still, M., & Mucciarelli, P. 2008, ApJ, 673, 1067 Ness, J.U., et al. 2003, 594, L127 Norton, A.J., Butters, O.W., Parker, T.L., & Wynn, G.A. 2008, ApJ, 672, 524 Norton, A.J., Wynn, G.A., & Somerscales, R.. 2004, ApJ, 614, 349 O’Donoghue, D., Warner, B., Wargau, W., & Grauer, A.D. 1989, MNRAS, 240, 41 Orio, M., Ögelman, H. & Trussoni, E. 1992, A&A, 257, 548 Orio, M., Balman, S., Della Valle, M., Gallagher, J. & Ögelman, H. 1996, ApJ, 466, 410 Parker, T.L. 2006, PhD Thesis at the Open University Payne Gaposhkin, C. 1964, The Galactic Novae, Dover Publications: New York Patterson, J., & Warner, B. 1998, PASP, 110, 1026 Penning, W.R. 1985, ApJ, 289, 300 Perna, R., McDowell, J., Menou, K., Raymond, J., & Medvedev, M.V. 2003, ApJ, 598, 545 Prialnik, D., & Kovetz, A. 1995, ApJ, 445, 789 Raymond, J.C., & Smith, R.W. 1977, ApJS, 35, 419 Roberts, D.H., Lehar, J. & Drehler, J.W. 1987, AJ, 93, 968 Shara, M., Livio M., Moffat, A.F.J., Orio, M. 1987, ApJ, 311, 163 Shore, S., et al. 1992, IAU Circ. 5523 Starrfield, S., Truran, J.W., & Sparks, W.M. 2000, NewAR 44, 81 Szkody, P., & Feinswog, L. 1988, ApJ, 334, 422 Tanaka, Y., Inoue, H., & Holt S.S. 1994, PASJ, 46, L37 Tovmassian, G.H., et al. 2001, A&A, 379, 199 Warner, B., 1985, MNRAS, 17, 1P White, J.C., Honeycutt, R.K., & Horne, K. 1993, ApJ, 412, 278 Williams, R.E., 1982, ApJ, 261, 170 Wu, K., Cropper, M., & Ramsay, G. 2003, ChJAS, 3, 235 Yaron, O., Prialnik, D., Shara, M.M., Kovetz, A. 2005, ApJ, 623, 398
{width="12cm"}
{width="12cm"}
.
{width="12cm"}
{width="10.5cm"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the E-theory group $E_{[0,1]}(A,B)$ for a class of C\*-algebras over the unit interval with finitely many singular points, called elementary $C[0,1]$-algebras. We use results on E-theory over non-Hausdorff spaces to describe $E_{[0,1]}(A,B)$ where $A$ is a sky-scraper algebra. Then we compute $E_{[0,1]}(A,B)$ for two elementary $C[0,1]$-algebras in the case where the fibers $A(x)$ and $B(y)$ of $A$ and $B$ are such that $E^1(A(x),B(y)) = 0$ for all $x,y\in [0,1]$. This result applies whenever the fibers satisfy the UCT, their $K_0$-groups are free of finite rank and their $K_1$-groups are zero. In that case we show that $E_{[0,1]}(A,B)$ is isomorphic to ${\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))}$, the group of morphisms of the K-theory sheaves of $A$ and $B$. As an application, we give a streamlined partially new proof of a classification result due to the first author and Elliott.'
author:
- Marius Dadarlat and Prahlad Vaidyanathan
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: 'E-theory for $C[0,1]$-algebras with finitely many singular points'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
A deep isomorphism theorem of Kirchberg [@kirchberg] states that if $A$ and $B$ are strongly purely infinite, stable, nuclear, separable C\*-algebras with primitive ideal spectrum homeomorphic to the same space $X$, then $A \cong B$ if and only the group $KK_X(A, B)$ contains an invertible element, where $KK_X(A,B)$ denotes the bivariant K-theory for C\*-algebras over a space $X$. This leads to the question of computing $KK_X(A, B)$ and finding simpler invariants to understand this object. In the present paper we focus mainly on the case when $X$ is the unit interval. Recall that a C\*-algebra over a locally compact, Hausdorff space $X$ is one that carries an essential central action of $C_0(X)$, and by the Dauns-Hofmann theorem, every C\*-algebra with a Hausdorff spectrum $X$ can be thought of as a continuous $C_0(X)$-algebra (see Definition \[defn: cx\_algebra\]).\
In this paper, we obtain information on $KK_X(A,B)$ using the $E$-theory groups $E_X(A,B)$, [@park_trout],[@mdd_meyer]. It is known [@park_trout Theorem 4.7] that $E_X(A,B)$ coincides with $KK_X(A,B)$ when $X$ is a locally compact Hausdorff space and $A$ is a separable continuous nuclear $C_0(X)$-algebra. Furthermore, the fact that E-theory satisfies excision for all extensions of $C_0(X)$-algebras enables us to compute the $E_{[0,1]}$-group for a class of elementary $C[0,1]$-algebras using the E-theory of their fibers and the E-theory classes of the connecting maps. We make crucial use of the generalization of $E$-theory to C\*-algebras over non-Hausdorff spaces, as developed in [@mdd_meyer]. Elementary $C[0,1]$-algebras, studied in [@mdd_fiberwise], [@mdd_elliott] and [@mdd_pasnicu], act as basic building blocks for more complex $C[0,1]$-algebras (see [@mdd_elliott Theorem 6.2]) and this paper should be viewed as a stepping stone towards that more general situation. As a first application of our calculations, we give a streamlined proof of the main result of [@mdd_elliott], see Theorem \[thm:DE\].\
One reason which makes the computation of the $KK_X$-groups difficult is the prevalence of non-semisplit extensions over $X$. To illustrate this point, let us mention that the exact sequence of $C[0,1]$-algebras $0\to C_0[0,1)\to C[0,1]\to \mathbb{C}\to 0$ is not semisplit over $X=[0,1]$. This is more than a technical nuisance, since as pointed out in [@bauval Remarques 1], a six-term sequence of the form $$\xymatrix{
KK_X^0(\mathbb{C},D)\ar[r]&
KK_X^0(C[0,1],D)\ar[r]&
KK_X^0(C_0[0,1),D)\ar[d]\\
KK_X^1(C_0[0,1),D)\ar[u]&
KK_X^1(C[0,1],D)\ar[l]&
KK_X^1(\mathbb{C},D)\ar[l]
}$$ cannot be exact for $D=C_0[0,1)$. Indeed, after computing each term one gets: $$\xymatrix{
0\ar[r]&
0\ar[r]&
\mathbb{Z}\ar[d]\\
0\ar[u]&
0\ar[l]&
0\ar[l] {}.
}$$ In contrast, the corresponding six-term exact sequence in $E^*_X$ is exact. This property plays an important role in our investigation of $C[0,1]$-algebras with finitely many singular points.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section \[sec: e\_theory\], we revisit the construction of E-theory for C\*-algebras over a space $X$ and establish some preliminary lemmas. In Section \[sec: skyscraper\], we use the results in [@mdd_meyer] to describe $E_X(A,B)$ where $A$ is a sky-scraper algebra (Theorem \[thm: skyscraper\]). Section \[sec: elementary\] contains the main result of this paper (Theorem \[thm: ex\]), where we compute $E_X(A,B)$ for two elementary $C[0,1]$-algebras $A$ and $B$ whose fibers satisfy the condition $E^1(A(x),B(y)) = 0$ for all $x,y\in [0,1]$. In Section \[sec: k\_theory\], we apply these results to the case where the fibers satisfy the UCT of [@rosenberg-schochet], whose $K_0$-group is free of finite rank, and whose $K_1$-group is zero. In this case, we show (Theorem \[thm: uct\]) that the natural map $\Gamma_{A,B}: E_X(A,B) \to {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))}$ is an isomorphism. The fact that this map is surjective was proved, through different means, in [@mdd_elliott]. The merit of our arguments is that, not only were we able to show that the map is also injective, but we showed it using more natural methods. Also, the fact that we do not require the UCT in Theorem \[thm: ex\] is a marked difference from [@mdd_elliott].\
The authors are thankful to the referee for the suggestion to revisit the classification result of [@mdd_elliott].
E-theory over a topological space {#sec: e_theory}
=================================
We recall some basic definitions and facts from [@mdd_meyer].\
Let $A$ be a C\*-algebra, and let Prim($A$) denote its primitive ideal space equipped with the hull-kernel topology. Let $\mathbb{I}(A)$ be the set of ideals of $A$ partially ordered by inclusion. For a space $X$, let $\mathbb{O}(X)$ be the set of open subsets of $X$ partially ordered by inclusion. Then there is a canonical lattice isomorphism [@dixmier $\mathsection$ 3.2] $$\label{eqn:lattice_iso}
\mathbb{O}(\text{Prim}(A)) \cong \mathbb{I}(A), \quad U \mapsto \bigcap \{\mathfrak{p}: \mathfrak{p} \in \text{Prim}(A)\setminus U \}$$
\[defn: cx\_algebra\] Let $X$ be a second countable topological space. A *C\*-algebra over $X$* is a C\*-algebra $A$ together with a continuous map $\psi: \text{Prim}(A) \to X$. If in addition $X$ is locally compact and Hausdorff, then this is equivalent to a \*-homomorphism from $C_0(X)$ to the center of the multiplier algebra of $A$ such that $C_0(X)A=A$. In this case, $A$ is called a $C_0(X)$-algebra.\
For $U \subset X$ open, let $A(U) \in \mathbb{I}(A)$ be the ideal that corresponds to $\psi^{-1}(U) \in \mathbb{O}(\text{Prim}(A))$ under the isomorphism . For $F \subset X$ closed, let $A(F) = A/A(X\setminus F)$. Both $A(U)$ and $A(F)$ are C\*-algebras over $X$.\
If $X$ is Hausdorff, $A(U) = C_0(U)A$. We write $\pi_x$ for the quotient map $A \to A(\{x\})$ and we say that $A$ is a continuous $C_0(X)$-algebra if the function $x\mapsto \|\pi_x(a)\|$ is continuous for all $a\in A$.
An asymptotic morphism between two C\*-algebras $A$ and $B$ is a family of maps ${\varphi}_t : A\to B$, for $t \in T := [0,\infty)$ such that $t \mapsto {\varphi}_t(a)$ is a bounded continuous function from $T$ to $B$ for each $a \in A$, and $${\varphi}_t(a^{\ast} + \lambda b) - {\varphi}_t(a)^{\ast} - \lambda{\varphi}_t(b) \quad \text{ and }\quad {\varphi}_t(ab) - {\varphi}_t(a){\varphi}_t(b)$$ converge to $0$ in the norm topology as $t \to \infty$ for each $a, b \in A$ and $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$.\
Equivalently, an asymptotic morphism can be viewed as a map ${\varphi}: A \to C_b(T,B)$ that induces a \*-homomorphism $$\hat{{\varphi}} : A \to B_{\infty} = C_b(T,B)/C_0(T,B).$$
Two asymptotic morphisms ${\varphi}_t$ and ${\varphi}^{\prime}_t$ are called equivalent (in symbols, ${\varphi}_t \sim {\varphi}^{\prime}_t$) iff $\hat{{\varphi}} = \hat{{\varphi}^{\prime}}$, ie. ${\varphi}_t(a) - {\varphi}^{\prime}_t(a) \to 0$ as $t \to \infty$ for each $a \in A$.\
Let $A$ and $B$ be C\*-algebras over a second countable topological space $X$. A \*-homomorphism $\theta : A\to B$ is called $X$-equivariant if $\theta$ maps $A(U)$ into $B(U)$ for all open sets $U \subset X$.\
An asymptotic morphism ${\varphi}: A\to C_b(T,B)$ is called approximately $X$-equivariant if, for any open set $U \subset X$, $$\label{eq:equiv}
{\varphi}(A(U)) \subset C_b(T,B(U)) + C_0(T,B).$$ If $X$ is second countable, then an asymptotic morphism ${\varphi}: A\to C_b(T,B)$ is approximately $X$-equivariant if and only if it satisfies for only those open sets $U_n$ in a countable subbasis $(U_n)_n$ of the topology of $X$.
If in addition $X$ is a locally compact Hausdorff space, then by [@mdd_meyer Lemma 2.11] ${\varphi}$ is an approximately $X$-equivariant morphism if and only if ${\varphi}$ is an asymptotic $C_0(X)$-morphism in the sense of [@park_trout Definition 3.1]. i.e. ${\varphi}(fa)-f{\varphi}(a)\in C_0(T,B)$ for all $f\in C_0(X)$ and $a\in A$.
\[lem: restriction\] Let $A$ and $B$ be C\*-algebras over a second countable topological space $X$ and let $\psi_t:A\to B$ be an approximately $X$-equivariant asymptotic morphism. For any open set $U \subset X$, there is an approximately $X$-equivariant asymptotic morphism $\psi_t^U : A \to B$ such that $\psi_t^U \sim \psi_t$ and $$\psi_t^{U}(A(U)) \subset B(U) \fa t \in T.$$
For an open subset $U$ of $X$ let
$$B_{\infty}(U):=\frac{C_b(T,B(U))+C_0(T,B)}{C_0(T,B)}.$$ Note that $B_{\infty}(X)=B_{\infty}$. Let $\pi:C_b(T,B)\to B_{\infty}$ be the quotient map. Let $s_U: B_\infty(U)\to C_b(T,B(U))$ be a set theoretic section of the surjective map $\pi_U :C_b(T,B(U))\to B_\infty(U)$ obtained by restricting $\pi$ to $C_b(T,B(U))$. Extend $s_U$ to a section $s:B_\infty \to C_b(T,B)$ of $\pi$. Then $\psi^{U}:=s\circ \hat \psi$ is an asymptotically $X$-equivariant asymptotic morphism equivalent to $\psi$ since $\hat \psi^{U}=\hat \psi$. Moreover, we have that $$\psi^{U}(A(U))=s(\hat \psi(A(U)))\subset C_b(T,B(U))$$ since $\hat\psi(A(U))\subset B_{\infty}(U)$ as a consequence of the assumption that $\psi(A(U)) \subset C_b(T,B(U)) + C_0(T,B)$.
A homotopy of asymptotic morphisms from $A$ to $B$ is an asymptotic morphism from $A$ to $C([0,1],B)$. Let $\llbracket A,B\rrbracket_X$ denote the set of homotopy classes of approximately $X$-equivariant asymptotic morphisms from A to B, and let ${\llbracket \psi_t \rrbracket}$ denote the homotopy class of an approximately $X$-equivariant asymptotic morphism $\psi_t:A \to B$.\
It is immediate that equivalent asymptotic morphisms are homotopic.
Let $X$ be a second-countable topological space and let $A$ and $B$ be separable C\*-algebras over $X$. Define $$\begin{split}
E_X(A,B) = E_X^0(A,B) &= \llbracket SA\otimes \mathcal{K}, SB\otimes \mathcal{K} \rrbracket_X \\
E_X^1(A,B) &= E_X(A,SB)
\end{split}$$ where $S$ denotes the suspension functor $SA = C_0(\mathbb{R},A)$.\
By [@mdd_meyer Theorem 2.25], there is a composition product $$E_X(A,B)\times E_X(B,C) \to E_X(A,C)$$ and $E_X(\cdot, \cdot)$ is the universal half-exact, C\*-stable homotopy functor on the category of separable C\*-algebras over $X$. There are six-term exact sequences in each variable of $E^{\ast}_X(A,B)$.\
Furthermore, if $X$ is a locally compact, Hausdorff space, then this definition of $E^{\ast}_X(A,B)$ coincides with that of Park and Trout (see [@mdd_meyer Proposition 2.29])
With these definitions in place, Proposition \[prop: open\_set\] is now a simple consequence of Lemma \[lem: restriction\].
\[prop: open\_set\] Let $X$ be a second-countable topological space and let $A$ and $B$ be separable C\*-algebras over $X$. For any open set $U \subset X$, the inclusion map $i: B(U) \to B$ induces a natural isomorphism $$i_{\ast} : E_X^{\ast}(A(U), B(U)) \xrightarrow{\cong} E_X^{\ast}(A(U), B).$$
\[prop: restriction\] Let $X$ be a second-countable topological space and let $A$ and $B$ be separable C\*-algebras over $X$. If $U \subset Y \subset X$ with $U$ open and $Y$ has the induced topology, then $$E_X^{\ast}(A(U), B(U)) \cong E_Y^{\ast}(A(U), B(U)).$$
Let us first observe that $A(U)$ and $B(U)$ are C\*-algebras over $Y$. Indeed if $W$ is open in $Y$, then $W=Y\cap V$ for some open subset $V$ of $X$ and $A(U)(W):=A(U\cap V)$. It is then clear that an asymptotic morphism ${\varphi}:A(U)\to C_b(T,B(U))$ is approximately $X$-equivariant if and only if it is approximately $Y$-equivariant. This concludes the proof.
Sky-Scraper Algebras {#sec: skyscraper}
====================
In this section, we consider C\*-algebras over a space $X$ with exactly one non-trivial fibre, called sky-scraper algebras. We use [@mdd_meyer Theorem 3.2] to exhibit a short-exact sequence that computes $E_X(A,B)$, where $A$ is a sky-scraper algebra. In the following section, we use this exact sequence to isolate those points where a $C[0,1]$-algebra is not locally trivial.
\[ex: skyscraper\] Let $D$ a separable C\*-algebra and let $X$ be a topological space. Fix a point $x\in X$ and define $i_x(D)$ to be the C\*-algebra $D$ regarded as a C\*-algebra over $X$ by setting $$i_x(D)(U) = \begin{cases}
D & : x \in U \\
0 & : x \notin U.
\end{cases}$$ $i_x(D)$ is called the sky-scraper algebra with fiber $D$ at the point $x$. If $X$ is locally compact, the corresponding action of $C_0(X)$ is given by $\iota(f)(d) := f(x)d$.
\[thm: skyscraper\] Let $i_x(D)$ be a sky-scraper algebra as in Definition \[ex: skyscraper\] and assume that $X$ is second countable. Let $\{U_n\}_n$ be a neighbourhood basis of open neighbourhoods of $x$ such that $U_{n+1} \subset U_n \fa n \in \mathbb{N}.$ Then, for any separable C\*-algebra $B$ over $X$, there is a short exact sequence $${0 \to {\mathop{\varprojlim}\,\hspace{-0.06in}^{1}}{E^{\ast + 1}(D, B(U_n))} \to E_X^{\ast}(i_x(D), B) \to {\mathop{\varprojlim}}{E^{\ast}(D, B(U_n))} \to 0}$$
Let $Y := (X, \tau)$ be a topological space whose underlying space is $X$, but whose topology $\tau$ is the topology generated by the sets $\{U_n\}_n$. We claim that $$\label{eq:finite}
E_X^{\ast}(i_x(D), B) = E_Y^{\ast}(i_x(D), B)$$ To see this, consider an asymptotic morphism $\psi_t : i_x(D) \to B$ and the induced map $\psi : i_x(D) \to C_b(T,B)$ (we do not use suspensions for ease of notation, but it is clear that the same argument holds with suspensions). From the definition of $i_x(D)$, we see that $\psi_t$ is approximately $X$-equivariant if and only if $$\psi(D) \subseteq C_b(T,B(U)) + C_0(T, B) \fa \,\, U \text{open}\, \subset X, \, x \in U.$$ On the other hand $\psi_t$ is approximately $Y$-equivariant, if and only if $$\psi(D) \subseteq C_b(T,B(U_n)) + C_0(T, B) \fa \, n \in \mathbb{N}$$ But if $U \subset X$ is open and $x \in U$, then there is $n_0 \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $U_{n_0} \subset U$. Thus, if $\psi_t$ is asymptotically $Y$-equivariant, then $$\psi(D) \subseteq C_b(T,B(U_{n_0})) + C_0(T, B) \subseteq C_b(T,B(U)) + C_0(T, B)$$ and hence $\psi_t$ will be approximately $X$-equivariant as well. The converse is obvious since every open set in $Y$ is already open in $X$. Since the same argument applies to homotopies $\Phi_t : i_x(D) \to C([0,1],B)$, we obtain . With a view to apply the ${\mathop{\varprojlim}\,\hspace{-0.06in}^{1}}$-sequence from [@mdd_meyer Theorem 3.2], we define $
X_n := (X, \tau_n),$ where the topology $\tau_n$ is generated by the sets $\{U_1, U_2, \ldots, U_n\}$. We now claim that $$E_{X_n}^{\ast}(i_x(D), B) \cong E^{\ast}(D, B(U_n)).$$ As before (omitting suspensions), we consider an asymptotic morphism $\psi_t : i_x(D) \to B$, and note that, since $U_n \subset U_i$ for each $i \leq n$, $\psi_t$ is approximately $X_n$-equivariant if and only if $$\psi(D) \subseteq C_b(T,B(U_n)) + C_0(T, B).$$ Since $U_n \subset X_n$ is open, we may apply Lemma \[lem: restriction\] to obtain a map $$\eta : E_{X_n}(i_x(D), B) \to E(D, B(U_n)), \qquad {\llbracket \psi_t \rrbracket} \mapsto {\llbracket \psi_t^{U_n} \rrbracket}.$$ We claim that $\eta$ is bijective: Suppose that ${\llbracket \psi_t^{U_n} \rrbracket} = {\llbracket {\varphi}_t^{U_n} \rrbracket}$ in $E(D, B(U_n))$. Then there is a homotopy $\Phi_t: D \to C[0,1]\otimes B(U_n)$ connecting $\psi_t^{U_n}$ to ${\varphi}_t^{U_n}.$ Since $$\Phi_t(D) \subset C[0,1]\otimes B(U_n) \subset C[0,1]\otimes B,$$ $\Phi_t$ is an asymptotically $X_n$-equivariant map from $i_x(D)$ to $C[0,1]\otimes B$ connecting $\psi_t^{U_n}$ and ${\varphi}_t^{U_n}$. But by Lemma \[lem: restriction\], $\psi_t \sim \psi_t^{U_n}$ and ${\varphi}_t \sim {\varphi}_t^{U_n}$, and hence ${\llbracket \psi_t \rrbracket} = {\llbracket {\varphi}_t \rrbracket}$ in $E_{X_n}(i_x(D), B)$ and hence $\eta$ is injective.\
For surjectivity, we observe that any given asymptotic morphism ${\varphi}_t : D \to B(U_n)$, can be viewed as an $X_n$-equivariant asymptotic morphism $\psi_t:i_x(D)\to B$. We are now in a position to complete the proof. Since the collection $\{U_n\}$ forms a countable basis for the topological space $Y,$ we may apply [@mdd_meyer Theorem 3.2] to obtain a short exact sequence $${0 \to {\mathop{\varprojlim}\,\hspace{-0.06in}^{1}}{E^{\ast + 1}_{X_n}(i_x(D),B)} \to E_Y^{\ast}(i_x(D),B) \to {\mathop{\varprojlim}}{E^{\ast}_{X_n}(i_x(D),B)} \to 0}.$$ By our earlier identifications, this reduces to $${0 \to {\mathop{\varprojlim}\,\hspace{-0.06in}^{1}}{E^{\ast + 1}(D, B(U_n))} \to E_X^{\ast}(i_x(D), B) \to {\mathop{\varprojlim}}{E^{\ast}(D, B(U_n))} \to 0}. \qedhere$$
We now list some corollaries of Theorem \[thm: skyscraper\] which will be useful to us in the next section.
\[cor: cor\_sky\_1\] If $U \subset X$ is an open set such that $x \notin \overline{U}$, then $$E_X^{\ast}(i_x(D), B(U)) = 0.$$
There exists an open neighbourhood $O$ of $x$ such that $O\cap U = \emptyset$. Consider a sequence of neighbourhoods $(U_n)_n$ of $x$ as in Theorem \[thm: skyscraper\] such that $U_1 = O$. Then $$E^{\ast}(D, B(U)(U_n)) = E^{\ast}(D, B(U\cap U_n)) \cong 0,$$ and the result follows from Theorem \[thm: skyscraper\].
\[cor: cor\_sky\_2\] Let $A$, $B$, $D$, $\{U_n\}_n$ and $x$ be as in Theorem \[thm: skyscraper\]. Suppose that the all the inclusions $B(U_{n+1})\hookrightarrow B(U_{n})$ are equivalences in E-theory. Then, for any fixed $k \in \mathbb{N}$: $$E_X^{\ast}(i_x(D), B) \cong E^{\ast}(D, B(U_k)).$$
The assumption that the inclusion maps $B(U_{n+1}) \hookrightarrow B(U_n)$ is an equivalence in E-theory implies that ${\mathop{\varprojlim}}{E^{\ast}(D, B(U_n))} \cong E^{\ast}(D, B(U_k))$ and $
{\mathop{\varprojlim}\,\hspace{-0.06in}^{1}}{E^{\ast+1}(D, B(U_n))} \cong 0.
$ The conclusion follows now from Theorem \[thm: skyscraper\].
\[cor: e\_trivial\] Let $U \subset [0,1]$ be an open interval. For any two separable C\*-algebras $D, H$ $$E_{[0,1]}^{\ast}(C_0(U)\otimes D, C_0(U)\otimes H) \cong E^{\ast}(D,H)$$
Suppose that $U = (a,b)$, then by Proposition \[prop: restriction\], we may assume without loss of generality that $a = 0$ and $b = 1$. Now by Theorem \[prop: open\_set\] $$E_{[0,1]}^{\ast}(C_0(0,1)\otimes D, C_0(0,1)\otimes H) \cong E_{[0,1]}^{\ast}(C_0(0,1)\otimes D, C[0,1]\otimes H)$$ Now consider the short exact sequence $${0 \to C_0(0,1)\otimes D \to C[0,1]\otimes D \to i_0(D)\oplus i_1(D) \to 0}.$$ By Corollary \[cor: cor\_sky\_1\], $$E_{[0,1]}^{\ast}(i_0(D), C[0,1]\otimes H) \cong E^{\ast}(D, C_0[0,1)\otimes H) \cong 0$$ since $C_0[0,1)\otimes H$ is contractible. Similarly $$E_{[0,1]}^{\ast}(i_1(D), C[0,1]\otimes H) \cong 0.$$ Hence by using the six-term exact sequence in the first variable of $E^*_{[0,1]}$ and [@mdd_meyer Lemma 2.30] we obtain $$\begin{split}
E_{[0,1]}^{\ast}(C_0(0,1)\otimes D, C_0(0,1)\otimes H) & \cong E_{[0,1]}^{\ast}(C[0,1]\otimes D, C[0,1]\otimes H) \\
& \cong E^{\ast}(D, C[0,1]\otimes H) \\
& \cong E^{\ast}(D, H)
\end{split}$$ Now suppose $U = [0,a)$ or $U = (b,1]$, and since the proofs are identical, we assume that $U = [0,a)$. Furthermore, by using Proposition \[prop: restriction\], we may assume without loss of generality that $a = 1$. Now the proof is identical to the first part, except that we use the short exact sequence $${0 \to C_0[0,1)\otimes D \to C[0,1]\otimes D \to i_1(D) \to 0}$$ instead.
Elementary $C[0,1]$-algebras {#sec: elementary}
============================
A $C[0,1]$-algebra is said to be locally trivial at a point $x \in [0,1]$ if there is an open neighborhood $U$ of $x$, and a C\* algebra $D$ such that $A(U) \cong C_0(U)\otimes D$. If $A$ is not locally trivial at $x$, we say that $x$ is a singular point of $A$.\
By an *elementary $C[0,1]$-algebra*, we mean an algebra which is locally trivial at all but finitely many points and moreover the algebra has a specific structure at the singular points as described below in Definition \[def:elementary-1\]. The importance of such algebras comes from the following theorem due to the first author and Elliott.
\[thm:structure\][@mdd_elliott Theorem 6.2] Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a class of unital semi-projective Kirchberg algebras. Let $A$ be a separable unital continuous $C[0,1]$-algebra such that all of its fibers are inductive limits of sequences in $\mathcal{C}$. Then, there exists an inductive system $(A_k, \varphi_k)$ consisting of unital elementary $C[0,1]$-algebras with fibers in $\mathcal{C}$ and unital morphisms of $C[0,1]$-algebras $\varphi_k \in \text{\textnormal{Hom}}(A_k,A_{k+1})$ such that $$A \cong {\mathop{\varinjlim}}(A_k, \varphi_k)$$ A similar result is valid if one assumes that all the C\*-algebras in $\mathcal{C}$ are stable rather than unital.
Theorem \[thm:structure\] applies to all continuous $C[0,1]$-algebras whose fibers are Kirchberg algebras satisfying the UCT and having torsion free $K_1$-groups. Furthermore, by [@mdd_fiberwise Theorem 2.5], any separable nuclear continuous $C[0,1]$-algebra over $[0,1]$ is $KK_{[0,1]}$-equivalent to a separable continuous unital $C[0,1]$-algebra whose fibers are Kirchberg algebras. Thus, the elementary $C[0,1]$-algebras are basic building blocks (in a K-theoretical sense) of all continuous $C[0,1]$-algebras.\
Elementary $C[0,1]$-algebras are given by the following data: Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a fixed class of separable C\*-algebras. Let $X = [0,1]$, and consider a partition $\mathcal{P}$ of $[0,1]$ given by $$0 = x_0 <x_1 < \ldots < x_n < x_{n+1} = 1$$ Write $F := \{x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n\}$. We define a $C[0,1]$-algebra which is locally trivial at all points except possibly this finite set $F$ and has fibers in the class $\mathcal{F}$.\
Suppose that we are given C\*-algebras $$\{D_1, D_2, \ldots, D_n, H_1, H_2, \ldots, H_{n+1}\} \subset \mathcal{F}$$ and \*-homomorphisms $$\gamma_{i,0} : D_i \to H_i \qquad \gamma_{i,1} : D_i \to H_{i+1}$$
Define $$\begin{split}
A = \begin{Bmatrix} ((d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_n), (h_1, h_2,\ldots, h_{n+1})) :& d_i \in D_i, h_i \in C[x_{i-1},x_i]\otimes H_i \\
& \text{ s.t. } \gamma_{i,j}(d_i) = h_{i+j}(x_i) \\
&\forall i \in \{1,2,\ldots, n\}, j\in \{0,1\} \end{Bmatrix}
\end{split}$$
In other words, $A$ is the pull-back of the diagram $$\begin{CD}
A @>>> \bigoplus_{i=1}^{n+1} C[x_{i-1},x_i]\otimes H_i \\
@VVV @VV{eval}V \\
\bigoplus_{i=1}^n D_i @> (\gamma_{i,0}, \gamma_{i,1}) >> \bigoplus_{i=1}^n H_i\oplus H_{i+1}
\end{CD}$$
\[def:elementary-1\] A $C[0,1]$-algebra $A$ as above that is associated to the partition $\mathcal{P}$ with fibers in $\mathcal{F}$ and which satisfies the condition that *for each $i \in \{1,2,\ldots, n\}$, either $\gamma_{i,0}$ or $\gamma_{i,1}$ is the identity map,* is called an elementary $C[0,1]$-algebra. We denote the class of all such algebras by $\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{F})$. Note that if $\mathcal{P}_1$ is a refinement of $\mathcal{P}_2$, then $\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{P}_2, \mathcal{F}) \subset \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{P}_1, \mathcal{F})$ since we may add singularities by choosing the maps $\gamma_{i,j}$ to be the identity maps. We define $$\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}) := \bigcup_{\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{F})=\text{class of all elementary $C[0,1]$-algebra with fibers in } \mathcal{F}.$$ When we write $A, B \in \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F})$, we implicitly mean that we are choosing a common partition $\mathcal{P}$ as above.
We are now concerned with computing $E_X(A,B)$ for $A, B \in \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F})$. In order to simplify our future work, we fix $A$ as above, and define $B$ as $$\begin{split}
B = \begin{Bmatrix} ((d_1', d_2', \ldots, d_n'), (h_1', h_2',\ldots, h_{n+1}')) :& d_i' \in D_i', h_i' \in C[x_{i-1},x_i]\otimes H_i' \\
& \text{ s.t. } \gamma_{i,j}'(d_i') = h_{i+j}'(x_i) \\
& \forall i\in \{1,2,\ldots, n\}, j\in \{0,1\} \end{Bmatrix}
\end{split}$$
In other words, the fibers of $A$ will be $D_i$ or $H_j$ and the connecting maps will be $\gamma_{i,j}$, while the corresponding fibers of $B$ will be $D_i'$ or $H_j'$, and the connecting maps of $B$ will be $\gamma_{i,j}'$.\
Now consider the partition $\mathcal{P}$ as above, and write $$U = [0,1]\setminus F = \bigsqcup_{i=1}^{n+1} U_i$$ where $U_1 = [0,x_1), U_{n+1} = (x_n,1]$ and $U_i = (x_{i-1}, x_i)$ for $2 \leq i \leq n$. The short exact sequence $$\label{eqn: ses_a}
{0 \to A(U) \to A \to A(F) \to 0}$$ yields a long exact sequence in E-theory
$$\label{eqn: les_eab}
\begin{CD}
E_X(A(F),B) @>>> E_X(A, B) @>>> E_X(A(U), B) \\
@AAA @. @VV\delta V \\
E_X^1(A(U), B) @<<< E_X^1(A,B) @<<< E_X^1(A(F), B)
\end{CD}$$
whose boundary map we denote by $$\delta : E_X(A(U),B) \to E_X^1(A(F),B)$$ As we will show later, this map $\delta$ holds the key to understanding $E_X(A,B)$. We begin by identifying the domain of this map.
\[lem: au\_b\] The inclusion map $B(U) \hookrightarrow B$ induces an isomorphism $$E_X(A(U),B)\cong E_X(A(U),B(U)) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n E(H_i,H_i')$$
The first isomorphism follows from Proposition \[prop: open\_set\]. Furthermore, since $E_{X}(A(U_i),B(U_j))=0$ if $i\neq j$, by additivity of $E_X$ in each variable: $$\begin{split}
E_X(A(U),B(U)) &\cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^{n+1} E_X(A(U_i), B(U_i)) \\
&\cong E_{\overline{U_i}}(A(U_i),B(U_i) \qquad\qquad\text{(by Proposition \ref{prop: restriction})}\\
&\cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^{n+1} E(H_i,H_i') \qquad\qquad\quad\text{(by Corollary \ref{cor: e_trivial})}
\end{split}$$
\[rem: delta\_u\] Consider the inclusion $B(U)\hookrightarrow B$ and the induced commutative diagram $$\begin{CD}
E_X(A(U),B)) @> \delta >> E_X^1(A(F),B) \\
@AAA @AA \iota A \\
E_X(A(U),B(U)) @> \Delta_A >> E_X^1(A(F),B(U))
\end{CD}$$ By Lemma \[lem: au\_b\], the vertical map on the left is an isomorphism, so $$\ker(\delta) \cong \ker(\iota\circ \Delta_A).$$ We now compute the map $\Delta_A$. Consider the short exact sequence $${0 \to A(U) \to A \to A(F) \to 0}$$ and the boundary element in E-theory obtained from this sequence, $$\delta_A \in E_X^1(A(F),A(U))$$ and note that $\Delta_A$ is given by multiplication by this element $$E_X^1(A(F),A(U)) \ni \delta_A \times E_X(A(U),B(U)) \xrightarrow{\Delta_A} E_X^1(A(F),B(U))$$ The next two lemmas help us compute this map.
\[lem: af\_bu\] $
E_X^1(A(F),B(U)) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n (E(D_i,H_i')\oplus E(D_i,H_{i+1}')).
$
By additivity of $E_X$ $$\begin{split}
E_X^1(A(F),B(U)) &\cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n E_X^1(A(x_i), B(U)) \\
&\cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n E_X^1(i_{x_i}(D_i), B(U_i\cup U_{i+1})) \qquad\text{(by Corollary \ref{cor: cor_sky_1})} \\
&\cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n E^1(D_i,B(U_i\cup U_{i+1})) \qquad\qquad \text{(by Corollary \ref{cor: cor_sky_2})} \\
&\cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n (E^1(D_i,C_0(U_i)\otimes H_i')\oplus E^1(D_i,C_0(U_{i+1})\otimes H_{i+1}') \\
&\cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n (E(D_i,H_i')\oplus E(D_i,H_{i+1}')).
\end{split}$$
\[lem: delta\_a\] $
E_X^1(A(F),A(U)) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n \left(E(D_i,H_i) \oplus E(D_i,H_{i+1})\right)
$ and under this isomorphism $$\label{eqn: delta_a}
\delta_A \mapsto (-{\llbracket \gamma_{i,0} \rrbracket}, {\llbracket \gamma_{i,1} \rrbracket})_{i=1}^n$$
The isomorphism from the statement follows from Lemma \[lem: af\_bu\] applied for $B=A$. In order to compute the image of $\delta_A$ under this isomorphism, we need the following notation: $U_{1,0} = [0,x_1], U_{n+1,1} = [x_n,1]$ and $U_{i,0} = (x_{i-1}, x_i]$, $U_{i,1} = [x_i,x_{i+1} )$ for $2 \leq i \leq n$. For each $i\in \{1,...,n\}$ and $j\in\{0,1\}$ consider the extension of $C[0,1]$-algebras $$\label{ds}
{0 \to A(U_{i+j}) \to A(U_{i,j}) \to A(x_i) \to 0}$$ and the corresponding element $\delta_{i,j}$ that belongs to $E_X^1(A(x_i), A(U_{i+j}))$ which we may regard as direct summand of $E^1_X(A(F),A(U))$. We are going to show that $$\delta_A=\bigoplus_{i=1}^n (\delta_{i,0}\oplus \delta_{i,1})\in \bigoplus_{i=1}^n \left(E_X^1(A(x_i), A(U_{i} ))\oplus E_X^1(A(x_i), A(U_{i+1} ))\right).$$ To this purpose we will write explicitly an expression for the Connes-Higson asymptotic morphism $(\gamma_t)_{t\in [0,1)}$ that defines $\delta_A$, see [@mdd_meyer Prop. 2.23]. Let $(u_i^t)_{t\in [0,1)}$ be a contractive positive approximate unit of $C_0(U_i)$. For each $i$, choose two continuous maps $\eta_{i,0}\in C_0(x_{i-1},x_i]$ and $\eta_{i,1}\in C_0[x_i,x_{i+1})$ such that they assume values in $[0,1]$, they are equal to $1$ on a neighborhood of $x_i$ and such that $\eta_{i,1}\eta_{i+1,0}=0$ for $1\leq i <n$. It follows that we have the following asymptotic expression for $(\gamma_t)_{t\in [0,1)}:C_0(0,1)\otimes A(F)\to A(U)$, $$\gamma_t (f \otimes (d_i)_{i=1}^n)=\sum_{i=1}^n \, \left( f(u_i^t)\eta_{i,0} \otimes \gamma_{i,0}(d_{i}) + f(u_{i+1}^{t})\eta_{i,1} \otimes \gamma_{i,1}(d_{i})\right).$$ It is now clear that $\gamma_t$ decomposes in orthogonal sum of components
$\gamma^{i,j}_t(f\otimes d_i)=f(u_{i+j}^t)\eta_{i,j} \otimes \gamma_{i,j}(d_i)$, $1\leq i \leq n$, $0\leq j \leq 1.$ But we now recognize $\gamma^{i,j}_t$ as representing the Connes-Higson asymptotic morphism defined by the extension . Next we are going to identify its class. We focus on the point $x_i$, and consider the map of extensions $$\begin{CD}
0 @>>> C_0(U_{i+j})\otimes H_{i+j} @>>> A({U_{i,j}}) @>>> i_{x_i}(D_i) @>>> 0 \\
@. @VV = V @VVV @VV \gamma_{i,j} V @. \\
0 @>>> C_0(U_{i+j})\otimes H_{i+j} @>>> C_0({U_{i,j}})\otimes H_{i+j} @>>> i_{x_i}(H_{i+j}) @>>> 0
\end{CD}$$ We apply the functor $E_X(\cdot, A(U_{i+j}))$ to this sequence, and consider the relevant part of the resulting commutative diagram $$\begin{CD}
E_X(C_0(U_{i+j})\otimes H_{i+j}, A(U_{i+j})) @> \delta^{i,j}_A >> E_X^1(i_{x_1}(D_1), A(U_{i+j})) \\
@A = AA @AA \gamma_{i,j}^{\ast} A \\
E_X(C_0(U_{i+j})\otimes H_{i+j}, A(U_{i+j})) @> \delta^{i,j} >> E_X^1(i_{x_1}(H_{i+j}), A(U_{i+j}))
\end{CD}$$ where the map $\delta^{i,j}$ is given by multiplication by the boundary element $${\llbracket \delta_t \rrbracket} \in E_X^1(i_{x_i}(H_{i+j}), C_0(U_{i+j})\otimes H_{i+j}) \cong E^1(H_{i+j}, C_0(U_{i+j})\otimes H_{i+j}))$$ (by Corollary \[cor: cor\_sky\_2\]). If $j=0$, ${\llbracket \delta_t \rrbracket}$ corresponds under this isomorphism to the boundary map of the extension $${0 \to C_0(0,1)\otimes H_i \to C_0(0, 1]\otimes H_i \to H_i \to 0}$$ which can be identified with the element $-{\llbracket \text{id} \rrbracket} \in E(H_i, H_i)$. This accounts for the sign of the term ${\llbracket \gamma_{i,0} \rrbracket}$ in the expression .\
Similarly, if $j=1$, ${\llbracket \delta_t \rrbracket}$ corresponds to the boundary map of the extension of C\*-algebras $${0 \to C_0(0, 1)\otimes H_{i+1} \to C_0[0, 1)\otimes H_{i+1} \to H_{i+1} \to 0}$$ which can be identified with the element ${\llbracket \text{id} \rrbracket} \in E(H_{i+1},H_{i+1})$. This accounts for the difference in sign.
The next lemma now follows from Remark \[rem: delta\_u\] and Lemmas \[lem: af\_bu\], \[lem: delta\_a\]
\[lem: delta\_u\] There is a commutative diagram $$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
E_X(A(U),B(U)) \ar[r]^{\Delta_A }\ar[d]_{\cong}& E_X^1(A(F),B(U)) \ar[d]_{\cong}\\
\bigoplus_{i=1}^{n+1} E(H_i,H_i') \ar[r] &\bigoplus_{i=1}^n (E(D_i,H_i')\oplus E(D_i,H_{i+1}'))
}
\end{xy}$$ Under this isomorphisms, $\Delta_A$ corresponds to the map $$(\beta_i)_{i=1}^{n+1} \mapsto (- \beta_i \circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,0} \rrbracket}, \beta_{i+1}\circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,1} \rrbracket})_{i=1}^n$$
\[rem: iota\] We saw in Remark \[rem: delta\_u\] that $$\ker(\delta) \cong \ker(\iota\circ \Delta_A)$$ where $\iota : E_X^1(A(F),B(U)) \to E_X^1(A(F),B)$ is induced by the inclusion $B(U) \hookrightarrow B$. In order to compute this kernel, consider the following long exact sequence coming from the extension ${0 \to B(U) \to B \to B(F) \to 0}:$ $$\begin{CD}
E_X^1(A(F),B(U)) @> \iota >> E_X^1(A(F),B)) @>>> E_X^1(A(F),B(F)) \\
@A \Delta_B AA @. @VVV \\
E_X(A(F),B(F)) @<<< E_X(A(F),B) @<<< E_X(A(F),B(U))
\end{CD}$$ Thus, $$\ker(\iota) = \text{Im}(\Delta_B)$$ where $\Delta_B$ is given by multiplication by the boundary element $$\delta_B \in E_X^1(B(F),B(U))$$ As in Lemma \[lem: delta\_a\], we have $$E_X^1(B(F),B(U)) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n E(D_i',H_i') \oplus E(D_i',H_{i+1}')$$ and under this isomorphism $$\label{eqn: delta_b}
\delta_B \mapsto (-{\llbracket \gamma_{i,0}' \rrbracket}, {\llbracket \gamma_{i,1}' \rrbracket})_{i=1}^n$$
\[lem: Delta\] $$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
E_X^1(A(F),B(U)) \ar[r]^-{\cong }& \bigoplus_{i=1}^n (E(D_i,H_i')\oplus E(D_i,H_{i+1}')) \\
E_X(A(F),B(F)) \ar[r]^{\cong}\ar[u]^{\Delta_B} &\bigoplus_{i=1}^n E(D_i,D_i')\ar[u]
}
\end{xy}$$ and under these isomorphisms $$\Delta_B((\alpha_i)_{i=1}^n) = (-{\llbracket \gamma_{i,0}' \rrbracket}\circ \alpha_i, {\llbracket \gamma_{i,1}' \rrbracket}\circ \alpha_i)$$
The map $\Delta_B$ is induced by the product $$E_X(A(F),B(F))\times \delta_B \in E_X^1(B(F),B(U))\to E_X^1(A(F),B(U).$$ We have already described all the terms that appear in this composition.
\[thm: delta\] For $A,B \in \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F})$ as above $$\label{eqn: ex}
\begin{split}
\ker(\delta) = \begin{Bmatrix} (\beta_i) \in \bigoplus_{i=1}^{n+1} E(H_i,H_i') : & \exists (\alpha_i) \in \bigoplus_{i=1}^n E(D_i,D_i') \text{ s.t.} \\
& \beta_i\circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,0} \rrbracket} = {\llbracket \gamma_{i,0}' \rrbracket}\circ \alpha_i \text{ and } \\
& \beta_{i+1} \circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,1} \rrbracket} = {\llbracket \gamma_{i,1}' \rrbracket} \circ \alpha_i \end{Bmatrix}
\end{split}$$
By Remarks \[rem: delta\_u\] and \[rem: iota\] $$\begin{split}
\ker(\delta) & \cong \ker(\iota\circ\Delta_A) \\
& \cong \{\beta \in E_X(A(U),B(U)) : \Delta_A(\beta) \in \ker(\iota)=\text{Im}(\Delta_B) \} \\
&\cong \{\beta \in E_X(A(U),B(U)) : \exists \alpha \in E_X(A(F),B(F)) \text{ s.t. } \Delta_A(\beta) = \Delta_B(\alpha)\}
\end{split}$$ The expression in now follows from the description of $\Delta_A$ and $\Delta_B$ from Lemmas \[lem: delta\_u\] and \[lem: Delta\].
\[defn:classF\] We now specify a type of class $\mathcal{F}$ for which we can explicitly compute $E_X(A,B)$ for any $A,B \in \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F})$ using the machinery developed above. Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a class of separable C\*-algebras such that $E^1(D,D') = 0$ for all $D,D'\in \mathcal{F}$.
\[lem: af\_b\] If $A,B \in \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F})$ with $\mathcal{F}$ as in Definition \[defn:classF\], then $
E_X(A(F),B) = 0.
$
By the additivity of $E_X(\cdot, B)$ $$E_X(A(F),B) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n E_X(A(x_i), B) \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^n E_X(i_{x_i}(D_i), B).$$ Choose $\epsilon > 0$ small enough so that $(x_i-\epsilon, x_i+\epsilon)\cap F = \{x_i\}$, then by Corollary \[cor: cor\_sky\_2\] $$E_X(i_{x_i}(D_i),B) \cong E(D_i,B(x_i-\epsilon, x_i+\epsilon)).$$ Assume first that $\gamma_{i,0}'$ is the identity map (the case where $\gamma_{i,1}'$ is the identity is entirely similar), and consider the short exact sequence $${0 \to B(x_i,x_i+\epsilon) \to B(x_i-\epsilon,x_i+\epsilon) \to B(x_i-\epsilon,x_i] \to 0}.$$ Since $B(x_i-\epsilon,x_i] \cong C_0(x_i-\epsilon,x_i]\otimes H_i$, which is a cone, it follows that $$\begin{split}
E(D_i,B(x_i-\epsilon,x_i+\epsilon)) & \cong E(D_i,B(x_i,x_i+\epsilon)) \\
& \cong E(D_i,SH_{i+1}) = 0
\end{split}$$ since $D_i, H_{i+1} \in \mathcal{F}$
Recall that if $B \in \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F})$, then by Definition \[def:elementary-1\] for each $i \in \{1,2,\ldots, n\}$, either $\gamma'_{i,0}$ or $\gamma'_{i,1}$ is the identity map. The corresponding index is denoted by $j(i)$ and $j'(i)=1-j(i)$. In particular this means that $H'_{j(i)}=D'_i$ and $\gamma'_{i,j(i)}=\mathrm{id}$.
\[thm: ex\] If $A,B \in \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F})$ with $\mathcal{F}$ as in Definition \[defn:classF\], then $$E_X(A,B) = \left\lbrace (\beta_i) \in \bigoplus_{i=1}^{n+1} E(H_i,H_i') : \beta_{i+j'(i)}\circ{\llbracket \gamma_{i,j'(i)} \rrbracket} = {\llbracket \gamma_{i,j'(i)}' \rrbracket}\circ \beta_{i+j(i)}\circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,j(i)} \rrbracket} \right\rbrace$$
By Lemma \[lem: af\_b\] and the exact sequence , we see that $$E_X(A,B) \cong \ker(\delta : E_X(A(U),B) \to E_X^1(A(F),B)).$$ But $\ker(\delta)$ was computed in Theorem \[thm: delta\]. We deduce that $$\label{eq:calculation}
\begin{split}
E_X(A,B) = \begin{Bmatrix}
(\beta_i) \in \bigoplus_{i=1}^{n+1} E(H_i,H_i') : & \exists (\alpha_i) \in \bigoplus_{i=1}^n E(D_i,D_i') \text{ s.t.} \\
& \beta_i\circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,0} \rrbracket} = {\llbracket \gamma_{i,0}' \rrbracket}\circ \alpha_i \text{ and } \\
& \beta_{i+1} \circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,1} \rrbracket} = {\llbracket \gamma_{i,1}' \rrbracket} \circ \alpha_i
\end{Bmatrix}.
\end{split}$$ The various maps in this description of $E_X(A,B)$ are illustrated in the diagram below. $$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
H_i\ar[ddd]_{\beta_i} &{} & H_{i+1}\ar[ddd]_{\beta_{i+1}} &{} & H_{i+2}\ar[ddd]^{\beta_{i+2}} \\
{} & D_i\ar[lu]_{\gamma_{i,0}}\ar[ru]^{\gamma_{i,1}} \ar@{-->}[d]^{\alpha_i}&{}&{D_{i+1}}\ar[lu]_{\gamma_{i+1,0}}\ar[ru]^{\gamma_{i+1,1}}\ar@{-->}[d]^{\alpha_{i+1}} &{}\\
{} & D'_i\ar[ld]^{\gamma'_{i,0}}\ar[rd]_{\gamma'_{i,1}} &{}&{D'_{i+1}}\ar[ld]^{\gamma'_{i+1,0}}\ar[rd]_{\gamma'_{i+1,1}} &{}\\
H'_i &{} & H'_{i+1} &{} & H'_{i+2} \\
}
\end{xy}$$ Let us note that the equations $$\label{eq:calculation++}
\beta_i\circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,0} \rrbracket} = {\llbracket \gamma_{i,0}' \rrbracket}\circ \alpha_i, \qquad
\beta_{i+1} \circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,1} \rrbracket} = {\llbracket \gamma_{i,1}' \rrbracket} \circ \alpha_i$$ determine $\alpha_i$ uniquely since either ${\llbracket \gamma'_{i,0} \rrbracket}=\mathrm{id}$ or ${\llbracket \gamma'_{i,1} \rrbracket}=\mathrm{id}$. Indeed, using the notation introduced above, we deduce from that $\alpha_i=\beta_{i+j(i)}\circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,j(i)} \rrbracket}$. Then we substitute this expression in the equation $\beta_{i+j'(i)}\circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,j'(i)} \rrbracket}={\llbracket \gamma_{i,j'(i)} \rrbracket}\circ \alpha_i$ to obtain that $$\label{eq:calculation+}
\beta_{i+j'(i)}\circ{\llbracket \gamma_{i,j'(i)} \rrbracket} = {\llbracket \gamma_{i,j'(i)}' \rrbracket}\circ \beta_{i+j(i)}\circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,j(i)} \rrbracket}.$$ Conversely, if is satisfied for all $i$, then $\alpha_i:=\beta_{i+j(i)}\circ {\llbracket \gamma_{i,j(i)} \rrbracket}$ will satisfy both equations from .
\[cor:pullback\] Let $Y, Z$ be two closed sub-intervals of $[0,1]$ such that their endpoints are not in $F$. Then $E_{Y\cup Z}(A(Y\cup Z), B(Y\cup Z))$ is the pullback of the following diagram $$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
E_{Y\cup Z}(A(Y\cup Z), B(Y\cup Z))\ar@{->}[r]\ar@{->}[d] & E_Y(A(Y),B(Y))\ar@{->}[d] \\
E_Z(A(Z),B(Z))\ar@{->}[r] & E_{Y\cap Z}(A(Y\cap Z), B(Y\cap Z))
}
\end{xy}$$
If $I=[a,b]$ is a closed sub-interval of $[0,1]$ such that its endpoints are not in $F$, let $i^0_I,i^1_I$ be uniquely defined by the requirement that $a\in U_{i^0_I}$ and $b\in U_{i^1_I}$. Let $Y$ and $Z$ be as in the statement. If $Y\cap Z=\emptyset$ the result follows from Theorem \[thm: ex\]. Thus we may assume that $Y\cap Z\neq \emptyset$ and moreover that $i^0_Y\leq i^0_Z \leq i^1_Y \leq i^1_Z$. In this case $i^0_{Y\cap Z}=i^0_Z$, $i^1_{Y\cap Z}=i^1_Y$ and $i^0_{Y\cup Z}=i^0_Y$, $i^1_{Y\cup Z}=i^1_Z$. The statement follows now immediately, since by Theorem \[thm: ex\] we have that for each sub-interval $I$ as above $$E_I(A,B) = \left\lbrace (\beta_i)_{i^0_I\leq i\leq i^0_I} : (\beta_i) \ \text{satisfy}\ \eqref{eq:calculation+}\right\rbrace.\qedhere$$
Morphisms of the K-theory sheaf {#sec: k_theory}
===============================
In this section, we apply Theorem \[thm: ex\] to compute the group $E_{[0,1]}(A,B)$ using K-theory. More precisely, we show that if $A$ and $B$ are elementary $C[0,1]$-algebras whose fibers satisfy the UCT and have $K_0$-groups that are free of finite rank and zero $K_1$-groups, then there is a natural isomorphism $$E_{[0,1]}(A,B) \cong {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))}$$ where $\mathbb{K}_0(\cdot)$ denotes the K-theory pre-sheaf, an invariant for $C[0,1]$-algebras introduced in [@mdd_elliott]. As an application, we give a partially new proof of the main classification result of [@mdd_elliott] which does not require two technical results, Theorem 2.6 and Theorem 8.1, from [@mdd_elliott] and instead it uses results of Kirchberg [@kirchberg].\
We recall the following definition from [@mdd_elliott $\mathsection 4$].
Let $X$ denote the unit interval and let $A$ be a $C[0,1]$-algebra. Let $\mathcal{I}$ denote the set of all closed subintervals of $X$ with positive length. To each $I \in \mathcal{I}$, associate the group $K_0(A(I))$, and to each pair $I, J \in \mathcal{I}$ such that $J \subset I$, associate the map $$r_J^I = K_0(\pi_J^I): K_0(A(I)) \to K_0(A(J))$$ where $\pi_J^I : A(I) \to A(J)$ is the natural projection.\
This data gives a pre-sheaf on $\mathcal{I}$ which is denoted by $\mathbb{K}_0(A)$.\
A morphism of pre-sheaves ${\varphi}: \mathbb{K}_0(A) \to \mathbb{K}_0(B)$ consists of a family of maps ${\varphi}_I : K_0(A(I)) \to K_0(B(I)))$ such that the following diagram commutes $$\label{eqn: k_map}
\begin{CD}
K_0(A(I)) @> {\varphi}_I >> K_0(B(I)) \\
@V r^I_J VV @VV r^I_J V \\
K_0(A(J)) @> {\varphi}_J >> K_0(B(J))
\end{CD}$$ The set of all such morphisms, denoted ${\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))}$, has an abelian group structure.
Note that, by [@mdd_meyer Proposition 2.31], for each $I \in \mathcal{I}$, there is a natural restriction map $$E_X(A,B) \to E_I(A(I),B(I)) \to E(A(I),B(I))$$ Multiplying $K_0(A(I)) = E(\mathbb{C},A(I))$ with $E(A(I),B(I))$ gives a map $$E_X(A,B) \to {\text{Hom}(K_0(A(I)), K_0(B(I)))}$$ Furthermore, if $J \subset I$, then the naturality of the restriction map ensures that the diagram commutes. Hence, we have a natural map $$\Gamma_{A,B} : E_X(A,B) \to {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))}.$$
\[fdef:F0\] We now introduce a class of algebras for which this map is an isomorphism. Let $\mathcal{F}_0$ be the class of separable C\*-algebras $D$ satisfying the UCT and such that $K_0(D)$ is free of finite rank, and $K_1(D) = 0$. We define $\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}_0)$ to be the class of all elementary $C[0,1]$-algebras whose fibers lie in $\mathcal{F}_0$.
Let us note that the UCT implies that if $D,H \in \mathcal{F}_0$, then $E^1(D,H) = 0$ and hence that $\mathcal{F}_0\subset \mathcal{F}$. Thus the results from the previous section apply to members of $\mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}_0)$.
Furthermore, for any $H,H' \in \mathcal{F}_0$, the UCT gives us an isomorphism $$\label{eqn: e_k_iso}
E(H,H') \cong KK(H,H') \xrightarrow{} {\text{Hom}(K_0(H), K_0(H'))}.$$
Our goal is to show that the map $\Gamma_{A,B}$ is an isomorphism if $A, B \in \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}_0)$. In order to do this, we begin by choosing a subset of closed intervals which, roughly speaking, will allow us to capture the K-theory pre-sheaf from a finite amount of data: For each $i \in \{1,2,\ldots, n\}$, choose closed subintervals $V_{i,0}\subset (x_{i-1}, x_i]$ and $V_{i,1}\subset [x_i, x_{i+1})$ both containing $x_i$ and such that $V_i = V_{i-1,1}\cap V_{i,0} $ is a nondegenerate interval. Using the notation from Theorem \[thm: ex\], we consider the group $$G(A,B) = \{({\varphi}_i) \in {\text{Hom}(K_0(A(V_i)), K_0(B(V_i)))} : {\varphi}_{i+j'(i)}\circ [\gamma_{i,j'(i)}] = [\gamma_{i,j'(i)}']\circ {\varphi}_{i+j(i)}\circ [\gamma_{i,j(i)}] \}$$ Here $[\gamma_{i,j}]$ stands for $K_0(\gamma_{i,j}):K_0(D_i)\to K_0(H_{i+j})$.
\[rem: theta\] There is an isomorphism of groups $\theta : E_X(A,B) \to G(A,B)$
Since each $V_i$ is a closed interval and $A(V_i)=C(V_i, H_i)$, $B(V_i)=C(V_i,H_i')$ we can identify ${\text{Hom}(K_0(A(V_i)), K_0(B(V_i)))}$ with ${\text{Hom}(K_0(H_i), K_0(H'_i))}$. The result follows now from Theorem \[thm: ex\] and the isomorphism . The map $\theta$ is induced by the functor that takes an E-theory element to the morphism that it induces on K-theory groups.
We now construct a map $\nu : {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))} \to G(A,B)$ such that $\nu\circ \Gamma_{A,B} = \theta$.
\[lem: nu\_injective\] The map $\nu : {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))} \to G(A,B) $ given by ${\varphi}\mapsto ({\varphi}_{V_i})_{i=1}^{n+1}$ is well-defined and injective.
For any closed interval $I=[a,b]\subset (x_{i-1}, x_{i+1})$ with $x_i\in I,$ we use the extension $${0 \to C_0[a, x_i)\otimes H_{i}\oplus C_0(x_i, b]\otimes H_{i+1} \to A(I) \to D_i \to 0},$$ to see that $K_0(A(I))\cong K_0(D_i)$. A similar argument for $B$ shows that $K_0(B(I))\cong K_0(D'_i)$. In particular $K_0(A(V_{i,0}))\cong K_0(D_i) \cong K_0(A(V_{i,1}))$ and $K_0(B(V_{i,0}))\cong K_0(D'_i) \cong K_0(B(V_{i,1})).$
It follows that if ${\varphi}\in {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))}$, then we can identify the two maps ${\varphi}_{V_{i,0}} = {\varphi}_{V_{i,1}} : K_0(D_i) \to K_0(D_i')$. On the other hand consider the inclusion $V_{i+1} \subset V_{i,1}$, and note that $K_0(A(V_{i+1})) \cong K_0(H_{i+1})$. We now see that the restriction map $$r^{V_{i,1}}_{V_{i+1}}:K_0(A(V_{i,1})) \to K_0(A(V_{i+1}))$$ is given by $[\gamma_{i,1}]$. A similar property holds for $B$. Since any ${\varphi}\in {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))}$ is compatible with the restriction maps, the following diagram is commutative. $$\begin{CD}
K_0(A(V_{i,1})) @> [\gamma_{i,1}] >> K_0(A(V_{i+1})) \\
@V {\varphi}_{V_{i,1}} VV @V V{\varphi}_{V_{i+1}} V \\
K_0(B(V_{i,1})) @> [\gamma_{i,1}'] >> K_0(B(V_{i+1}))
\end{CD}$$ Thus, $$\label{eqn: alpha_i_1}
{\varphi}_{V_{i+1}}\circ [\gamma_{i,1}] = [\gamma_{i,1}']\circ {\varphi}_{V_{i,1}}.$$ Applying the same argument to the inclusion $V_i \subset V_{i,0}$, we get $$\label{eqn: alpha_i_0}
{\varphi}_{V_i}\circ [\gamma_{i,0}] = [\gamma_{i,0}']\circ {\varphi}_{V_{i,0}}.$$ We saw that ${\varphi}_{V_{i,0}} = {\varphi}_{V_{i,1}} : K_0(D_i) \to K_0(D_i')$. Since $\gamma'_{i,j(i)}=\mathrm{id}$, it follows from and that $${\varphi}_{V_{i+j'(i)}}\circ [\gamma_{i,j'(i)}] = [\gamma_{i,j'(i)}']\circ {\varphi}_{V_{i+j(i)}}\circ [\gamma_{i,j(i)}].$$ This shows that $\nu$ is well-defined.
Now to prove injectivity, suppose that ${\varphi}_{V_i} = 0$ for all $i$. We need to show that ${\varphi}_I = 0$ for any non-degenerate interval $I \subset [0,1]$.\
Suppose first that $I$ contains at most one point of $F$. If $I\cap F = \emptyset$, then ${\varphi}_I = {\varphi}_{V_i}$ for some $i$, and there is nothing to prove. So suppose that $x_i \in I$ and that no other point of $F$ is in $I$. In that case, $K_0(A(I)) \cong K_0(A(x_i)) \cong K_0(D_i)$ and ${\varphi}_I$ can be identified with both ${\varphi}_{V_{i,0}}$ and ${\varphi}_{V_{i,1}}$, as seen earlier in the proof. Hence, one of the equations or (depending on which $\gamma_{i,j}'$ is the identity map) would ensure that ${\varphi}_I = 0$.\
Now consider any nondegenerate interval $I\subset [0,1]$ with $|I\cap F| \geq 2$, and write $I = I_1\cup I_2$, where $I_1$ and $I_2$ are two closed intervals such that $I_1\cap I_2 = \{x\}$ and $x \notin F$, and $I_1$ contains exactly one point of $F$. Then, $A(I)$ can be described as a pull-back $$\begin{CD}
A(I) @>>> A(I_1) \\
@VVV @VVV \\
A(I_2) @>>> A(x)
\end{CD}$$ Applying the Mayer-Vietoris sequence in K-theory, and using the fact that $K_1(A(x)) = 0$, we see that $$\begin{CD}
0 @>>> K_0(A(I)) @>>> K_0(A(I_1))\oplus K_0(A(I_2)) @>>> K_0(A(I_1\cap I_2))\\
@. @V {\varphi}_{I} VV @VV {\varphi}_{I_1}\oplus {\varphi}_{I_2} V @VVV\\
0 @>>> K_0(B(I)) @>>> K_0(B(I_1))\oplus K_0(B(I_2)) @>>>K_0(A(I_1\cap I_2))
\end{CD}$$ Hence, it follows that if ${\varphi}_{I_1} = {\varphi}_{I_2} = 0$, then ${\varphi}_I = 0$. We know from the first part that ${\varphi}_{I_1} = 0$, so it suffices to prove that ${\varphi}_{I_2} = 0$. We then break up $I_2$ as we did with $I$ before and repeat the same process until we reach an $I_k$ such that $I_k$ contains at most one point of $F$, in which case ${\varphi}_{I_k} = 0$ and we can stop the inductive process. This proves the injectivity of $\nu$.
\[thm: uct\] If $A,B \in \mathcal{E}(\mathcal{F}_0)$ (see Def. \[fdef:F0\]), then $\Gamma_{A,B} : E_X(A,B) \to {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))}$ is an isomorphism.
The maps $
\theta : E_X(A,B) \to G(A,B)$ and $\nu : {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))} \to G(A,B)
$ satisfy $\nu\circ \Gamma_{A,B} = \theta$. By Lemma \[rem: theta\], $\theta$ is bijective, and hence $\Gamma_{A,B}$ is injective. By Lemma \[lem: nu\_injective\], $\nu$ is injective, and hence $\Gamma_{A,B}$ is surjective as well.
Let $A$ be a separable continuous field over $[0,1]$ whose fibers have vanishing $K_1$ groups. By [@mdd_elliott Proposition 4.1], $\mathbb{K}_0(A)$ is a sheaf. We shall use Theorem \[thm: uct\] to give a streamlined proof of the main result of [@mdd_elliott], see Theorem \[thm:DE\]. *For the remainder of this section we make the blanket assumption that all the continuous fields that we consider are separable and their fibers are stable Kirchberg C\*-algebras with vanishing $K_1$-groups.*\
Our definition of elementary $C[0,1]$ algebras given in Def. \[def:elementary-1\] is a bit more general that the definition of elementary algebras in the sense of [@mdd_elliott]. To make the distinction we will call the latter special elementary. Suppose that $A$ is a special elementary continuous field of Kirchberg algebras. This means that $A$ is defined as the pullback of a certain diagram $\mathcal{D}$. Here is the description of $\mathcal{D}$ where we adapt the notation from [@mdd_elliott] to the present setting.\
Consider a partition $0 = x_0 < x_1 < \ldots < x_{n+1} = 1$, where $n=2m$. Let $A$ be as in Def. \[def:elementary-1\], but we require that $
D_{2i-1} = H_{2i} = D_{2i}$ and $\gamma_{2i-1,1} = \text{id} = \gamma_{2i,0}.
$ Set $Y = [x_0,x_1]\cup [x_2,x_3]\cup \ldots \cup [x_{2m},x_{2m+1}]$, $Z = [x_1,x_2]\cup [x_3,x_4]\cup \ldots \cup [x_{2m-1}, x_{2m}]$ and $F = \{x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{2m}\} = Y\cap Z.$ Define $$H = \bigoplus_{i=0}^m C[x_{2i},x_{2i+1}]\otimes H_{2i+1}\quad \text{ and }\quad D = \bigoplus_{i=1}^m C[x_{2i-1},x_{2i}]\otimes D_{2i}$$ whence $$H(F) = H_1\oplus \left( \bigoplus_{i=2}^m (H_{2i-1}\oplus H_{2i-1}) \right ) \oplus H_{2m+1}\quad \text{and}\quad D(F)=\bigoplus_{i=1}^{2m }D_i.$$ Consider the diagram $\mathcal{D}$ given by $$\begin{CD}
H @>{\pi}>> H(F) @< \gamma << D
\end{CD}$$ where $\pi$ is the restriction map, and $\gamma$ is the composition of the map $\gamma':D(F)\to H(F)$, with components $\gamma_{2i-1,0}:D_{2i-1}\to H_{2i-1}$, $\gamma_{2i,1}:D_{2i}\to H_{2i+1}$, with the restriction map $D\to D(F)$. $A$ is isomorphic to the pullback of the diagram $\mathcal{D}$ and we have an induced commutative diagram $$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
A(Y)\ar[r]^{\pi}\ar[d] & A(F)\ar[d]_{\gamma'}& A(Z)\ar[l]_{\pi}\ar@{=}[d] \\
H\ar[r] & H(F) &D\ar[l]_{\gamma}
}
\end{xy}$$ Given $\mathcal{D}$ as above, and $B$ a continuous field over $[0,1]$, we denote by $\mathcal{D}B$ the diagram $$\begin{CD}
B(Y) @>{\pi}>> B(F) @< {\pi} << B(Z).
\end{CD}$$ Recall from that a fibered morphism $\varphi \in \text{Hom}_{\mathcal{D}}(A, B)$ is given a commutative diagram $$\begin{CD}
H @>>> H(F) @<<< D \\
@V \varphi_Y VV @V \varphi_F VV @VV \varphi_Z V \\
B(Y)@>>> B(F) @<<< B(Z).
\end{CD}$$ where the vertical arrows are injective monomorphisms of continuous fields. The combination of the two larger diagram above gives a morphism of diagrams $\mathcal{D}A \to \mathcal{D}B$ which induces a fiberwise injective morphism of continuous fields $\widehat{\varphi}:A \to B$. A morphism of fields induced by a fibered morphism is called *elementary* [@mdd_elliott p.806]. As in [@mdd_elliott], denote by $K_0(\mathcal{D})$, the diagram $$\begin{CD}
K_0(H) @>{\pi_{\ast}}> >K_0(H(F)) @<{\gamma_{\ast}} <<K_0(D).
\end{CD}$$ $\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(K_0(\mathcal{D}), K_0(\mathcal{D}B))$ consists of all morphisms of diagrams of groups $$\begin{CD}
K_0(H) @>>> K_0(H(F)) @<<< K_0(D) \\
@V \alpha_Y VV @V \alpha_F VV @VV \alpha_Z V \\
K_0(B(Y)) @>>> K_0(B(F)) @<<< K_0(B(Z))
\end{CD}$$ that preserve the direct sum decomposition of the K-theory groups induced by the underlying partition of $[0,1]$. It is a K-theory counterpart of $\text{Hom}_{\mathcal{D}}(A, B)$. In [@mdd_elliott Prop.5.1], it is shown that each $\alpha \in \text{Hom}(K_0(\mathcal{D}), K_0(\mathcal{D}B))$ induces a morphism of sheaves $\widehat{\alpha} \in {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))}.
$ Let us also note that a morphism $\beta\in {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(B), \mathbb{K}_0(B'))}$ induces by restriction a morphism $\mathcal{D}\beta\in \text{\textnormal{Hom}}(K_0(\mathcal{D}B), K_0(\mathcal{D}B'))$. To simplify notation, we will often write $\beta$ in place of $\mathcal{D}\beta$.
[[@mdd_elliott Prop.5.1]]{} \[lemma: elementary\_diagram\]
- Suppose that $K_0(H_i)$ and $K_0(D_i)$ are finitely generated. If $B = \varinjlim B_n$ is an inductive limit of continuous fields $B_n$ over $[0,1]$, then $$\text{Hom}(K_0(\mathcal{D}), K_0(\mathcal{D}B)) \cong \varinjlim\text{Hom}(K_0(\mathcal{D}), K_0(\mathcal{D}B_n))$$
- If $\alpha \in \text{\textnormal{Hom}}(K_0(\mathcal{D}), K_0(\mathcal{D}B))$ and $\beta \in {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(B), \mathbb{K}_0(B'))}$, then $((\mathcal{D}\beta)\circ \alpha)\,\widehat{}=\beta\circ\widehat{\alpha}$.
\(i) Since $\mathcal{D}$ is a finite diagram of finitely generated groups, the result follows using the continuity of the $K_0$-functor. (ii) is proved in [@mdd_elliott Prop.5.1].
We are now ready to reprove the classification theorem of [@mdd_elliott]:
\[thm:DE\] Let $A,B$ be separable continuous fields over $[0,1]$ whose fibers are stable Kirchberg C\*-algebras satisfying the UCT, with torsion free $K_0$-groups and vanishing $K_1$-groups. If $\alpha \in {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A), \mathbb{K}_0(B))}$ is an isomorphism of sheaves, then there is an isomorphism of continuous fields $\phi : A \to B$ such that $\phi_{\ast} = \alpha$
Recall that the inductive limit decomposition from Theorem \[thm:structure\] comes with more structure and properties that we now review. Specifically, in the inductive system $$A_1 \xrightarrow{\widehat{\varphi}_{1,2}} A_2 \xrightarrow{\widehat{\varphi}_{2,3}} \ldots \to A_n \xrightarrow{\widehat{\varphi}_{n,n+1}} A_{n+1} \to \ldots$$ with $A\cong \varinjlim A_k$, all connecting morphisms are elementary in the sense of [@mdd_elliott p.806]. In other words, each $A_k$ is the pull-back of a diagram $\mathcal{D}_k$, and each $\widehat{\varphi}_{k,k+1} \in \text{Hom}(A_k,A_{k+1})$ is induced by a fibered morphism $\varphi_{k,k+1}\in \text{Hom}_{\mathcal{D}_k}(A_k,A_{k+1})$. Moreover ${\varphi}_{k,\infty} \in \text{Hom}_{\mathcal{D}_k}(A_k,A)$ and $ \widehat{\varphi}_{k+1,\infty}\circ {\varphi}_{k,k+1}={\varphi}_{k,\infty}$. The fibers of $A_k$ are stable Kirchberg algebras whose $K_0$-groups are free of finite rank and their $K_1$-groups vanish. Similarly, let $(B_n)$ be a sequence approximating $B$, where $B_n$ is the pull-back of the diagram $\mathcal{D}_n'$, and ${\psi}_{n,n+1}\in \text{Hom}_{\mathcal{D}_n'}(B_n, B_{n+1}), {\psi}_{n,\infty} \in \text{Hom}_{\mathcal{D}_n'}(B_n,B)$ are the corresponding maps.\
By Lemma \[lemma: elementary\_diagram\](i), for $\alpha_1: = \alpha \circ (\varphi_{1,\infty})_{\ast}\in \text{Hom}(K_0(\mathcal{D}_1), K_0(\mathcal{D}_1 B))$, there is $m_1 \in \mathbb{N}$ and $\mu_1 \in \text{Hom}(K_0(\mathcal{D}_1), K_0(\mathcal{D}_1B_{m_1}))$ such that $\alpha_1 = (\widehat{\psi}_{m_1,\infty})_{\ast}\circ \mu_1$. Letting $n_1=1$ we have $\widehat{\mu_1} \in {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(A_{n_1}), \mathbb{K}_0(B_{m_1}))}$. Similary, for $\beta_1 := \alpha^{-1}\circ (\psi_{m_1,\infty})_{\ast} \in \text{Hom}(K_0(\mathcal{D}_{m_1}'),K_0(\mathcal{D}_{m_1}'A))$, there is $n_2 >n_1$ and $\eta_1 \in \text{Hom}(K_0(\mathcal{D}_{m_1}'), K_0(\mathcal{D}_{m_1}A_{n_2}))$ such that $\beta_1 = (\widehat{\varphi}_{n_2,\infty})_{\ast}\circ \eta_1$. This gives $\widehat{\eta}_1 \in {\text{\textnormal{Hom}}(\mathbb{K}_0(B_{n_1}), \mathbb{K}_0(A_{n_2}))}$. Combining the equations $\alpha \circ (\varphi_{n_1,\infty})_{\ast}=(\widehat{\psi}_{m_1,\infty})_{\ast}\circ \mu_1$ and $ \alpha^{-1}\circ (\psi_{m_1,\infty})_{\ast}=(\widehat{\varphi}_{n_2,\infty})_{\ast}\circ \eta_1$, we use Lemma \[lemma: elementary\_diagram\](ii) to deduce that $(\widehat{\varphi}_{n_2,\infty})_\ast \circ \widehat{\eta}_1\circ \mu_1=(\widehat{\varphi}_{n_1,\infty})_\ast=(\widehat{\varphi}_{n_2,\infty})_\ast \circ ({\varphi}_{n_1,n_2})_\ast$. By Lemma \[lemma: elementary\_diagram\](i) we conclude that after increasing $n_2$, if necessary, we can arrange that $\widehat{\eta}_1\circ \mu_1= ({\varphi}_{n_1,n_2})_\ast$ and hence $\widehat{\eta}_1\circ \widehat{\mu}_1= (\widehat{\varphi}_{n_1,n_2})_\ast.$ By induction, we construct a commutative diagram $$\begin{xy}
\xymatrix{
\mathbb{K}_0(A_{n_1}) \ar[dr]^{\widehat{\mu}_1} \ar[rr]^{(\widehat{\varphi}_{n_1,n_2})_{\ast}} &{} & \mathbb{K}_0(A_{n_2}) \ar[dr]\ar[rr] &{} & \mathbb{K}_0(A_{n_3}) \ar[r] & \ldots \ar[r] & \mathbb{K}_0(A) \ar@<1.ex>[d]^{\alpha} \\
& \mathbb{K}_0(B_{m_1}) \ar[ru]^{\widehat{\eta}_1}\ar[rr]^{(\widehat{\psi}_{m_1,m_2})_{\ast}}&{} & \mathbb{K}_0(B_{m_2}) \ar[ru]\ar[rr] &{} & \ldots \ar[r] & \mathbb{K}_0(B)\ar@<1.ex>[u]^{\alpha^{-1}}
}
\end{xy}$$
By Theorem \[thm: uct\], we replace the diagonal arrows by $E_X$-theory elements and hence by $KK_X$-elements, since all involved continuous fields are nuclear [@park_trout]. By Kirchberg’s results [@kirchberg], we can further replace these $KK_X$-elements by morphisms of fields which are fiberwise injective and moreover, each triangle is commutative up to asymptotic unitary equivalence. This yields an isomorphism $\phi: A\to B$ with $\phi_\ast=\alpha$, by applying Elliott’s intertwining argument [@rordam_stormer Sec. 2.3].
[^1]: M.D. was partially supported by NSF grant \#DMS–1101305.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The discrete states of $c=1$ string theory at the self-dual radius are associated with modes of $W_{1+\infty}$ currents and their genus zero correlators are computed. An analogy to a recent suggestion based on the integrable structure of the theory is found. An iterative method for deriving the dependence of the currents on the full space of couplings is presented and applied. The dilaton equation of the theory is derived.'
---
6 pt
22.5 cm -.5 cm 0 in 0 in
‘=11 citex\[\#1\]\#2[@filesw auxout tempcntb@ne h@ldciteacite[ for citeb:=\#2h@ld ]{}[\#1]{}]{}
citeb\#1\#2[[\[\#1\]@tempswa , \#2]{}]{} citeu\#1\#2[[$^{#1}$@tempswa , \#2]{}]{} citep\#1\#2[[\#1@tempswa , \#2]{}]{}
=by 60 =
\#1[[bsphack@filesw [ gtempa[auxout[ ]{}]{}]{}gtempa @nobreak esphack]{} eqnlabel[\#1]{}]{} eqnlabel vacuum \#1 \#1
startsection [section]{}[1]{}[@]{}[3.ex plus 1ex minus .2ex]{}[2.ex plus .2ex]{}[****]{}
========================================================================================
startsection[subsection]{}[2]{}[@]{}[2.75ex plus 1ex minus .2ex]{}[1.5ex plus .2ex]{}[****]{}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\#1
1000[**\#1**]{}
500
‘=12
\#1,\#2,[[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,\#3,[[*\#1* ]{}[**\#2**]{} (19\#3) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Ann. Physics* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Comm. Math. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Class. Quantum Grav.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Class. Quantum Grav.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Int. J. Mod. Phys.* ]{}[**A\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*J. Math. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Lett. Math. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Gen. Rel. Grav.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Mod. Phys. Lett.* ]{}[**A\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Nuovo Cim.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Nucl. Phys.* ]{}[**B\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Phys. Lett.* ]{}[**\#1B**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Phys. Lett.* ]{}[**\#1A**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Phys. Rev.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Phys. Rev.* ]{}[**D\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Phys. Rept.* ]{}[**\#1C**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Prog. Theor. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,[[*Rev. Mod. Phys.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) ]{} \#1,\#2,\#3\[\#4,\#5\][[*Yad. Fiz.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3 \[[*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.* ]{}[**\#4**]{} (19\#2) \#5\]]{} \#1,\#2,\#3\[\#4,\#5\][[*Zh. Exp. Theor. Fiz.* ]{}[**\#1**]{} (19\#2) \#3 \[[*Sov. Phys. JETP* ]{}[**\#4**]{} (19\#2) \#5\]]{}
\#1[. (\[\#1\])]{} \#1[(\[\#1\])]{}
\#1\#2
u\#1[\^[\#1]{}]{} \#1[\_[\#1]{}]{} \#1[\#1mu]{} \#1[-\#1mu]{}
\#1[| \#1 ]{} \#1[\#1 |]{} \#1[\#1 ]{} \#1[\#1 ]{} ł: : $${\left[} \def$$[\]]{} ${\left(} \def$[)]{}
Oct 16, 1994WIS-94/45/Oct-PH\
hep-th/9410157
1 cm [**c=1 discrete states correlators via W$_{1+\infty}$ constraints\
**]{} 0.1 cm 0.5 cm [Amihay Hanany ]{} 0.2cm [*[email protected]\
Department of Particle Physics\
Weizmann Institute of Science\
76100 Rehovot Israel* ]{} 0.2cm [Yaron Oz[^1] ]{} 0.2cm
[*[email protected]\
School of Physics and Astronomy\
Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Sciences\
Tel-Aviv University\
Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel.* ]{}
0.5 cm
The discrete states of $c=1$ string theory have been originally found in the Liouville formulation [@Lian; @Mukherji; @Bouk; @Wittds; @PolyK] and interpreted as $2d$ remnants of transverse massive string excitations [@Polys; @Polyakov]. The computation of their correlators in the presence of the cosmological constant in this framework is rather non-trivial and has not been carried out successfully yet.
The interpretation of the discrete states as gravitational descendants in the topological description of $2d$ string theory at the self-dual radius [@HOP; @GM] opened a way to the computation of the correlators by other means. In [@LOS] the correlators have been computed by using topological recursion relations derived via analytical continuation of those of the minimal models.
Discrete states have been introduced in the matrix model approach by associating them with powers of the eigenvalue matrix [@Dan; @BXd]. Their correlators have been calculated in this formulation with results that do not coincide with those of [@LOS].
In this letter we take another route for defining the discrete states. In analogy with $(1,q)$ minimal topological models in which gravitational descendants are associated with modes of the $W_q$ currents [@DVV; @FKN; @Goeree], we associate the discrete states with modes of the $W_{1+\infty}$ constraints algebra of $c=1$ string theory [@DMP] and compute their correlators. We find analogy to the suggestion made in [@Takasaki] based on the integrable structure of the theory. The results that we get for the discrete states correlators do not agree neither with [@LOS] nor with [@Dan; @BXd], and the implications of this will be discussed at the end of the paper.
The $W$ constraints on the partition function of minimal topological matter coupled to topological gravity read [@DVV; @FKN; @Goeree]. \^[-2]{}Z\^[-1]{}\_[k,]{}Z= \_[k,]{}= Z\^[-1]{}W\_[k-]{}\^[(+1)]{}Z \[W\] $\sigma_{k,\alpha}$ is the $k^{th}$ gravitational descendant of the primary field $O_{\alpha}$ and $W_m^{(\alpha+1)}$ is the $m^{th}$ mode of the spin $\alpha+1$ current. The partition function is: Z(t) = \^2 exp(\_[k,]{}t\_[k,]{}\_[k,]{}) and \_[g 0]{} \_g with $g$ being the genus of the Riemann surface.
The $W_{1+\infty}$ Ward identities for the tachyon correlators in $2d$ string theory read [@DMP] \_n= Z\^[-1]{}|[W]{}\_[-n]{}\^[(n+1)]{}Z \[tWI\] where $\bar{W}^{(n+1)}$ is the spin $n+1$ current of a $W_{1+\infty}$ algebra and \_n= \_n exp(\_[k=-]{}\^t\_k\_k)By the tachyon $\CT_n$ we mean the Seiberg state $\CT_n^+$ with positive momentum $n$ [@Seiberg]. Analogous $W_{1+\infty}$ Ward identities exist for a negative momentum tachyon $\CT_{-n}^+$ \_[-n]{}= Z\^[-1]{}W\_[-n]{}\^[(n+1)]{}Z \[tWI2\] where $W^{(n+1)}$ is the spin $n+1$ current of a similar $W_{1+\infty}$ algebra.
Comparing the Ward identities (\[W\]) for the primary operators $\sigma_{0,\alpha}$ and (\[tWI\]) we are led to identify $\CT_n$ as primaries in the topological description of $2d$ string theory. This identification has been made in [@HOP] using integrable and topological reasoning. In analogy with (\[W\]), we may try to generalize (\[tWI\]) by using the other modes of the $W_{1+\infty}$ currents, namely \_k(\_n)= Z\^[-1]{}|[W]{}\_[k-n]{}\^[(n+1)]{}Z \[disWI\] Upon identifying the discrete states as gravitational descendants in the topological formulation of the theory [@HOP; @GM] \_[J,m]{} = \_k(\_n) with $k = J-m, n = J + m$, we have \_[J,m]{}= Z\^[-1]{}|[W]{}\_[-2m]{}\^[(J+m+1)]{}Z \[yWI\] with $J$ taking half integer values and $-J \leq m \leq J$.
The currents in (\[W\]) depend on the times associated with both primaries and descendants, i.e. they are defined on the full phase space. Thus, we will assume in the paper that equation (\[yWI\]) holds on the full phase space too. From the $W_{1+\infty}$ Ward identities we only know the dependence of the currents in (\[yWI\]) on the times associated with the tachyons. As we will show in the sequel we can in fact find the dependence of the currents in (\[yWI\]) on the times associated with the discrete states, thus enlarging the $W_{1+\infty}$ Ward identities to the full phase space \_[J,m]{}= Z\^[-1]{} |[[W]{}]{}\_[-2m]{}\^[(J+m+1)]{}Z \[yWI2\] where on the space of only tachyon times $t_n$, $\bar{{\cal W}}_{-2m}^{(J+m+1)}(t_n) \equiv \bar{W}_{-2m}^{(J+m+1)}(t_n)$.
In the following we will consider the genus zero case. Equation (\[yWI\]) on the space of tachyon times reads [@DMP] \_[J,m]{}\_0 = x\^[J-m]{} |[W]{}\^[J+m+1]{} \[syWI\] where |[W]{} = \[1 + \_[k>0]{}k t\_[-k]{}x\^k + \_[k>0]{}x\^[-k]{} \_[-k]{}\_0\] \[barW\]
A priori, equation (\[syWI\]) should be used only for positive momentum discrete states ${\cal Y}_{J,m}, m>0$, while for negative momenta its parity transformed version \_[J,-m]{}\_0 = x\^[J-m]{} W\^[J+m+1]{} \[syWI2\] where W = \[1 + \_[k>0]{}k t\_kx\^k + \_[k>0]{}x\^[-k]{} \_k\_0\] \[barW2\] should be used. The $c=1$ string equation [@Takasaki; @EK], which can be written in the form [@HOP] x = |[W]{}(W(x)) \[seq\] leads to the identity[^2] x\^[J-m]{}|[W]{}\^[J+m+1]{} =x\^[J+m]{}W\^[J-m+1]{} \[id\] and therefore we can use (\[yWI\]) for negative values of $m$ as well.
It is interesting to notice that equation (\[syWI\]) coincides with the suggestion of [@Takasaki] for discrete states correlators. The latter was based on studying the symmetries of the Toda lattice hierarchy in the dispersionless limit.
Equation (\[yWI2\]) provides a complete and self-contained definition of all the tachyon and discrete states correlators. Equation (\[syWI\]) is valid on the full phase space, with $\bar{W}(t_n)$ being replaced by $\bar{{\cal W}}(t_{J,m})$ which we have to construct. Note that we implicitly assume that the string equation (\[seq\]) holds on the full phase space too x = |[[W]{}]{}([W]{}(x)) \[seq2\]
Equation (\[syWI\]) for the negative momentum tachyon $\CT_{-n = -2J}
\equiv {\cal Y}_{J,-J}$ on the full phase space reads: \_[-n]{} \_0 = x\^n |[[W]{}]{} This implies that |[[W]{}]{} = \[1 + \_[k>0]{}x\^k U\_k([t\_[J,m]{}]{}) + \_[k>0]{}x\^[-k]{} \_[-k]{}\_0\] \[barWfps\] where $\langle\langle \cdots \rangle\rangle$ is defined on the full phase space, and $U_k$ are unknown functions. It is tempting to claim, using (\[syWI\]) with $J \rightarrow -J$, that the functions $U_k$ in (\[barWfps\]) are given by U\_k([t\_[J,m]{}]{}) = \_[-J,J]{} \_0 \_[k=2J]{}\^- \_0 \[U\] where $\CT_k^- $ is an anti-Seiberg state. This is incorrect, since due to (\[barW\]), $U_k=kt_{-k}$ on the space of tachyon times. This together with (\[U\]) implies the vanishing of the correlators $\langle \CT_n^- \prod_{i=1}^s\CT_{n_i}^+ \rangle = 0$ for $s > 2$ which is in contradiction with calculations of bulk correlators in the Liouville formulation [@Polys; @Polyakov; @KdF]. $U_k$ can be determined perturbatively in $t_{J,m}$ as we will show now.
Consider first correlators with insertion of one discrete state and a few tachyons by using \_[J,m]{}\_[i=1]{}\^l\_[n\_i]{}\_g = \_[n\_1]{}\_[n\_l]{}\_[J,m]{}\_g (t=0) Using (\[syWI\]),(\[barW\]) and (\[syWI2\]),(\[barW2\]) we calculate the first few genus zero correlators: \_[J,m]{}\_0 & = & \_[m,0]{}\
\_[J,m]{}\_n\_0 & = & 2m\_[n+2m,0]{}\
\_[J,m]{}\_[n\_1]{}\_[n\_2]{}\_0 & = & (J+|m|)|n\_1n\_2|\_[n\_1+n\_2+2m,0]{}\
\_[J,m]{}\_[i=1]{}\^3\_[n\_i]{}\_0 & = & (J+|m|)\_[i=1]{}\^3|n\_i| (J-|m|+2m-1 -\_[j=1]{}\^3(2m+n\_j)\
& &(-2m -n\_j)) \_[n\_1+n\_2+n\_3+2m,0]{}. \[YTT\]
The first three correlators in (\[YTT\]) are explicitly parity invariant, $(m \leftrightarrow -m, n_i \leftrightarrow -n_i)$, while the four point function is parity invariant as a consequence of the identity $2m-\sum_{j=1}^3(2m+n_j)\theta(-2m -n_j)={1\over2}\sum_{i=1}^3|2m+n_i|$. The dependence of the $W_{1+\infty}$ constraints on the times associated with the discrete states can be found iteratively as follows: Consider \_[J,-m]{}\_n\_0 = 2m\_[n,2m]{} = \_[J,-m]{}\_n\_0(t=0) \[YT\] where $\pa_{J,m} \equiv \frac{\pa}{\pa t_{J,m}}$. It implies that we have to modify $\bar{W}$ by adding to it the term \_[J;0<mJ]{}2m t\_[J,-m]{}x\^[2m-1]{} For $J=m$ it coincides with the corresponding term for the tachyons. Using \_[J,m]{}\_[-n]{}\_0 = 2m\_[n,2m]{} = \_[J,m]{}\_[-n]{}\_0(t=0) \[nYT\] we see that we have to add a similar term of the form \_[J;0<mJ]{}2mt\_[J,m]{}x\^[-2m-1]{} Thus, |[[W]{}]{} = \[1 + \_[J;-J m J]{} 2|m| t\_[J,m]{}x\^[-2m]{} + O(t\^2)\] \[barWt\] This can be used in order to compute the two-point function of discrete states \_[J\_1,m]{}[Y]{}\_[J\_2,-m]{}\_0 = \_[J\_1,m]{}\_[J\_2,-m]{}\_0(t=0) = 2|m| \[YY\]
Consider now the correlator $\langle{\cal Y}_{J,m}\CT_{n_1}\CT_{n_2}\rangle_0$. We can use it in order to get the next correction to $\bar{\CW}$ that takes the form \_[J;m,n]{}C\_[J,m,n]{}t\_[J,m]{}t\_nx\^[-2m-n-1]{} \[tt\] where C\_[J,m,n]{} = |n||n+2m|\[(J+|m|)(2m+n) + (J-|m|)(-2m-n)\]\[cJmn\] Using (\[cJmn\]) we can calculate the three point function \_[J\_1,m\_1]{}[Y]{}\_[J\_2,m\_2]{}\_n\_0 = 4(J\_1|m\_2|+J\_2|m\_1|)|m\_1+m\_2|\_[2m\_1+2m\_2+n,0]{} \[YYT\]
From (\[YYT\]) we deduce the full order $(t^2)$ term in $\bar{{\cal W}}$, it reads \_[J\_1,J\_2; m\_1,m\_2]{}C\_[J\_1,m\_1,J\_2,m\_2]{} t\_[J\_1,m\_1]{}t\_[J\_2,m\_2]{}x\^[-2m\_1-2m\_2-1]{} with C\_[J\_1,m\_1,J\_2,m\_2]{} = 2(J\_1|m\_2|+J\_2|m\_1|)|m\_1+m\_2|+4|m\_1m\_2|(m\_1+m\_2) (-m\_1-m\_2)\[Cjm12\] The three point function of discrete states is thus calculated to be \_[J\_1,m\_1]{}[Y]{}\_[J\_2,m\_2]{}[Y]{}\_[J\_3,m\_3]{}\_0 = 4(J\_1|m\_2m\_3| + J\_2|m\_1m\_3| + J\_3|m\_1m\_2| - |m\_1m\_2m\_3|) \[YYY\] where momentum conservation implies $m_1+m_2+m_3 = 0$. When one of the discrete states is a tachyon, equation (\[YYY\]) reduces to (\[YYT\]), while if two of them are tachyons it reduces to (\[YTT\]). Note that formally C\_[J\_1,m\_1,J\_2,m\_2]{} = [12]{}\_[J\_1,m\_1]{}[Y]{}\_[J\_2,m\_2]{}[Y]{}\_[m\_1+m\_2,-m\_1-m\_2]{} \_0 \[Cjm12id\] as indeed follows from the definition (\[syWI\]). Such relations hold for higher point functions too, and are useful for extracting the structure of $\bar{{\cal W}}$ from the discrete states correlators.
The same procedure leads to the four point function of discrete states \_[J\_1,m\_1]{}[Y]{}\_[J\_2,m\_2]{}[Y]{}\_[J\_3,m\_3]{} [Y]{}\_[J\_4,m\_4]{}\_0 &=& 8|m\_1m\_2m\_3|\[J\_4\^2-m\_4\^2-J\_4(2 {|m\_i|}+1)\]+ perm\
&+& 8J\_1J\_2|m\_3m\_4|(2 {|m\_i|}-|m\_1+m\_2|) + perm\
&+& 16|m\_1m\_2m\_3m\_4|(2 {|m\_i|}+1) \[YYYY\] When three of the operators are tachyons the correlation function (\[YYYY\]) reduces to the equation (\[YTT\]). The full order $(t^3)$ term in $\bar{{\cal W}}$ reads \_[J\_1,J\_2,J\_3; m\_1,m\_2,m\_3]{}C\_[J\_1,m\_1,J\_2,m\_2,J\_3,m\_3]{} t\_[J\_1,m\_1]{}t\_[J\_2,m\_2]{}t\_[J\_3,m\_3]{}x\^[-2m\_1-2m\_2-2m\_3-1]{} with C\_[J\_1,m\_1,J\_2,m\_2,J\_3,m\_3]{} = [16]{} \_[J\_1,m\_1]{}\_[J\_2,m\_2]{}\_[J\_3,m\_3]{}\_[m\_1+m\_2+m\_3,-m\_1-m\_2-m\_3]{} \_0 \[Cjm123id\] The iterative procedure described above can be used to find the complete dependence of the $W_{1+\infty}$ currents on the full phase space.
The description of $c=1$ string theory at the self-dual radius as a topological field theory should include the puncture and dilaton equations. It has been observed that the momentum one tachyon corresponds to the puncture operator [@kita; @HOP], thus the ${\cal T}_1$ Ward identity is the puncture equation. We will now derive the dilaton equation. The dilaton is the first descendant of the puncture. Thus, consider \_[1,0]{}= Z\^[-1]{}|[W]{}\_0\^[(2)]{}Z \[Y10d\] where $\bar{W}_0^{(2)}$ is the zero mode of the Virasoro current. Equation (\[Y10d\]) reads to all genera [@DMP] \_[1,0]{}= \[1 + \_[k>0]{}k t\_[-k]{}x\^k + \_[k>0]{}x\^[-k]{} \_[-k]{}\]\^2 =\
= [12]{}+\_[g;k > 0]{} kt\_[-k]{}\_[-k]{} \_g \[Y10id\]
It yields \_[1,0]{}\_[i=1]{}\^m\_[n\_i]{}\_g = \_[n\_1]{}\_[n\_m]{} \_[1,0]{}\_g (t=0) = (\_[i=1]{}\^m|n\_i|)\_[j=1]{}\^m\_[n\_j]{}\_g \[Y10\]
Using the $\CT_0$ Ward identity[^3] \_0 \_[i=1]{}\^m\_[n\_i]{}\_g = (\_[i=1]{}\^m|n\_i| + 2 -2g - m)\_[j=1]{}\^m\_[n\_j]{}\_g \[T0\] with (\[Y10\]), we see that the operator ${\cal D} \equiv \CT_0
-{\cal Y}_{1,0}$ satisfies \_[i=1]{}\^m\_[n\_i]{}\_g = (2 -2g - m)\_[j=1]{}\^m\_[n\_j]{}\_g \[D\] Equation (\[D\]) is the dilaton equation and ${\cal D}$ is the dilaton operator which measures the Euler characteristic of the Riemann surface with $m$ punctures, that is $2-2g-m$.
There are several questions that arise as a consequence of this work. We presented an iterative method for computing the constraints currents on the full phase space and carried the computation to a certain order in $t_{J,m}$. It would be interesting to find the complete constraints algebra on the full phase space and for arbitrary genus. This algebra should have a topological interpretation along the lines of [@LOS] or [@GIM], and an underlying integrable hierarchy generalizing the Toda lattice, that should be discovered. For that the integrable viewpoint of [@Takasaki; @Nakatsu] is likely to be helpful. Furthermore, one expects these results to be intimately related to intersection theory on the moduli space of Riemann surfaces.
The results for discrete states correlators as calculated in this letter do not coincide with those calculated in [@LOS; @BXd]. This implies that there is more than one way to perturb the tachyon theory, by introducing extra operators. Thus, the main, unanswered yet, question is which of the various theories is equivalent to the Liouville $c=1$ string theory.
[99]{}
plus 2pt
B. Lian and G. Zuckerman, “New Selection Rules and Physical States in 2D Gravity,” 266,91,21. S. Mukherji, S. Mukhi, and A. Sen, “Null Vectors And Extra States in c = 1 String Theory,” 266,91,337. P. Bouwknegt, J. McCarthy, and K. Pilch, “BRST Analysis of Physical States for 2D Gravity Coupled to $c\leq 1$ Matter,” 145,92,541. E. Witten, “Ground ring of two-dimensional string theory,” hep-th/9108004, 373,92,187. I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, “Interaction of Discrete States in Two-Dimensional String Theory,” hep-th/9109032, 6,91,3273. A. Polyakov, “Selftuning fields and resonant correlations in 2-D gravity,” 6,91,635. A. Polyakov, “Singular States in 2-D Quantum Gravity,” Lectures given at the 1991 Jerusalem Winter School. Published in Jerusalem Gravity 1990:175-189. P. di Francesco, D. Kutasov, “World Sheet and Space-Time Physics in Two Dimensional (Super) String Theory”, hep-th/9109005, 375,92,119. A. Hanany, Y. Oz and R. Plesser, “Topological Landau-Ginzburg Formulation and Integrable Structure of 2d String Theory,“ hep-th/9401030, 425,94,150. D. Ghoshal, S. Mukhi, “Topological Landau-Ginsburg Model of Two-Dimensional String Theory,” hep-th/9312189, 425,94,173. Y. Lavi, Y. Oz and J. Sonnenschein, “$(1,q=-1)$ Model as a Topological Description of $2d$ String Theory,” TAUP-2170 -94, hep-th/9406056. To appear in [*Nucl. Phys. B.*]{} U. H. Danielsson, “Symmetries and Special States in Two Dimensional String Theory,” hep-th/9112061, 380,92,83. L. Bonora and C.S. Xiong, “Extended Toda lattice hierarchy, extended two-matrix model and c=1 string theory,” SISSA 84/94/EP, BONN-HE-08/94, hep-th/9407141. R. Dijkgraaf, E. Verlinde, and H. Verlinde, “Loop equations and Virasoro constraints in nonperturbative 2d quantum gravity,” 348,91,435. M. Fukuma, H. Kawai, and R. Nakayama, “Continuum Schwinger-Dyson equations and universal structures in two-dimensional quantum gravity,” 6,91,1385. J. Goeree, “$W$ constraints in 2d quantum gravity,” 358,91,73. R. Dijkgraaf, G. Moore and R. Plesser, “The partition function of 2D string theory,” hep-th/9208031, 394,93,356. K. Takasaki, “Dispersionless Toda Hierarchy and Two-dimensional String Theory,” KUCP-0067, hep-th/9403190. N. Seiberg, “Notes on quantum Liouville theory and quantum gravity,” Cargese 1990, Proceedings, Random surfaces and quantum gravity. T. Eguchi and H. Kanno, “Toda Lattice Hierarchy and the Topological Description of the $c=1$ String Theory,” hep-th/9404056, 331,94,330. P. di Francesco, D. Kutasov, ”World Sheet and Space-Time Physics in Two Dimensional (Super) String Theory", hep-th/9109005, 375,92,119. Y. Kitazawa, “Puncture operator in $c = 1$ Liouville gravity,” hep-th/9112021. T. Nakatsu, “On the string equation at $c=1$,” INS-1043, hep-th/9407096. D. Ghoshal, C. Imbimbo and S. Mukhi, “Topological 2D String Theory: Higher-genus Amplitudes and W-infinity Identities,” MRI-PHY/13/94, CERN-TH-7458/94, TIFR/TH/39-94, hep-th/9410034.
[^1]: Work supported in part by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation, and the Israel Academy of Science.
[^2]: The identity (\[id\]) is a special case of a more general one : $\oint f(x)G(W) = \oint g(x)F(\bar{W})$, where $f(x),g(x)$ are any two functions and $F'(x) = f(x), G'(x)=g(x)$.
[^3]: This identity can be derived, for instance in the continuum, by shifting the constant mode of the Liouville field.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the intersection ring of the space $\M(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_m)$ of polygons in $\R^3$. We find homology cycles dual to generators of this ring and prove a recursion relation in $m$ (the number of steps) for their intersection numbers. This result is analog of the recursion relation appearing in the work of Witten and Kontsevich on moduli spaces of punctured curves and on the work of Weitsman on moduli spaces of flat connections on two-manifolds of genus $g$ with $m$ marked points. Based on this recursion formula we obtain an explicit expression for the computation of the intersection numbers of polygon spaces and use it in several examples. Among others, we study the special case of equilateral polygon spaces (where all the $\alpha_i$ are the same) and compare our results with the expressions for these particular spaces that have been determined by Kamiyama and Tezuka. Finally, we relate our explicit formula for the intersection numbers with the generating function for intersection pairings of the moduli space of flat connections of Yoshida, as well as with equivalent expressions for polygon spaces obtained by Takakura and Konno through different techniques.'
address: 'DEPARTAMENTO DE MATEMÁTICA, INSTITUTO SUPERIOR TÉCNICO, AV. ROVISCO PAIS, 1049-001 LISBON, PORTUGAL, FAX: (351) 21 841 7035'
author:
- José Agapito
- Leonor Godinho
title: Intersection numbers of polygon spaces
---
[^1] [^2]
Introduction
============
A Polygon space $\M(\alpha):=\M(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_m)$, $\alpha_i\in \R_+$, is the set of all configurations of closed piecewise linear paths in $\R^3$ with $m$ steps of lengths $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_m$, modulo rotations and translations. These spaces have been widely studied in recent years. For example, Hausmann and Knutson computed their integer cohomology rings in the (generic) case that they are smooth [@HK2]. Previously Klyachko [@Kl] had showed that the cohomology groups were torsion free and calculated their rank. Moreover, Brion [@B] and Kirwan [@K] computed the rational cohomology ring for the particular case of equilateral polygons (that is, when the $\alpha_i$’s are all equal) with an odd number of edges as well as this equilateral case modulo the symmetric group. This quotient of the equal-length space by the symmetric group is particularly interesting since it is a compactification of the moduli space of $m$-times-punctured Riemann spheres as well as a compactification of the moduli space of $m$ unordered points in $\C P^1$.
Let us state our main results. In Section \[se:3\] we associate a circle bundle $V_i$ on $\M(\alpha)$ to each edge $i=1,\ldots,m$ obtaining a list of degree-$2$ classes: their first Chern classes $c_i:=c_1(V_i)$. It is shown in [@HK2] that these classes generate $H^*(\M(\alpha);\Z[\frac{1}{2}])$. The purpose of our work is the study of their intersection numbers obtaining a recursion relation in $m$ as well as an explicit formula for their computation, and examining its relation with other existing formulas by Konno [@Konno], Takakura [@T], Kamiyama and Tezuka [@KT] and by Yoshida [@Y] (this one in the context of moduli spaces of flat $SU(2)$-connections on the $m$-punctured sphere).
As we will see in Section \[se:4\] there exist natural homology cycles dual to these Chern classes which will allow us to perform computations in the cohomology ring via intersection theory. In particular, we develop a recursion relation in $m$, the number of edges. For that we start by showing that, for $\alpha_j \neq \alpha_i$, the homology class dual to $c_i$ is given by $$[D_{i,j}^+(\alpha)] + \operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_i - \alpha_j) [D_{i,j}^-(\alpha)],$$ where $[D_{i,j}^+(\alpha)]$ and $[D_{i,j}^-(\alpha)]$ are codimension-$2$ submanifolds of $\M(\alpha)$ symplectomorphic to polygon spaces $\M(\alpha_{i,j}^+)$ and $\M(\alpha_{i,j}^-)$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{i,j}^+ & :=(\alpha_1,\ldots, \hat{\alpha}_i, \ldots, \hat{\alpha}_j,\ldots,\alpha_i + \alpha_j)\\ \alpha_{i,j}^- & :=(\alpha_1,\ldots, \hat{\alpha}_i, \ldots, \hat{\alpha}_j,\ldots,\vert \alpha_i - \alpha_j\vert).\end{aligned}$$ These spaces $\M(\alpha_{i,j}^\pm)$ are themselves endowed with circle bundles and their Chern classes which we denote by $c_i^\pm$. Considering for simplicity $i=m-1$ and $j=m$ (given a permutation $\sigma \in Sym_m$ there is an isomorphism between $\M(\alpha)$ and $\M( \alpha^\sigma)$ given by reordering the steps) we study the behavior of the different classes $c_i$ when restricted to $[D_{m-1,m}^+(\alpha)]$ and $[D_{m-1,m}^-(\alpha)]$ and compare it with the behavior of $c_i^\pm$. In particular, we show that $$\begin{aligned}
& (i_\pm \circ s_\pm^{-1})^* c_i = c_i^\pm \quad \text{for}\quad 1 \leq i\leq m-2; \\
&(i_+ \circ s_+^{-1})^* c_{m-1} = c_{m-1}^+; \\
&(i_- \circ s_-^{-1})^* c_{m-1} = \operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_{m-1}-\alpha_m) \,c_{m-1}^-; \\
&(i_+ \circ s_+^{-1})^* c_{m} = c_{m-1}^+ ; \\
& (i_- \circ s_-^{-1})^* c_{m} = - \operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_{m-1}-\alpha_m)\, c_{m-1}^-,\end{aligned}$$ where $i_{\pm}:D_{m-1,m}^\pm(\alpha) \hookrightarrow \M(\alpha)$ denote the inclusion maps and $s_{\pm}:D_{m-1,m}^\pm(\alpha) \to \M(\alpha_{i,j}^\pm)$ are the symplectomorphisms which identify these spaces. We then obtain the following recursion relation (cf. Section \[se:5\]).
\[thm:1.1\] Suppose $\alpha_m\neq \alpha_{m-1}$ and let $c_i^+$ and $c_i^-$ be the cohomology classes $c_1(V_m(\alpha^+))$ and $c_1(V_m(\alpha^-))$, where $$\alpha^+:=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m-2},\alpha_{m-1} + \alpha_m) \quad \text{and} \quad \alpha^-:=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m-2},\vert \alpha_{m-1} - \alpha_m\vert ).$$ Then, for $k_1,\ldots, k_m \in \Z_{\geq 0}$ such that $k_1+\cdots + k_m= m-3$ and $k_m\geq 1$, $$\begin{split}
&{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\alpha)} c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_m^{k_m} =
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\alpha^+)}
(c^+_1)^{k_1} \cdots (c^+_{m-2})^{k_{m-2}} (c_{m-1}^+)^{k_{m-1}+k_m - 1} \quad + \\
\\
& + \, (-1)^{k_m - 1} \left( \operatorname{sgn}( \alpha_{m-1} -\alpha_m ) \right)^{k_{m-1}+k_m}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\alpha^-)}\!\! (c^-_1)^{k_1}\cdots
(c^-_{m-2})^{k_{m-2}} (c^-_{m-1})^{k_{m-1}+k_m - 1}.
\end{split}$$
This recursion relation is analog of the recursion relation appearing in the work of Witten and Kontsevich on moduli spaces of punctured curves [@Kont; @Wi1; @Wi3] and on the work of Weitsman on moduli spaces of flat connections on two-manifolds of genus $g$ with $m$ marked points [@W]. This is not surprising since for small values of $\alpha$ the polygon spaces $\M(\alpha)$ can be identified with moduli spaces of flat $SU(2)$-connections on the $m$-punctured sphere (cf. Section \[se:9\]). The proof of Theorem \[thm:1.1\] takes profit from this identification as it follows Weitsman’s proof [@W] of the corresponding recursion relation for moduli spaces of flat connections on surfaces of genus $g$, adapting it to the context of polygon spaces and making the necessary changes for the genus $g=0$ situation.
Based on this recursion relation we obtain an explicit expression for the computation of the intersection numbers (cf. Section \[se:6\]).
\[thm:1.2\] Let $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_m)$ be generic. Suppose $k_{m-l},\ldots, k_m\in \Z_+$, $k_1=\cdots = k_{m-l-1}=0$ and $k_{m-l} + \cdots + k_m = m-3$. Let $c_i:=c_1(V_i(\alpha))$ be the first Chern classes of the circle bundles $V_i(\alpha)\to \M(\alpha)$. Then $$\nonumber
\int_{\M(\alpha)} c_{m-l}^{k_{m-l}} \cdots c_m^{k_m} = \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)} (-1)^{\left( \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i \right) + m - \vert J \vert}.$$
Here $\mathcal{T}(\alpha)$ is a special family of sets $J\subset I:=\{3,\ldots,m\}$ that we will call *triangular* for which $
\sum_{j=3}^m (-1)^{\chi_{I\setminus J}(i)} \, \alpha_i > 0 $ and for which the following triangle inequalities are satisfied: $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha_1 \leq \alpha_2 + \sum_{i=3}^m (-1)^{\chi_{I\setminus J}(i)} \, \alpha_i, \\
&\alpha_2 \leq \alpha_1 + \sum_{i=3}^m (-1)^{\chi_{I\setminus J}(i)} \, \alpha_i, \\
& \sum_{i=3}^m (-1)^{\chi_{I\setminus J}(i)} \, \alpha_i \leq \alpha_1 + \alpha_2.\end{aligned}$$
After we prove this relation we work out several examples in Section \[se:7\] and compare the results obtained through our formulas with the ones obtained by Hausmann and Knutson in [@HK2]. Then, in Section \[se:8\], we study the equilateral case $\M_m$. Requiring $\alpha$ to be generic in this case means exactly that $m$ is odd. The intersection numbers for these particular spaces have been determined by Kamiyama and Tezuka [@KT].
(Kamiyama-Tezuka) Let $(d_1,\ldots,d_m)$ be a sequence of nonnegative integers with $\sum d_i=m-3$. Let $\beta_i, \varepsilon_i$ be such that $d_i=2\beta_i + \varepsilon_i$, where $\varepsilon_i=0$ or $1$. Then, defining $$\rho_{m,2k}:= (-1)^k \frac{\left( \begin{array}{c} \frac{m-3}{2} \\ k \end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ \frac{m-1}{2} \end{array}\right)} { \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ 2k + 1 \end{array} \right)},$$ we have
1. if $\beta_i=0$ for $1\leq i \leq m$ then $\int c_1^{d_1}\cdots c_m^{d_m} = \rho_{m,0}$;
2. 3. if $\beta_i \neq 0$ for some $i$ then $\int c_1^{d_1}\cdots c_m^{d_m} = \rho_{m,2k}$, with $k=\beta_1+\cdots+ \beta_m$.
We use Theorem \[thm:1.2\] to compute these numbers and we show the equivalence between our results and the ones obtained by Kamiyama and Tezuka, through several combinatorial computations. For completion, we consider the quotient of $\M_m$ by the action of the symmetric group. The cohomology ring of this space was computed by Brion [@B], Klyachko [@Kl] and Hausmann and Knutson [@HK2]. It can be identified with the invariant part of $H^*(\M_m,;\Q)$ by the symmetric group action and is generated by $\sigma_1$, the first invariant symmetric polynomial in the classes $c_i$ and, for example, by $c_m^2$, a generator of degree $4$ (or any other $c_i^2$ since they are all equal to the Pontrjagin class of the principal $SO(3)$-bundle $A_m \to \M_m$, where $A_m:=\{(\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_m)\in (\R^3)^m\mid \sum_{i=1}^m \vec{v}_i = 0,\,\, \vert \vec{v}_1\vert=\cdots = \vert \vec{v}_m\vert\}$ ). We compute the intersection numbers $\sigma_1^k \cdot c_m^{m-3-k}$ for an even $k$ and obtain the following result.
For an even integer $k$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{\M_m/Sym_m} \sigma_1^k \cdot c_m^{m-3-k} = \\ &= (-1)^{\frac{m-3}{2}} \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ \frac{m-1}{2} \end{array}\right) \sum_{j=0}^{\frac{k}{2}} (-1)^j \frac{ \left( \begin{array}{c} \frac{m-3}{2} \\ j \end{array} \right)}{ \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ 2j \end{array}\right)} \sum_{ \small{\begin{array}{c} k_1+\cdots+k_m=k \, \text{s.t.} \\ 2j\, \text{of the $k_i$'s are odd}\end{array}}} \left(\begin{array}{c} k \\ k_1, \cdots, k_m \end{array} \right).\end{aligned}$$
In Section \[se:9\], we explore the identification between polygon spaces and moduli spaces of flat $SU(2)$-connections on the $m$-punctured sphere and we relate the generating function for intersection pairings obtained by Yoshida [@Y] in the context of the moduli space of flat connections with our explicit formula from Theorem \[thm:1.2\].
Finally, in Section \[se:10\] we compare Theorem \[thm:1.2\] with the formula for intersection pairings on polygon spaces previously obtained by Takakura [@T] and Konno [@Konno] by different methods. In particular, Takakura in [@T] uses the “quantization commutes with reduction” theorem of Guillemin and Sternberg [@GS] to obtain an explicit formula for intersection pairings on polygon spaces, and Konno in [@Konno] computes these pairings from an algebro-geometric point of view generalizing the methods of Kamiyama and Tezuka [@KT]. The two expressions are equivalent (see [@Konno]) although Konno uses a different basis, $$v_i := \frac{c_i + c_m}{2},\, i=1,\ldots, m$$ to write his formula. Their result is the following.
(Konno, Takakura)
Let $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_m)$ be generic and let $(k_1,\ldots,k_m)$ be a sequence of nonnegative integers with $\sum_{i=1}^m k_i=m-3$. Let $\mathcal{S}(\alpha)$ be the family of sets $R \subset \{1, \ldots, m \}$ for which $\sum_{i \in R} \alpha_i - \sum_{i \notin R} \alpha_i < 0$. Then we have $$\int_{\M(\alpha)} c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_m^{k_m} = -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{R \in \mathcal{S}(\alpha)} (-1)^{\vert R \vert + \sum_{i \in R} k_i}.$$
We will show that this formula is equivalent to ours. Note, however, that our formula uses a smaller family of sets (the triangular sets $\mathcal{T}(\alpha)$) which is contained in $\mathcal{S}(\alpha)$.
Moreover, Konno’s method (like the one used in [@KT]) relies on the explicit relations among the generators of the cohomology ring. Instead, our approach and Takakura’s do not use these relations and contain enough information to recover the structure of this ring.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} The authors are grateful to Jonathan Weitsman for suggesting this problem and for many useful conversations and remarks. They would also like to thank Jean-Claude Hausmann for his comments on an earlier version of this work and to Takakura and Konno for bringing their work to our attention.
Setting and a brief survey on polygon spaces
============================================
Let $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_m)\in\R^m_+$ and, for each $1\le
i\le m$, let $S^2_{\alpha_i}$ be the sphere of radius $\alpha_i$ in $\R^3$. The product $\prod_{i=1}^m
S^2_{\alpha_i}$ can be thought of as the space of all paths starting at the origin with $m$ consecutive steps $\vec{v}_i$ whose lengths are $\vert\vec{v}_i\vert=\alpha_i$. We are interested in closed polygonal paths, i.e., $$\left\{\vec{v}=(\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_m)\in\prod_{i=1}^m
S^2_{\alpha_i}\mid \,\, \sum_{i=1}^m \vec{v}_i = 0 \right\}.$$ The polygon space $\M(\alpha)$ is the space of all configurations of closed polygonal paths in $\R^3$ starting and ending at the origin with $m$ edges of lengths $\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_m$, modulo rotation. More precisely, $$\M(\alpha):=\left\{\vec{v}=
(\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_m)\in\prod_{i=1}^m
S^2_{\alpha_i}\mid \,\, \sum_{i=1}^m \vec{v}_i = 0 \right\}\Big/
SO(3).$$ We want to rule out *degenerate polygons*, that is, polygons which are contained in a straight line. This degeneracy condition is equivalent to finding $\varepsilon_i=\pm 1$ for $1\le i\le m$, such that $$\label{eq:degeneracy}
\sum_{i=1}^m \varepsilon_i\alpha_i=0.$$ Hence, we say that $\alpha$ is *generic* if equation has no solution with $\varepsilon_i=\pm 1$. If $\alpha$ is generic, the quotient space $\M(\alpha)$ is a symplectic manifold of dimension $2(m-3)$. Indeed, considering the product symplectic structure $\omega=\alpha_1\omega_{S^2}+\ldots+\alpha_m\omega_{S^2}$ on $\prod_{i=1}^m S^2_{\alpha_i}\subset(\R^3)^m$, where $\omega_{S^2}$ is the standard symplectic structure on $S^2$, and the diagonal Hamiltonian $SO(3)$-action with moment map $$\begin{array}{rccl}
\mu\colon & {\displaystyle\prod}_{i=1}^m S^2_{\alpha_i} & \longrightarrow &
\so(3)^*\cong(\R^3)^* \\[2ex]
& \vec{v}=(\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_m) & \longmapsto &
\mu(\vec{v})={\displaystyle\sum}_{i=1}^m \vec{v}_i\quad \mbox{(``endpoint'')},
\end{array}$$ we can, for a generic $\alpha$, see the polygon space $\M(\alpha)$ as a symplectic quotient of the path space. When $\alpha$ is generic the $SO(3)$-action is free and $0$ is a regular value of $\mu$ and so $\M(\alpha)$ is itself a symplectic manifold. More precisely, $$\M(\alpha) = \mu^{-1}(0) \Big/ SO(3) = \left(\prod_{i=1}^m
S^2_{\alpha_i}\right) \underset{0\,\,\,}{\bigds}\,
SO(3)\cong\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}S^2_{\alpha_i}\underset{\alpha_m\,\,\,}{\bigds}\,
SO(3),$$ where this last space is the set of paths of $m-1$ steps of lengths $\alpha_1\,\ldots,\alpha_{m-1}$ whose endpoint is at a distance $\alpha_m$ from the origin modulo $SO(3)$ (see [@Kl; @KM; @HK2] for additional details). Hereafter, we will assume that $\alpha$ is generic.
\[rk:2.1\] For $\alpha$ and $\alpha^\prime$ generic and sufficiently close, $\M(\alpha)$ and $\M(\alpha^\prime)$ are diffeomorphic ([@HK2], Proposition 2.2). Indeed, if they are close enough such that $\alpha(t):= t\alpha^\prime + (1-t)\alpha$ is always generic for $t\in [0,1]$, the map $$\begin{aligned}
\beta: [0,1]\times \prod_{i=1}^m S^2 & \to [0,1] \times \R^3 \\
(t, z_1,\ldots,z_m) & \mapsto (t, \mu(\alpha_1(t)z_1,\ldots, \alpha_m(t)z_m))\end{aligned}$$ has no critical values in $[0,1]\times \{0\}$ and so its gradient flow gives an $SO(3)$-equivariant diffeomorphism between $\beta^{-1}(0,0)$ and $\beta^{-1}(1,0)$. Hence, the quotient spaces $\M(\alpha)=\beta^{-1}(0,0)/SO(3)$ and $\M(\alpha^\prime)=\beta^{-1}(1,0)/SO(3)$ are also diffeomorphic.
The restriction of the diagonal $SO(3)$-action on the path space to an action of $S^1\cong SO(2)$ is also Hamiltonian with moment map $$\begin{array}{rccl}
\overline{\mu}\colon & {\displaystyle\prod}_{i=1}^m S^2_{\alpha_i} & \longrightarrow &
\so(2)^* \cong(\R)^* \\[2ex]
& \vec{v}=(\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_m) & \longmapsto &
\overline{\mu}(\vec{v})=\zeta\left({\displaystyle\sum}_{i=1}^m \vec{v}_i \right) \quad \mbox{(``height of endpoint'')},
\end{array}$$ where $\zeta$ is the projection $\zeta(x,y,z)=z$.
Using the maps $\zeta$ and $\overline{\mu}$ we will define some other spaces that will be relevant to us. The first is the *abelian polygon space*, $$\mathcal{AM}(\alpha) := \left\{\vec{v}=
(\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_{m-1})\in\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}
S^2_{\alpha_i}\mid \,\, \zeta(\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \vec{v}_i) = \alpha_m \right\}\Big/
S^1,$$ the space of piecewise linear $(m-1)$-chains with edge lengths $\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_{m-1}$ which end on the plane $z=\alpha_m$, modulo rotations around the $z$-axis. It is a symplectic quotient of the path space $\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}
S^2_{\alpha_i}$ by the maximal torus $S^1$ of $SO(3)$, $$\label{eq:2.1}
\mathcal{AM}(\alpha)=\zeta^{-1}(\alpha_m)/S^1,$$ and so it is a symplectic manifold of dimension $2(m-2)$ containing $\mathcal{M}(\alpha)$ as a symplectic submanifold of codimension $2$.
\[rk:2.2\] Note that we can always rotate any element $\vec{v}\in \M(\alpha)$ in such a way that the sum $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \vec{v}_i$ ends not only on the plane $z=\alpha_m$ but also on the $z$-axis, so that $\vec{v}_m$ points downwards.
The *upper path space* $\mathcal{UP}(\alpha)$ is defined as the space $$\mathcal{UP}(\alpha):=
\left\{ \vec{v} = (\vec{v}_1,\ldots, \vec{v}_{m-1}) \in \prod_{i=1}^{m-1} S^2_{\alpha_i} \mid \,\, \zeta \left(\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \vec{v}_i\right) \geq \alpha_m \right\}\Big/ \sim,$$ where $\vec{v} \sim \vec{v}^\prime$ if and only if $\vec{v}= \vec{v}^\prime$ or $ \zeta(\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \vec{v}_i)= \alpha_m$ and $[\vec{v}]=[\vec{v}^\prime]$ in $\mathcal{AM}(\alpha)$. It is the symplectic cut (in the sense of [@L]) of the path space $\prod_{i=1}^{m-1} S^2_{\alpha_i}$ at the level $\alpha_m$ of the moment map $\overline{\mu}$. Hence, it is a symplectic manifold of dimension $2(m-1)$ which contains $\mathcal{AM}(\alpha)$ as a submanifold of codimension $2$.
Circle bundles over polygon spaces {#se:3}
==================================
We construct circle bundles over $\M(\alpha)$ as follows. We define, for each $1\le j\le m$, the space $$V_{j}(\alpha):=\left\{\vec{v}=(\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_m)\in\prod_{i=1}^m
S^2_{\alpha_i}\mid \,\, \sum_{i=1}^m \vec{v}_i = 0
\,\,\mbox{and}\,\, \vec{v}_j=(0,0,\alpha_j)\right\},$$ which is a smooth manifold of dimension $2m-5$. The circle $S^1$ acts on $V_{j}(\alpha)$ by rotation around the $z$-axis. As $\alpha$ is generic, this action is free and it is easy to check that $V_j(\alpha) \Big/ S^1=\M(\alpha)$. Hence, $V_j(\alpha)\to\M(\alpha)$ is a principal circle bundle determined by its Chern class $$c_j:=c_1(V_j(\alpha))\in H^2(\M(\alpha); \Z).$$
Let us also consider the level set $B(\alpha):= \zeta^{-1}(\alpha_m)\subset \prod_{i=1}^{m-1}
S^2_{\alpha_i}$, i.e. $$B(\alpha):=\left\{\vec{v}=(\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_{m-1})\in \prod_{i=1}^{m-1}
S^2_{\alpha_i} \mid \,\, \zeta\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m-1} \vec{v}_i\right) = \alpha_m \right\}.$$ Since $\alpha$ is generic, $S^1$ acts freely on this space making it a principal bundle over $\mathcal{AM}(\alpha)$. Moreover, we have the following commutative diagram $$\begin{array}{ccc}
V_m(\alpha) & \stackrel{\tilde{i}}{\longrightarrow} & B(\alpha) \\ \downarrow & & \downarrow\\
\M(\alpha) & \stackrel{i}{\longrightarrow} & \mathcal{AM}(\alpha). \\
\end{array}$$ Note that the inclusion $\tilde{i}:V_m(\alpha) \hookrightarrow B(\alpha)$ is anti-equivariant (i.e. $\tilde{i}(\lambda \cdot \vec{v})=\lambda^{-1}\cdot \tilde{i}(\vec{v})$) since, in the identification of $\M(\alpha)$ as a submanifold of $\mathcal{AM}(\alpha)$, the vector $\vec{v}_m$ must face downward (see Remark \[rk:2.2\]). Hence, $c_m=-i^*(c_1(B(\alpha)))$.
Let $\mathcal{N}$ be a tubular neighborhood of $\mathcal{AM}(\alpha)$ inside $\mathcal{UP}(\alpha)$. The retraction $\mathcal{N} \to \mathcal{AM}(\alpha)$ is the disc bundle associated to the circle bundle $B(\alpha) \to \mathcal{AM}(\alpha)$ and so $c_1(B(\alpha))$ is the Euler class of the normal bundle of $\mathcal{AM}(\alpha)$ inside $\mathcal{UP}(\alpha)$. On the other hand, since $\mathcal{AM}(\alpha)$ is the reduced space , $$\zeta^{-1}(\alpha_m) \Big/ S^1,$$ we have, by the Duistermaat-Heckmann theorem [@DH; @G], that $$c_1(B(\alpha))=- \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_m} [\omega]$$ in $H^2(\mathcal{AM}(\alpha);\R)$, and so $$c_m=\frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_m} [\omega]$$ in $H^2(\mathcal{M}(\alpha); \R)$. By symmetry, since any edge can be the last, we have $$\label{eq:3.1}
c_j=\frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_j} [\omega].$$ It is shown in [@HK2] that these classes $c_j$ generate $H^*(\M(\alpha); \Z[\frac{1}{2}])$.
\[rk:3.1\] Given a permutation $\sigma\in \text{Sym}_m$ there is an isomorphism between $M(\alpha)$ and $\M(\alpha^\sigma)$ given by reordering the steps (note that a polygon is simply a list of $m$ vectors whose sum is zero modulo rotation). From the above geometric construction of the bundles $V_j(\alpha)$ we see that the induced isomorphism on cohomology $H^2(\M(\alpha^\sigma)) \to H^2(\M(\alpha))$ yields $c_j\to c_{\sigma(j)}$.
Dual homology classes {#se:4}
=====================
The content of the next two sections takes profit from the identification, for small values of $\alpha$, between polygon spaces $\M(\alpha)$ and moduli spaces of flat $SU(2)$- connections on the $m$-punctured sphere (cf. Section \[se:9\]). Indeed, we follow the proof of Weitsman’s recursion relation [@W] for moduli spaces of flat connections on surfaces of genus $g$, adapting it to the context of polygon spaces and making the necessary changes for the genus $g=0$ situation.
We are interested in determining homology cycles representing the Poincaré duals of the first Chern classes $c_j:=c_1(V_j(\alpha)) \in H^2(\M(\alpha); \Z)$. For this purpose, let $i$ and $j$ be positive integers such that $1\le i,j\le m$ and $i\neq j$. Let us denote by $D_{i,j}(\alpha)$ the submanifold of $\M(\alpha)$ formed by those polygons $\vec{v}\in\M(\alpha)$ for which the step $\vec{v}_i$ is parallel to $\vec{v}_j$. By rotating $\vec{v}$ around a suitable axis, if necessary, we can assume that $\vec{v}_i$ and $\vec{v}_j$ are parallel to the $z$ axis. Hence $$D_{i,j}(\alpha):=\left\{\vec{v}=(\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_m)\in\M(\alpha)
\mid \,\, \vec{v}_i=\alpha_i \eb_3, \,\, \vec{v}_j= \alpha_j \eb_3\right\}$$ is a codimension two submanifold of $\M(\alpha)$. We will show that the bundle $V_j(\alpha)$ has a section on the complement of $D_{i,j}(\alpha)$ and so $c_j$ will be dual to an element of $i_*(H_{2(n-4)}(D_{i,j}(\alpha)))$, where $i:D_{i,j}(\alpha) \hookrightarrow \M(\alpha)$ is the inclusion map. Note that $D_{i,j}(\alpha)=D_{j,i}(\alpha)$ so $D_{i,j}(\alpha)$ will not be connected. Indeed, both $V_i(\alpha)$ and $V_j(\alpha)$ are trivial on the complement of $D_{i,j}(\alpha)$ but they are not powers of the same circle bundle.
The circle bundle $V_j(\alpha)\vert_{\M(\alpha)\setminus D_{i,j}(\alpha)}\stackrel{\pi_j}{\longrightarrow} \M(\alpha)\setminus D_{i,j}(\alpha)$ has a section.
A section $s:\M(\alpha)\setminus D_{i,j}(\alpha) \to V_j(\alpha)$ can be given by choosing, for each $\vec{v} \in \M(\alpha)$, a representative $s( \vec{v})\in V_j(\alpha)$ such that $\pi_j(s(\vec{v}))=\vec{v}$. To do this we assign to each $\vec{v}$ the unique element $p\in \pi_j^{-1}(\vec{v}) \subset V_j(\alpha)$ for which the $i$-th step $\vec{v}_i$ projects onto the $xOy$ plane along the positive $x$-axis. Such a representative will always exist in $\pi_j^{-1}(\vec{v})$ as long as $\vec{v}_i$ is not parallel to $\vec{v}_j$, that is, as long as $\vec{v}\notin D_{i,j}(\alpha)$.
Since $D_{i,j}(\alpha)$ consists of classes of polygons for which the step $\vec{v}_i$ is parallel to $\vec{v}_j$, it clearly has two different connected components $$\begin{aligned}
& D_{i,j}^+(\alpha) = \left\{\vec{v}\in D_{i,j}(\alpha) \mid
\langle\vec{v}_i,\vec{v}_j \rangle > 0\right\} \quad \text{and} \quad D_{i,j}^-(\alpha) = \left\{\vec{v}\in D_{i,j}(\alpha)\mid
\langle\vec{v}_i,\vec{v}_j\rangle < 0\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Both spaces $D_{i,j}^\pm(\alpha)$ are symplectomorphic to polygon spaces obtained by permuting the edges so that the steps $\vec{v}_i$ and $\vec{v}_j$ become the last two consecutive edges. In other words,
\[le:generic\] For $\alpha_i \neq \alpha_j$ there exist symplectomorphisms $$\begin{array}{cccl}
s_\pm: & D_{i,j}^\pm(\alpha)& \longrightarrow & \M(\alpha_{i,j}^\pm)\\
& [(\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_m)] & \mapsto & [(\vec{v}_1,\ldots, \hat{\vec{v}}_i, \ldots, \hat{\vec{v}}_j, \ldots, \vec{v}_i \pm \vec{v}_j)],
\end{array}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_{i,j}^+ & = & \left(\alpha_1,\ldots,\hat{\alpha_i}, \ldots, \hat{\alpha_j}, \ldots, \alpha_i + \alpha_j\right),\\
\alpha_{i,j}^- & = & \left(\alpha_1,\ldots,\hat{\alpha_i},\ldots, \hat{\alpha_j},\ldots, \vert\alpha_i-\alpha_j\vert \right).\end{aligned}$$
Note that both $\alpha_{i,j}^+$ and $\alpha_{i,j}^-$ are generic provided that $\alpha$ is. We conclude that the manifolds $D_{i,j}^\pm(\alpha)$ are connected symplectic manifolds and so we can orient them using the symplectic form by requiring that $\int_{D_{i,j}^\pm(\alpha)} \omega^{n-4} > 0$. We obtain in this way two generators of $H_{2(n-4)}(D_{i,j}^\pm(\alpha))$: $[D_{i,j}^+(\alpha)]$ and $[D_{i,j}^-(\alpha)]$. Therefore, to determine the Poincaré dual of $c_j$ we just have to determine two constants $a_{i,j}$ and $b_{i,j}$ as in the following proposition.
Let $i: D_{i,j}(\alpha)\hookrightarrow \M(\alpha)$ be the inclusion map. If $\alpha_i \neq \alpha_j$ then the Poincaré dual of $c_j$ is in $i_* H_{2(n-4)}(D_{i,j}(\alpha))$ and can be written as $$a_{i,j}[D_{i,j}^+(\alpha)] + b_{i,j} [D_{i,j}^-(\alpha)].$$
We will now see that the constants $a_{i,j}$ are always equal to $1$ while the constants $b_{i,j}$ depend on the values of $\alpha_i$ and $\alpha_j$.
\[prop:4.1\] The constants $a_{i,j}$ and $b_{i,j}$ are equal to $$a_{i,j}=1\quad \text{and} \quad b_{i,j}=\operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_i-\alpha_j).$$
For simplicity, we consider $i=m-1$ and $j=m$ (we can always reduce to this case due to Remark \[rk:3.1\]). Take a fixed polygon $\vec{\underline{v}}$ in $\R^3$ such that $\vert \vec{\underline{v}}_i \vert =\alpha_i$ and consider the space $$\begin{aligned}
W := \Bigl\{ \vec{v}=(\vec{v}_1,\ldots, \vec{v}_m)\in \Bigr. & (\R^3)^m \mid \quad \sum_{k=1}^m \vec{v}_k = 0, \quad \vert \vec{v}_k \vert = \alpha_k, \quad k=1,\ldots,m \\ & \Bigl. \text{and} \quad \vec{v}_i=\vec{\underline{v}}_i, \quad i=1,\ldots, m-3 \Bigr\}\Big/ SO(3).\end{aligned}$$ This corresponds to fixing the first $m-3$ edges of the polygons, allowing to move only the last three. The manifold $W$ is symplectomorphic to the sphere $\M(l,\alpha_{m-2},\alpha_{m-1},\alpha_m)$, where $l:=\vert \sum_{k=1}^{m-3} \vec{\underline{v}}_k \vert$. To find the constants $a_{i,j}$ and $b_{i,j}$ we just have to compare $c_m\vert_W$ with $W\cap D_{m-1,m}^\pm(\alpha)$.
We compute $c_m\vert_W$ using the variation of the symplectic form given in . Hence, if $i: W \hookrightarrow \M(\alpha)$ is the inclusion map then $$c_m\vert_W=i^*c_m= i^* \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_m} [\omega]= \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_m} [i^* \omega].$$ On the other hand, $W$ is a toric manifold (equivariantly symplectomorphic to a sphere equipped with a circle action) with moment map $$\mu:W \cong \M(l,\alpha_{m-2},\alpha_{m-1},\alpha_m) \to \R^*$$ obtained by restricting to $W$ the action on $\M(\alpha)$ given by bending the polygons along the last diagonal. The moment map image $\mu(W)$ is the interval $$\Delta = \left[\, \max{\{\vert l - \alpha_{m-2}\vert,\, \vert \alpha_{m-1} - \alpha_m\vert\}},\, \min{\{l + \alpha_{m-2},\, \alpha_{m-1} + \alpha_m}\}\, \right]$$ (see Section $6.$ of [@HK1] for details).
Now let $M^{2n}$ be an arbitrary toric manifold with moment map $\mu$, equipped with a family of symplectic forms $\Omega_t$. The corresponding family of moment polytopes $\Delta_t\subset \frak{t}^*$, is determined by their facets $$F_k=\{x\in \R^n \mid \langle x, u_k \rangle = \lambda_k(t) \}, \quad k=1,\ldots,N,$$ where $N$ is the number of facets of $\Delta_t$. Suppose that the polytopes $\Delta_t$ stay combinatorially the same as $t$ changes but the value $\lambda_i(t)$ for some $i\in \{1,\ldots, N \}$ depends linearly on $t$ and, as $t$ increases, the facet $F_i$ moves outward while the others stay fixed. Then we know that $\frac{d}{d t} \Omega_t$ is the Poincaré dual of the homology class $[\mu^{-1}(F_i)]$ where the orientation of $\mu^{-1}(F_i)$ is given by requiring $\int_{\mu^{-1}(F_i)} \Omega_t^{n-1} > 0$ (cf. [@G] for details).
Applying this general fact about toric manifolds to $W$ and its moment polytope $\Delta$, we see that as $\alpha_m$ changes, the cohomology class of the symplectic form of $W$, $[\omega_{\alpha_m}]$, changes by the Poincaré dual of the homology class $$\begin{aligned}
& [\mu^{-1}(\alpha_{m-1}+\alpha_m)] + \operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_{m-1}-\alpha_m) [\mu^{-1}(\vert \alpha_{m-1} - \alpha_m\vert)] = \\ & = [D_{m-1,m}^+(\alpha) \cap W] + \operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_{m-1}-\alpha_m) [D_{m-1,m}^-(\alpha) \cap W]\end{aligned}$$ and the result follows.
A recursion formula {#se:5}
===================
In order to prove Theorem \[thm:1.1\] we still need to study the behavior of the different Chern classes $c_i$ when restricted to $[D_{m-1,m}^+(\alpha)]$ and $[D_{m-1,m}^-(\alpha)]$.
\[prop:5.1\] Suppose $\alpha_m\neq \alpha_{m-1}$ and let $c_m^+$ and $c_m^-$ be the cohomology classes $c_1\left(V_m(\alpha^+)\right)$ and $c_1\left(V_m(\alpha^-)\right)$, where $$\alpha^+:=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m-2},\alpha_{m-1} + \alpha_m) \quad \text{and} \quad \alpha^-:=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m-2},\vert \alpha_{m-1} - \alpha_m\vert ).$$ Then, considering the inclusion maps $i_\pm: D_{m-1,m}^\pm(\alpha) \hookrightarrow \M(\alpha)$ and the symplectomorphisms $s_\pm: D_{i,j}^\pm(\alpha) \longrightarrow \M(\alpha_{i,j}^\pm)$ from Proposition \[le:generic\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
& (i_\pm \circ s_\pm^{-1})^* c_i = c_i^\pm \quad \text{for}\quad 1 \leq i\leq m-2; \\
&(i_+ \circ s_+^{-1})^* c_{m-1} = c_{m-1}^+; \\
&(i_- \circ s_-^{-1})^* c_{m-1} = \operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_{m-1}-\alpha_m) \,c_{m-1}^-; \\
&(i_+ \circ s_+^{-1})^* c_{m} = c_{m-1}^+ ; \\
& (i_- \circ s_-^{-1})^* c_{m} = - \operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_{m-1}-\alpha_m)\, c_{m-1}^-. \end{aligned}$$
Let us denote by $\omega^+$ and $\omega^-$ the symplectic forms on $\M(\alpha^+)$ and $\M(\alpha^-)$ obtained by restricting to $D_{m-1,m}^\pm(\alpha)$ the symplectic form $\omega$ of $\M(\alpha)$. Then, for $1 \leq i\leq m-2$, we have $$c_i^\pm = \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha^\pm_i}[\omega^\pm] = \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_i}[(i_\pm \circ s_\pm^{-1})^* \omega] = (i_\pm \circ s_\pm^{-1})^* \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_i}[\omega]= (i_\pm \circ s_\pm^{-1})^* c_i,$$ since $\alpha_i^\pm=\alpha_i$ for $1\leq i \leq m-2$. Moreover, $$c_{m-1}^+ = \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha^+_{m-1}}[\omega^+]= \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_{m-1}}[\omega^+]\right)\left( \frac{\partial \alpha_{m-1}}{\partial \alpha_{m-1}^+} \right) = \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_{m-1}}[\omega^+] = (i_+ \circ s_+^{-1})^* c_{m-1},$$ since $\alpha_{m-1}^+=\alpha_{m-1}+\alpha_m$. Similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
c_{m-1}^- & = \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha^-_{m-1}}[\omega^-]= \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_{m-1}}[\omega^-]\right)\left( \frac{\partial \alpha_{m-1}}{\partial \alpha_{m-1}^-} \right)= \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_{m-1}}[\omega^-] \cdot \, \operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_{m-1}-\alpha_m) \\ & = \operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_{m-1}-\alpha_m) \, (i_- \circ s_-^{-1})^* c_{m-1},\end{aligned}$$ since $\alpha_{m-1}^-=\vert \alpha_{m-1}- \alpha_m\vert = \operatorname{sgn}( \alpha_{m-1}- \alpha_m) (\alpha_{m-1}- \alpha_m)$. On the other hand, $$c_{m-1}^+ = \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha^+_{m-1}}[\omega^+]= \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_{m}}[\omega^+]\right)\left( \frac{\partial \alpha_{m}}{\partial \alpha_{m-1}^+} \right) = \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_{m}}[\omega^+] = (i_+ \circ s_+^{-1})^* c_{m}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
c_{m-1}^- & = \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha^-_{m-1}}[\omega^-]= \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_{m}}[\omega^-]\right)\left( \frac{\partial \alpha_{m}}{\partial \alpha_{m-1}^-} \right)= - \frac{\partial}{\partial \alpha_{m}}[\omega^-] \cdot \, \operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_{m-1}-\alpha_m) \\ & = - \, \operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_{m-1}-\alpha_m) \, (i_- \circ s_-^{-1})^* c_{m}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, using Propositions \[prop:4.1\] and \[prop:5.1\] we have our recursion formula.
\[thm:5.1\] Let $\alpha^\pm$ and $c_i^\pm$ be as in Proposition \[prop:5.1\]. Then, for $k_1,\ldots, k_m \in \Z_{\geq 0}$ such that $k_1+\cdots + k_m= m-3$ and $k_m\geq 1$, $$\label{eq:5.1}
\begin{split}
&{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\alpha)} c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_m^{k_m} =
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\alpha^+)}
(c^+_1)^{k_1} \cdots (c^+_{m-2})^{k_{m-2}} (c_{m-1}^+)^{k_{m-1}+k_m - 1} \quad + \\
\\
& + \, (-1)^{k_m - 1} \left( \operatorname{sgn}( \alpha_{m-1} -\alpha_m ) \right)^{k_{m-1}+k_m}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\alpha^-)}\!\! (c^-_1)^{k_1}\cdots
(c^-_{m-2})^{k_{m-2}} (c^-_{m-1})^{k_{m-1}+k_m - 1}.
\end{split}$$
An explicit formula {#se:6}
===================
Using this recursion formula we may obtain an explicit expression for the computation of intersection numbers. For that we first need to introduce the following definition.
Let $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_m)$ be generic. A set $J\subset I := \{3,\ldots, m \}$ is called *triangular* if $$\sum_{i=3}^m (-1)^{\chi_{I\setminus J}(i)} \, \alpha_i > 0$$ (where, for a set $S$, $\chi_S: S\to \{0,1\}$ is the characteristic function of $S$), and satisfies the following triangle inequalities: $$\begin{aligned}
&\alpha_1 \leq \alpha_2 + \sum_{i=3}^m (-1)^{\chi_{I\setminus J}(i)} \, \alpha_i, \\
&\alpha_2 \leq \alpha_1 + \sum_{i=3}^m (-1)^{\chi_{I\setminus J}(i)} \, \alpha_i, \\
& \sum_{i=3}^m (-1)^{\chi_{I\setminus J}(i)} \, \alpha_i \leq \alpha_1 + \alpha_2.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, define $\mathcal{T}:=\mathcal{T}(\alpha) :=\{ J\subset I\mid \, J \, \text{is triangular}\}$, the family of all triangular sets in $I$.
Finally we come to Theorem \[thm:1.2\].
\[thm:6.1\] Let $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_m)$ be generic. Suppose $k_{m-l},\ldots, k_m\in \Z_+$, $k_1=\cdots = k_{m-l-1}=0$ and $k_{m-l} + \cdots + k_m = m-3$. Let $c_i:=c_1(V_i(\alpha))$ be the first Chern classes of the circle bundles $V_i(\alpha)\to \M(\alpha)$. Then $$\label{eq:6.1}
\int_{\M(\alpha)} c_{m-l}^{k_{m-l}} \cdots c_m^{k_m} = \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)} (-1)^{\left( \sum_{i\in I\setminus J} k_i \right) + m - \vert J \vert}.$$ We will prove this formula by induction on $m$ starting with $m=4$.
For $m=4$, the recursion formula of Theorem \[thm:5.1\] gives $$\int_{\M(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_4)} c_4 = \int_{\M(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3+\alpha_4)} 1 +\, \operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_3-\alpha_4)\int_{\M(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\vert \alpha_3 - \alpha_4 \vert)} 1.$$ Hence, $$\int_{\M(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_4)} c_4 =
\left\{ \begin{array}{cll}
2 & & \text{if} \quad \mathcal{T}=\left\{\{3\},\{3,4\}\right\} \\
0 & & \text{if} \quad \mathcal{T}=\left\{\{4\},\{3,4\}\right\} \\
1 & & \text{if} \quad \mathcal{T}=\left\{\{3\}\right\} \, \text{or} \, \left\{\{3,4\}\right\} \\
-1 & & \text{if} \quad \mathcal{T}=\left\{\{4\}\right\},
\end{array} \right.$$ and it is easy to verify that this agrees in all cases with the right-hand side of .
We will now assume that holds for some $m$ and show that it is still valid for $m+1$. Using the recursion formula once more we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_m,\alpha_{m+1})} \hspace{-1cm} c_{m+1-l}^{k_{m+1-l}} \cdots c_{m+1}^{k_{m+1}} \, = \hspace{-1.2cm} \int \limits_{\M(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m-1},\alpha_m+\alpha_{m+1})}\hspace{-1.5cm} (c_{m+1-l}^+)^{k_{m+1-l}} \cdots (c_{m-1}^+)^{k_{m-1}} (c_{m}^+)^{k_{m}+k_{m+1}-1} \, + \\ \\ & + (-1)^{k_{m+1}-1}\,\operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_m - \alpha_{m+1})^{k_m + k_{m+1}}\hspace{-1.8cm} \int \limits_{\M(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m-1},\vert \alpha_m - \alpha_{m+1}\vert)} \hspace{-1.5cm} (c_{m+1-l}^-)^{k_{m+1-l}} \cdots(c_{m-1}^-)^{k_{m-1}} (c_{m}^-)^{k_{m}+k_{m+1}-1}. \\ \end{aligned}$$ Writing $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}_{m+1}: = \mathcal{T}(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_m, \alpha_{m+1}), & \quad \mathcal{T}_m^+ := \mathcal{T}(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m-1}, \alpha_m + \alpha_{m+1}) \quad \text{and} \\ \mathcal{T}_m^- = \mathcal{T}&(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m-1}, \vert \alpha_m - \alpha_{m+1}\vert ),\end{aligned}$$ then, if $\alpha_{m}-\alpha_{m+1} > 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}_{m+1} = & \left\{\widetilde{J} \in \mathcal{T}_m^+ \mid m \notin \widetilde{J} \right\} \, \bigcup \, \left\{\widetilde{J} \cup \{m+1\}\mid \widetilde{J} \in \mathcal{T}_m^+ \, \text{and} \, m \in \widetilde{J} \right\} \, \bigcup \\ & \bigcup \, \left\{\widetilde{J} \in \mathcal{T}_m^- \mid m \in \widetilde{J} \right\} \, \bigcup \, \left\{\widetilde{J}\cup \{m+1\} \mid \widetilde{J} \in \mathcal{T}_m^- \, \text{and} \, m \notin \widetilde{J} \right\},\end{aligned}$$ while, if $\alpha_{m}-\alpha_{m+1} < 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{T}_{m+1} = \left\{\widetilde{J} \in \mathcal{T}_m^+ \mid m \notin \widetilde{J} \right\} \, \bigcup \, \left\{\widetilde{J} \cup \{m+1\}\mid \widetilde{J} \in \mathcal{T}_m^+ \, \text{and} \, m \in \widetilde{J} \right\} \, \bigcup \\ \bigcup \, & \left\{\left(\widetilde{J}\setminus\{m\}\right)\cup\{m+1\}\mid \widetilde{J} \in \mathcal{T}_m^- \, \text{and} \, m \in \widetilde{J} \right\} \, \bigcup \, \left\{\widetilde{J}\cup \{m\} \mid \widetilde{J} \in \mathcal{T}_m^- \, \text{and} \, m \notin \widetilde{J} \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Assuming holds and writing $\tilde{k}_j=k_j$ for $j\neq m$ and $\tilde{k}_m=k_m + k_{m+1} -1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int \limits_{\M(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m-1},\alpha_m+\alpha_{m+1})}\hspace{-1.5cm} &(c_{m+1-l}^+)^{k_{m+1-l}}\cdots (c_{m-1}^+)^{k_{m-1}} (c_{m}^+)^{k_{m}+k_{m+1}-1} \\ & = \sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^+} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in \{3,\ldots,m\}\setminus \widetilde{J}} \tilde{k}_i\right)+m-\vert \widetilde{J} \vert} \\ & = \sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^+\,\text{s.t.} m\notin \widetilde{J}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in \{3,\ldots,m-1\}\setminus \widetilde{J}} \, k_i\right) + \, \tilde{k}_m + \, m -\vert \widetilde{J} \, \vert} \,\, + \\ & + \sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^+\,\text{s.t.} m \in \widetilde{J}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in \{3,\ldots,m+1\}\setminus (\widetilde{J} \, \cup \, \{m+1\})} k_i\right)+ \, m - \vert \widetilde{J} \, \vert} \\ & = \sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^+\,\text{s.t.} m \notin \widetilde{J}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i \in \{3,\ldots,m+1\}\setminus \widetilde{J}}\, k_i\right)+ m-1 -\vert \widetilde{J} \vert} \,\, + \\ & + \sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^+\,\text{s.t.} m\in \widetilde{J}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in \{3,\ldots,m+1\}\setminus (\widetilde{J} \, \cup \, \{m+1\})} k_i\right)+ \, m + 1 -\vert \widetilde{J}\, \cup \, \{m+1\} \vert}. \end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, if $\alpha_m - \alpha_{m+1}>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
& (-1)^{k_{m+1}-1}\,\,\operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_m - \alpha_{m+1})^{k_m + k_{m+1}}\hspace{-1cm} \int \limits_{\M(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m-1},\vert \alpha_m - \alpha_{m+1}\vert)} \hspace{-1.5cm} (c_{m+1-l}^-)^{k_{m+1-l}} \cdots (c_{m-1}^-)^{k_{m-1}} (c_{m}^-)^{k_{m}+k_{m+1}-1} \\ & = (-1)^{k_{m+1}-1}\,\,\sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^-} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in \{3,\ldots,m\}\setminus \widetilde{J}} \tilde{k}_i\right) + m - \vert \widetilde{J} \vert} \\ & =
\sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^-\,\text{s.t.} m \in \widetilde{J}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in \{3,\ldots,m\}\setminus \widetilde{J}} \, k_i\right) + \, (k_{m+1}-1) + \, m -\vert \widetilde{J} \, \vert} \\ & + \sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^-\,\text{s.t.} m \notin \widetilde{J}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in \{3,\ldots,m-1\}\setminus \widetilde{J}} k_i \right)+ \overbrace{k_m +k_{m+1} -1}^{\tilde{k}_m} + \, (k_{m+1}-1) + \, m - \vert \widetilde{J} \, \vert} \\ & = \sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^-\,\text{s.t.} m \in \widetilde{J}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i \in \{3,\ldots,m+1\}\setminus \widetilde{J}}\, k_i\right)+ m-1 -\vert \widetilde{J} \vert} \\ & + \sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^-\,\text{s.t.} m\notin \widetilde{J}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in \{3,\ldots,m+1\}\setminus (\widetilde{J} \, \cup \, \{m+1\})} k_i\right)+ \, m + 1 -\vert \widetilde{J}\, \cup \, \{m+1\} \vert},\end{aligned}$$ while, if $\alpha_m - \alpha_{m+1}<0$, $$\begin{aligned}
& (-1)^{k_{m+1}-1}\,\,\operatorname{sgn}(\alpha_m - \alpha_{m+1})^{k_m + k_{m+1}}\hspace{-1cm} \int \limits_{\M(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m-1},\vert \alpha_m - \alpha_{m+1}\vert)} \hspace{-1.5cm} (c_{m+1-l}^-)^{k_{m+1-l}} \cdots (c_{m-1}^-)^{k_{m-1}}(c_{m}^-)^{k_{m}+k_{m+1}-1} \\ & = (-1)^{k_{m+1}-1+ k_m + k_{m+1}}\, \sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^-} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in \{3,\ldots,m\}\setminus \widetilde{J}} \tilde{k}_i\right) + m - \vert \widetilde{J} \vert} \\ & =
\sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^-\,\text{s.t.} m \in \widetilde{J}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in \{3,\ldots,m \}\setminus \widetilde{J}} \, k_i\right) + k_m -1 + \, m -\vert \widetilde{J} \, \vert} \\ & + \sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^-\,\text{s.t.} m \notin \widetilde{J}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in \{3,\ldots,m-1\}\setminus \widetilde{J}} k_i \right)+ \overbrace{k_m + k_{m+1} - 1}^{\tilde{k}_m} + k_m - 1+ \, m - \vert \widetilde{J} \, \vert} \\ & = \sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^-\,\text{s.t.} m \in \widetilde{J}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i \in \{3,\ldots,m+1\}\setminus ((\widetilde{J}\setminus\{m\})\cup \{m+1\})}\, k_i\right)+ m-1 -\vert ( \widetilde{J}\setminus\{m\})\cup\{m+1\} \vert} \\ & + \sum_{\widetilde{J}\in \mathcal{T}_m^-\,\text{s.t.} m\notin \widetilde{J}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in \{3,\ldots,m+1\}\setminus (\widetilde{J} \, \cup \, \{m\})} k_i\right)+ \, m + 1 -\vert \widetilde{J}\, \cup \, \{m\} \vert} \end{aligned}$$ and the result follows.
Note that in the above proof we have to assume that each time we use the recursion formula we have $\alpha_m\neq \alpha_{m+1}$. Nevertheless, the result is still valid even if this is not the case, as long as $\alpha$ is generic. Indeed, for a generic $\alpha$ such that $\alpha_{m} = \alpha_{m+1}$ we may use Remark \[rk:2.1\] and take a small value of $\varepsilon > 0$ for which $\M(\alpha)$ is diffeomorphic to $\M(\alpha_\varepsilon)$ with $\alpha:=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m}, \alpha_{m+1})$ and $\alpha_\varepsilon:=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{m}, \alpha_{m} + \varepsilon)$. Note that, for $\varepsilon$ small enough, we have $\mathcal{T}^\pm_m(\alpha)=\mathcal{T}^\pm_m(\alpha_\varepsilon)$ (since $\alpha$ generic implies that $\alpha^+$ and $\alpha^-$ are also generic) and so the induction step still holds.
Examples {#se:7}
========
\[ex:7.1\] Let us consider $\M(4,3,4,3,4)$. It is a toric manifold of dimension $4$ obtained by symplectic blowing up three points in $S^2\times S^2$. This can be seen for instance in the moment polytope depicted in Figure \[fig:7.1\] obtained from the Hamiltonian $2$-torus action given by the bending flows along the second and third diagonals. This polytope is the intersection of the rectangle $[1,7]\times [1,7]$ with the non-compact rectangular region $$\{(x,y)\in (\R_{\geq 0})^2\mid\, x + y \geq 4, \, y \geq x - 4 \, \text{and} \,\, y\leq x + 4 \}$$ (cf. [@HK2] for details on how to obtain these moment polytopes).
We explicitly compute some intersection numbers associated to this manifold. By Remark \[rk:3.1\] we note that $$\nonumber
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^2 \,\, = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_3^2 \,\, = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_5^2.$$ Then, by Theorem \[thm:5.1\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
&{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_5^2 \, \, = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,7)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c^+_4 \,\, \begin{array}{c} \\ - \\ \fbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\alpha_4 < \alpha_5}$} \end{array}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,1)}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c^-_4 = \\
& = \left( {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,11)} 1 \, \begin{array}{c} \\ - \\ \fbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\alpha^+_3<\alpha^+_4}$} \end{array} {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,3)} 1 \right) - \left( {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,5)} 1 \begin{array}{c} \\ + \\ \fbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\alpha^-_3 > \alpha^-_4}$} \end{array} {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,3)} 1 \right) \\
& = 0 - 1 - 1 - 1 = -3 .\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\M(4,3,11)=\varnothing$ since the triple $(4,3,11)$ does not satisfy the necessary triangle inequalities ($11> 4 + 3$). This result can be confirmed by taking the intersections of the corresponding manifolds $D_{i,j}$. For instance, since $\alpha_4 < \alpha_5$, the Poincaré dual of $c_5$ is $[D_{4,5}^+] - [D_{4,5}^-]$ (cf. Proposition \[prop:4.1\]), and so $$\begin{aligned}
& \int \limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} c_5^2 = \int_{\text{PD}(c_5)} c_5\vert_{\text{PD}(c_5)}= \text{PD}(c_5) \bullet \text{PD}(c_5) = \\ & = ([D_{4,5}^+] - [D_{4,5}^-]) \bullet ([D_{4,5}^+] - [D_{4,5}^-]) = [D_{4,5}^+] \bullet [D_{4,5}^+] + [D_{4,5}^-] \bullet [D_{4,5}^-] = -1 - 2 =-3. \end{aligned}$$ The image of the manifolds $D_{4,5}^\pm$ by the moment map can be seen in Figure \[fig:7.1\]. Note that their intersection numbers can also be read from the moment polytope. They are negative and their absolute value equals the absolute value of the determinant of the $2\times 2$-matrix formed by the inward unit normal vectors to the adjacent edges. In particular, for $D^+_{4,5}$ and $
D^-_{4,5}$ we have $$D^+_{4,5}\bullet D^+_{4,5} = - \left\vert \det \left( \begin{array}{rr} -1 & 1 \\ 0 & - 1 \end{array}\right)\right\vert = -1 \,\, \text{and} \,\, D^-_{4,5}\bullet D^-_{4,5} = - \left\vert \det \left( \begin{array}{rr} - 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 \end{array}\right) \right\vert = -2.$$
Similarly, by Remark \[rk:3.1\], $$\nonumber
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1c_2 = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1c_4 =
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_2c_3 = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_2c_5 =
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_3c_4 = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_4c_5,$$ and then, by Theorem \[thm:5.1\], $$\begin{aligned}
& {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_4c_5 = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,7)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_4^+ \, \begin{array}{c} \\ + \\ \fbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\alpha_4 < \alpha_5}$} \end{array} \, {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_4^- \\
& = \left({\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,11)} 1 \begin{array}{c} \\ - \\ \fbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\alpha^+_3 < \alpha^+_4}$} \end{array} \, {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,3)} 1 \right)
+ \left( {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,5)} 1 \, \begin{array}{c} \\ +\\ \fbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\alpha^-_3 > \alpha^-_4}$} \end{array} \, {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,3)} 1 \, \right) \\ & = 0 -1 +1 +1 =1.\\\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by Remarks \[rk:2.1\] and \[rk:3.1\], $$\begin{aligned}
&{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_2c_4 = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,4,4,3,3+\varepsilon)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_4c_5 = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,4,4,6)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_4^+ \, \begin{array}{c} \\ + \\ \fbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\alpha_4 < \alpha_5}$} \end{array} \, {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,4,4,\varepsilon)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_4^- = \\
& = \left({\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,4,10)} 1 \begin{array}{c} \\ - \\ \fbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\alpha^+_3 < \alpha^+_4}$} \end{array} \, {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,4,2)} 1 \right)
+ \left( {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,4,4+\varepsilon)} 1 \, \begin{array}{c} \\ +\\ \fbox{$\scriptscriptstyle{\alpha^-_3 > \alpha^-_4}$} \end{array} \, {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,4,4-\varepsilon)} 1 \, \right) \\ & = 0 -1 +1 +1 = 1.\end{aligned}$$ Again, these results can be obtained by taking the Poincaré duals. For example, $$\begin{aligned}
& \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_2c_4 = \text{PD}(c_2) \bullet \text{PD}(c_4) = (D_{1,2}^+ + D_{1,2}^-)\bullet (D_{4,5}^+ + D_{4,5}^-) = D_{1,2}^+ \bullet D_{4,5}^+ = 1.\end{aligned}$$ If instead of the recursion formula we use Theorem \[thm:6.1\] we get for instance $$\begin{aligned}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_5^2 \, \, & = \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}(4,3,4,3,4)} (-1)^{\left( \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i \right) + m - \vert J \vert} \\ \\ & = (-1)^{k_5+3} + (-1)^{k_4+3} + (-1)^{k_3+3} = -3,\end{aligned}$$ since $\mathcal{T}(4,3,4,3,4)=\{ \{3,4\},\{3,5\},\{4,5\}\}$, $k_5=2$, $k_4=k_3=0$ and $m-\vert J \vert=3$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,3,4,3,4)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_2^2 \, \, & = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,4,4,3,3)} c_5^2 = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(4,4,4,3,3+\varepsilon)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_5^2 = \sum_{\tiny{ \begin{array}{c} J \in \mathcal{T}(4,4,4,3,3) \\ = \mathcal{T}(4,4,4,3,3+\varepsilon) \end{array} }} (-1)^{\left( \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i \right) + m - \vert J \vert} \\ \\ & = (-1)^{k_5+3} + (-1)^{k_4+3} + (-1)^{k_3+3} = -3,\end{aligned}$$ since $\mathcal{T}(4,4,4,3,3)=\{ \{3,4\},\{3,5\},\{4,5\}\}$, $k_5=2$ and $k_4=k_3=0$.
Using similar arguments we can easily obtain the complete list of intersection numbers for $\M(4,3,4,3,4)$ (cf. Table \[tab:7.1\]).
$\int\limits_{M(\alpha)}c_i^2=-3$ $i=1,\ldots, 5$
----------------------------------- ---------------------------------
$\int\limits_{M(\alpha)}c_ic_j=1$ ($i\neq j$), $i,j=1, \ldots, 5$
: Intersection numbers for $\M(4,3,4,3,4)$.[]{data-label="tab:7.1"}
The exceptional divisors $\Sigma_1$, $\Sigma_2$ and $\Sigma_3$ of the blow ups of $S^2\times S^2$ are: $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_1 = \frac{1}{2}\left( D_{1,2}^+ - D_{1,2}^- + D_{4,5}^+ - D_{4,5}^- \right)&,\quad
\Sigma_2 = \frac{1}{2}\left( D_{1,2}^+ - D_{1,2}^- + D_{2,3}^+ - D_{2,3}^- \right) \quad \text{and} \quad \\
\Sigma_3 = \frac{1}{2}& \left( D_{2,3}^+ - D_{2,3}^- + D_{4,5}^+ - D_{4,5}^-\right),\end{aligned}$$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\text{PD}(\Sigma_1) = \frac{1}{2} (c_1 + c_5) ,\quad
\text{PD}(\Sigma_2) = \frac{1}{2} (c_1+c_3) \quad \text{and} \quad
\text{PD}(\Sigma_3) = \frac{1}{2} (c_3+c_5). \end{aligned}$$ Note incidentally that $\int_{\M(\alpha)} c_i^2$ has the same value for every $i$. This agrees with the fact proved in [@HK2] that in any polygon space we have $c_i^2=p$ for all $i$, where $p$ is the Pontrjagin class of the principal $SO(3)$-bundle $A(\alpha) \to \M(\alpha)$, with $$A(\alpha):= \{ (\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_m)\in S^2_{\alpha_i}\mid \sum \vec{v}_i =0\}.$$
Let $\alpha=(1,\ldots,1,m-2)$. We know from [@H] that $\M(\alpha)$ is diffeomorphic to $\C P^{m-3}$ so we will check our results.
For nonnegative integers $k_1,\ldots,k_m$ with $k_1 + \cdots + k_m = m-3$ we obtain $$\nonumber
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(1,\ldots,1,m-2)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\, = (-1)^{k_m}.$$ Indeed, if $k_m\geq 1$, we have by Remark \[rk:3.1\] that $$\begin{aligned}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(1,\ldots,1,m-2)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\, & = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(1,\ldots,1,m-2)} c_{m-l}^{\tilde{k}_{m-l}} \cdots c_{m-1}^{\tilde{k}_{m-1}} c_{m}^{k_m} \end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{k}_{m-l}, \ldots , \tilde{k}_{m-1} \geq 1$, $m-l > 3$ and $\tilde{k}_{m-l}+ \cdots + \tilde{k}_{m-1}+k_m=m-3$. Then, since $\mathcal{T} (1,\ldots,1,m-2) =\left\{\{m\}\right\}$, Theorem \[thm:6.1\] yields $$\nonumber
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(1,\ldots,1,m-2)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\, = (-1)^{\tilde{k}_{m-l}+\cdots+\tilde{k}_{m-1} + m -1} = (-1)^{m - 3- k_m + m -1}=(-1)^{k_m}.$$ On the other hand, if $k_m=0$, again using Remark \[rk:3.1\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(1,\ldots,1,m-2)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\, & = \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(1,\ldots,1,m-2)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_{m-l}^{\tilde{k}_{m-l}} \cdots c_{m-1}^{\tilde{k}_{m-1}} = \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(1,\ldots,1,\underbrace{m-2}_{m-l},1,\ldots,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_{m-l+1}^{\tilde{k}_{m-l+1}} \cdots c_{m-1}^{\tilde{k}_{m-1}} c_{m}^{\tilde{k}_{m-l}}, \end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{k}_{m-l}, \ldots, \tilde{k}_{m-1} \geq 1$, $m-l \geq 3$ and $\tilde{k}_{m-l} + \cdots + \tilde{k}_{m-1} = m-3$. Then, since $\mathcal{T}(1,\ldots,1,m-2,1,\ldots,1)=\left\{\{m-l\}\right\}$, Theorem \[thm:6.1\] gives $$\nonumber
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(1,\ldots,1,m-2)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\, = (-1)^{\tilde{k}_{m-l+1}+\cdots+\tilde{k}_{m-1} + \tilde{k}_{m-l} + m -1} = (-1)^{m - 3 + m -1} = 1= (-1)^{k_m}.$$ We conclude that $c_1=\cdots=c_{m-1}=h$ where $h\in H^2(\C P^{m-3}; \Z)$ is the canonical generator, while $c_m=-h$.
Let $\alpha=(\varepsilon,\ldots,\varepsilon,1,1,1)$ with $(m-3)\varepsilon <1$. We know from [@HK2] that $\M(\alpha)$ is symplectomorphic to $\prod_{i=1}^{m-3} S^2_{\alpha_i}$.
For nonnegative integers $k_1,\ldots,k_m$ with $k_1 + \cdots + k_m = m-3$ we have $$\label{eq:7.1}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\, = 0$$ unless $k_{m-2}=k_{m-1}=k_m=0$ and $k_1=\cdots =k_{m-3}=1$, in which case we have $$\nonumber
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1 \cdots c_{m-3} \,\, = 2^{m-3}.$$ Indeed, if $k_{m-2},k_{m-1},k_m\neq 0$ then by Remark \[rk:3.1\], $$\begin{aligned}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\, = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_{m-l}^{\tilde{k}_{m-l}} \cdots c_{m-3}^{\tilde{k}_{m-3}} c_{m-2}^{k_{m-2}} c_{m-1}^{k_{m-1}} c_{m}^{k_m} \,\,\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{k}_{m-l}, \ldots, \tilde{k}_{m-3} \geq 1$ and $m-l > 3$. Then, holds since $\mathcal{T}(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon,1,1,1)=\varnothing$.
If only one of $k_{m-2}$, $k_{m-1}$ or $k_m$ is equal to zero then, again by Remark \[rk:3.1\], $$\begin{aligned}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\, = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_{m-l}^{\tilde{k}_{m-l}} \cdots c_{m-1}^{\tilde{k}_{m-1}} \,\,\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{k}_{m-l}, \ldots, \tilde{k}_{m-1} \geq 1$ and $m-l \geq 3$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\, = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, \underbrace{1}_{m-l}, \varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,\varepsilon)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_{m-l+1}^{\tilde{k}_{m-l+1}} \cdots c_{m-1}^{\tilde{k}_{m-1}}c_m^{\tilde{k}_{m-l}} \,\,=0,\end{aligned}$$ since, for $m-l>3$, $\mathcal{T}(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, \underbrace{1}_{m-l}, \varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,\varepsilon)=\varnothing$.
If two of $k_{m-2}$, $k_{m-1}$ or $k_m$ are zero then by Remark \[rk:3.1\], $$\begin{aligned}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\, = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_{m-l}^{\tilde{k}_{m-l}} \cdots c_{m-2}^{\tilde{k}_{m-2}} \,\,\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{k}_{m-l}, \ldots, \tilde{k}_{m-2} \geq 1$ and $m-l \geq 2$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\,
= {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, \underbrace{1}_{m-l},1, \varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,\varepsilon,\varepsilon)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_{m-l+2}^{\tilde{k}_{m-l+2}} \cdots c_{m-2}^{\tilde{k}_{m-2}} c_{m-1}^{\tilde{k}_{m-l}} c_m^{\tilde{k}_{m-l+1}} \,\,=0\end{aligned}$$ since both $\mathcal{T} (\varepsilon, 1,1,\varepsilon \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,\varepsilon,\varepsilon )$ and $\mathcal{T} (\varepsilon,\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, \underbrace{1}_{m-l},1, \varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,\varepsilon,\varepsilon)$ (respectively the cases $m-l=2$ and $m-l>2$) are empty.
If $k_{m-2}=k_{m-1}=k_m=0$ then $$\begin{aligned}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M (\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\, = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M (\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_{m-l}^{\tilde{k}_{m-l}} \cdots c_{m-3}^{\tilde{k}_{m-3}} \,\,\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{k}_{m-l}, \ldots, \tilde{k}_{m-3} \geq 1$ and $m-l \geq 1$. If $m-l\geq 2$ then we do as before and again obtain $\mathcal{T}=\varnothing$ implying that holds. If, however, $m-l=1$ then necessarily $k_1=\cdots = k_{m-3}=1$ and then $$\begin{aligned}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_{m}^{k_m} \,\, = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon, 1,1,1)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_1 \cdots c_{m-3} = {\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(1,1,1, \varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_4 \cdots c_{m}.\end{aligned}$$ Now $\mathcal{T}(1,1,1,\varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon)=\{J\subset I:= \{3,\ldots,m\}\mid 3\in J\}$ and so Theorem \[thm:6.1\] yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\displaystyle\int}\limits_{\M(1,1,1, \varepsilon, \ldots, \varepsilon)} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! c_4 \cdots c_{m} & =\sum_{J\in \mathcal{T}} (-1)^{\left(\sum_{i\in I\setminus J} 1 \right) + m - \vert J \vert } = \sum_{J\in \mathcal{T}} (-1)^{\vert I \vert - \vert J \vert + m - \vert J \vert } \\ & = \sum_{J\in \mathcal{T}} (-1)^{m-2+m}= \vert \mathcal{T} \vert = \sum_{i=0}^{m-3} \left( \begin{array}{cc} m-3 \\ i \end{array}\right)=2^{m-3}.\end{aligned}$$ For example, if $m=5$, $\M(\varepsilon,\varepsilon,1,1,1)$ is $S^2\times S^2$ and the Poincaré duals of $c_1$ and $c_2$ are $2[\{\text{pt}\}\times S^2]$ and $2[S^2\times \{\text{pt}\}]$. Hence, $\int_{\M(\alpha)} c_1c_2=4$ while $\int_{\M(\alpha)} c_1^2 = \int_{\M(\alpha)} c_2^2 = 0$. Moreover, $c_3=c_4=c_5=0$.
In general, for $\M(\varepsilon,\ldots, \varepsilon,1,1,1)=\prod_{j=1}^{m-3} S^2_{\alpha_j}$, we have $$c_i = \text{PD}\left(2[\prod_{j\neq i} S^2_{\alpha_j}]\right) \quad \text{for}\quad i=1,\ldots, m-3,$$ while $c_{m-2}=c_{m-1}=c_m=0$.
Equilateral polygon spaces {#se:8}
==========================
Here we study the equilateral case corresponding to $\alpha_i=1$ for all $i$. Since we want $\alpha$ to be generic we need $m$ to be odd. The intersection numbers for these spaces were computed by Kamiyama and Tezuka in [@KT]. Their result states the following.
\[thm:8.1\] Let $(d_1,\ldots,d_m)$ be a sequence of nonnegative integers with $\sum d_i=m-3$. Let $\beta_i, \varepsilon_i$ be such that $d_i=2\beta_i + \varepsilon_i$, where $\varepsilon_i=0$ or $1$. Then, defining $$\rho_{m,2k}:= (-1)^k \frac{\left( \begin{array}{c} \frac{m-3}{2} \\ k \end{array} \right) \left(\begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ \frac{m-1}{2} \end{array}\right)} { \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ 2k + 1 \end{array} \right)},$$ we have
1. if $\beta_i=0$ for $1\leq i \leq m$ then $\int c_1^{d_1}\cdots c_m^{d_m} = \rho_{m,0}$;
2. 3. if $\beta_i \neq 0$ for some $i$ then $\int c_1^{d_1}\cdots c_m^{d_m} = \rho_{m,2k}$, with $k=\beta_1+\cdots+ \beta_m$.
We will see how to obtain this result using Theorem \[thm:6.1\].
[**1.**]{} First we see that if $\beta_i=0$ for $1\leq i\leq m$ then, since $\sum d_i=m-3$, we have $$\int_{\mathcal{M}_m} c_1^{d_1}\cdots c_m^{d_m} = \int c_4 \cdots c_m.$$ Moreover, $\mathcal{T}=\left\{ J\subset\{3,\ldots,m\}\mid\,\, \vert J \vert =\frac{m-1}{2}\right\}$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\M_m} c_{4} \cdots c_m & = \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}} (-1)^{\vert (I\setminus \{3\}) \setminus J\vert + m - \vert J \vert} = \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}} (-1)^{\vert (I\setminus \{3\}) \setminus J\vert + \frac{m+1}{2} }\\ = & \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T} \text{s.t.} \, 3\in J} (-1)^{ \frac{m-3}{2} + \frac{m+1}{2} } + \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T} \text{s.t.}\, 3 \notin J}(-1)^{\frac{m-3}{2} - 1 + \frac{m+1}{2} } \\ = & \left( \begin{array}{c} m-3 \\ \frac{m-3}{2} \end{array} \right) (-1)^{m-1} +\left( \begin{array}{c} m-3 \\ \frac{m-1}{2} \end{array} \right) (-1)^{m-2} \\ = & (-1)^{m-1} \left\{ \left( \begin{array}{c} m-3 \\ \frac{m-3}{2} \end{array} \right) - \left( \begin{array}{c} m-3 \\ \frac{m-1}{2} \end{array} \right) \right\} = \frac{(m-3)!}{\left(\frac{m-1}{2}\right)!\left(\frac{m-3}{2}\right)!} = \rho_{m,0}.\end{aligned}$$
[**2.**]{} Let us now assume that $\beta_j\neq 0$ for some $j$. Since $d_1+\cdots+d_m=m-3$ we must have $d_j=0$ for some $j$. Then, using the fact that $c_1^2=c_2^2=\cdots=c_m^2$ (cf. [@HK2; @B; @K]) as well as Remark \[rk:3.1\], we have $$\int_{\mathcal{M}_m} c_1^{d_1}\cdots c_m^{d_m} = \int_{\mathcal{M}_m} c_{2k+3}c_{2k+4}\cdots c_{m-1} c_m^{2k}$$ with $k=\beta_1+\cdots + \beta_m$. Now we have to consider two cases.
If $2k=m-3$ then, since $\mathcal{T}=\left\{ J\subset I:=\{3,\ldots,m\}\mid\,\, \vert J \vert =\frac{m-1}{2}\right\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:8.1}
\int_{\M_m} c_m^{2k} & = \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}} (-1)^{\sum_{i\in (I\setminus J)} k_i + m - \vert J \vert } = (-1)^{\frac{m+1}{2}} \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}} (-1)^{\sum_{i\in I\setminus J} k_i} \\\nonumber = & (-1)^{\frac{m+1}{2}} \vert \mathcal{T} \vert = (-1)^{\frac{m+1}{2}} \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2 \\\nonumber \frac{m-1}{2} \end{array} \right) = \rho_{m,m-3},\end{aligned}$$ where we used the fact that all the exponents $k_i$ in are even ($k_i=0$ if $i\neq m$ and $k_m=2k$).
If, on the other hand, $2k\neq m-3$ let us consider the set $A:=\{2k+3,\ldots,m-1\}\subset I$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\M_m}c_{2k+3}c_{2k+4}\cdots c_{m-1} c_m^{2k} & = \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}} (-1)^{\sum_{i\in (I\setminus J)} k_i + m - \vert J \vert } = (-1)^{\frac{m+1}{2}} \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}} (-1)^{\vert (I\setminus J) \cap A \vert}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\vert I \setminus J\vert =\frac{m-3}{2}$, $\vert I \setminus A\vert =2k+1$, $\vert A \vert = m-2k-3$ and that if there exist $j$ elements in $(I\setminus J) \cap (I\setminus A)$ then there exist $\frac{m-3}{2}-j$ elements in $(I \setminus J) \cap A$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\M_m}c_{2k+3}c_{2k+4}\cdots c_{m-1} c_m^{2k} & = (-1)^{\frac{m+1}{2}} \sum_{j=0}^{2k+1} \left( \begin{array}{c} 2k+1 \\ j \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2k-3 \\ \frac{m-3}{2}-j \end{array} \right) (-1)^{ \frac{m-3}{2}-j} \\ & = \sum_{j=0}^{2k+1} (-1)^j \left( \begin{array}{c} 2k+1 \\ j \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2k-3 \\ \frac{m-3}{2}-j \end{array} \right). \end{aligned}$$ The result now follows from the following combinatorial identity, $$\label{eq:8.2}
\sum_{j=0}^{2k+1} (-1)^{j+k} \frac{\left( \begin{array}{c} 2k+1 \\ j \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2k-3 \\ \frac{m-3}{2}-j \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ 2k+1 \end{array} \right)}{ \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ \frac{m-1}{2} \end{array} \right)} = \left( \begin{array}{c} \frac{m-3}{2} \\ k \end{array} \right),$$ since then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\M_m}c_{2k+3}c_{2k+4}\cdots c_{m-1} c_m^{2k} =(-1)^k \frac{\left(\begin{array}{c} \frac{m-3}{2} \\ k \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ \frac{m-1}{2} \end{array}\right)}{\left(\begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ 2k+1 \end{array}\right)}=\rho_{2,2k}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence to finish the proof we just have to show . For that we see that $$\begin{aligned}
& \sum_{j=0}^{2k+1}(-1)^{j+k} \frac{ \left( \begin{array}{c} 2k+1 \\ j \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2k-3 \\ \frac{m-3}{2} - j \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ 2k+1 \end{array} \right) }{ \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ \frac{m-1}{2} \end{array} \right) } \\ & = \sum_{j=0}^{2k+1}(-1)^{j+k} \frac{\left( \frac{m-1}{2} \right)! \left(\frac{m-3}{2} \right) !}{j! (2k+1-j)!\left( \frac{m-3}{2} - j \right)! \left(\frac{m-3}{2} - 2k + j \right)!} \\ & = \sum_{j=0}^{2k+1}(-1)^{j+k} \left( \begin{array}{c} \frac{m-3}{2} \\ j \end{array} \right) \left( \begin{array}{c} \frac{m-1}{2} \\ 2k+1-j \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{c} \frac{m-3}{2} \\ k \end{array} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality was obtained from the combinatorial Lemma \[le:8.1\] stated below, using $a=\frac{m-3}{2}$ and $b=2k+1$.
\[le:8.1\] For any odd integer $b$ we have $$\sum_{j=0}^b (-1)^j \left(\begin{array}{c} a \\ j \end{array}\right) \left(\begin{array}{c} a+1 \\ b-j \end{array}\right) = (-1)^{\frac{b-1}{2}} \left( \begin{array}{c} a \\ \frac{b-1}{2} \end{array}\right).$$
(Lemma \[le:8.1\]) This binomial identity can be easily proved using a generating function (cf. [@GKP] for a definition of generating function in this context). Indeed, since $$\label{eq:8.3}
(z-1)^a(z+1)^{a+1}=(z^2-1)^a(1+z)$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& (z-1)^a = \sum_{j\geq 0} (-1)^{a+j} \left(\begin{array}{c} a \\ j \end{array} \right) z^j, \quad \quad (z+1)^a = \sum_{j\geq 0} \left(\begin{array}{c} a \\ j \end{array} \right) z^j, \\
& (z^2-1)^a(1+z) =\sum_{j \geq 0} (-1)^{a+j} \left(\begin{array}{c} a \\ j \end{array} \right) z^{2j}+ \sum_{j\geq 0} (-1)^{a+j} \left(\begin{array}{c} a \\ j \end{array} \right) z^{2j+1},\end{aligned}$$ the result follows from equating coefficients of $z^b$ in for an odd $b$.
If $m=5$ we obtain $$\int_{\M_5} c_i^2 = \rho_{5,2} = -3\,\,\, \text{and} \,\, \int_{\M_5} c_i c_j = \rho_{5,0}= 1, \, \text{if}\, i \neq j.$$ Incidentally, note that these values are equal to the ones obtained in Example \[ex:7.1\]. This is not surprising since $\M_5$ is diffeomorphic to $\M(4,3,4,3,4)$. Indeed, by Remark \[rk:2.1\], $\M_5$ is diffeomorphic to $\M(\alpha_\varepsilon)$ with $\alpha_\varepsilon=(1+\varepsilon, 1,1,1,1+ \varepsilon)$ for small values of $\varepsilon$, and $\M(\alpha_\varepsilon)$ is a toric manifold whose moment polytope has $7$ edges just like the one for $\M(4,3,4,3,4)$ depicted in Figure \[fig:7.1\] (the three spaces are all diffeomorphic to $(S^2 \times S^2)\# 3 \overline{\C P^2}$).
The space of equilateral polygons $\M_m$ admits a natural action of the symmetric group $Sym_m$. Moreover, the quotient $\M_m/Sym_m$ can be seen as a compactification of the moduli space of $m$ unordered points in $\C P^1$ as well as the space of $m$-times punctured genus zero algebraic curves. The cohomology ring of this space was computed by Brion [@B], Klyachko [@K] and Hausmann and Knutson [@HK2]. Since $$H^*(\M_m/Sym_m;\Q) \cong H^*(\M_m; \Q)^{Sym_m},$$ can be identified with the invariant part of $H^*(\M_m;\Q)$, and $H^*(\M_m;\Q)$ is generated in degree $2$, we just have to study the action of $Sym_m$ on $H^2(\M_m)$. Hausmann and Knutson [@HK2] prove that this $Sym_m$-invariant part of $H^*(\M_m; \Q)$ is generated by $\sigma_1$, the first invariant symmetric polynomial in the classes $c_i$, and by $c_m^2$ (or any other $c_i^2$ since they are all equal to the Pontrjagin class of the principal $SO(3)$-bundle $A_m \to \M_m$ with $A_m:=\{(\vec{v}_1,\ldots,\vec{v}_m)\in (\R^3)^m\mid \sum_{i=1}^m \vec{v}_i = 0,\,\, \vert \vec{v}_1\vert= \cdots = \vert \vec{v}_m\vert\}$), a generator of degree $4$, with no relations up to degree $m-3$. The intersection numbers $\sigma_1^k \cdot c_m^{m-3-k}$ for an even $k$ can be obtained from Theorem \[thm:8.1\]. First we see that $$\sigma_1^k = \sum_{k_1+\cdots+k_m=k} \frac{k!}{k_1!\cdots k_m!} c_1^{k_1}\cdots c_m^{k_m}.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\M_m/Sym_m} \sigma_1^k \cdot c_m^{m-3-k} & = \sum_{k_1+\cdots+k_m=k} \frac{k!}{k_1!\cdots k_m!} \int_{\M_m} c_1^{k_1}\cdots c_{m-1}^{k_{m-1}}c_m^{k_m+m-3-k} \\ & = \sum_{k_1+\cdots+k_m=k} \frac{k!}{k_1!\cdots k_m!} \rho_{m,2(\beta_1+\cdots+\beta_{m-1}+\tilde{\beta}_m)},\end{aligned}$$ where the $\beta_i$ are such that $k_i=2\beta_i + \varepsilon_i$, $\varepsilon_i=0$ or $1$ and $\tilde{\beta}_m=\beta_m + \frac{m-3-k}{2}$. Hence, $$2(\beta_1+\cdots+\beta_{m-1}+\tilde{\beta}_m)=m-3- \text{number of odd $k_i$'s}$$ and so, since the number of odd $k_i$’s must be even ($k$ is even), we have $$\int_{\M_m/Sym_m} \sigma_1^k \cdot c_m^{m-3-k} = \sum_{j=0}^{\frac{k}{2}} \sum_{ \small{\begin{array}{c} k_1 + \cdots + k_m =k \,\, \text{s.t.} \\ 2j\, \text{of the $k_i$'s are odd}\end{array}}} \frac{k!}{k_1!\cdots k_m!} \, \rho_{m,m-3-2j}$$ and we conclude the following result.
For an even integer $k$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \int_{\M_m/Sym_m} \sigma_1^k \cdot c_m^{m-3-k} = \\ &= (-1)^{\frac{m-3}{2}} \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ \frac{m-1}{2} \end{array}\right) \sum_{j=0}^{\frac{k}{2}} (-1)^j \frac{ \left( \begin{array}{c} \frac{m-3}{2} \\ j \end{array} \right)}{ \left( \begin{array}{c} m-2 \\ 2j \end{array}\right)} \sum_{ \small{\begin{array}{c} k_1+\cdots+k_m=k \, \text{s.t.} \\ 2j\, \text{of the $k_i$'s are odd}\end{array}}} \left(\begin{array}{c} k \\ k_1, \ldots, k_m \end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Moduli space of flat connections {#se:9}
================================
Polygon spaces can be identified with moduli spaces of flat $SU(2)$-connections on the $m$-punctured sphere. In this section we compare the existing formulas for cohomology intersection pairings in the context of moduli spaces of flat connections with our explicit expression of Theorem \[thm:6.1\].
Let us consider closed polygons in $S^3$ with vertices $v_1,\ldots,v_n$ joined by edges $e_1,\ldots,e_n$ where each $e_i$ is the geodesic arc from $v_i$ to $v_{i+1}$. The length $\alpha_i$ of an edge is then the length of this geodesic arc. Let us denote by $\M(\alpha)^{S^3}$ the moduli space of closed polygons in $S^3$ with side-lengths $\alpha$ modulo orientation-preserving isometries, that is modulo $SO(4)$. This space can be identified with the moduli space of flat $SU(2)$ connections on a punctured sphere with fixed holonomies around the punctures. Indeed, let us denote by $\M(S_m,\alpha)$ the moduli space of flat $SU(2)$ connections on the $m$-punctured sphere $S_m:=S^2 \setminus \{p_1, \ldots, p_m\}$ modulo gauge equivalence such that the holonomy around $p_i$ is conjugate to $$A_{\alpha_i}:=\left( \begin{array}{cc} e^{i \pi \alpha_i} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{-i \pi \alpha_i} \end{array}\right).$$ Then, $$\M(S_m,\alpha) \cong \mathcal{R}(m,\alpha)/SU(2),$$ where $$\mathcal{R}(m,\alpha)= \{(g_1,\ldots, g_m)\in SU(2)^m\mid g_1\ldots g_m = Id,\, \text{tr} g_i = 2 \cos \pi \alpha_i, \, i=1,\ldots,m\}$$ is the space of representations from $\pi_1(S_m)$ to $SU(2)$ such that the image of the loop around the puncture $p_i$ is conjugate to $A_{\alpha_i}$ and $SU(2)$ acts diagonally.
Moreover, $\mathcal{R}(m,\alpha)$ can be identified with the space $\mathcal{P}(\alpha)^{S^3,0}$ of based polygons in $S^3$ that have the first vertex fixed $v_1=Id \in SU(2)\cong S^3$. Each element $(g_1,\ldots,g_m)\in \mathcal{R}(m,\alpha)$ is identified with the based polygon that has vertices $$v_1=Id, \quad v_2=g_1, \quad v_3=g_1g_2, \quad \cdots \quad v_i=g_1g_2\cdots g_{i-1}, \quad i=1,\ldots, m.$$ Then, $$\M(S_m,\alpha) \cong \mathcal{R}(m,\alpha)/SU(2)\cong \mathcal{P}(\alpha)^{S^3,0}/SO(3) \cong \M(\alpha)^{S^3}/SO(4).$$ A formula for the symplectic volume of the space $\M(S_m,\alpha)$ was first obtained by Witten in [@Wi2] and proved rigorously by Jeffrey and Weitsman in [@JW]. It states the following.
(Witten, Jeffrey-Weitsman) $$\label{eq:9.1}
\text{Vol} (\M(S_m,\alpha))= \frac{4}{\pi^{m-2}} \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{\prod_{i=1}^m \sin (k \pi \alpha_i)}{k^{m-2}}.$$
Later in [@V] Vu The Khoi obtained a closed form expression for this volume in terms of Bernoulli polynomials. Noting that the moduli spaces of polygons in $S^3$ and in the Euclidean space $\R^3$ with the same side lengths are symplectomorphic provided that the $\alpha_i$ are sufficiently small (cf. Theorem 6.6. in [@J] and [@KM]), and that multiplying $\alpha$ by a scalar $\lambda>0$ we get $\text{vol}( \M(\lambda \alpha))=\lambda^{m-3} \text{vol} (\M(\alpha))$, he deduces an expression for the volume of $\M(\alpha)$.
[(Vu The Khoi)]{}\[prop:9.1\] The symplectic volume of the moduli space $\M(\alpha)$ for $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_m)$ is given by $$\nonumber
\text{Vol}(\M (\alpha)) = - \frac{1}{4 (m-3)!} \sum_{R \subset \{1,\ldots, m \}} (-1)^{\vert R \vert } \operatorname{sgn}(\sum_{i \in R} \alpha_i - \sum_{i \notin R} \alpha_i)(\sum_{i \in R} \alpha_i - \sum_{i \notin R} \alpha_i)^{m-3}$$ if $m$ is even and by $$\nonumber
\text{Vol}(\M(\alpha))= - \frac{1}{2 (m-3)!} \sum_{R \subset \{1,\ldots,m\} \, \text{s.t.} \, \vert R \vert \, \text{odd}} \operatorname{sgn}(\sum_{i \in R} \alpha_i - \sum_{i \notin R} \alpha_i)(\sum_{i \in R} \alpha_i - \sum_{i \notin R} \alpha_i)^{m-3}$$ if $m$ is odd.
A similar expression was obtained independently by Mandini in [@M] using localization theorems in equivariant cohomology and an equivariant integration formula for symplectic quotients by non-abelian groups.
Using the Witten-Jeffrey-Weitsman expression for the volume of $\M (S_m,\alpha)$ Yoshida obtains in [@Y] a generating function for cohomology intersection pairings of the moduli space of flat connections.
(Yoshida) Let $t_1, \ldots, t_m \in \R$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k_1,\ldots, k_m \geq 0} \frac{t_1^{k_1}}{k_1!} \cdots \frac{t_m^{k_1}}{k_m!} \int_{\M(S_m, \alpha)} c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_1^{k_m} = \frac{4}{\pi^{m-2}} \sum_{l=1}^\infty \frac{ \prod_{j=1}^m \sin (\pi \, l\, (\alpha_j + x_j))}{l^{m-2}}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sum_{i=1}^m k_i=m-3$.
The cohomology intersection pairings $\int_{\M(S_m, \alpha)} c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_1^{k_m}$ can then be obtained from the above expression for the volume by taking the appropriate derivatives $$\nonumber
\int_{\M(S_m, \alpha)} c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_1^{k_m}= \frac{\partial^{k_1}}{\partial t_1^{k_1}} \cdots \frac{\partial^{k_m}}{\partial t_m^{k_m}} \text{Vol}(\M(S_m, \alpha + t))\vert_{t=0}.$$ Using this formula and the identification of $\M(S_m,\alpha)$ with $\M(\alpha)$ for small values of $\alpha$ one obtains a formula for intersection pairings in $\M(\alpha)$ by taking derivatives of the expressions in Proposition \[prop:9.1\].
\[thm:9.3\] $$\label{eq:9.2}
\int_{\M(S_m, \alpha)} c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_1^{k_m} = \frac{1}{4}
\sum_{R \subset \{1,\ldots, m \}} (-1)^{\vert R \vert + 1 + \sum_{i \notin R} k_i} \operatorname{sgn}(\sum_{i \in R} \alpha_i - \sum_{i \notin R} \alpha_i)$$ if $m$ is even and $$\label{eq:9.3}
\int_{\M(S_m, \alpha)} c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_1^{k_m} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{R \subset \{1,\ldots,m\} \, \text{s.t.} \, \vert R \vert \, \text{odd}} (-1)^{1+ \sum_{i \notin R} k_i} \operatorname{sgn}(\sum_{i \in R} \alpha_i - \sum_{i \notin R} \alpha_i)$$ if $m$ is odd.
We will now see how this formula is equivalent to our explicit expression of Theorem \[thm:6.1\].
Let us assume without loss of generality that $\alpha_1 > \alpha_2$ and let $I=\{3,\ldots,m\}$. Notice that $$\begin{aligned}
\{ & R \subset \{1, \ldots, m\} \} = \{ R \subset I \mid R\in \mathcal{T}(\alpha) \} \bigcup \{ R \subset I \mid R\notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha) \} \bigcup \\ & \bigcup \{R=\{1,2\}\cup J\mid J\subset I \} \bigcup \{R= \{1\} \cup J\mid J\subset I \} \bigcup \{R= \{2\} \cup J\mid J\subset I \}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us denote by $S_R$ the difference $$S_R:= \sum_{i \in R} \alpha_i - \sum_{i \notin R} \alpha_i$$ and by $l_J$ the sum $$l_J:=\sum_{i=3}^m (-1)^{\chi_{I \setminus J}(i)}\alpha_i,$$ whenever $J\subset I$.
If $R\subset I$ and $R\in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)$ then $S_R= l_R - \alpha_1-\alpha_2 \leq 0$ since for triangular sets $l_R \leq \alpha_1 + \alpha_2$. If $R\subset I$ is not triangular then, if $l_R \leq 0$ or $0< l_R < \alpha_1 - \alpha_2$, we have $S_R < 0$. If, however, $l_R> \alpha_1 + \alpha_2$ then $S_R>0$.
If $R=\{1,2\} \cup J$ with $J\subset I$ we have $\vert R \vert = \vert J \vert + 2$ and $S_R=l_J + \alpha_1 +\alpha_2$. If in addition $J\in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)$ then $S_R>0$. If, on the other hand, $J\notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)$ then $S_R>0$ whenever $0 > l_J > -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)$ or $l_J>0$ and negative otherwise.
If $R=\{1\} \cup J$ with $J\subset I$ then $\vert R \vert = \vert J \vert + 1$ and $S_R=l_J + \alpha_1 - \alpha_2$. If $J\in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)$ then $S_R>0$. If, however, $J\notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)$ then $S_R>0$ whenever $0 > l_J > -(\alpha_1 - \alpha_2)$ or $l_J>0$ and negative otherwise.
Similarly, if $R=\{2\} \cup J$ with $J\subset I$ we have $\vert R \vert = \vert J \vert + 1$ and $S_R=l_J + \alpha_2 - \alpha_1$. If in addition $J\in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)$ then $S_R>0$ (since by the triangular inequalities $l_J\geq \vert \alpha_2 - \alpha_1\vert$). If, on the other hand, $J\notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)$ then $S_R>0$ if $l_J > \alpha_1 + \alpha_2$ and negative otherwise.
Let us assume first that $m$ is even. Putting the above information together, the RHS of is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{4} \left( \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}\left((-1)^{ k_1 + k_2} -1 + (-1)^{k_2} + (-1)^{k_1}\right) + \right. \\
& + \sum_{J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\, l_J> \alpha_1 + \alpha_2} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}\left((-1)^{1+k_1+k_2}-1+(-1)^{k_2}+(-1)^{k_1}\right) +
\\
& + \sum_{J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\, 0<l_J< \alpha_1 - \alpha_2} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}\left((-1)^{k_1+k_2}-1+(-1)^{k_2}-(-1)^{k_1}\right) + \\
& + \sum_{J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\, l_J<-(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i }\left((-1)^{k_1+k_2}+1-(-1)^{k_2}-(-1)^{k_1}\right) + \\
& + \sum_{J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\, -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)<l_J<\alpha_2 - \alpha_1} \hspace{-1.1cm} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i }\left((-1)^{k_1+k_2}-1-(-1)^{k_2}-(-1)^{k_1}\right) + \\
& \left. + \sum_{J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\, \alpha_2 - \alpha_1 <l_J < 0} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i }\left((-1)^{k_1+k_2}-1+(-1)^{k_2}-1\right)\right). \end{aligned}$$ Assuming as in Theorem \[thm:6.1\] that $k_{m-l},\ldots, k_m \in \Z_+$ for some integer $l$ and $k_1=\cdots = k_{m-l-1}=0$ then $k_{m-l}+\cdots + k_m = m-3$ and we must have $m-l \geq 3$. Thus $k_1=k_2=0$. Hence, the RHS of is equal to $$\label{eq:9.4}
\frac{1}{2} \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i} - \frac{1}{2}\hspace{-1cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\,\,\text{s.t.}\\ -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)<l_J<\alpha_2 - \alpha_1 < 0\end{array}}}\hspace{-1cm} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}.$$ If $J\subset I$ is not triangular and $$\label{eq:9.5} -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2 ) < l_J < \alpha_2 -\alpha_1 < 0$$ then, the complement $J^\prime:= I \setminus J$ satisfies $\alpha_1 -\alpha_2 < l_{J^\prime} < \alpha_1 + \alpha_2$ (since $l_{J^\prime}=-l_J$), implying that $J^\prime$ is triangular. Conversely, if a subset of $I$ is triangular its complement in $I$ satisfies . Hence, since $\vert J\vert = m-2 -\vert J^\prime \vert$, the sum becomes equal to $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i} - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{J^\prime \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)} (-1)^{m- \vert J^\prime \vert + (m-3 - \sum_{i \in I\setminus J^\prime} k_i)} \\ & = \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)} (-1)^{m- \vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}, \end{aligned}$$ which is our formula of Theorem \[thm:6.1\].
Similarly, if $m$ is odd, the RHS of is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2} \left( \sum_{\tiny{ J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha), \,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{odd}}} \right. (-1)^{ \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}\left((-1)^{ k_1 + k_2} -1\right) \, \, + \\ & + \hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{odd} \\ l_J > \alpha_1 + \alpha_2 \end{array}}} \hspace{-.8cm}(-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}\left((-1)^{1+k_1+k_2}-1\right) +\hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{odd} \\ 0<l_J < \alpha_1 - \alpha_2\end{array}}} \hspace{-.8cm} (-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}\left((-1)^{k_1+k_2}-1\right) + \\ & +
\hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{odd} \\ l_J < -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)\end{array}}} \hspace{-.8cm} (-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i }\left((-1)^{k_1+k_2}+1\right) + \hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{odd} \\ -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)<l_J <0 \end{array}}} \hspace{-.8cm} (-1)^{ \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i }\left((-1)^{k_1+k_2}-1\right) + \\ & +
\sum_{\tiny{ J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha), \,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{even}}} (-1)^{ \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}\left((-1)^{1 + k_2} + (-1)^{1 + k_1}\right) + \\ & + \hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{even} \\ l_J > \alpha_1 + \alpha_2 \end{array}}} \hspace{-1cm}(-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}\left((-1)^{1+k_2}+(-1)^{1+k_1}\right) +\hspace{-1cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{even} \\ 0 < l_J < \alpha_1 - \alpha_2\end{array}}} \hspace{-1cm} (-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}\left((-1)^{1+k_2}+(-1)^{k_1} \right) + \\ & \left. +
\hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{even} \\ l_J < \alpha_2 - \alpha_1<0)\end{array}}} \hspace{-.8cm} (-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i }\left((-1)^{k_2}+(-1)^{k_1}\right) + \hspace{-1cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{odd} \\ \alpha_2 - \alpha_1 < l_J <0 \end{array}}} \hspace{-1cm} (-1)^{ \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i }\left((-1)^{1+k_2}+(-1)^{k_1}\right) \right) = \\
& =- \hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{odd} \\ l_J> \alpha_1 + \alpha_2 \end{array}}} \hspace{-.8cm}(-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i} + \hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{odd} \\ l_J <-(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)\end{array}}} \hspace{-.8cm} (-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i } - \hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{even}}} \hspace{-.8cm}(-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i} - \\ & - \hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{even} \\ l_J > \alpha_1 + \alpha_2 \end{array}}} \hspace{-.8cm} (-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i } + \hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{even} \\ -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2) < l_J < \alpha_2 - \alpha_1 \end{array}}} \hspace{-.8cm} (-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i } + \hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha),\,\, \vert J \vert \,\,\text{even} \\ l_J < -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2) \end{array}}} \hspace{-.8cm} (-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i }.\end{aligned}$$ If $J\subset I$ is not triangular, $\vert J \vert$ is even and $l_J < -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)$, then the complement $J^\prime:= I \setminus J$ satisfies $l_{J^\prime} > \alpha_1 + \alpha_2$ and $\vert J^\prime \vert$ is odd and vice-versa. Moreover, if $J\subset I$ is not triangular, $\vert J \vert$ is even and $-(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)< l_J <\alpha_2-\alpha_1 <0$, then $J^\prime$ is triangular, $\vert J^\prime \vert$ is odd and vice-versa. Hence, the RHS of is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
- \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\\ \vert J \vert \,\,\text{even}\end{array}}} (-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i} + \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha) \\ \vert J \vert \,\,\text{odd}\end{array}}} (-1)^{\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i} = \sum_{\tiny{ J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)}} (-1)^{m- \vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}\end{aligned}$$ which again is our formula from Theorem \[thm:6.1\].
Other explicit formulas for intersection pairings {#se:10}
=================================================
Using the commutativity of geometric quantization and symplectic reduction Takakura obtains in [@T] an explicit formula for cohomology intersection pairings on arbitrary polygon spaces. Later Konno obtains an equivalent expression (see [@Konno]), although written in a different basis, using algebro-geometric methods. Their result is the following.
(Konno, Takakura)
Let $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_m)$ be generic and let $(k_1,\ldots,k_m)$ be a sequence of nonnegative integers with $\sum_{i=1}^m k_i=m-3$. Let $\mathcal{S}(\alpha)$ be the family of sets $R \subset \{1, \ldots, m \}$ for which $\sum_{i \in R} \alpha_i - \sum_{i \notin R} \alpha_i < 0$. Then we have $$\label{eq:10.1}
\int_{\M(\alpha)} c_1^{k_1} \cdots c_m^{k_m} = -\frac{1}{2} \sum_{R \in \mathcal{S}(\alpha)} (-1)^{\vert R \vert + \sum_{i \in R} k_i}.$$
We will now see how this formula is equivalent to Theorem \[thm:6.1\] although our formula uses a smaller family of sets (the triangular sets $\mathcal{T}(\alpha)$) which is always contained in $\mathcal{S}(\alpha)$.
Let us again assume without loss of generality that $\alpha_1 > \alpha_2$ and let $I=\{3,\ldots,m\}$. Notice that $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{S}(\alpha) = \{ R \subset I \mid R\in \mathcal{T}(\alpha) \cap \mathcal{S}(\alpha) \} \bigcup \{ R \subset I \mid R\notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\, \text{and}\, R \in \mathcal{S}(\alpha) \} \bigcup \\ & \bigcup \{R=\{1,2\}\cup J\mid J\subset I \, \text{and}\, R \in \mathcal{S}(\alpha)\} \bigcup \{R= \{1\} \cup J\mid J\subset I \, \text{and}\, R \in \mathcal{S}(\alpha) \} \bigcup \\ & \bigcup \{R= \{2\} \cup J\mid J\subset I\, \text{and}\, R \in \mathcal{S}(\alpha) \}.\end{aligned}$$ Again let $S_R$ and $l_J$ be respectively equal to $$S_R:= \sum_{i \in R} \alpha_i - \sum_{i \notin R} \alpha_i \,\,\,\, \text{and} \,\,\,\, l_J:=\sum_{i=3}^m (-1)^{\chi_{I \setminus J}(i)}\alpha_i,$$ whenever $J\subset I$. Note that the elements of $\mathcal{S}(\alpha)$ are precisely the subsets of $\{1, \ldots, m\}$ for which $S_R<0$.
As we saw before in the proof of Theorem \[thm:9.3\], if $R\subset I$ and $R\in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)$ then $S_R\leq 0$ and so $R\in \mathcal{S}(\alpha)$. On the other hand, if $R\subset I$ is not triangular then $R\in \mathcal{S}(\alpha)$ if and only if $l_R \leq 0$ or $0< l_R < \alpha_1 - \alpha_2$.
If $R=\{1,2\} \cup J$ with $J\subset I$, we have $\vert R \vert = \vert J \vert + 2$ and $S_R=l_J + \alpha_1 +\alpha_2$, and then $R\in \mathcal{S}(\alpha)$ if and only if $J\notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)$ and $l_J < -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)$.
If $R=\{1\} \cup J$ with $J\subset I$ then $\vert R \vert = \vert J \vert + 1$ and $S_R=l_J + \alpha_1 - \alpha_2$ and so $R\in \mathcal{S}(\alpha)$ exactly when $J\notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)$ and $l_J < -(\alpha_1 - \alpha_2)$.
Similarly, if $R=\{2\} \cup J$ with $J\subset I$, we have $\vert R \vert = \vert J \vert + 1$ and $S_R=l_J + \alpha_2 - \alpha_1$, and so $R\in \mathcal{S}(\alpha)$ if and only if $J\notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)$ and $l_J < \alpha_1 + \alpha_2$.
Putting this information together, the RHS of is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
& - \frac{1}{2} \left( \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in J} k_i}
+ \hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\, l_J < \alpha_1 - \alpha_2} \hspace{-1.2cm}(-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in J} k_i}
+ \hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\, l_J< -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)} \hspace{-1.3cm}(-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in J} k_i} \right. \\ &\left.
-\hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\, l_J<-(\alpha_1 - \alpha_2)}\hspace{-1.2cm} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in J} k_i} \hspace{.3cm}
- \hspace{-.5cm}\sum_{J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\,\,\text{s.t.}\,\, l_J< \alpha_1 + \alpha_2} \hspace{-1.1cm} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in J} k_i }\right) = \\
& - \frac{1}{2} \left( \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in J} k_i} \hspace{.5cm}-\hspace{-.5cm} \sum_{\tiny{\begin{array}{c} J \notin \mathcal{T}(\alpha)\,\,\text{s.t.}\\ -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2)<l_J<\alpha_2 - \alpha_1 < 0\end{array}}}\hspace{-1.2cm} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in J} k_i}\right).\end{aligned}$$ As we saw before, if $J\subset I$ is not triangular and $$\label{eq:10.2} -(\alpha_1 + \alpha_2 ) < l_J < \alpha_2 -\alpha_1 < 0,$$ then the complement $J^\prime:= I \setminus J$ satisfies $\alpha_1 -\alpha_2 < l_{J^\prime} < \alpha_1 + \alpha_2$, implying that $J^\prime$ is triangular. Conversely, if a subset of $I$ is triangular its complement in $I$ satisfies . Hence, since $\vert J\vert = m-2 -\vert J^\prime \vert$ and $\sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i = (m-3) - \sum_{i \in J} k_i$, the RHS of becomes equal to $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2}\left( \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)} (-1)^{\vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i + m} + \sum_{J^\prime \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)} (-1)^{m- \vert J^\prime \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J^\prime} k_i} \right)\\ & = \sum_{J \in \mathcal{T}(\alpha)} (-1)^{m- \vert J \vert + \sum_{i \in I\setminus J} k_i}, \end{aligned}$$ which is our formula of Theorem \[thm:6.1\].
[P]{}
M. Brion, *Cohomologie équivariante des points semi-stables*, J. Reine Angew. Math. **421** (1991), 125–140.
J.J Duistermaat and G. J. Heckman, *On the variation in the cohomology of the symplectic form of the reduced phase-space*, Invent. Math. **69** (1982), 259–268.
V. Guillemin, *Moment maps and Combinatorial Invariants of Hamiltonian $T^n$-spaces*, Progress in Mathematics, **122**, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1994.
R. Graham, D. Knuth and O. Patashnik, *Concrete mathematics. A foundation for computer science (2nd edition)*, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA, 1994.
V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg, *Geometric quantization and multiplicities of group representations*. Invent. Math. **67** (1982), 515–538.
J-C. Hausmann, *Sur la topologie des bras articulés*. Algebraic Topology Poznan 1989, 146–159, Lecture Notes in Math., **1474**, Springer, Berlin, 1991.
J-C. Hausmann and A. Knutson, *Polygon spaces and Grassmannians*, Enseign. Math. (2) **43** (1997), 173–198.
J-C. Hausmann and A. Knutson, *The cohomology ring of polygon spaces*, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) **48** (1998), 281–321.
L. Jeffrey, *Extended moduli spaces of flat connections on Riemann surfaces*, Math. Ann. **298** (1994), 667–692.
L. Jeffrey and J. Weitsman, *Toric structures on the moduli space of flat connection on a Riemann surface. II. Inductive decomposition of the moduli space*, Math. Ann. **307** (1997), 93–108.
F. Kirwan, *The cohomology rings of moduli spaces of bundles over Riemann surfaces*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. **5** (1992), 853–906.
A. Klyachko, *Spatial polygons and stable configurations of points in the projective line*, Algebraic geometry and its applications (Yaroslavl’, 1992), 67–84, Aspects Math. **E25**, Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1994.
H. Konno, *The intersection pairings on the configuration spaces of points in the projective line*, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. **41** (2001), 277–284.
M. Kontsevich, *Intersection theory on the moduli space of curves and the matrix Airy function*, Comm. Math. Phys. **147** (1992), 1–23.
M. Kapovich and J. Millson, *The symplectic geometry of polygons in Euclidean space*, J. Differential Geom. **44** (1996), 479–513.
Y. Kamiyama and M. Tezuka, *Symplectic volume of the moduli space of spatial polygons*, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. **39** (1999), 557–575.
E. Lerman, *Symplectic cuts*, Math. Res. Lett. **2** (1995), 247–258.
A. Mandini, *The geometry of the moduli space of polygons in the Euclidean space*, Ph. D. Thesis, Università di Bologna, 2007.
T. Takakura, *Intersection theory on symplectic quotients of products of spheres*, Internat. J. Math. **12** (2001), 97–111.
Vu The Khoi, *On the symplectic volume of the moduli space of spherical and Euclidean polygons*, Kodai Math. J. **28** (2005), 199–208.
J. Weitsman, *Geometry of the intersection ring of the moduli space of flat connections and the conjectures of Newstead and Witten*, Topology **37** (1998), 115–132.
E. Witten, *Two-dimensional gravity and intersection theory on moduli space*, Surveys in differential geometry (Cambridge, MA, 1990), 243–310, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, PA, 1991.
E. Witten, *On quantum gauge theories in two dimensions*, Comm. Math. Phys. **141** (1991), 153–209.
E. Witten, *On the Kontsevich model and other models of two-dimensional gravity*, Proceedings of the XXth International Conference on Differential Geometric Methods in Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1, 2 (New York, 1991), 176–216, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1992.
T. Yoshida, *The generating function for certain cohomology intersection pairings of the moduli space of flat connections*, J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo **8** (2001), 541–558.
[^1]: 2000 *Mathematics Subject Classification.* Primary 53D20, 53D35
[^2]: The first author was partially supported by FCT (Portugal) through program POCTI/FEDER and grant POCTI/SFRH/BPD/20002/2004; the second author was partially supported by FCT through program POCTI/FEDER and grant POCTI/MAT/57888/2004, and by Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Recent numerical relativity simulations have shown that the emission of gravitational waves at the merger of two black holes gives a recoil kick to the final black hole. We follow the orbits of a recoiling supermassive black hole (SMBH) in a fixed background potential of a disk galaxy including the effect of dynamical friction. If the recoil velocity of the SMBH is smaller than the escape velocity of the galaxy, the SMBH moves around in the potential along a complex trajectory before it spirals into the galactic center through dynamical friction. We consider the accretion of gas onto the SMBH from the surrounding ISM and estimate the X-ray luminosity of the SMBH. We find that it can be larger than $3\times 10^{39}\rm\: erg^{-1}$ or the typical X-ray luminosity of ultra-luminous X-ray sources, when the SMBH passes the galactic disk. In particular, the luminosity could exceed $\sim 10^{46}\:\rm erg\:
s^{-1}$, if the SMBH is ejected into the galactic disk. The average luminosity gradually increases as the SMBH spirals into the galactic center. We also estimate the probability of finding recoiling SMBHs with X-ray luminosities of $>3\times 10^{39}\rm\: erg^{-1}$ in a disk galaxy.
author:
- Yutaka Fujita
title: 'Long-Term Evolution of and X-ray Emission from a Recoiling Supermassive Black Hole in a Disk Galaxy'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Thanks to recent breakthroughs in numerical relativity, it has been shown that the loss of linear momentum radiated away in the form of gravitational waves induces a large recoil velocity of the merged binary black hole. This would have been happened for supermassive black holes (SMBHs) at the centers of galaxies, if two SMBHs coalesce after a major galaxy merger. Since the maximum velocity would reach $\sim 4000\rm\:
km\: s^{-1}$ [e.g. @gon07; @cam07], the SMBH could escape from its host galaxy. However, if the recoil velocity is a little smaller than the escape velocity of the galaxy, the SMBH would orbit in the potential well of the galaxy for a long time. The identification of observational signatures of such recoiling SMBHs is important for studies about the growth of black holes as well as the general relativity.
In addition to direct detection of gravitational waves, a number of ideas have been proposed for detection of observational signatures of recoiling black holes through electromagnetic waves. @kap76 [@kap83] indicated that stellar captures can lead to the formation of an accretion disk-star system about the SMBH, and that the emission from the SMBH could be observable. @mad04 and @loe07 argued that a recoiling SMBH would be observed as an off-nuclear quasar until the gas carried by the SMBH is depleted, although @bon07 found no convincing evidence for recoiling SMBHs carrying accretion disks in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey data. @mer04 indicated that the displacement of a recoiling SMBH transfers energy to the stars in the galactic nucleus and converts a steep density cusp into a core. @vol07 discussed the influence of the merger and ejection of SMBHs from the galactic centers on the relation of the black hole mass and the velocity dispersion of the galaxy. @gua08 indicated that helical radio structures could be observed around a recoiling SMBH because of the oscillation of the SMBH in the core of the host galaxy. @lip08 showed that prompt shocks are created in the gas disk around a recoiling SMBH and that the shocks could result in an afterglow, and the luminosity and characteristic photon energy increases with time. @kor08 discussed that the SMBH displacement may give rise to observable non-axisymmetries in the morphology and dynamics of the stellar and gaseous disk of the host galaxy. @del08 examined the influence of a runaway SMBH passage through intergalactic medium, and indicated that the SMBH is able to ignite star formation efficiently in the wake of its trajectory. @kom08 indicated that a recoiling SMBH carries stars, and the electromagnetic flares from the stars that are tidally disrupted by the SMBH would be observable.
Recently, @ble08 calculated the trajectory of a SMBH ejected in a smooth background potential that includes both a stellar bulge and a gaseous disk [see also @vic07], and estimated the gas accretion rate onto the SMBH as a function of time. @fuj08 [hereafter Paper I] also calculated the trajectory of a SMBH ejected in a realistic background potential of a disk galaxy. We calculated the accretion rate of gas onto the SMBH from the interstellar medium (ISM) in the galactic disk, and estimated the X-ray luminosity based on a model of a radiatively inefficient accretion flow [RIAF; @nar95]. We showed that the luminosity of the SMBH can be comparable to or even larger than those of ultra-luminous X-ray sources (ULXs) observed in galaxies [$L_X\ga 3\times 10^{39}\rm\: erg\:
s^{-1}$; @col99; @mak00; @mus04].
However, in that study, the effect of dynamical friction was not explicitly included. If dynamical friction is effective, the SMBH gradually settles down to the galactic center. Since the accretion rate depends on the density of the surrounding ISM (see equation \[\[eq:dotm\]\]), we expect that the X-ray luminosity increases accordingly. In this paper, we study the long-term orbital and luminosity evolution of a recoiling SMBH in a disk galaxy, considering the effect of dynamical friction. This paper is organized as follows. Our models and choice of parameters are outlined in § \[sec:models\]. The results of calculations are presented in § \[sec:results\] and discussed in § \[sec:discussion\]. Finally, in § \[sec:conclusion\], we present our conclusions.
Models {#sec:models}
======
We consider SMBH mergers in a normal disk galaxy for the sake of simplicity, although the galaxy interaction and merger supposedly affect the original disk. However, the process of the settling of SMBHs between the galaxy merger and the set-in of effective emission of gravitational waves from the SMBHs, which leads to the merger of the SMBHs, has not been understood [e.g. @beg80; @iwa06]. If the time-scale of the SMBH merger is long, the galaxy may be significantly relaxed when the recoil occurs [@ble08]. Anyway, in order to follow the galaxy and SMBH mergers self-consistently, we would need ultra-high resolution simulations of galaxy mergers that can resolve the settling of SMBHs in the core of the merged galaxy.
The model of a disk galaxy is the same as that in Paper I. The galaxy potential consists of three components, which are a @miy75 disk, Hernquist spheroid [@her90], and logarithmic halo [@bin08]: $$\Phi_{\rm disk}=-\frac{G M_{\rm dist}}
{\sqrt{R^2+(a+\sqrt{z^2+b^2})^2}}\:,$$ $$\Phi_{\rm sphere}=-\frac{G M_{\rm sphere}}{r+c}\:,$$ $$\Phi_{\rm halo}=\frac{1}{2}v_{\rm halo}^2
\ln\left[R^2+\left(\frac{z}{q}\right)^2+d^2\right]\:,$$ where $R$ ($=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$) and $z$ are cylindrical coordinates aligned with the galactic disk, and $r=\sqrt{R^2+z^2}$. The parameters are the ones of the Galaxy. We take $M_{\rm disk}=1.0\times 10^{11}\:
M_\sun$, $M_{\rm sphere}=3.4\times 10^{10}\: M_\sun$, $a=6.5$ kpc, $b=0.26$ kpc, $c=0.7$ kpc, $d=13$ kpc, and $q=0.9$; $v_{\rm halo}$ is determined so that the circulation velocity for the total potential, $\Phi=\Phi_{\rm disk}+\Phi_{\rm sphere}+\Phi_{\rm halo}$, is $220\rm\:
km\: s^{-1}$ at $R=7$ kpc [see @law05]. Contrary to Paper I, we include dynamical friction in the equation of motion for the SMBH [@cha43; @bin08]: $$\label{eq:motion}
\mbox{\boldmath{$\dot{v}$}}=-\nabla\Phi-4\pi G^2 m_{\rm
BH}\sum_{i}\rho_i I(X_i)\ln\Lambda_i
\frac{\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}_{{\rm rel}, i}}{v_{{\rm rel},i}^3}\:,$$ where $\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}=(v_x, v_y, v_z)$ is the velocity of the SMBH, $\ln\Lambda_i$ is the Coulomb logarithm, and the suffix $i$ refers to disk, sphere, or halo. The relative velocities are defined as $\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}_{\rm rel,
disk}=\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}-\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}_{\rm cir,disk}$, $\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}_{\rm rel, sphere}=\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}$, and $\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}_{\rm rel, halo}=\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}$, where $\mbox{\boldmath{$v$}}_{\rm cir, disk}$ is the circulation velocity of the disk, which is given by $$v_{\rm cir, disk}^2=\left. R\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial R}\right|_{z=0}$$ [@bin08]. The densities are given by $$\rho_{\rm disk}=\left(\frac{b^2 M_{\rm disk}}{4\pi}\right)
\frac{a R^2+(a+3\sqrt{z^2+b^2})(a+\sqrt{z^2+b^2})^2}
{[R^2+(a+\sqrt{z^2+b^2})^2]^{5/2}(z^2+b^2)^{3/2}}\:,$$ $$\rho_{\rm sphere}=\frac{M_{\rm sphere}}{2\pi}\frac{c}{r(c+r)^3}\:,$$ $$\rho_{\rm halo}=\frac{v_{\rm halo}^2}{4\pi G
q^2}\frac{(2q^2+1)d^2+R^2+(2-q^{-2})z^2}{(d^2+R^2+z^2 q^{-2})^2}\:,$$ [@miy75; @her90; @bin08]. We assume that part of the disk consists of the ISM; its density is represented by $\rho_{\rm ISM}=f_{\rm
ISM}\rho_{\rm disk}$. For most models we studied, we take $f_{\rm
ISM}=0.2$, which is based on the observations of the Galaxy [e.g. @bin08]. In equation (\[eq:motion\]), the factor $I(X_i)$ is given by $$I(X_i)={\rm erf}(X_i)-\frac{2X_i}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-X_i^2}$$ where $X_i=v_{{\rm rel},i}/(\sqrt{2}\sigma_i)$ and $\sigma_i$ is the one-dimensional velocity dispersion. For the disk velocity dispersion, we set $\sigma_{\rm disk}\propto \rho_{\rm disk}(x,y,z=0)$ [@lew89] and fix the normalization by assuming that the disk has a Toomre Q-parameter of 1.5 at $R=7$ kpc [@vel99]. For the spheroid and halo, we use the common $I(X_i)$ and the velocity dispersion is $$\sigma_{\rm sphere-halo}
=\frac{(v_{\rm cir, sphere}^2+v_{\rm cir, halo}^2)^{1/2}}{\sqrt{2}}$$ where $v_{\rm cir, sphere}$ and $v_{\rm cir, halo}$ are the circulation velocities of the spheroid and halo, respectively [@tay01].
Chandrasekhar’s formula for the dynamical friction force (the second term in the right side of equation \[\[eq:motion\]\]) was derived assuming an infinite, homogeneous, and unchanging background. It is obviously not true for a SMBH that is kicked out of the galactic center and orbiting in the disk galaxy. However, $N$-body simulations have shown that it can be applied to various cases if one chooses the Coulomb logarithm appropriately. For a SMBH ejected from the center of a spherically symmetric galaxy, @gua08 showed that $2\la\ln\Lambda\la 3$ is appropriate. Thus, we set $\ln\Lambda_{\rm
sphere}=\ln\Lambda_{\rm halo}=2.5$. For a disk galaxy, such $N$-body simulations have not been performed as far as we know. Instead of a SMBH, the evaluation of Chandrasekhar’s formula has been made for a dwarf galaxy infalling to a more massive disk galaxy. @tay01 showed that $\ln\Lambda_{\rm disk}=0.5$ is appropriate. The small value of $\ln\Lambda_{\rm disk}$ probably reflects the small ratio of the disk scale-height and the size of a dwarf galaxy, which corresponds to the ratio of maximum and minium effective impact parameters of particles that contribute to the friction force [@tay01]. However, since a SMBH is a point source, we first assume that $\ln\Lambda_{\rm
disk}=2.5$, which is the same as $\ln\Lambda_{\rm sphere}$ and $\ln\Lambda_{\rm halo}$, and then change the value to see the influence of the uncertainty on results.
The accretion of the surrounding gas onto an isolated black hole has been studied by several authors [@fuj98; @ago02; @mii05; @map06 and references therein]. Most of the previous studies focused on stellar mass ($\sim 10\: M_\sun$) or intermediate mass black holes (IMBHs; $\sim 10^3\: M_\sun$). In this study, we consider the accretion on a recoiling SMBH.
The accretion rate of the ISM onto the SMBH is given by the Bondi-Hoyle accretion [@bon52]: $$\label{eq:dotm}
\dot{m}=2.5\pi G^2
\frac{m_{\rm BH}^2\rho_{\rm ISM}}{(c_s^2+v_{\rm rel, disk}^2)^{3/2}}\:,$$ where $m_{\rm BH}$ is the mass of the black hole, and $c_s$ ($=10\rm\:
km\: s^{-1}$) is the sound velocity of the ISM. The X-ray luminosity of the black hole is given by $$\label{eq:Lx}
L_{\rm X}=\eta \dot{m}c^2\:,$$ where $\eta$ is the efficiency. Since the accretion rate is relatively small for the mass of the black hole, the accretion flow would be a RIAF [e.g. @ich77; @nar94; @abr95; @yua04]. In this case, the efficiency follows $\eta\propto\dot{m}$ for $L_{\rm X}\la 0.1 L_{\rm Edd}$, where $L_{\rm Edd}$ is the Eddington luminosity [e.g. @kat98]. Therefore, we assume that $\eta=\eta_{\rm Edd}$ for $\dot{m}> 0.1 \dot{m}_{\rm Edd}$ and $\eta = \eta_{\rm
Edd}\dot{m}/(0.1\dot{m}_{\rm Edd})$ for $\dot{m}< 0.1 \dot{m}_{\rm
Edd}$, where $\dot{m}_{\rm Edd}=L_{\rm Edd}/(c^2 \eta_{\rm Edd})$ [@mii05]. We assume that $\eta_{\rm Edd}=0.1$.
We solve equation (\[eq:motion\]) with Mathematica 6.0 using a command NDSolve. The algorism of the integration is automatically chosen [^1]. We have confirmed that the fractional energy error that arises in the integration of an orbit per cycle is $\lesssim 10^{-6}$.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The SMBH is placed at the center of the galaxy at $t=0$. The SMBH is ejected on the $x$-$z$ plane at $t=0$. The parameters of our models ($m_{\rm BH}$, $v_0$, $\ln\Lambda_{\rm disk}$, and $f_{\rm ISM}$) are shown in Table \[tab:par\]. In this section, we consider models in which the SMBH does neither fall into the galactic center too quickly through dynamical friction nor escape from the galaxy (models A1–C4 in Table \[tab:par\]). The mass of the SMBH is $3\times 10^6$–$3\times
10^7\: M_\sun$, which is comparable to or somewhat larger than that of the SMBH at the center of the Galaxy [$\sim 3.7\times 10^{6}\:
M_\sun$; @sch02; @ghe05]. The direction of the ejection changes from $\theta=0\arcdeg$ to $90\arcdeg$, where $\theta=0\arcdeg$ corresponds to the $z$-axis. The initial velocity of the SMBH is $v_0=500$–$800\:\rm
km\: s^{-1}$.
We stop the calculation if (i) $t=10$ Gyr or if (ii) $r<10$ pc and $v<1\rm\: km\: s^{-1}$ is satisfied. We define the time when the condition (ii) is satisfied as $t_{\rm
df}$. Figures \[fig:orbitA1\]–\[fig:orbitC3\] show the trajectories of the SMBHs for models A1, B2, and C3, respectively. Although the SMBHs are ejected on the $x$-$z$ plane at $t=0$, they are not confined to the plane because of the circulation of the galactic disk and dynamical friction. Figures \[fig:A1\]–\[fig:C3\] show the distance from the galactic center ($r$) and the luminosity of the SMBHs ($L_X$) for models A1, B2, and C3, respectively ($0<t<t_{\rm df}$ and $\theta=60\arcdeg$). The distance gradually decreases through the dynamical friction. The infall of the SMBHs accelerates as $t$ approaches $t_{\rm df}$. The luminosity on average increases as the SMBHs spiral into the galactic center, where $\rho_{\rm ISM}$ is large. In Table \[tab:par\], we present the maximum distance from the center of the galaxy when $\theta=60\arcdeg$ ($r_{\rm max,60}$). We note that the maximum radius is not much dependent on $\theta$.
Figures \[fig:A1s\]–\[fig:C3s\] show the evolutions of $|z|$, $v_{\rm rel,disk}$, and $L_X$ for $0<t<0.1\: t_{\rm df}$ for models A1, B2, and C3, respectively ($\theta=60\arcdeg$). The luminosity of the SMBHs ($L_X$) increases instantaneously, when they pass the galactic disk. The heights of the spikes in Figure \[fig:A1s\]b, \[fig:B2s\]b, and \[fig:C3s\]b are uneven. This is because the luminosity $L_X$ depends on both $v_{\rm rel,disk}$ and $\rho_{\rm ISM}$ (see equation \[\[eq:dotm\]\]), and the latter strongly depends on $z$. In Table \[tab:par\], we present the maximum X-ray luminosity of the SMBHs for $\theta=60\arcdeg$ and $t<0.2\: t_{\rm df}$ ($L_{\rm
max,60}$). The luminosity $L_{\rm max,60}$ is larger for larger $m_{\rm
BH}$ and smaller $v_0$. In some of the models of $m_{\rm BH}\geq 1\times
10^7\: M_\sun$, $L_{\rm max,60}$ reaches $3\times 10^{39}\rm\: erg\:
s^{-1}$, which is the Eddington luminosity of a stellar mass black hole ($\sim 20\: M_\sun$) and is often used as a threshold of ULXs [@col99; @mak00; @mus04]. When $m_{\rm BH}$ and $v_0$ are given and $\theta$ is not fixed, the X-ray luminosity before the SMBHs are affected by dynamical friction tends to be larger when $\theta$ is closer to $90\arcdeg$, because their trajectories are included in the galactic disk, where $\rho_{\rm ISM}$ is large. However, the tendency is not clear when $\theta\la 80\arcdeg$, because their orbits are scattered in the asymmetric potential of the galaxy. Thus, the maximum luminosity does not much depend on $\theta$. Figures \[fig:A1s\]–\[fig:C3s\] indicate that when the SMBH is especially bright, the relative velocity between the SMBH and the surrounding ISM (or stars) is $v_{\rm rel,
disk}\sim v_{\rm cir}(\sim 220\:\rm km\: s^{-1})$, which means that the SMBH passes the apocenter of its orbit ($v\sim 0$) close to the galactic plane. It could be used as a clue to find the traveling SMBH observationally, if atomic line emission associated with the X-ray source is detected and the velocity is estimated through the Doppler shift.
In Table \[tab:par\], we present the average of $t_{\rm df}$, which is referred to as $\langle t_{\rm df}\rangle$; we calculate 30 orbits and corresponding $t_{\rm df}$ by changing $\theta$ from $3\arcdeg$ to $90\arcdeg$ by $3\arcdeg$ at a time, and average $t_{\rm df}$ by $\theta$, weighting with $\sin\theta$. Table \[tab:par\] shows that $\langle t_{\rm df}\rangle\ga 0.1$ Gyr for models A1–C4, and that $\langle t_{\rm df}\rangle$ is smaller for larger $m_{\rm BH}$ and smaller $v_0$.
Following Paper I, we estimate the probability of observing SMBHs with luminosities larger than a threshold luminosity $L_{\rm th}$, assuming that SMBHs are ejected in random directions at the centers of galaxies. For each model, we calculate 30 evolutions of the luminosity by changing $\theta$ from $3\arcdeg$ to $90\arcdeg$ by $3\arcdeg$ at a time. Then, we obtain the period during which the relation $L_{\rm
X}>L_{\rm th}$ is satisfied for each $\theta$, and divide the period by $t_{\rm df}$. This is the fraction of the period during which the black hole luminosity becomes larger than $L_{\rm th}$. We refer to this fraction as $f(\theta)$. We average $f(\theta)$ by $\theta$, weighting with $\sin\theta$, and obtain the probability of observing SMBHs with $L_{\rm X}>L_{\rm th}$. In Table \[tab:par\], we present the probability $P_{3e39}$ when $L_{\rm th}=3\times 10^{39}\rm\: erg\:
s^{-1}$. For models A1–C4, $P_{3e39}=0.0018$–0.58.
We also estimate the age-corrected probability of observing SMBHs with $L_{\rm X}>L_{\rm th}=3\times 10^{39}\rm\: erg\: s^{-1}$, which is obtained by averaging $\min[t_{\rm df},t_{\rm age}] f(\theta)/t_{\rm
age}$ by $\theta$, weighting with $\sin\theta$, where $t_{\rm age}$ is the age of a galaxy and we assume that $t_{\rm age}=10$ Gyr. We refer to the age-corrected probability as $\tilde{P}_{\rm 3e39}$ and show it in Table \[tab:par\].
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We have found that a SMBH that had been ejected from the center of a disk galaxy could be observed in the galactic disk with an X-ray luminosity of $L_{\rm X}\ga 3\times 10^{39}\rm\: erg\: s^{-1}$. The luminosity gradually increases as the SMBH settles down to the galactic center through dynamical friction.
In § \[sec:results\], we follow the evolution until the SMBH spirals down to $r=10$ pc. However, if $r$ is too small, the SMBH cannot be discriminated from the one that would have been sitting at the galactic center without being affected by a recoil. Therefore, we estimate the probability of observing SMBHs with $L_X>L_{\rm th}=3\times 10^{39}\rm\:
erg\: s^{-1}$ and $r>1$ kpc, and call it $P_{\rm 1,3e39}$. We also calculate the time age-corrected one ($\tilde{P}_{\rm 1,3e39}$). Since $P_{\rm 1,3e39}$ and $\tilde{P}_{\rm 1,3e39}$ are derived by adding another condition $r>1$ kpc to $P_{\rm 3e39}$ and $\tilde{P}_{\rm
3e39}$, respectively, it is natural that $P_{\rm 1,3e39}\leq P_{\rm
3e39}$ and $\tilde{P}_{\rm 1,3e39}\leq\tilde{P}_{\rm 3e39}$ (Table \[tab:par\]).
As is mentioned in § \[sec:models\], dynamical friction of a massive point particle orbiting in a disk galaxy has not been studied very much. Thus, there is some uncertainty about the Coulomb logarithm we should take. Therefore, we change the value of $\ln\Lambda_{\rm disk}$ to estimate the uncertainty. Models C$'$2 and C$'$3 are respectively the same as models C2 and C3 except for $\ln\Lambda_{\rm disk}$. For these models, we set $\ln\Lambda_{\rm disk}=1.5$. Table \[tab:par\] shows that there is not much difference between the results of models C2 and those of C$'$2. This is because the maximum distances to the apocenters are $\la 1$ kpc, where the spheroidal component is dominant, and the SMBH is not much affected by the dynamical friction from the galactic disk. On the other hand, $P_{\rm 3e39}$, $\tilde{P}_{\rm 3e39}$, $P_{\rm
1,3e39}$, and $\tilde{P}_{\rm 1,3e39}$ for models C3 and C$'$3 are significantly different, because the SMBH is ejected outside the spheroid. The differences are especially made by that of the orbits of $\theta\sim 90\arcdeg$. When $\theta\sim 90\arcdeg$, the SMBH is ejected in the galactic disk. If the dynamical friction from the disk is very effective, the SMBH moves along with the disk ($v_{\rm rel,disk}\sim 0$) and does not easily fall into the galactic center. This actually happens for model C3 ($t_{\rm df}>10$ Gyr when $\theta=90\arcdeg$; Figure \[fig:C3\_90\]a). In this case, the SMBH continues to accrete the ISM in the disk and is bright for a long time (Figure \[fig:C3\_90\]b). Since this SMBH is very bright ($L_X\ga
10^{46}\rm\: erg\: s^{-1}$), it could be easily observed if such SMBHs actually exist. For model C$'$3, the dynamical friction from the disk is not strong enough to hold back the SMBH from the infall even when $\theta=90\arcdeg$.
We also consider the uncertainty of the ISM fraction $f_{\rm
ISM}$. Model C$''$3 is the same as model C3 but for $f_{\rm
ISM}=0.1$. For parameters we adopted, the accretion efficiency is $\dot{m}<0.1\: \dot{m}_{\rm Edd}$ in most cases. Therefore, we obtain $L_X\propto \eta\dot{m}\propto \dot{m}^2\propto \rho_{\rm ISM}^2\propto
f_{\rm ISM}^2$ (equations \[\[eq:dotm\]\] and \[\[eq:Lx\]\]), which means that the X-ray luminosity in model C$''$3 is one fourth of that in model C3. Accordingly, $P_{\rm 3e39}$, $\tilde{P}_{\rm 3e39}$, $P_{\rm
1,3e39}$, and $\tilde{P}_{\rm 1,3e39}$ in model C$''$3 are smaller than those in model C3, respectively. However, the differences are not large, because $L_X$ changes rapidly.
For comparison, we also investigate a model with a smaller initial velocity (model b0), because we consider a Milky-Way type galaxy, which is generally expected to experience minor mergers rather than major mergers. In such cases, large recoil velocities as adopted above would not be common. A model with a larger SMBH mass is also considered (model d3). Figures \[fig:orbitb0\] and \[fig:orbitd3\] show the trajectories of the SMBHs for models b0 and d3, respectively. Their ejection angles are $\theta=60\arcdeg$. In these models, $v_0$ is too small (model b0), or $m_{\rm BH}$ is too large (model d3) for the SMBH to be ejected from the spheroidal component of the galaxy. Thus, it would be difficult to recognize them as recoiling SMBHs, if their host galaxies are moderately distant. The SMBHs are almost confined to the $x$-$z$ plane, because the dynamical friction from the spheroidal component overwhelms that from the galactic disk. Table \[tab:par\] shows that $P_{3e39}$ for models b0 and d3 is relatively large because of small $v_0$ and large $m_{\rm BH}$, respectively. The SMBHs set back to the galactic center in only several orbital periods ($t_{\rm df}\sim
0.01$ and 0.07 Gyr, respectively).
Since we have included the effect of dynamical friction when we consider the evolution of $L_X$, we can constrain the probability to find SMBHs with $L_X>L_{\rm th}$ more precisely than Paper I. It has been estimated that for comparable mass binaries with dimensionless spin values of 0.9, only $\sim 10$% of all mergers are expected to result in an ejection speed of $\sim 500$–$800\rm\: km\: s^{-1}$ [@sch07; @bak08]. Since the ejection speed is smaller for mergers with large mass ratios and smaller spin values, the actual fraction would be smaller. Although we consider the mergers of black holes with the masses currently observed at the centers of disk galaxies, it is unlikely that a galaxy would have undergone many mergers of black holes with such masses [e.g. @eno04; @mic07]. The number of such mergers that a galaxy has undergone would be $N\la 1$. Thus, since $\tilde{P}_{\rm 3e39}$, $\tilde{P}_{\rm 1,3e39}\la 0.1$ (Table \[tab:par\]), the probability that a disk galaxy has a traveling SMBH with a luminosity comparable to or larger than that of ULXs is $\la 1\times 10^{-2}$.
Since the probability is not so large, extensive surveys would be required to find the SMBHs running in the galactic disks. In the future, it would be interesting to study whether the probability is larger than that of finding SMBHs immediately after the ejection from the galactic centers with velocities of $>1000\rm\: km\:
s^{-1}$[e.g. @loe07]. Since the SMBHs ejected into galactic disks are very bright (Figure \[fig:C3\_90\]b), they could be observed even in distant galaxies. As was discussed in Paper I, observations in bands other than X-rays would also be useful to detect the SMBHs orbiting in disk galaxies and discriminate them from IMBHs.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
We have investigated the trajectory of a SMBH ejected from the galactic center through the emission of gravitational waves at the merger of two black holes. We included the effect of dynamical friction. For a disk galaxy comparable to the Galaxy, the orbit decays on a time-scale of $\ga 10^8$ yr if the initial velocity of the SMBH is $\sim
500$–$800\rm\: km\: s^{-1}$ and the mass is $\sim 10^7\: M_\sun$. The SMBH accretes the surrounding ISM when it passes the galactic disk. Since the accretion rate is larger when the relative velocity between the SMBH and the ISM is smaller, the accretion rate is the largest when the SMBH passes the apocenter of its orbit that reside in the galactic disk. Assuming that the accretion flow is a RIAF, we estimated the X-ray luminosity of the SMBH. We found that the X-ray luminosity can reach $L_X\ga 3\times 10^{39}\rm\: erg\: s^{-1}$, which is comparable to or even larger than those of ULXs. In particular, the X-ray luminosity would reach $L_X\ga 10^{46}\rm\: erg\: s^{-1}$, if the SMBH is ejected into the galactic plane. Since the probability of finding the traveling SMBHs with $L_X\ga 3\times 10^{39}\rm\: erg\:
s^{-1}$ in a disk galaxy is $\la 0.01$, extensive surveys would be required to find them.
Y.F. was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan (20540269).
Abramowicz, M. A., Chen, X., Kato, S., Lasota, J.-P., & Regev, O. 1995, , 438, L37
Agol, E., & Kamionkowski, M. 2002, , 334, 553
Baker, J. G., Boggs, W. D., Centrella, J., Kelly, B. J., McWilliams, S. T., Miller, M. C., & van Meter, J. R. 2008, , 682, L29
Begelman, M. C., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1980, , 287, 307
Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 2008, Galactic Dynamics 2nd edition (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press)
Blecha, L., & Loeb, A. 2008, , in press, ArXiv e-prints, 805, arXiv:0805.1420
Bondi, H. 1952, , 112, 195
Bonning, E. W., Shields, G. A., & Salviander, S. 2007, , 666, L13
Campanelli, M., Lousto, C., Zlochower, Y., & Merritt, D. 2007, , 659, L5
Chandrasekhar, S. 1943, , 97, 255
Colbert, E. J. M., & Mushotzky, R. F. 1999, , 519, 89
de la Fuente Marcos, R., & de la Fuente Marcos, C. 2008, , 677, L47
Enoki, M., Inoue, K. T., Nagashima, M., & Sugiyama, N. 2004, , 615, 19
Fujita, Y. 2008, , 685, L59 (Paper I)
Fujita, Y., Inoue, S., Nakamura, T., Manmoto, T., & Nakamura, K. E. 1998, , 495, L85
Ghez, A. M., Salim, S., Hornstein, S. D., Tanner, A., Lu, J. R., Morris, M., Becklin, E. E., & Duch[ê]{}ne, G. 2005, , 620, 744
Gonz[á]{}lez, J. A., Hannam, M., Sperhake, U., Br[ü]{}gmann, B., & Husa, S. 2007, Physical Review Letters, 98, 231101
Gualandris, A., & Merritt, D. 2008, , 678, 780
Hernquist, L. 1990, , 356, 359
Ichimaru, S. 1977, , 214, 840
Iwasawa, M., Funato, Y., & Makino, J. 2006, , 651, 1059
Kapoor, R. C. 1976, Pramana, 7, 334
Kapoor, R. C. 1983, , 95, 425
Kato, S., Fukue, J., & Mineshige, S. 1998, Black-Hole Accretion Disks (Kyoto: Kyoto Univ. Press)
Komossa, S., & Merritt, D. 2008, , 683, L21
Kornreich, D. A., & Lovelace, R. V. E. 2008, , 681, 104
Law, D. R., Johnston, K. V., & Majewski, S. R. 2005, , 619, 807
Lewis, J. R., & Freeman, K. C. 1989, , 97, 139
Lippai, Z., Frei, Z., & Haiman, Z. 2008, , 676, L5
Loeb, A. 2007, Physical Review Letters, 99, 041103
Madau, P., & Quataert, E. 2004, , 606, L17
Makishima, K., et al. 2000, , 535, 632
Mapelli, M., Ferrara, A., & Rea, N. 2006, , 368, 1340
Merritt, D., Milosavljevi[ć]{}, M., Favata, M., Hughes, S. A., & Holz, D. E. 2004, , 607, L9
Micic, M., Holley-Bockelmann, K., Sigurdsson, S., & Abel, T. 2007, , 380, 1533
Mii, H., & Totani, T. 2005, , 628, 873
Miyamoto, M., & Nagai, R. 1975, , 27, 533
Mushotzky, R. 2004, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 155, 27
Narayan, R. 2005, , 300, 177
Narayan, R., & Yi, I. 1994, , 428, L13
Schnittman, J. D., & Buonanno, A. 2007, , 662, L63
Sch[ö]{}del, R., et al. 2002, , 419, 694
Taylor, J. E., & Babul, A. 2001, , 559, 716
Velazquez, H., & White, S. D. M. 1999, , 304, 254
Vicari, A., Capuzzo-Dolcetta, R., & Merritt, D. 2007, , 662, 797
Volonteri, M. 2007, , 663, L5
Yuan, F., Quataert, E., & Narayan, R. 2004, , 606, 894
[cccccccccccc]{} A1 &$3\times 10^6$&500&2.5&0.2& 1 & $1\times 10^{38}$ & 0.63& 0.0058&0.0003& 0 & 0\
A2 &$3\times 10^6$&600&2.5&0.2& 2 & $5\times 10^{37}$ & 6.4 & 0.0018&0.0010& 0 & 0\
B1 &$1\times 10^7$&500&2.5&0.2&0.7 & $4\times 10^{39}$ & 0.13& 0.23 &0.0027& 0 & 0\
B2 &$1\times 10^7$&600&2.5&0.2& 2 & $1\times 10^{39}$ & 1.3 & 0.0756&0.0080& 0.033 &0.0033\
B3 &$1\times 10^7$&700&2.5&0.2& 10 & $1\times 10^{38}$ &$>$10& 0.031 &0.031 & 0.031 &0.031\
C2 &$3\times 10^7$&600&2.5&0.2& 1 & $2\times 10^{40}$ & 0.16& 0.58 &0.0093& 0.10 &0.0016\
C3 &$3\times 10^7$&700&2.5&0.2& 7 & $1\times 10^{40}$ & 3.7 & 0.31 &0.15 & 0.22 &0.11\
C4 &$3\times 10^7$&800&2.5&0.2& 40 & $4\times 10^{38}$ &$>$10& 0.0020&0.0020& 0.0018&0.0018\
C$'$2 &$3\times 10^7$&600&1.5&0.2& 1 & $2\times 10^{40}$ & 0.16& 0.58 &0.0090& 0.10 &0.0016\
C$'$3 &$3\times 10^7$&700&1.5&0.2& 7 & $1\times 10^{40}$ & 3.5 & 0.18 &0.073 & 0.12 &0.053\
C$''$3&$3\times 10^7$&700&2.5&0.1& 7 & $2\times 10^{39}$ & 3.7 & 0.24 &0.12 & 0.16 &0.097\
b0 &$1\times 10^7$&400&2.5&0.2&0.2 & $9\times 10^{39}$ &0.012& 0.83 &0.0010& 0 & 0\
d3 &$1\times 10^8$&700&2.5&0.2& 1 & $3\times 10^{41}$ &0.066& 0.95 &0.0062& 0.21 & 0.0013\
[^1]: http://support.wolfram.com/mathematica/mathematics/numerics/ndsolvereferences.en.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'A. Ivanov [^1]'
date:
title: 'An $\omega$-categorical structure with amenable automorphism group'
---
> [**Abstract.**]{} We analyse $\omega$-categorical precompact expansions of particular $\omega$-categorical structures from the viewpoint of amenability of their automorphism groups.
>
> [*2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:*]{} 03C15, 03E15
>
> [*Keywords:*]{} Amenable groups, Countably categorical structures.
Introduction
============
A group $G$ is called [**amenable**]{} if every $G$-flow (i.e. a compact Hausdorff space along with a continuous G-action) supports an invariant Borel probability measure. If every $G$-flow has a fixed point then we say that $G$ is [**extremely amenable**]{}. Let $M$ be a relational countably categorical structure which is a Fraïssé limit of a Fraïssé class $\mathcal{K}$. In particular $\mathcal{K}$ coincides with $Age(M)$, the class of all finite substructures of $M$. By Theorem 4.8 of [@KPT] the group $Aut(M)$ is [*extremely amenable if and only if the class $\mathcal{K}$ has the Ramsey property and consists of rigid elements.*]{} Here the class $\mathcal{K}$ is said to have the Ramsey property if for any $k$ and a pair $A<B$ from $\mathcal{K}$ there exists $C\in \mathcal{K}$ so that each $k$-coloring $$\xi :{C\choose A}\rightarrow k$$ is monochromatic on some ${B'\choose A'}$ from $C$ which is a copy of ${B\choose A}$, i.e. $$C\rightarrow (B)^{A}_k .$$ We remind the reader that ${C \choose A}$ denotes the set of all substructures of $C$ isomorphic to $A$. This result has become a basic tool to amenability of automorphism groups. To see whether $Aut(M)$ is amenable one usually looks for an expansion $M^*$ of $M$ so that $M^*$ is a Fraïssé structure with extremely amenable $Aut(M^* )$. Moreover it is usually assumed that $M^*$ is a [**precompact**]{} expansion of $M$, i.e. every member of $\mathcal{K}$ has finitely many expansions in $Age(M^* )$, see [@KPT], [@KS], [@The], [@AKL] and [@Z]. Theorem 9.2 from [@AKL] and Theorem 2.1 from [@Z] describe amenability of $Aut(M)$ in this situation. The question if there is a countably categorical structure $M$ with amenable automorphism group which does not have expansions as above was formulated by several people. We mention very similar Problems 27, 28 in [@BPT] where precompactness is replaced by $\omega$-categoricity and finite homogenity.
We think that in order to construct a required example one can use the ideas applied in [@ivanov] where we construct an $\omega$-categorical structure so that its theory is not G-compact and it does not have AZ-enumerations. These ideas develop ones applied in slightly different forms in [@ivma] and [@ivanov2] for some other questions. Moreover Casanovas, Pelaez and Ziegler suggest in [@cpz] a general method which simplifies and generalises our approach from [@ivanov2], [@ivanov] and [@ivma]. The basic object of this construction is a particular theory $T_E$ of equivalence relations $E_n$ on $n$-tuples. The paper [@cpz] pays attention to several model-theoretic properties of $T_E$.
Below we study $T_E$ from the viewpoint of (extreme) amenability of its expansions. Then we apply our results to a construction of a family of concrete candidates for an example of an $\omega$-categorical structure with amenable automorphism group and without $\omega$-categorical precompact expansions with extremely amenable automorphism groups. We will in particular show that these structures have the following unusual combination of properties:
- the automorphis group is amenable;
- it does not satisfy Hrushovski’s extension property;
- it does not have an order expansion with the Ramsey property.
In fact we will show a slightly stronger version of the latter property.
Equivalence relations
=====================
We start with a very interesting reduct of the structure from [@ivanov]. This is $T_E$ mentioned in the introduction. It has already deserved some attention in model-theoretic community, see [@cpz].
Let $L_0 =\{ E_n : 0< n<\omega \}$ be a first-order language, where each $E_n$ is a relational symbol of arity $2n$. Let ${\mathcal{K}}_0$ be the class of all finite $L_0$-structures $C$ where each relation $E_n (\bar{x},\bar{y})$ determines an equivalence relation on the set (denoted by ${C \choose n}$) of unordered $n$-element subsets of $C$. In particular for every $n$ the class ${\mathcal{K}}_0$ satisfies the sentence $$\forall \bar{x}\bar{y} (E_n (x_1 ,...,x_n ,y_1 ,...,y_n )\rightarrow
\bigwedge \{ E_{n}(y_1 ,...,y_n ,x_{\sigma (1)},...,x_{\sigma (n)}):
\sigma \in Sym (n)\}).$$ Note that for $C\in {\mathcal{K}}_0$, $E_n$ is not satisfied by $\bar{a} ,\bar{b}$ if one of these tuples has a repetition. Thus for $n>|C|$ we put that no $2n$-tuple from $C$ satisfies $E_n (\bar{x},\bar{y})$. It is easy to see that ${\mathcal{K}}_0$ is closed under taking substructures and the number of isomorphism types of ${\mathcal{K}}_0$-structures of any size is finite.
Let us verify [*the amalgamation property for*]{} ${\mathcal{K}}_0$. Given $A,B_{1},B_{2} \in {\mathcal{K}}_0$ with $B_{1}\cap B_{2}=A$, define $C\in {\mathcal{K}}_0$ as $B_{1}\cup B_{2}$ with the finest equivalence relations among those which obey the following rules. When $n\le |B_{1}\cup B_{2}|$ and $\bar{a}\in {B_1 \choose n} \cup {B_2 \choose n}$ we put that the $E_n$-class of $\bar{a}$ in $C$ is contained in ${B_1 \choose n} \cup {B_2 \choose n}$. We also assume that all $n$-tuples meeting both $B_{1}\setminus B_{2}$ and $B_{2}\setminus B_{1}$ are pairwise equivalent with respect to $E_{n}$. In particular if $n\ge max(|B_{1}|,|B_{2}|)$ we put that all $n$-element $n$-tuples from $C$ are pairwise $E_{n}$-equivalent.
It is easy to see that this amalgamation also works for the joint embedding property.
Let $M_0$ be the countable universal homogeneous structure for ${\mathcal{K}}_0$. It is clear that in $M_0$ each $E_n$ defines infinitely many classes and each $E_n$-class is infinite. Let $T_E = Th(M_0 )$.
Theorem \[nR\] which we prove below, shows that $M_0$ cannot be treated by the methods of [@KPT]. It states that the group $Aut(M_0 )$ is amenable but the structure $M_0$ does not have a linear ordering so that the corresponding age has the order property and the Ramsey property.
It is worth noting that this statement already holds for the $\{ E_1 ,E_2\}$-reduct of $M_0$, see the proof below. Thus our theorem also gives some interesting finitely homogeneous examples. On the other hand amenability of $Aut(M_0 )$ is a harder task than the corresponding statement in the reduct’s case.
The statement that $Aut(M_0 )$ is amenable is a consequence of a stronger property, namely [*Hrushovski’s extension property*]{} for partial isomorphisms. This is defined for Fraïssé limits as follows.
A universal ultrahomogeneous structure $U$ satisfies Hrushovski’s extension property if for any finite family of finite partial isomorphisms between substructures of $U$ there is a finite substructure $F< U$ containing these substructures so that any isomorphism from the family extends to an automorphism of $F$.
Proposition 6.4 of [@kechros] states that the structure $U$ has Hrushovski’s extension property if and only if $Aut(U)$ has a dense subgroup which is the union of a countable chain of compact subgroups. The latter implies amenability by Theorem 449C of [@fremlin].
\[nR\] (a) The structure $M_0$ satisfies Hrushovski’s extension property. In particular the group $Aut(M_0 )$ is amenable.
\(b) The structure $M_0$ does not have any expansion by a linear order so that $Th(M_0 ,<)$ admits elimination of quantifiers and the age of $(M_0, <)$ satisfies the Ramsey property.
The proof uses some material from [@herwig]. We now describe it.
Let $L$ be a finite relational language. We say that an $L$-structure $F$ is [*irreflexive*]{} if for any $R\in L$, any tuple from $F$ satisfying $R$ consists of pairwise distinct elements. An irreflexive $L$-structure $F$ is called a [*link structure*]{} if $F$ is a singleton or $F$ can be enumerated $\{ a_1 ,...,a_n \}$ so that $( a_1 ,...,a_n )$ satisfies a relation from $L$.
Let ${\cal S}$ be a finite set of link structures. Then an $L$-structure $N$ is of [*link type*]{} ${\cal S}$ if any substructure of $N$ which is a link structure is isomorphic to a structure from ${\cal S}$.
An $L$-structure $F$ is [*packed*]{} if any pair from $F$ belongs to a link structure which is a substructure of $F$.
If ${\cal R}$ is a finite family of packed irreflexive $L$-structures, then an $L$-structure $F$ is called ${\cal R}$-[*free*]{} if there does not exist a weak homomorphism (a map preserving the predicates) from a structure from ${\cal R}$ to $F$.
Proposition 4 and Theorem 5 of [@herwig] state that for any family of irreflexive link structures ${\cal S}$ and any finite family of irreflexive packed $L$-structures ${\cal R}$ the class of all irreflexive finite $L$-structures of link type ${\cal S}$ which are ${\cal R}$-free, has the free amalgamation property and Hrushovski’s extension property for partial isomorphisms.
We will use a slightly stronger version of this statement concerning [*permorphisms*]{}. A partial mapping $\rho$ on $U$ is called a $\chi$-[**permorphism**]{}, if $\chi$ is a permutation of symbols in $L$ preserving the arity and for every $R\in L$ and $\bar{a}\in Dom(\rho )$ we have $$\bar{a}\in R \Leftrightarrow \rho (\bar{a}) \in R^{\chi}.$$ The following statement is a version of Lemma 6 from [@herwig].
\[permorphism\] Let $L$ be a finite language, $\chi_1 ,...,\chi_n$ be arity preserving permutations of $L$ and $\mathcal{S}$ be a finite $\{ \chi_i \}_{i\le n}$-invariant family of irreflexive link structures. Let $\mathcal{R}$ be a finite family of finite irreflexive packed $L$-structures of link type $\mathcal{S}$ so that $\mathcal{R}$ is invariant under all $\chi_i$. Let $A$ be a finite structure which belongs to the class, say $K$, of $L$-structures of link type $\mathcal{S}$ which are $\mathcal{R}$-free. Let $\rho_i$, $i\le n$, be parial $\chi_i$-permorphisms of $A$.
Then there is a finite $B\in K$ containing $A$ so that each $\rho_i$ extends to a permutation of $B$ which is a $\chi_i$-permorphism.
[*Proof of Theorem \[nR\].*]{} (a) For each $n>0$ enumerate all $E_n$-classes. Consider the expansion of $M_0$ by distinguishing each $E_n$-class by a predicate $P_{n,i}$ according the enumeration. Let $L^*$ be the language of all predicates $P_{n,i}$ and let $M^*$ be the $L^*$-structure defined on $M_0$. For every finite sublanguage $L'\subseteq L^*$ let $M^* (L')$ be the $L'$-reduct of $M^*$ defined by these interpretations.
We denote by $\mathcal{K}(L')$ the class of all finite $L'$-structures with the properties that for any arity $l$ represented by $L'$:
- any $l$-relation is irreflexive and invariant with respect to all permutations of variables,
- any two relations of $L'$ of arity $l$ have empty intersection.
Let ${\cal S}(L')$ be the set of all link structures of ${\cal K}(L')$ satisfying these two properties. Thus ${\cal K}(L')$ is of link type ${\cal S}(L')$.
[**Claim 1.**]{} For every finite sublanguage $L'\subseteq L^*$ the structure $M^* (L')$ is a universal structure with respect to the class $\mathcal{K}(L')$.
It is easy to see that any structure from $\mathcal{K}(L')$ can be expanded to a structure from $\mathcal{K}_0$ so that $L'$-predicates become classes of appropriate $E_n$’s.
[**Claim 2.**]{} For every finite sublanguage $L'\subseteq L^*$ the structure $M^* (L')$ is an ultrahomogeneous structure.
Let $f$ be an isomorphism between finite substructures of $M^* (L')$. We may assume that $Dom (f)$ contains tuples representing all $M^* (L')$-predicates of $L'$ (some disjoint tuples can be added to $Dom(f)$ in a suitable way). Then $f$ extends to an automorphism of $M_0$ fixing the classes of appropriate $E_n$’s which appear in $L'$. Thus this automorphism is an automorphism of $M^* (L')$ too.
[**Claim 3.**]{} For each finite sublanguage $L'\subseteq L^*$ let ${\cal R}(L')$ be the family of all packed $L'$-structures of the form $(\{ a_1 ,...,a_n \}, P_{n,i}, P_{n, j})$, where $i \not=j$, $P_{n, i}= \{(a_1, ...,a_n )\}$ and $P_{n,j}= \{(a_{\sigma(1 )}, ...,a_{\sigma (n )})\}$ for some permutation $\sigma$. Then the class $\mathcal{K}(L')$ is the class of all irreflexive finite $L'$-structures of link type ${\cal S}(L')$, which are ${\cal R}(L')$-free.
The claim is obvious. By Proposition 4 and Theorem 5 of [@herwig] we now see that $\mathcal{K}(L')$ is closed under substructures, has the joint embedding property, the free amalgamation property, Hrushovski’s extension property and its version for permorphisms, i.e. the statement of Lemma \[permorphism\].
By Claim 1 and Claim 2 the structure $M^* (L')$ is the universal homogeneous structure of ${\cal K}(L')$. In particular any tuple of finite partial isomorphisms (permorphisms) of $M^* (L')$ can be extended to a tuple of automorphisms (permorphisms) of a finite substructure of $M^* (L')$.
Note that the same statement holds for the structure $M^*$. To see this take any tuple $f_1 ,...,f_k$ of finite partial isomorphisms (resp. $\chi_i$-permorphisms) of $M^*$ (assuming that $\chi_i$ are finitary). Let $r$ be the size of the union $\bigcup_{i\le k} Dom(f_i )$ and $L'$ be the minimal (resp. $\{ \chi_i \}_{i\le k}$-invariant) sublanguage of $L^*$ of arity $r$ containing of all relations of $M^*$ which meet any tuple from $\bigcup_{i\le k} Dom(f_i )$. Then there is a finite substructure $A$ of $M^* (L')$ containing $\bigcup_{i\le k} Dom(f_i )$ so that each $f_i$ extends to an automorphism (resp. $\chi_i$-permorphism) of $A$.
Let $r'$ be the size of $A$. Let $L''$ be a sublanguage of $L^*$ so that $L'\subseteq L''$ and for each arity $l\le r'$ the sublanguage $L''\setminus L'$ contains exactly one $l$-relation, say $P_{l,n_l}$ (fixed by $\{ \chi_i \}_{i\le k}$). Since $M^*$ is the universal homogeneous structure of ${\cal K}(L'')$ the substructure $A$ can be chosen so that any $l$-subset of $A$ which does not satisfy any relation from $L'$, does satisfy $P_{l, n_l}$.
As a result any automorphism (permorphism) of $A$ preserves the relations of $L'''\setminus L'$ for any $L^{'''}\subset L^*$ containing $L''$. Thus it extends to an automorphism (permorphism) of $M^* (L^{'''})$. In paricular it extends to an automorphism (permorphism) of $M^*$.
As in Proposition 6.4 of [@kechros] we see that $Aut(M^* )$ has a dense subgroup which is the union of a countable chain of compact subgroups. In particlar we arrive at the following statement.
[**Claim 4.**]{} $Aut(M^* )$ is amenable.
Since each automorphism of $M_0$ is a permorphism of $M^*$ and vice versa, we also see that $Aut(M_0 )$ has a dense subgroup which is the union of a countable chain of compact subgroups. In particular $Aut(M_0 )$ is amenable. (b) Consider a linearly ordered expansion $(M_0 ,<)$ together with the corresponding age, say $\mathcal{K}^<$. Assume that $\mathcal{K}^<$ has the Ramsey property.
Note that $\mathcal{K}^<$ does not contain any three-element structure of the form $a<b<c$, where $a$ and $c$ belong to the same $E_1$-class which is distinct from the $E_1$-class of $b$. Indeed, otherwise repeating the argument of Theorem 6.4 from [@KPT], we see that in any larger structure from $\mathcal{K}^<$ we can colour two-elements structures $a<b$ with $\neg E_1 (a,b)$, so that there is no monochromatic three-element structure of the form above.
As a result we see that any $E_1$-class of $(M_0 ,<)$ is convex. We now claim that the following structure $B$ can be embedded into $(M_0 ,<)$.
Let $B=\{ a_1 <a_2 <a_3 <a_4 < b_1 <b_2 \}$, where the $E_1$-classes of all elements are pairwise distinct, but the pairs $\{ a_1 ,a_2 \}$ and $\{ b_1 ,b_2 \}$ are $E_2$-equivalent. We assume that in all other cases any two distinct pairs from $B$ belong to distinct $E_2$-classes. Moreover we assume that for each $k=3,4,5$ all $k$-subsets from $B$ belong to the same $E_k$-class. In particular the ordered structures defined on $\{ a_1 ,a_2 ,a_3 ,a_4 \}$ and $\{ a_3 ,a_4 ,b_1 ,b_2 \}$ are isomorphic. Let $A$ represent this isomorphism class.
Since $M_0$ is the universal homogeneous structure with respect to $\mathcal{K}_0$, taking any tuple $a'_1 <a'_2 <a'_3 <a'_4 < b'_1 <b'_2$ with pairwise distinct $E_1$-classes we can find $B$ in $M_0$ as a half of a copy of a structure from $\mathcal{K}_0$ consisting of 12 elements where each $E_1$-class is represented by a pair $(a'_i ,a_i )$ or $(b'_i ,b_i )$.
To show that the Ramsey property does not hold for the age of $(M_0 ,<)$ take any finite substructure $C$ of this age which extends $B$. Fix any enumeration of $E_2$-classes ocurring in $C$. Then colour a copy of $A$ red if the class of the first two elements is enumerated before the class of the last pair. Otherwise colour such a copy green. It is clear that $C$ does not contain a structure isomorphic to $B$ so that all substructures of type $A$ are of the same colour. $\Box$
[*It is worth noting that the class $\mathcal{K}^{<}_0$ of all linearly ordered members of $\mathcal{K}_0$ has JEP and AP, i.e. there is a generic expansion of $M_0$ by a linear ordering. To see AP we just apply the amalgamation described above together with the standard amalgamation of orderings.* ]{}
Adding dense linear orders
==========================
In order to obtain a structure with the properties as in Section 1, but without Hrushovski’s extension property we use a general approach from [@cpz]. In fact our starting point is Corollary 2.8 from [@cpz] that sets ${M_0 \choose n}/E_n$ (definable in $Th^{eq} (M_0 )$) are stably embedded in $M_0$.
We remind the reader that a $0$-definable predicate $P$ of a theory $T$ is called [**stably embedded**]{} if every definable relation on $P$ is definable with parameters from $P$. If $M$ is a saturated model of $T$ then $P$ is stably embedded if and only if every elementary permutation of $P(M)$ extends to an automorphism of $M$ (see remarks after Definition 2.4 in [@cpz]). We now formulate Lemma 3.1 from [@cpz].
> Let $T$ be a complete theory with two sorts $S_0$ and $S_1$. Let $\tilde{T}_1$ be a complete expansion of $T\upharpoonright S_1$. Assume that $S_1$ is stably embedded. Then\
> (1) $\tilde{T} = T\cup \tilde{T}_1$ is a complete theory;\
> (2) $S_1$ is stably embedded in $\tilde{T}$ and $\tilde{T}\upharpoonright S_1 = \tilde{T}_1$.\
> (3) if $T$ and $\tilde{T}_1$ are $\omega$-categorical, then $\tilde{T}$ is also $\omega$-categorical.
We now describe our [**variations**]{} of $M_0$. Let us fix $S_n = {M_0 \choose n}/E_n$, $n\in \omega$, and consider them as a sequence of stably embedded sorts in $Th^{eq}(M_0 )$ (this is Corollary 2.8 of [@cpz]). We can distinguish relations $\{ a_1 ,..,a_n \} \in e$, where $e\in S_n$ is an $E_n$-class, $n\in \omega$.
We also fix a subset $P\subset \omega \setminus \{ 1, 2 \}$ and consider the language $$L^S_P =\{ E_{n}: 0<n\in\omega \} \cup \{ S_n ,<_{S_n} : n\in P\} ,$$ where $<_{S_n}$ are binary relations on $S_n$. Let $\tilde{T}_1$ be the theory of sorts $\{ S_n : n\in\omega \}$, where for every $n\in P$ the relation $<_{S_n}$ is a dense linear order without ends. When $n\not\in P$ the sort $S_n$ is considered as a pure set. This is an $\omega$-categorical theory for each $S_n$. Applying Lemma 3.1 from [@cpz] we define the complete theory $T^S_P = T_E \cup \tilde{T}_1$ which is $\omega$-categorical and every sort $S_n$ is stably embedded into $T^S_P$.
We now define an one-sorted version of $T^S_P$. Its countable model will be the example anounced in Introduction.
Let $L_P =\{ E_{n}: 0<n\in\omega \} \cup \{ <_n : n\in P\}$ be a first-order language, where each $E_{n}$ and $<_n$ is a relational symbol of arity $2n$. The $L_P$-structure $M$ is built by the Fraïssé’s construction. Let us specify a class ${\mathcal{K}}_P$ of finite $L_P$-structures, which will become the class of all finite substructures of $M$.
Assume that in each $C\in {\mathcal{K}}_P$ each relation $E_{n}(\bar{x},\bar{y})$ determines an equivalence relation on the set (denoted by ${C \choose n}$) of unordered $n$-element subsets of $C$. As before for $C\in {\mathcal{K}}_P$ and $n>|C|$ we put that no $2n$-tuple from $C$ satisfies $E_n (\bar{x},\bar{y})$.
For $n\in P$ the relations $<_n$ are irreflexive and respect $E_{n}$, $$\forall \bar{x},\bar{y},\bar{u},\bar{w} (E_{n}(\bar{x},\bar{y})
\wedge E_{n}(\bar{u},\bar{w})\wedge <_n(\bar{x},\bar{u})
\rightarrow <_n(\bar{y},\bar{w})).$$ Every $<_n$ is interpreted by a linear order on the set of $E_{n}$-classes. Therefore we take the corresponding axioms (assuming below that tuples consist of pairwise distinct elements): $$\forall \bar{x},\bar{y} (<_n(\bar{x},\bar{y})\rightarrow \neg E_{n}(\bar{x},\bar{y}) );$$ $$\forall \bar{x},\bar{y},\bar{z} (<_n(\bar{x},\bar{y}) \wedge
<_n(\bar{y},\bar{z}) \rightarrow <_n(\bar{x},\bar{z}));$$ $$\forall \bar{x},\bar{y} (\neg E_{n}(\bar{x},\bar{y})
\rightarrow <_n(\bar{x},\bar{y}) \vee <_n (\bar{y},\bar{x})).$$
\[LEM\] (1) The class ${\mathcal{K}}_P$ satisfies the joint embedding property and the amalgamation property.\
(2) Let $M$ be the generic structure of ${\mathcal{K}}_P$. For every $n>0$ let $M_n ={M\choose n }/E_n$.\
Then $Th(M)$ is $\omega$-categorical, admits elimination of quantifiers, and $<_n$ is a dense linear ordering on $M_n$ without ends (when $n\in P$). The structure $M$ is an expansion of $M_0$.\
(3) Let $\rho_i$, $i\le k$, be a sequence of finitary maps on $M_i $ which respect $<_i$ for $i\in P$. Then there is an automorphism $\alpha \in Aut(M)$ realising each $\rho_i$ on its domain.
[*Proof.*]{} (1) Given $A,B_{1},B_{2} \in \mathcal{C}$ with $B_{1}\cap B_{2}=A$, define $C\in \mathcal{K}$ as $B_{1}\cup B_{2}$. The relations $E_{n},<_n$, $n\le |B_{1}\cup B_{2}|$, are defined so that $C\in {\mathcal{K}}$, $B_1 <C$, $B_2 <C$ and the following conditions hold. Let $n\le |B_{1}\cup B_{2}|$. We put that all $n$-element $n$-tuples meeting both $B_{1}\setminus B_{2}$ and $B_{2}\setminus B_{1}$ are pairwise equivalent with respect to $E_{n}$. We additionally demand that they are equivalent to some tuple from some $B_{i}$, $i\in \{ 1,2\}$, if $n\le max(|B_{1}|,|B_{2}|)$. If for some $i\in \{ 1,2\}$, $|{ B_{i} \choose n} /E_{n}|=1$, then we put that all $n$-tuples $\bar{c}\in B_{1}\cup B_{2}$ meeting $B_{i}$ are pairwise $E_{n}$-equivalent. We additionally arrange that they are equivalent to some tuple from $B_{3-i}$ if $n\le |B_{3-i}|$. If $n\ge max(|B_{1}|,|B_{2}|)$ then all $n$-element $n$-tuples from $C$ are pairwise $E_{n}$-equivalent. We take $E_n$ to be the minimal equivalence relation satisfying the conditions above. In particular if $n$-tuples $\bar{b}_1$ and $\bar{b}_2$ are $E_n$-equivalent to the same $n$-tuple from $A$, then $E_n (\bar{b}_1 ,\bar{b}_2 )$.
We can now define the linear orderings $<_n$ on $C/E_n$ for $n\in P$. There is nothing to do if $|{C \choose n} /E_{n}|=1$. In the case when for some $i=1,2$, $|{B_{i} \choose n} /E_{n}| = 1$, the relation $<_n$ is defined by its restriction to $B_{3-i}$. When $|{B_{1} \choose n} /E_{n}|\not= 1\not= |{B_{2} \choose n} /E_{n}|$ and $V_1$, $V_2 $ is a pair of two $<_n$-neighbours among $E_n$-classes having representatives both in ${B_1 \choose n}$ and ${B_2 \choose n}$, we amalgamate the $<_n$-linear orderings between $V_1$ and $V_2$ assuming that all elements of ${B_1 \choose n}/E_n \cap [V_1 ,V_2 ]$ are less than those from ${B_2 \choose n}/E_n \cap [V_1 ,V_2 ]$.
We appropriately modify this procedure for intervals open from one side. It is clear that this defines $<_n$-ordering on ${C \choose n} /E_{n}$.
\(2) The statement that $Th(M)$ admits elimination of quantifiers and is $\omega$-categorical, follows from (1). This also implies that $M$ is a natural expansion of $M_0$.
To see the second statement of this part of the lemma it is enough to show that for $n\in P$ and any two sequences $V_1 <_n ...<_n V_k$ and $V'_1 <_n ...<_n V'_k$ from $M_n$ there is an automorphism of $M$ taking each $V_i$ to $V'_{i}$. To see this we use the fact that $M$ is the Fraïssé limit of $\mathcal{K}_P$. This allows us to find pairwise disjoint representatives of classes $V_1 ,...,V_k$, say $\bar{a}_1 ,...,\bar{a}_k$, and classes $V'_1 ,...,V'_k$, say $\bar{a}'_1 ,...,\bar{a}'_k$, so that for every $m\not= n$ all $m$-tuples of the substructures $\bar{a}_1 \cup ...\cup \bar{a}_k$ and $\bar{a}'_1 \cup ...\cup \bar{a}'_k$ are $E_m$-equivalent. Moreover all $n$-tuples meeting at least two $\bar{a}_s$, $\bar{a}_t$ or $\bar{a}'_s$, $\bar{a}'_t$ also belong to a single $E_n$-class. Taking an appropriate isomorphism induced by these representatives we extend it to a required automorphism.
\(3) We develop the argument of (2). For each $\rho_i$ find a sequence $\bar{a}_1 ,...,\bar{a}_t$ of pairwise disjoint tuples from $M$ representing the $E_i$-classes of the domain and of the range of $\rho_i$. We may assume that for any $j\not= i$ all $j$-tuples of the union $\Omega_i = \bar{a}_1 \cup ...\cup \bar{a}_t$ belong to the same $E_j$-class. Moreover all $i$-tuples meeting at least two $\bar{a}_l$, $\bar{a}_m$ also form a single $E_i$-class. Thus $\rho_i$ can be realised by a partial map on $\Omega_i$. We may arrange that all $\Omega_i$ are pairwise disjont and do not have common $E_n$-classes. Thus all $\rho_i$ can be realised by a partial isomorphism on the union of these $\Omega_i$. Since $M$ is ultrahomogeneous, this partial isomorphism can be extended to an automorphism of $M$. $\Box$
Let us consider $M$ in the language $L^S_P$, i.e. $$(M , E_1 ,...,E_n ,...) \cup (M_1 , *_1 )\cup ...\cup (M_n ,*_n ) \cup ...\mbox{ , }$$ where $*_n = <_n$ for $n\in P$ and disappears for $n\not\in P$. By Lemma \[LEM\](3) the structure of all sorts $\{ M_n :n\in \omega\}$ coincides with the theory $\tilde{T}_1$ of sorts $\{ S_n :n\in \omega\}$ of the theory $T^S_P$. This implies the following corollary.
\[COR\] The theory of $M$ in the language $L^S_P$ coincides with $T^S_P$. In particular the sets $M_n$ are stably embedded into $M$.
We see that for $n\in P$ any automorphism of $(M_n ,<_n )$ can be realized by an automorphism of $M$. Assume that $2n\not\in P$. Let us consider automorphisms $\alpha$ of $M_n$ which are [*increasing*]{}, i.e. for any $V\in M_n$, $V<_n \alpha(V)$.
Take an orbit of $\alpha$ of the following form: $$... \rightarrow \bar{a}_{-1} \rightarrow \bar{a}_0 \rightarrow
\bar{a}_1 \rightarrow \bar{a}_2 \rightarrow \bar{a}_3 \rightarrow \bar{a}_4 \rightarrow ...$$ and consider $E_{2n}$-classes of tuples $\bar{a}_i \bar{a}_{i+1}$. Applying ultrahomogenity and the choice of $n$ it is easy to see that $\alpha$ can be taken so that there are four $E_{2n}$-classes, say $V_1, V_2 , V_3 ,V_4$, represented by consecutive pairs of tuples $\bar{a}_1 ,\bar{a}_2 ,\bar{a}_3 ,\bar{a}_4 ,\bar{a}_5 ,\bar{a}_6$ and $\alpha$ acts on them by $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$: $$\mbox{ if } \bar{a}_1 \bar{a}_2 \in V_1
\mbox{ , then }
\bar{a}_2 \bar{a}_3 \in V_2 \mbox{ , }
\bar{a}_3 \bar{a}_4 \in V_3
\mbox{ and } \bar{a}_4 \bar{a}_5 \in V_4 ,$$ where $\bar{a}_1 \bar{a}_2$ and $\bar{a}_5\bar{a}_6$ are $E_{2n}$-equivalent.
Slightly generalising this situation we will say that a sequence $\bar{a}_1 ,\bar{a}_2 ,\bar{a}_3 ,\bar{a}_4 ,\bar{a}_5 ,\bar{a}_6$ is $<_n$-[**increasing of type**]{} $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ if the following conditions are satisfied:
- tuples $\bar{a}_1 \bar{a}_2$, $\bar{a}_2 \bar{a}_3 $ and $\bar{a}_3 \bar{a}_4$ are of the same isomorphism type,
- tuples $\bar{a}_1 \bar{a}_2 \bar{a}_3 \bar{a}_4$ and $\bar{a}_3 \bar{a}_4 \bar{a}_5 \bar{a}_6$ are of the same isomorphism type and
- tupes $\bar{a}_1 \bar{a}_2$ and $\bar{a}_5 \bar{a}_6$ are $E_{2n}$-equivalent but not $E_{2n}$-equivalent to $\bar{a}_3 \bar{a}_4$.
Let $L'$ be an extension of $L_P$ and $M' =(M,\bar{{\bf r}})$ be an $L'$-expansion of $M$ with quantifier elimination. We do not demand that $\bar{{\bf r}}$ is finite, we only assume that $M'$ is a precompact expansion. It is clear that $M'$ induces a subgroup of $Aut(M_n ,<_n )$.
We will say that a sequence $\bar{a}_1 ,\bar{a}_2 ,\bar{a}_3 ,\bar{a}_4 ,\bar{a}_5 ,\bar{a}_6$ is $<_n$-[**increasing of type**]{} $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ [**in**]{} $M'$ if the definition above holds under the assumption that the isomorphism types appeared in the definition are considered with respect to the relations of $M'$.
\[THM\] Let $M$ be the generic structure of ${\cal K}_P$ where $P\not=\emptyset$. Then the group $G=Aut(M)$ is amenable, $M$ does not satisfy Hrushovski’s extension property and does not have an extremely amenable ultrahomogeneous expansion by a linear ordering.
Let $M'$ be a precompact expansion of $M$ with quantifier elimination. If $Aut(M')$ is extremely amenable, then for any $n\in P$ with $2n \not\in P$ the structure $M'$ does not have an $<_n$-increasing sequence of type $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$.
The main point of this theorem is that although in different arities the structures induced by $M$ are completely independent, any expansion $M'$ as in the formulation simultaneously destroys $M$ in all arities $n\in P$ with $2n\not\in P$.
The proof below uses the proof of Theorem \[nR\].
[*Proof of Theorem \[THM\].*]{} For each $n>1$ enumerate all $E_n$-classes. Consider the expansion of $M$ by distinguishing each $E_n$-class by a predicate $P_{n,i}$ according the enumeration. Let $L^*$ be the language of all predicates $P_{n,i}$ and let $M^*$ be the $L^*$-structure defined on $M$. By Claims 1 - 4 of the proof of Theorem \[nR\] the structure $M^*$ has Hrushovski’s extension property and $Aut(M^* )$ is amenable.
Let us consider the structure $(M_n , <_n )$, where $n\in P$. As it is isomorphic to $(\mathbb{Q}, <)$, the group $Aut (M_n , <_n )$ is extremely amenable ([@KPT]).
Since each automorphism of $M$ preserves all $<_i$, $i\in P$, it is easy to see that there is a natural homomorphism from $Aut(M)$ to the product $$\prod_{i\in P} Aut (M_i , <_i ) \times
\prod_{i\not\in P} Sym (M_i )$$ and $Aut(M^* )$ is the kernel of it. By Corollary \[COR\] this homomorphism is surjective. Now by Theorem 449C of [@fremlin] we have the following claim.
[*The group $Aut(M)$ is amenable.*]{}
To see that $M$ does not satisfy Hrushovski’s extension property take $n\in P$ and let us consider any triple of pairwise disjoint $n$-tuples $\bar{a}$, $\bar{b}$, $\bar{c}$ representing pairwise distinct elements of $M_n$ so that $$\bar{a} <_n \bar{b} <_n \bar{c}.$$ Then the map $\phi$ fixing $\bar{a}$ and taking $\bar{b}$ to $\bar{c}$ cannot be extended to an automorphism of a finite substructure of $M$.
Consider a linearly ordered expansion $(M,<)$ with quantifier elimination. To see that $Aut(M,<)$ is not extremely amenable just apply the argument of statement (b) of Theorem \[nR\]. Since at arity 2 the structure $M$ coincides with $M_0$ it works without any change.
To prove the second part of the theorem we slightly modify that argument.
Let $n\in P$ and $2n \not\in P$. Let a structure $B$ consist of $6n$ elements forming a sequence $$\bar{a}_1 <_n \bar{a}_2 <_n \bar{a}_3 <_n \bar{a}_4 <_n \bar{b}_1 <_n \bar{b}_2 ,$$ where the tuples $\bar{a}_1 \bar{a}_2 $ and $\bar{b}_1 \bar{b}_2$ are $E_{2n}$-equivalent but not of the same $E_{2n}$-class with $\bar{a}_3 \bar{a}_4$. We assume that the tuples $\bar{a}_1 \bar{a}_2$, $\bar{a}_2 \bar{a}_3$, and $\bar{a}_3 \bar{a}_4$ are of the same isomorphism class in $M'$ and the substructure $\bar{a}_1 \bar{a}_2 \bar{a}_3 \bar{a}_4 <M'$ is isomorphic to $\bar{a}_3 \bar{a}_4\bar{b}_1 \bar{b}_2<M'$. Since $Aut(M')$ is extremely amenable, these structures are rigid and the corresponding isomorphisms are uniquely defined on these tuples.
Let $A$ represent the isomorphism class of $\bar{a}_1 \bar{a}_2 \bar{a}_3 \bar{a}_4$ in $M'$. Let us show that the Ramsey property does not hold for the age of $M'$. Take any finite substructure $C$ of this age which extends $B$. Fix any enumeration of $E_{2n}$-classes ocurring in $C$. Then colour a copy of $A$ red if the class of the first two $n$-tuples is enumerated before the class of the last pair. Otherwise colour such a copy green. It is clear that $C$ does not contain a structure isomorphic to $B$ so that all substructures of type $A$ are of the same colour. $\Box$
[99]{} O.Angel, A.Kechris and R.Lyone, [*Random orderings and unique ergodicity of automorphism groups*]{}, to appear in Jour. Europ. Math. Soc., ArXiv: 1208.2389 M.Bodirsky, M.Pinsker and T.Tsankov, [*Decidability of definability*]{}, In: Proceedings of the 26-th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS’11), IEEE Computer Society, 2011, 321 - 328. E.Casanovas, R.Pelaez and M.Ziegler, [*On many-sorted $\omega$-categorical theories*]{}, Fund Math. 214(2011), 285 - 294. D.H.Fremlin, [*Measure Theory, vol 4. Topological measure spaces*]{}. Part I,II. [*Torres Fremlin, Colchester*]{}, 2006 B. Herwig, [*Extending partial isomorphisms for the small index property of many $\omega$-categorical structures*]{}, Israel J. Math. 107 (1998), 93 - 123. A.Ivanov, [*Automorphisms of homogeneous structures*]{}, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 46 (2005), no.4, 419 – 424. A.Ivanov, [*A countably categorical theory which is not G-compact*]{}, Siberian Adv. in Math. 20(2010), 75 - 82. A.Ivanov and H.D.Macpherson, [*Strongly determined types*]{}, Ann. Pure and Appl. Logic 99(1999), 197 - 230. A.Kechris, V.Pestov and S.Todorcevic, [*Fraïssé limites, Ramsey theory, and topological dynamics of automorphism groups*]{}, GAFA, 15(2005), 106 -189. A.Kechris and M.Sokić, [*Dynamical properties of the automorphism groups of the random poset and random distributive lattice*]{}, Fund Math. 218(2012), 69 - 94. A.Kechris and Ch.Rosendal, [*Turbulence, amalgamation, and generic automorphisms of homogeneous structures*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 94(2007), 302 - 350. L.N. van Thé, [*More on Kechris-Pestov-Todorcevic correspondence: precompact expnsions*]{}, Fund. Math. 222(2013), 19 - 47. A.Zucker, [*Amenability and unique ergodicity of automorphism groups of Fraïssé structures*]{}, ArXiv:1304.2839.
Institute of Mathematics, University of Wroc[ł]{}aw, pl.Grunwaldzki 2/4, 50-384 Wroc[ł]{}aw, Poland,\
E-mail: [email protected]
[^1]: The author is supported by Polish National Science Centre grant DEC2011/01/B/ST1/01406
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Software vulnerabilities affect all businesses and research is being done to avoid, detect or repair them. In this article, we contribute a new technique for automatic vulnerability fixing. We present a system that uses the rich software development history that can be found on GitHub to train an AI system that generates patches. We apply sequence-to-sequence learning on a big dataset of code changes and we evaluate the trained system on real world vulnerabilities from the CVE database. The result shows the feasibility of using sequence-to-sequence learning for fixing software vulnerabilities.'
author:
- Zimin Chen
- Steve Kommrusch
- Martin Monperrus
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Using Sequence-to-Sequence Learning for Repairing C Vulnerabilities'
---
is a weakness in code that can be exploited by an attacker to perform unauthorized actions. For example, one common kind of vulnerability is a buffer overflow, which allows an attacker to overwrite a buffer’s boundary and inject malicious code. Another example is an SQL injection, where malicious SQL statements are inserted into executable queries. The exploitation of vulnerabilities contributes to the hundreds of billions of dollars that cybercrime costs the world economy each year [@losses2014estimating].
Each month, thousands of such vulnerabilities are reported to the Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) database. Each one of them is assigned a unique identifier and category. For instance, the entry identified by CVE-2019-9208 is a vulnerability in Wireshark which causes a null pointer exception, and it is categorized as ‘Null Pointer Dereference’. In October 2019 alone, 1737 vulnerabilities were reported to the National Vulnerability Database (NVD), which is the main CVE databases. Each vulnerability represents a threat until a patch is written by the developers.
(*@ \hspace{1.5cm} \textbf{Patch for CVE-2009-4004} @*)
unsigned bank_num = mcg_cap & 0xff, bank;
r = -EINVAL;
- if (!bank_num)
+ if (!bank_num || bank_num >= KVM_MAX_MCE_BANKS)
goto out;
if (mcg_cap & ~(KVM_MCE_CAP_SUPPORTED | 0xff | 0xff0000))
goto out;
(*@ \hspace{1.5cm} \textbf{Patch for CVE-2016-8658} @*)
(u8 *)&settings->beacon.head[ie_offset],
settings->beacon.head_len - ie_offset,
WLAN_EID_SSID);
- if (!ssid_ie)
+ if (!ssid_ie || ssid_ie->len > IEEE80211_MAX_SSID_LEN)
return -EINVAL;
memcpy(ssid_le.SSID, ssid_ie->data, ssid_ie->len);
There are many available patches fixing a given kind of vulnerability. Let us consider CVE category ‘Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer’: CVE-2009-4004 and CVE-2016-8658 are both vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel, published in the NVD in Nov 2009 and Oct 2016 respectively. The corresponding patches to fix them are shown in [Listing \[lst:CVE-example\]]{}. Both vulnerabilities are fixed by adding a check on the memory boundary.
Considering that millions of commits are publicly available on open-source projects, we assume we have enough data to build a system that would learn from past commits, and use it to predict patches for new vulnerabilities. This is the contribution of this article, we present a novel and original approach for learning how to automatically generate patches for security vulnerabilities.
We use a powerful machine learning technique called sequence-to-sequence learning (seq2seq). Seq2seq learns the mapping between a sequence of tokens to another sequence. It is heavily used to automatically translate between different human languages (think Google Translate) and has pushed forward the state-of-the-art performance there. For machine translation, the training data for the seq2seq model consists of a corpus of pairs of sentences, [*e.g.,*]{}sentences in English and the corresponding translation in French. To train seq2seq for software vulnerability repair, we need such a corpus, but for source code.
In this work, we have collected a dataset consisting of 21 million bug fix commits on GitHub from 2017 and 2018. The collected dataset is used to train a seq2seq model. To assess the effectiveness of the trained model, we collected real-world CVE vulnerabilities from four well-known open-source projects: Linux kernel, OpenSSL, systemd, and Wireshark. Our results show the promise of using seq2seq for fixing vulnerabilities, with 26.7%, 13.7% and 9.2% accuracy for fixing vulnerable functions of different sizes.
Notably, our approach is fully generic, instead of focusing on one particular kind of vulnerability such as buffer overflow [@gao2016bovinspector]. Compared to the related work, we evaluate our technique on a large number of real vulnerabilities found in CVE databases, not on synthetic code [@harer2018learning] or on manually collected benchmark [@ma2017vurle]. To our knowledge, our experiment involves the largest ever training dataset for AI on code.
In summary, our contributions are:
- We mine two years of bug fixes from GitHub, and we share the largest dataset for machine learning on code changes (21 million bug fix commits with commits related to C).
- We successfully train a seq2seq model using the byte pair encoding to address the size of the vocabulary in source code, which reaches 6 million different words in our dataset.
- We report original results on real-world vulnerability fixing with machine learning, 14/630 vulnerabilities with CVE identifiers can be fixed in a fully automated manner.
Sequence-to-sequence learning
=============================
Sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) learning is a modern machine learning framework that is used to learn the mapping between two sequences, typically of words [@sutskever2014sequence]. It is widely used in automated translation, text summarization and other tasks related to natural language. A seq2seq model consists of two parts, an encoder and a decoder. The encoder maps the input sequence $X = (x_{0},x_{1},...,x_{n})$ to an intermediate continuous representation $H = (h_{0},h_{1},...,h_{n})$. Then, given $H$, the decoder generates the output sequence $Y = (y_{0}, y_{1},...,y_{m})$. Note that the size of the input and output sequences, $n$ and $m$, can be different. A seq2seq model is optimized on a training dataset to maximize the conditional probability of $p(Y \mid X)$, which is equivalent to:
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
p(Y \mid X) &= p(y_{0},y_{1},...,y_{m} \mid x_{0},x_{1},...,x_{n})\\
&= \prod_{i=0}^{m} p(y_{i} \mid H, y_{0},y_{1},...,y_{i-1})
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Prior work has shown that source code is as natural as human language [@hindle2012naturalness], and techniques used in natural language processing have been demonstrated to work well on source code, including seq2seq learning [@chen2019sequencer]. In our work, we use a seq2seq model called “transformer” [@vaswani2017attention]. The transformer model is the state-of-the-art architecture for seq2seq learning.
Rare words in source code
=========================
One of the main challenges of using the seq2seq model on source code is that it hardly handles very rare words [@hellendoorn2017deep]. The problem is that rare words, such as original literals or domain-specific identifiers, are too uncommon or even non-existent in the collected training data, and hence cannot be used when decoding. Indeed, in source code, rare variable and function names are more common compared to human language. A basic technique to handle the rare word problem is to increase the vocabulary size, say from 10k to 50k, but this is only a workaround: there will always be rare words for which not enough data is available at training time.
However, a rare word may have subwords that are frequent. For example the word *underworld* might be a rare word, but the subwords, *under* and *world* are common words. So if we could represent our vocabulary with frequent subwords, then we could generate any word with it. Byte pair encoding (BPE) is the state-of-the-art technique for learning the most frequent subwords [@sennrich2015neural]. BPE starts with the basic characters as the vocabulary ([*e.g.,*]{}the letters in the Latin alphabet). At each time step, the most frequent subword pair is combined into one new subword, and it is added into the vocabulary. It continues until we have reached a predefined vocabulary size. [Listing \[lst:bpe-example\]]{} shows an example of applying BPE on a C function. Variables like *destroyKeyValuePair* and *freeValue* are considered as respectively 4 subwords and 2 subwords (*destroy Key Value Pair* and *free Value*), which are more common words that can be expected to be found in other code snippets. BPE has been successfully used in machine translation [@sennrich2015neural] and source code modeling [@karampatsis2019maybe]. In this paper, we are the first to report on using seq2seq with BPE for patch generation.
(*@ \hspace{2.5cm} \textbf{C code} @*)
void destroyKeyValuePair(keyValuePair kvPair) {
kvPair -> freeValue(kvPair -> value);
kvPair -> freeKey(kvPair -> key);
free(kvPair);
}
(*@ \hspace{1.5cm} \textbf{After applying BPE} @*)
_void _destroy Key Value Pair _( _key
Value Pair _kv Pair _) _{ _kv Pair _->
_free Value _( _kv Pair _-> _value _) _;
_kv Pair _-> _free Key _( _kv Pair _->
_key _) _; _free _( _kv Pair _) _; _}
Data collection and filtering
=============================
**Training dataset.** To train a seq2seq model, we need a large corpus of buggy and fixed source code. We create such a corpus by mining the GitHub development platform. We use GH Archive [@GHArchive] to download all GitHub events that happened between 2017-01-01 and 2018-12-31. These events can be triggered by a Github issue creation, an opened pull request, and other development activities. In our case, we focus on push events, which are triggered when a commit is pushed to a repository branch. To only collect bug fix commits, we adopt a keyword-based heuristic [@Martinez2013]: if the commit message contains keywords (*fix* OR *solve* OR *repair*) AND (*bug* OR *issue* OR *problem* OR *error* OR *fault* OR *vulnerability*), we consider it a bug fix commit and add it to our corpus. In total, we have analyzed 730 million commits and selected 21 million commits identified as bug fix commits.
In our experiment, we focus on C code as the target programming language for automatic repair. Therefore we further filter the bug fix commits based on the file extension. We remove commits that did not fix any file that ends with ’.c’, this leaves us with buggy C commits. Then, for each commit, we extract function pairs that were changed in the commit. We are learning function-level changes instead of file-level changes because seq2seq suffers from long input and output [@cho2014properties]. To identify function-level changes, we use the GNU compiler preprocessor to remove all comments, and we only extract functions that are changed. Then, we used Clang to parse and tokenize the function source code.
In the end, we obtain function-level changes, reduced to after removing duplicates. The sizes of functions vary and we observe some C functions are still too big to be learned with seq2seq. Therefore, we further divide the training dataset to $d_{200}$, $d_{100}$, and $d_{50}$, where the function lengths in before and after the change are limited to 200, 100 and 50 tokens respectively. In $d_{200}$, $d_{100}$, and $d_{50}$, we have , , and function-level changes respectively. The function code before the change is used as input to the seq2seq model, and the function after the change is used as the ground truth output for training.
**Testing dataset.** We also collect a dataset for testing the ability of seq2seq to fix real vulnerabilities. We used Data7 [@JimenezPT18] to collect known vulnerabilities with CVE identifier from four well-known projects: Linux kernel, OpenSSL, systemd, and Wireshark. Each sample in the testing dataset consists of a CVE number and a list of commits that fixed the vulnerability. Next, we extract function-level changes from these vulnerabilities, and we call them vulnerable functions. We consider a vulnerability to be completely fixed if all its vulnerable functions are fixed. A vulnerability is partly fixed if at least one of its vulnerable functions is fixed. Test sets $t_{200}$, $t_{100}$, and $t_{50}$ are created by including only vulnerable functions where the token lengths before and after the change are limited to 200, 100, and 50 tokens respectively. For $t_{200}$, we have 1615 vulnerable functions, that represent 630 vulnerabilities. For $t_{100}$, we have 725 vulnerable functions, that represent 288 vulnerabilities. For $t_{50}$, we have 120 vulnerable functions spread over 85 vulnerabilities.
Experiment setup
================
The training datasets $d_{200}$, $d_{100}$, and $d_{50}$ are randomly divided into training data and validation data, with 98% as training and 2% as validation. We select the best models with the highest validation accuracy a grid search in the hyper-parameter space. We evaluate the resulting models on our testing datasets, $t_{200}$, $t_{100}$ and $t_{50}$. We train three baseline seq2seq models on the three datasets $d_{200}$, $d_{100}$ and $d_{50}$ with a vocabulary set to the top 50k most common tokens. Those baselines represent the state-of-the-art seq2seq model, without specific care to address the rare word problem.
Next, we explore seq2seq models using BPE for handling rare tokens. For the BPE configuration, we set the size of subword vocabularies to either 1000, 5000 or 10000, [*i.e.,*]{}the vocabulary is the top 1000, 5000 or 10000 most frequent subwords in source code identifiers. After having identifier the optimal BPE subvocabulary, we traing the seq2seq models our training dataset $d_{200}$, $d_{100}$ and $d_{50}$. Consequently, in addition to our baselines, we have nine different settings: the cross-product of three different token length limits and the three different vocabularies defined by BPE. In total, we have 12 different seq2seq models summarized in [Table \[tab:performance\]]{}. The seq2seq model are called after the training dataset and the BPE configuration: for example $BPE_{1000} - d_{200}$ refers to the seq2seq model trained on $d_{200}$ and with vocabulary set to the top 1k most common subwords.
The best model for all 12 different settings is evaluated on the corresponding testing dataset: $Baseline - d_{200}$ is evaluated on $t_{200}$, $BPE_{1000} - d_{100}$ is evaluated on $t_{100}$, [*etc.*]{}We use beam search to predict fixes of vulnerable functions which means that the seq2seq model generates the top 50 most likely predictions per vulnerable function. The vulnerable function is considered as fixed when one of 50 predictions matches the ground truth human fix, as done in prior work [@chen2019sequencer; @tufano2018empirical].
We use the OpenNMT-tf [@2017opennmt] for training the transformer model, and SentencePiece [@kudo2018sentencepiece] for learning BPE on the training data.
Experimental Results
====================
[|c|\[2pt\]c|\[2pt\]c|\[2pt\]c|]{} & &\
& & &\
$Baseline - d_{50}$ & 5/120 (4.2%) & 3/85 (3.5%) & 1/85 (1.2%)\
$BPE_{1000} - d_{50}$ & 26/120 (21.7%) & 17/85 (20%) & **3/85 (3.5%)**\
$BPE_{5000} - d_{50}$ & **32/120 (26.7%)** & **22/85 (25.9%)** & **3/85 (3.5%)**\
$BPE_{10000} - d_{50}$ & 28/120 (23.3%) & 18/85 (21.1%) & **3/85 (3.5%)**\
$Baseline - d_{100}$ & 2/725 (0.3%) & 2/288 (0.7%) & 0/288 (0%)\
$BPE_{1000} - d_{100}$ & 68/725 (9.4%) & 40/288 (13.9%) & 6/288 (2.1%)\
$BPE_{5000} - d_{100}$ & 97/725 (13.4%) & **47/288 (16.3%)** & 5/288 (1.7%)\
$BPE_{10000} - d_{100}$ & **99/725 (13.7%)** & 45/288 (15.6%) & **10/288 (3.5%)**\
$Baseline - d_{200}$ & 0/1615 (0%) & 0/630 (0%) & 0/630 (0%)\
$BPE_{1000} - d_{200}$ & 109/1615 (6.7%) & 45/630 (7.1%) & 9/630 (1.4%)\
$BPE_{5000} - d_{200}$ & 131/1615 (8.1%) & 52/630 (8.3%) & 9/630 (1.4%)\
$BPE_{10000} - d_{200}$ & **148/1615 (9.2%)** & **55/630 (8.7%)** & **14/630 (2.2%)**\
Can the trained seq2seq models generate patches for real-world vulnerabilities? The main results are presented in [Table \[tab:performance\]]{}. The first column gives the name of seq2seq model depending on its BPE configuration. The second column shows the prediction accuracy on $t_{50}$, $t_{100}$ and $t_{200}$ respectively. The third column displays the number of partly fixed vulnerabilities. The fourth column represents the number of completely fixed vulnerabilities.
We first focus on the number of C functions with vulnerabilities that are correctly patched by our system. Overall, our model is able to fix real world vulnerabilities, up to 32/120 (26%) for vulnerabilities in small C functions of less than 50 tokens. The seq2seq model’s performance decreases with the input and output length: the values on the $d_{50}$ models (first group of four rows) are higher than those for the bigger functions: it is easier to fix vulnerabilities in shorter C functions.
Recall that the *Baseline* models do not use BPE, and [Table \[tab:performance\]]{} indicates that their accuracies are close to 0. This shows that a standard seq2seq model with a fixed vocabulary is not an option for handling the rare token problem. To further analyze this phenomenon, we analyzed the predictions generated by $Baseline - d_{200}$ ( vulnerable functions in $t_{200}$ $\times$ 50 predictions per function). We found that / (99%) predictions contain out-of-vocabulary tokens, this further confirms the prevalence of rare words in source code. Now, our results show that byte-pair encoding (BPE) is a powerful solution to this problem: the number of fixed C functions jumps from 5 to 32 for small functions ($d_{50}$) and from 0 to 148 for larger functions ($d_{200}$). Our data suggests that for large functions, there is still some room for improvement with large subword vocabulary (a subword vocabulary of 20000 would likely increase the accuracy).
Recall that a single vulnerability is often fixed in multiple functions at once. The third and fourth columns of [Table \[tab:performance\]]{} focus on the number of fixed vulnerabilities instead of the number of fixed vulnerable functions. Our seq2seq models are able to partially fix up to 22/85 vulnerabilities in small functions. Completely fixing a vulnerability is much harder, because all the functions inside the vulnerability must be fixed: for instance in CVE-2011-1771, the fix is done over 95 vulnerable functions. Despite this strong requirement, our approach is able to completely fix 3/85 vulnerabilities in $t_{50}$, 10/288 vulnerabilities in $t_{100}$, and 14/630 vulnerabilities in $t_{200}$. To our knowledge, this is the first report of result with seq2seq learning on fixing general vulnerabilities.
The results of seq2seq models are computed based on the ground truth human fix. In production, such a vulnerability fixing system would be used without a ground truth fix. Based on the suspicious functions, we would filter the output of seq2seq using additional checks: such as compilation (remove uncompilable code) and test execution (remove patches yielding test failures). Previous work has shown that using these automatic filtering techniques correctly filters out up to 97% of the patches generated with seq2seq [@chen2019sequencer].
Case studies
============
int cifs_close(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
- cifsFileInfo_put(file->private_data);
- file->private_data = NULL;
+ if (file->private_data != NULL) {
+ cifsFileInfo_put(file->private_data);
+ file->private_data = NULL;
+ }
/* return code from the ->release op is always ignored */
return 0;
Let us now discuss interesting cases. CVE-2011-1771 is a vulnerability from the Linux kernel, the description of this vulnerability from NVD is: *The cifs\_close function in fs/cifs/file.c in the Linux kernel before 2.6.39 allows local users to cause a denial of service (NULL pointer dereference and BUG) or possibly have unspecified other impact by setting the O\_DIRECT flag during an attempt to open a file on a CIFS filesystem*. The human patch for this vulnerability is shown in [Listing \[lst:CVE-2011-1771\]]{}. The fix consists of adding a null check for variable private\_data. Our seq2seq approach is able to generate this exact patch (4 out of 12 models can do so: $BPE_{1000} - d_{50}$, $BPE_{10000} - d_{100}$, $BPE_{1000} - d_{100}$ and $BPE_{1000} - d_{200}$).
static int omninet_open(struct tty_struct *tty, struct usb_serial_port *port)
{
- struct usb_serial *serial = port->serial;
- struct usb_serial_port *wport;
-
- wport = serial->port[1];
- tty_port_tty_set(&wport->port, tty);
-
return usb_serial_generic_open(tty, port);
}
CVE-2017-8925 is another vulnerability from the Linux kernel, the description from NVD is: *The omninet\_open function in drivers/usb/serial/omninet.c in the Linux kernel before 4.10.4 allows local users to cause a denial of service (tty exhaustion) by leveraging reference count mishandling*. It is categorized as ‘Improper Resource Shutdown or Release’. The human fix shown in [Listing \[lst:CVE-2017-8925\]]{} removes statements that improperly handle variables ‘port’ and ‘tty’. This exact patch could be generated by all our seq2seq models trained on $d_{100}$ and $d_{200}$. With appropriate training data, our seq2seq approach to generate vulnerability fixes is able to predict the same patches as human developers.
Conclusion
==========
Software vulnerabilities are common and can cause much damage. In this paper, we took a step towards automatic repair of security vulnerabilities. We devised, implemented and evaluated a novel system based on sequence-to-sequence learning on past commits from software repositories. We mined 2 years of commit history from GitHub, and we solved the rare word problem in source code by using the byte-pair encoding technique. Our original results show that real world vulnerable C functions can be fixed in a fully automated, data-driven manner. Future work is required to increase the performance of automatic vulnerability tools on fixing general vulnerabilities, and to explore the integration of such technology into the software development process.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The celebrated Perron–Frobenius (PF) theorem is stated for irreducible nonnegative square matrices, and provides a simple characterization of their eigenvectors and eigenvalues. The importance of this theorem stems from the fact that eigenvalue problems on such matrices arise in many fields of science and engineering, including dynamical systems theory, economics, statistics and optimization. However, many real-life scenarios give rise to nonsquare matrices. Despite the extensive development of spectral theories for nonnegative matrices, the applicability of such theories to non-convex optimization problems is not clear. In particular, a natural question is whether the [PF Theorem]{} (along with its applications) can be generalized to a nonsquare setting. Our paper provides a generalization of the [PF Theorem]{}[ ]{} to nonsquare matrices. The extension can be interpreted as representing client-server systems with additional degrees of freedom, where each client may choose between multiple servers that can cooperate in serving it (while potentially interfering with other clients). This formulation is motivated by applications to power control in wireless networks, economics and others, all of which extend known examples for the use of the original [PF Theorem]{}.
We show that the option of cooperation between servers does not improve the situation, in the sense that in the optimal solution no cooperation is needed, and only one server needs to serve each client. Hence, the additional power of having several potential servers per client translates into *choosing* the best single server and not into *sharing* the load between the servers in some way, as one might have expected.
The two main contributions of the paper are (i) a generalized [PF Theorem]{}[ ]{}that characterizes the optimal solution for a non-convex nonsquare problem, and (ii) an algorithm for finding the optimal solution in polynomial time. Towards achieving those goals, we extend the definitions of irreducibility and largest eigenvalue of square matrices to nonsquare ones in a novel and non-trivial way, which turns out to be necessary and sufficient for our generalized theorem to hold. The analysis performed to characterize the optimal solution uses techniques from a wide range of areas and exploits combinatorial properties of polytopes, graph-theoretic techniques and analytic tools such as spectral properties of nonnegative matrices and root characterization of integer polynomials.
author:
- 'Chen Avin [^1]'
- 'Michael Borokhovich $^*$'
- 'Yoram Haddad [^2] $^*$'
- 'Erez Kantor [^3]'
- 'Zvi Lotker $^*$ [^4]'
- 'Merav Parter [^5] [^6]'
- 'David Peleg $^\ddag$[^7]'
title: 'Generalized Perron–Frobenius Theorem for Nonsquare Matrices'
---
Introduction
============
#### Motivation and main results.
This paper presents a generalization of the well known Perron–Frobenius (PF) Theorem [@PF_Frobenius; @PF_Perron]. As a motivating example, let us consider the *Power control problem*, one of the most fundamental problems in wireless networks. The input to this problem consists of $n$ receiver-transmitter pairs and their physical locations. All transmitters are set to transmit at the same time with the same frequency, thus causing interference to the other receivers. Therefore, receiving and decoding a message at each receiver depends on the transmitting power of its paired transmitter as well as the power of the rest of the transmitters. If the *signal to interference ratio* at a receiver, namely, the signal strength received by a receiver divided by the interfering strength of other simultaneous transmissions, is above some *reception threshold* $\beta$, then the receiver successfully receives the message, otherwise it does not [@R96]. The power control problem is then to find an optimal power assignment for the transmitters, so as to make the reception threshold $\beta$ as high as possible and ease the decoding process.
As it turns out, this power control problem can be solved elegantly by casting it as an optimization program and using the Perron–Frobenius (PF) Theorem [@Zander92b]. The theorem can be formulated as dealing with the following optimization problem (where $A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:basic}
&&\text{maximize $\beta$ subject to: }\\
&&A \cdot \overline{X} \leq 1/\beta \cdot \overline{X},~~
\displaystyle ||\overline{X}||_{1}=1,~~
\displaystyle \overline{X} \geq \overline{0}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Let $\beta^*$ denote the optimal solution for Program (\[eq:basic\]). The Perron–Frobenius (PF) Theorem characterizes the solution to this optimization problem and shows the following:
[([PF Theorem]{}, short version, [@PF_Frobenius; @PF_Perron])]{} Let $A$ be an irreducible nonnegative matrix. Then $\beta^* = 1/{\mathit{r}}$, where ${\mathit{r}}\in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ is the largest eigenvalue of $A$, called the *Perron–Frobenius (PF) root* of $A$. There exists a unique (eigen-)vector ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}>0$, $||{\mathbf{\overline{P}}}||_{1}=1$, such that $A \cdot {\mathbf{\overline{P}}}= r \cdot {\mathbf{\overline{P}}}$, called the *Perron vector* of $A$. (The pair $({\mathit{r}},{\mathbf{\overline{P}}})$ is hereafter referred to as an [*eigenpair*]{} of $A$.)
Returning to our motivating example, let us consider a more complicated variant of the power control problem, where each receiver has several transmitters that can transmit to it (and only to it) synchronously. Since these transmitters are located at different places, it may conceivably be better to divide the power (or work) among them, to increase the reception threshold at their common receiver. Again, the question concerns finding the best power assignment among all transmitters.
In this paper we extend Program (\[eq:basic\]) to *nonsquare matrices* and consider the following extended optimization problem, which in particular captures the multiple transmitters scenario. (Here $A, B \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times m}$, $n \leq m$.) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:extended}
&&\text{maximize $\beta$ subject to: }~~\\
&&A \cdot \overline{X} \leq 1/\beta \cdot B \cdot \overline{X},
\displaystyle ~~~||\overline{X}||_{1}=1,~~~
\displaystyle \overline{X} \geq \overline{0}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We interpret the nonsquare matrices $A,B$ as representing some additional freedom given to the system designer. In this setting, each *entity* (receiver, in the power control example) has several *affectors* (transmitters, in the example), referred to as its *supporters*, which can cooperate in serving it and share the workload. In such a general setting, we would like to find the best way to organize the cooperation between the supporters of each entity.
The original problem was defined for a square matrix, so the appearance of eigenvalues in the characterization of its solution seems natural. In contrast, in the generalized setting the situation seems more complex. Our main result is an extension of the [PF Theorem]{} to nonsquare matrices and systems that give rise to an optimization problem in the form of (\[eq:extended\]), with optimal solution $\beta^*$.
[(Nonsquare [PF Theorem]{}, short version)]{} Let $\langle A, B \rangle$ be an irreducible nonnegative system (to be made formal later). Then $\beta^* = 1/{\mathit{r}}$, where ${\mathit{r}}\in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ is the smallest *Perron–Frobenius (PF) root* of all ${n \times n}$ square sub-systems (defined formally later). There exists a vector ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}\ge 0$ such that $A \cdot {\mathbf{\overline{P}}}= {\mathit{r}}\cdot B \cdot {\mathbf{\overline{P}}}$ and ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}$ has $n$ entries greater than 0 and $m-n$ zero entries (referred to as a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution).
In other words, the theorem implies that the option of cooperation does not improve the situation, in the sense that in the optimum solution, no cooperation is needed and only one supporter per entity needs to work. Hence, the additional power of having several potential supporters per entity translates into *choosing* the best single supporter and not into *sharing* the load between the supporters in some way, as one might have expected.
As it turns out, the lion’s share of our analysis involves such a characterization of the optimal solution for (the non-convex) problem of Program (\[eq:extended\]). The main challenge is to show that at the optimum, there exists a solution in which only one supporter per entity is required to work; we call such a solution a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution. Namely, the structure that we establish is that the optimal solution for our nonsquare system is in fact the optimal solution of an *embedded* square PF system. Indeed, to enjoy the benefits of an equivalent square system, one should show that there exists a solution in which only one supporter per entity is required to work. Interestingly, it turned out to be relatively easy to show that there exists an optimal “almost ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$” solution, in which each entity *except at most one* has a single active supporter and the remaining entity has at most *two* active supporters. Despite the presumably large “improvement" of decreasing the number of servers from $m$ to $n+1$, this still leaves us in the frustrating situation of a nonsquare $n \times (n+1)$ system, where no spectral characterization for optimal solutions exists. In order to allow us to characterize the optimal solution using the eigenpair of the best square matrix embedded within the nonsquare system, one must overcome this last hurdle, and reach the “phase transition” point of $n$ servers, in which the system is *square*. Our main efforts went into showing that the remaining entity, too, can select just one supporter while maintaining optimality, ending with a *square* $n\times n$ irreducible system where the traditional [PF Theorem]{}can be applied. Proving the existence of an optimal ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution requires techniques from a wide range of areas to come into play and provide a rich understanding of the system on various levels. In particular, the analysis exploits combinatorial properties of polytopes, graph-theoretic techniques and analytic tools such as spectral properties of nonnegative matrices and root characterization of integer polynomials. In the context of the above example of power control in wireless network with multiple transmitters per receiver, a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution means that the best reception threshold is achieved when only a single transmitter transmits to each receiver. Other known applications of the [PF Theorem]{} can also be extended in a similar manner. An Example for such applications is the [*input-output economic model*]{} [@pillai2005pft]. In this economic model, each industry produces a commodity and buys commodities (raw materials) from other industries. The percentage profit margin of an industry is the ratio of its total income and total expenses (for buying its raw materials). It is required to find a pricing maximizing the ratio of the total income and total expenses of all industries. The extended PF variant of the problem concerns the case where an industry can produce multiple commodities instead of just one. In this example, the same general phenomenon holds: each industry should charge money only for *one* of the commodities it produces. That is, in the optimal pricing, one commodity per industry has nonzero price, therefore the optimum is a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution. For a more detailed discussion of applications, see Sec. \[short:sec:Applications\]. In addition, in Sec. \[sec:limit\], we provide a characterization of systems in which a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution does not exist.
While in the original setting the [PF root]{} and [PF vector]{} can be computed in polynomial time, this is not clear in the extended case, since the problem is not convex [@Boyd-Conv-Opt-Book] (and not even log-convex) and there are exponentially many choices in the system even if we know that the optimal solution is ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ and each entity has only two supporters to choose from. Our second main contribution is providing a polynomial time algorithm to find $\beta^*$ and ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}$. The algorithm uses the fact that fixing $\beta$ yields a relaxed problem which is convex (actually it becomes a linear program). This allows us to employ the well known interior point method [@Boyd-Conv-Opt-Book], for testing a specific $\beta$ for feasibility. Hence, the problem reduces to finding the maximum feasible $\beta$, and the algorithm does so by applying binary search on $\beta$. Clearly, the search results in an approximate solution, in fact yielding a fully polynomial time approximation scheme (FPTAS) for program (\[eq:extended\]). This, however, leaves open the intriguing question of whether program (\[eq:extended\]) is polynomial. Obtaining an exact optimal $\beta^*$, along with an appropriate vector ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}$, is thus another challenging aspect of the problem.
A central notion in the generalized PF theorem is the *irreducibility* of the system. While irreducibility is a well-established concept for square systems, it is less obvious how to define irreducibility for a nonsquare matrix or system as in Program . We provide a suitable definition based on the property that every maximal square (legal) subsystem is irreducible, and show that our definition is necessary and sufficient for the theorem to hold. A key tool in our analysis is what we call the *constraint graph* of the system, whose vertex set is the set on $n$ constraints (one per entity) and whose edges represent direct influence between the constraints. For a square system, irreducibility is equivalent to the constraint graph being strongly connected, but for nonsquare systems the situation is more delicate. Essentially, although the matrices are not square, the notion of constraint graph is well defined and provides a valuable *square* representation of the nonsquare system (i.e., the adjacency matrix of the graph). In [@PF_Irred; @PF_Archive], we also present a polynomial-time algorithm for testing the irreducibility of a given system, which exploits the properties of the constraint graph.
[**Related work.**]{} The [PF Theorem]{} establishes the following two important “PF properties" for a nonnegative square matrix $A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$: (1) the *Perron–Frobenius property*: $A$ has a maximal nonnegative eigenpair. If in addition the matrix $A$ is *irreducible* then its maximal eigenvalue is strictly positive, dominant and with a strictly positive eigenvector. Thus nonnegative irreducible matrix $A$ is said to enjoy the *strong Perron–Frobenius property* [@PF_Frobenius; @PF_Perron]. (2) the *Collatz–Wielandt property* (a.k.a. min-max characterization): the maximal eigenpair is the optimal solution of Program (\[eq:basic\]) [@PF_Collatz; @PF_Wielandt].
Matrices with these properties have played an important role in a wide variety of applications. The wide applicability of the [PF Theorem]{}, as well as the fact that the necessary and sufficient properties required of a matrix $A$ for the PF properties to hold are still not fully understood, have led to the emergence of many generalizations. We note that whereas all generalizations concern the Perron–Frobenius property, the Collatz–Wielandt property is not always established. The long series of existing PF extensions includes [@PF_with_some_negative_entries; @PF_evNONNEG; @PF_complex_matrices; @PF_for_non_linear_mapping; @PF_nonlinear_more; @PF_concave_mappings; @PF_for_matrix_polynomials; @AXBX]. We next discuss these extensions in comparison to the current work. Existing PF extensions can be broadly classified into four classes. The first concerns matrices that do not satisfy the irreducibility and nonnegativity requirements. For example, [@PF_with_some_negative_entries; @PF_evNONNEG] establish the Perron-Frobenius property for *almost* nonnegative matrices or *eventually* nonnegative matrices. A second class of generalizations concerns square matrices over different domains. For example, in [@PF_complex_matrices], the [PF Theorem]{} was established for complex matrices $A \in \mathbb{C}^{n \times n}$. In the third type of generalization, the linear transformation obtained by applying the nonnegative irreducible matrix $A$ is generalized to a nonlinear mapping [@PF_for_non_linear_mapping; @PF_nonlinear_more], a concave mapping [@PF_concave_mappings] or a matrix polynomial mapping [@PF_for_matrix_polynomials].
Last, a much less well studied generalization deals with nonsquare matrices, i.e., matrices in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n \times m}$ for $m \neq n$. Note that when considering a nonsquare system, the notion of eigenvalues requires definition. There are several possible definitions for eigenvalues in nonsquare matrices. One possible setting for this type of generalizations considers a pair of nonsquare “pencil" matrices $A, B \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times m}$, where the term “pencil" refers to the expression $A- \lambda \cdot B$, for $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$. Of special interest here are the values that reduce the pencil rank, namely, the $\lambda$ values satisfying $(A -\lambda B) \cdot \overline{X}=\overline{0}$ for some nonzero $\overline{X}$. This problem is known as the *generalized eigenvalue problem* [@AXBX; @NonSQPencil; @boelgomi05; @Kres11], which can be stated as follows: Given matrices $A, B \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times m}$, find a vector $\overline{X}\neq \overline{0}$, $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}$, so that $A \cdot\overline{X}=\lambda B \cdot \overline{X}$. The complex number $\lambda$ is said to be an *eigenvalue of $A$ relative to $B$* iff $A \overline{X}=\lambda \cdot B
\cdot \overline{X}$ for some nonzero $\overline{X}$ and $\overline{X}$ is called the *eigenvector of $A$ relative to $B$*. The set of all eigenvalues of $A$ relative to $B$ is called the *spectrum of $A$ relative to $B$*, denoted by $sp(A_{B})$.
Using the above definition, [@AXBX] considered pairs of nonsquare matrices $A,B$ and was the first to characterize the relation between $A$ and $B$ required to establish their PF property, i.e., guarantee that the generalized eigenpair is nonnegative. Essentially, this is done by generalizing the notions of positivity and nonnegativity in the following manner. A matrix $A$ is said to be *positive* (respectively,*nonnegative*) with respect to $B$, if $B^{T} \cdot \overline{Y} \geq 0$ implies that $A^{T} \cdot \overline{Y}>0$ (resp., $A^{T} \cdot \overline{Y}\geq 0$). Note that for $B=I$, these definitions coincide with the classical definitions of a positive (resp., nonnegative) matrix. Let $A, B \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times m}$, for $n \geq m$, be such that the rank of $A$ or the rank of $B$ is $n$. It is shown in [@AXBX] that if $A$ is positive (resp., nonnegative) with respect to $B$, then the generalized eigenvalue problem $A \cdot\overline{X}=\lambda \cdot B \cdot \overline{X}$ has a discrete and finite spectrum, the eigenvalue with the largest absolute value is real and positive (resp., nonnegative), and the corresponding eigenvector is positive (resp., nonnegative). Observe that under the definition used therein, the cases where $m > n$ (which is the setting studied here) is uninteresting, as the columns of $A -\lambda \cdot B$ are linearly dependent for any real $\lambda$, and hence the spectrum $sp(A_{B})$ is unbounded. Despite the significance of [@AXBX] and its pioneering generalization of the [PF Theorem]{} to nonsquare systems, it is not clear what are the applications of such a generalization, and no specific implications are known for the traditional applications of the PF theorem. Moreover, although [@AXBX] established the PF property for a class of pairs of nonsquare matrices, the Collatz–Wielandt property, which provides the algorithmic power for the [PF Theorem]{}, does not necessarily hold with the spectral definition of [@AXBX]. In addition, since no notion of irreducibility was defined in [@AXBX], the spectral radius of a nonnegative system (in the sense of the definition of [@AXBX]) might be zero, and the corresponding eigenvector might be nonnegative in the strong sense (with some zero coordinates). These degenerations can be handled only by considering irreducible nonnegative matrices, as was done by Frobenius in [@PF_Frobenius].
In contrast, the goal of the current work is to develop the spectral theory for a pair of nonnegative matrices in a way that is both necessary and sufficient for both the PF property and the Collatz–Wielandt property to hold (allowing the nonsquare system to be of the “same power" as the square systems considered by Perron and Frobenius). Towards this we define the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of pairs of $n \times m$ matrices $A$ and $B$ in a novel manner. Such eigenpair $(\lambda, \overline{X})$ satisfies $A \cdot \overline{X}=\lambda \cdot B \cdot \overline{X}$. In [@AXBX], alternative spectral definitions for pairs of nonsquare matrices $A$ and $B$ are provided. We note that whereas in [@AXBX] formulation, the maximum eigenvalue is not bounded if $n < m$, with our definition it is bounded.
Let us note that although the generalized eigenvalue problem has been studied for many years, and multiple approaches for nonsquare spectral theory in general have been developed, the algorithmic aspects of such theories with respect to the the Collatz–Wielandt property have been neglected when concerning nonsquare matrices (and also in other extensions). This paper is the first, to the best of our knowledge, to provide spectral definitions for nonsquare systems that have the same algorithmic power as those made for square systems (in the context of the [PF Theorem]{}). The extended optimization problem that corresponds to this nonsquare setting is a nonconvex problem (which is also not log-convex), therefore its polynomial solution and characterization are of interest.
Another way to extend the notion of eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a square matrix to a nonsquare matrix is via *singular value decompositions (SVD)* [@meyer2000matrix]. Formally, the singular value decomposition of an $n\times m $ real matrix $M$ is a factorization of the form $M=U\Sigma V^{*}$, where $U$ is an $m\times m$ real or complex unitary matrix, $\Sigma$ is an $m \times n$ diagonal matrix with nonnegative reals on the diagonal, and $V^{*}$ (the conjugate transpose of $V$) is an $n\times n$ real or complex unitary matrix. The diagonal entries $\Sigma_{i,i}$ of $\Sigma$ are known as the singular values of $M$. After performing the product $U \Sigma V^{*}$, it is clear that the dependence of the singular values of $M$ is linear. In case all the inputs of $M$ are positive, we can add the absolute value, and thus the SVD has a flavor of $L^1$ dependence. In contrast to the SVD definition, here we are interested in finding the maximum, so our interpretation has the flavor of $L^\infty$. In a recent paper [@Vazirani12], Vazirani defined the notion of [*rational convex programs*]{} as problems that have a rational number as a solution. Our paper can be considered as an example for [*algebraic programming*]{}, since we show that a solution to our problem is an algebraic number.
Preliminaries {#sec:per}
=============
Definitions and terminology
---------------------------
Consider a directed graph $G=(V,E)$. A subset of the vertices $W \subseteq V$ is called a *strongly connected component* if $G$ contains a directed path from $v$ to $u$ for every $v, u \in W$. $G$ is said to be *strongly connected* if $V$ is a strongly connected component.
Let $A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$ be a square matrix. Let ${EigVal}(A)= \{\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_k\}$, $k \leq n$, be the set of real eigenvalues of $A$. The *characteristic polynomial* of $A$, denoted by ${\mathrm{P}}(A,t)$, is a polynomial whose roots are precisely the eigenvalues of $A$, ${EigVal}(A)$, and it is given by $$\label{eq:CP}
{\mathrm{P}}(A,t) = \det(t \cdot I -A)$$ where $I$ is the $n \times n$ identity matrix. Note that ${\mathrm{P}}(A,t)=0$ iff $t \in {EigVal}(A)$. The [*spectral radius*]{} of $A$ is defined as ${\rho}(A) =
\displaystyle \max\limits_{\lambda \in {EigVal}(A)} |\lambda|.$ The $i^{th}$ element of a vector $\overline{X}$ is given by $X(i)$, and the $i,j$ entry of a matrix $A$ is denoted $A(i,j)$. Let $A_{i,0}$ (respectively, $A_{0,i}$) denote the $i$-th row (resp., column) of $A$. Vector and matrix inequalities are interpreted in the component-wise sense. $A$ is *positive* (respectively, *nonnegative*) if all its entries are. $A$ is *primitive* if there exists a natural number $k$ such that $A^{k}>0$. $A$ is *irreducible* if for every $i,j$, there exists a natural $k_{i,j}$ such that $(A^{k_{i,j}})_{i,j} >0.$ An *irreducible* matrix $A$ is *periodic* with period ${\mathit{h}}$ if $(A^{t})_{ii}=0$ for $t \neq k \cdot {\mathit{h}}$.
Algebraic Preliminaries {#sec:algper}
-----------------------
#### Generalization of Cramer’s rule to homogeneous linear systems.
Let $A_{i,0}$ (respectively, $A_{0,i}$) denote the $i$-th row (resp., column) of $A$. Let $A_{-(i,j)}$ denote the matrix that results from $A$ by removing the $i$-th row and the $j$-th column. Similarly, $A_{-(i,0)}$ and $A_{-(0,j)}$ denote the matrix after removing the $i$-th row (respectively, $j$-th column) from $A$. Let $\widetilde{A}_{i}=\left(A(1,i), \ldots, A(n-1,i) \right)^T$, i.e., the $i$-th column of $A$ without the last element $A(n,i)$. For $\overline{X}=(X(1), \ldots, X(n)) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$, denote $\overline{X}_{i}=(X(1), \ldots, X(i)) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{i}$.
We make use of the following extension of Cramer’s rule to homogeneous square linear systems.
\[cl:cramer\_square\] Let $A \cdot \overline{X} = \overline{0}$ such that $A_{-(n,n)}$ is invertible. Then,
[(a)]{} $\displaystyle
X(i) ~=~ (-1)^{n-i} \cdot X(n) \cdot \frac{\det(A_{-(n,i)})}{\det(A_{-(n,n)})}~.$
[(b)]{} $\displaystyle
X(n) \cdot \frac{\det(A)}{\det(A_{-(n,n)})}=0~.$
Since $A \cdot \overline{X} = \overline{0}$, it follows that $A_{-(n,n)} \cdot \overline{X}_{n-1}=-X(n) \cdot \widetilde{A}_{n}$. As $A_{-(n,n)}$ is invertible, we can apply Cramer’s rule to express $X(i)$. Let $M_{i}=[\widetilde{A}_{1}, \ldots, \widetilde{A}_{i-1},\widetilde{A}_{n},
\widetilde{A}_{i+1}, \ldots, \widetilde{A}_{n-1}] \in {\mathbb{R}}^{(n-1) \times (n-1)}$, for $i>1$ and $M_{1}=[\widetilde{A}_{n}, \widetilde{A}_{2},\ldots, \widetilde{A}_{n-1}]$. By Cramer’s rule, it then follows that $X(i)=-X(n) \cdot \det(M_{i}) / \det(A_{-(n,n)})$. We next claim that $\det(M_{i})=(-1)^{n-1-i} \cdot \det(A_{-(n,i)})$. To see this, note that $A_{-(n,i)}$ and $M_{i}$ are composed of the same set of columns up to order. In particular, $M_{i}$ can be transformed to $A_{-(n,i)}=[\widetilde{A}_{1}, \ldots, \widetilde{A}_{i-1}, \widetilde{A}_{i+1},
\ldots, \widetilde{A}_{n-1},\widetilde{A}_{n}]$ by a sequence of $n-1-i$ swaps of consecutive columns starting from the $i$-th column of $M_{i}$. It therefore follows that $X(i)=(-1)^{n-1-i} \cdot -(1) \cdot X(n) \cdot
\frac{\det(A_{-(n,i)})}{\det(A_{-(n,n)})}$ establishing part (a) of the claim. We continue with part (b). Since $A \cdot \overline{X} = \overline{0}$, it follows that $A_{(n,0)} \cdot \overline{X}=0$ or that $$\begin{aligned}
A_{n,0} ~\cdot~ \overline{X} &=&\sum_{i=1}^{n} A(n,i) \cdot X(i)\nonumber
\\&=&
X(n) \cdot \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \left( (-1)^{n-i} \cdot A(n,i) \cdot
\frac{\det(A_{-(n,i)})}{\det(A_{-(n,n)})} \right)+A(n,n) \cdot X(n) \nonumber
\\&=&
X(n) \cdot \frac{ \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \left((-1)^{n-i} \cdot A(n,i) \cdot
\det(A_{-(n,i)}) \right)+ A(n,n) \cdot (-1)^{2n} \det(A_{-(n,n)})}{\det(A_{-(n,n)})}
\\&=&
X(n) \cdot \frac{\det(A)}{\det(A_{-(n,n)})}=0~. ~~~\inQED
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We now turn to a nonsquare matrix $A \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times (n+1)}$. The matrix $B=B(A) = [\widetilde{A}_{1}, \ldots, \widetilde{A}_{n-1}] \in
{\mathbb{R}}^{(n-1) \times (n-1)}$ corresponds to the upper left $(n-1) \times (n-1)$ square matrix of $A$. Let $C^{1}=[A_{1}, \ldots, A_{n}]$ i.e., $C^{1}=A_{-(0,n+1)}$ and $C^{2}=A_{-(0,n)}$. Note that $C^{1}, C^{2} \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$, i.e., both are square matrices.
\[cl:cramer\_non\_square\] Let $A \cdot \overline{X}=\overline{0}$ and $B=B(A)$ is invertible. Then,
[(a)]{} $\displaystyle
X(i) ~=~ (-1)^{n-i} \cdot \left( \frac{\det(C^{1}_{-(n,i)})}{\det(B)} \cdot
X(n) +\frac{\det \left(C^{2}_{-(n,i)} \right)}{\det \left(B \right)} \cdot X(n+1) \right) ~,$
[(b)]{} $\displaystyle
X(n) \cdot \frac{\det \left(C^1 \right)}{\det(B)} ~=~
-X(n+1) \cdot \frac{\det \left(C^2 \right)}{\det(B)}~.$
Since $A \cdot \overline{X}= \overline{0}$, it follows that $B \cdot \overline{X}_{n-1}= - \left(X(n) \cdot \widetilde{A}_{n} + X(n+1)
\cdot \widetilde{A}_{n+1} \right)$. As $B$ is invertible we can apply Cramer’s rule to express $x_{i}$. Let $M_{i}=[\widetilde{A}_{1}, \ldots, \widetilde{A}_{i-1},x_{n} \cdot
\widetilde{A}_{n}+x_{n+1} \cdot \widetilde{A}_{n+1}, \widetilde{A}_{i+1},
\ldots, \widetilde{A}_{n-1}] \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times n}$. Let $M_{i}^{1}=[\widetilde{A}_{1}, \ldots, \widetilde{A}_{i-1},
\widetilde{A}_{n} , \widetilde{A}_{i+1}, \ldots, \widetilde{A}_{n-1}]$ and\
$M_{i}^{2}=[\widetilde{A}_{1}, \ldots, \widetilde{A}_{i-1}, \widetilde{A}_{n+1} ,
\widetilde{A}_{i+1}, \ldots, \widetilde{A}_{n-1}]$. By the properties of the determinant function, it follows, that $$X(i)=X(n) \cdot \frac{\det\left(M_{i}^{1}\right)}{\det\left(B\right)}+
X(n+1) \cdot \frac{\det\left(M_{i}^{2}\right)}{\det\left(B\right)}.$$ We now turn to see the connection between $\det(M_{i}^{1})$ and $\det(C_{-(n,i)}^{1})$. Note that $M_{i}^{1}$ and $C_{-(n,i)}^{1}$ correspond to the same columns up to order. Specifically, we can now employ the same argument of Claim \[cl:cramer\_square\] and show that $\det(M_{i}^{1})=(-1)^{n-1-i} \cdot \det(C_{-(n,i)}^{1})$ (informally, the square matrix of Claim \[cl:cramer\_square\] is replaced by a “combination" of $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$). In a similar way, one can show that $\det(M_{i}^{2})=(-1)^{n-1-i} \cdot \det(C_{-(n,i)}^{2})$. We now turn to prove part (b) of the claim. Since $A_{n,0} ~\cdot~ \overline{X}$, by part (a), we get that $$\begin{aligned}
A_{n,0} ~\cdot~ \overline{X}&=&
\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} A(n,i) \cdot X(i) +A(n,n) \cdot X(n)+ A(n,n+1) \cdot X(n+1)
\nonumber
\\&=&
X(n) \cdot \left(\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} (-1)^{n-i} \cdot A(n,i) \cdot
\frac{\det \left(C^{1}_{-(n,i)} \right)}{\det(B)} +A(n,n) \right)
\nonumber
\\&&
+ X(n+1) \cdot \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \left( (-1)^{n-i} \cdot A(n,i) \cdot
\frac{\det \left(C^{2}_{-(n,i)} \right)}{\det(B)} +A(n,n+1)\right)
\nonumber
\\&=&
X(n) \cdot \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(-1)^{n-i} \cdot A(n,i) \cdot
\det\left(C^{1}_{-(n,i)} \right) + (-1)^{2n} \cdot A(n,n) \cdot \det(B)}{\det(B)}
\nonumber
\\&&
+ X(n+1) \cdot \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} (-1)^{n-i} \cdot A(n,i) \cdot
\det \left(C^{2}_{-(n,i)} \right) + (-1)^{2n} \cdot A(n,n+1) \cdot \det(B)}{\det(B)}
\nonumber
\\&=&
X(n) \cdot \frac{\det(C^{1})}{\det(B)}+X(n+1) \cdot
\frac{\det(C^{2})}{\det(B)}=0~.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The claim follows.
#### Separation theorem for nonsymmetric matrices.
We make use of the following fact due to Hall and Porsching [@HallInterlacing], which is an extension of the Cauchy Interlacing Theorem for symmetric matrices.
\[lem:sep\_thm\] Let $A$ be a nonegative matrix with eigenvalues ${EigVal}(A)=\{\lambda_i(A) \mid i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}\}$. Let $A_i$ be the $i^{th}$ principle $(n-1) \times (n-1)$ minor of $A$, with eigenvalues $\lambda_j(A_i)$, $j \in \{1, \ldots, n-1\}$. If $\lambda_p(A)$ is any real eigenvalue of $A$ different from $\lambda_1[A]$, then $$\lambda_1(A) \leq \lambda_1(A_i) \leq \lambda_p(A)$$ for every $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$, with strict inequality on the left if $A$ is irreducible.
[PF Theorem]{} for square nonnegative irreducible matrices
----------------------------------------------------------
The [PF Theorem]{} states the following.
\[PF Theorem, [@PF_Frobenius; @PF_Perron]\] \[thm:pf\_full\] Let $A \in {\mathbb{R}}_{\geq 0}^{n \times n}$ be a nonnegative irreducible matrix with spectral ratio ${\rho}(A)$. Then $\max {EigVal}(A)>0$. There exists an eigenvalue $r \in {EigVal}(A)$ such that $r={\rho}(A)$, called the *Perron–Frobenius (PF) root* of $A$. The algebraic multiplicity of $~{\mathit{r}}$ is one. There exists an eigenvector $\overline{X}>0$ such that $A \cdot \overline{X}={\mathit{r}}\cdot \overline{X}$. The unique normalized vector ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}$ defined by $A \cdot {\mathbf{\overline{P}}}={\mathit{r}}\cdot {\mathbf{\overline{P}}}$ and $||{\mathbf{\overline{P}}}||_{1}=1$ is called the *Perron–Frobenius (PF) vector*. There are no nonnegative eigenvectors for $A$ with $r$ except for positive multiples of ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}$. If $A$ is a nonnegative irreducible periodic matrix with period ${\mathit{h}}$, then $A$ has exactly ${\mathit{h}}$ eigenvalues, $\lambda_j= {\rho}(A) \cdot \exp^{2 \pi i \cdot j/{\mathit{h}}}$ for $j =1,2, \ldots, {\mathit{h}},$ and all other eigenvalues of $A$ are of strictly smaller magnitude than ${\rho}(A)$.
#### Collatz–Wielandt characterization (the min-max ratio).
Collatz and Wielandt [@PF_Collatz; @PF_Wielandt] established the following formula for the [PF root]{}, also known as the min-max ratio characterization.
[@PF_Collatz; @PF_Wielandt] \[Collatz–Wielandt\] \[lem:Collatz-Wielandt\] ${\mathit{r}}=\min_{\overline{X} \in \mathcal{N}} \{\mathfrak{f}(\overline{X})\}$ where $$\mathfrak{f}(\overline{X})= \max\limits_{1 \leq i \leq n, X(i)\neq \overline{0}}
\left \{\frac{(A \cdot \overline{X})_{i}}{X(i)} \right \} \mbox{~~and~~}
\mathcal{N}=\{\overline{X} \geq \overline{0},||\overline{X}||_{1}=1\}.$$
Alternatively, this can be written as the following optimization problem. $$\label{LP:Stand_Perron}
\mbox{maximize} ~~ \beta \text{~~~subject to:~~~} \displaystyle A \cdot \overline{X} \leq 1/\beta
\cdot \overline{X},~~~ \displaystyle ||\overline{X}||_{1}=1,~~~
\displaystyle \overline{X} \geq \overline{0}.$$ Let $\beta^{*}$ be the optimal solution of Program (\[LP:Stand\_Perron\]) and let $\overline{X}^{*}$ be the corresponding optimal vector. Using the representation of Program (\[LP:Stand\_Perron\]), Lemma \[lem:Collatz-Wielandt\] translates into the following.
\[thm:pf\] The optimum solution of satisfies $\beta^{*}=1/{\mathit{r}}$, where ${\mathit{r}}\in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ is the maximal eigenvalue of $A$ and $\overline{X}^{*}$ is given by eigenvector ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}$ corresponding for ${\mathit{r}}$. Hence for $\beta^{*}$, the $n$ constraints given by $A \cdot \overline{X}^{*} \leq 1/\beta^{*} \cdot \overline{X}^{*}$ of Program (\[LP:Stand\_Perron\]) hold with equality.
This can be interpreted as follows. Consider the ratio $Y(i)= (A\cdot \overline{X})_{i}/X(i)$, viewed as the “repression factor" for entity $i$. The task is to find the input vector $\overline{X}$ that minimizes the maximum repression factor over all $i$, thus achieving balanced growth. In the same manner, one can characterize the $\max$-$\min$ ratio. Again, the optimal value (resp., point) corresponds to the PF eigenvalue (resp., eigenvector) of $A$. In summary, when taking $\overline{X}$ to be the PF eigenvector, ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}$, and $\beta^{*}=1/{\mathit{r}}$, all repression factors are equal, and optimize the $\max$-$\min$ and $\min$-$\max$ ratios.
A generalized [PF Theorem]{} for nonsquare systems
==================================================
The Problem
-----------
#### System definitions.
Our framework consists of a set ${\mathcal{V}}=\{{\mathit{v}}_{1}, \ldots, {\mathit{v}}_{n}\}$ of entities whose growth is regulated by a set of *affectors* ${\mathcal{A}}=\{{\mathcal{A}}_1, {\mathcal{A}}_2, \ldots, {\mathcal{A}}_m\}$, for some $m \geq n$. As part of the solution, each affector is set to be either [*passive*]{} or [*active*]{}. If an affector ${\mathcal{A}}_j$ is set to be active, then it affects each entity ${\mathit{v}}_i$, by either increasing or decreasing it by a certain amount $g(i,j)$, which is specified as part of the input. If $g(i,j) >0$ (resp., $g(i,j) < 0$), then ${\mathcal{A}}_j$ is referred to as a *supporter* (resp., *repressor*) of ${\mathit{v}}_i$. For clarity we may write $g({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathcal{A}}_j)$ for $g(i,j)$. The affector-entity relation is described by two matrices, the *supporters gain* matrix ${\mathcal{M}^+}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times m}$ and the *repressors gain* matrix ${\mathcal{M}^-}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times m}$, given by $${\mathcal{M}^+}(i,j) =
\begin{cases}
g({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathcal{A}}_j), & \text{if $g({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathcal{A}}_j) >0$;}\\
0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ $${\mathcal{M}^-}(i,j) =
\begin{cases}
-g({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathcal{A}}_j), & \text{if $g({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathcal{A}}_j) <0$;}\\
0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Again, for clarity we may write ${\mathcal{M}^-}({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathcal{A}}_j)$ for ${\mathcal{M}^-}(i,j)$, and similarly for ${\mathcal{M}^+}$. We can now formally define a [*system*]{} as ${\mathcal{L}}=\langle {\mathcal{M}^+}, {\mathcal{M}^-}\rangle$, where ${\mathcal{M}^+}, {\mathcal{M}^-}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{m \times n}_{\geq 0}$, $n=|{\mathcal{V}}|$ and $m=|{\mathcal{A}}|$. We denote the supporter (resp., repressor) set of ${\mathit{v}}_i$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{S}}_{i}({\mathcal{L}}) &=& \{{\mathcal{A}}_j \mid
{\mathcal{M}^+}({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathcal{A}}_j)>0\},
\\
{\mathcal{R}}_{i}({\mathcal{L}}) &=& \{{\mathcal{A}}_j \mid
{\mathcal{M}^-}({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathcal{A}}_j)>0\}.\end{aligned}$$ When ${\mathcal{L}}$ is clear from the context, we may omit it and simply write ${\mathcal{S}}_{i}$ and ${\mathcal{R}}_{i}$. Throughout, we restrict attention to systems in which $|{\mathcal{S}}_i|\geq 1$ for every ${\mathit{v}}_i \in {\mathcal{V}}$. We classify the systems into three types:
[(a)]{} ${\mathfrak{L}^{S}}=\{{\mathcal{L}}~\mid~ m \leq n, |{\mathcal{S}}_i|=1 \text{~for every} ~ {\mathit{v}}_i \in {\mathcal{V}}\}$ is the family of *Square Systems*.
[(b)]{} ${\mathfrak{L}^{W}}=\{{\mathcal{L}}\mid m \leq n+1, \exists j
\text{~s.t~} |{\mathcal{S}}_j|=2 \text{~and~}|{\mathcal{S}}_i|=1
\text{~for every~}{\mathit{v}}_i \in {\mathcal{V}}\setminus \{{\mathit{v}}_j\} \}$ is the family of *Weakly Square Systems*, and
[(c)]{} ${\mathfrak{L}^{NS}}=\{{\mathcal{L}}\mid m>n+1\}$ is the family of *Nonsquare Systems*.
#### The generalized PF optimization problem.
Consider a set of $n$ entities and gain matrices ${\mathcal{M}^+},{\mathcal{M}^-}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times m}$, for $m \geq n$. The main application of the generalized [PF Theorem]{} is the following optimization problem, which is an extension of Program (\[LP:Stand\_Perron\]). $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LP:Ext_Perron}
\mbox{maximize~~} ~& \beta \mbox{~~subject to:~~}
\\
& \displaystyle {\mathcal{M}^-}\cdot \overline{X} ~\leq~
1/\beta \cdot {\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot \overline{X} ~,&
\label{eq:SR} \\
& \displaystyle \overline{X} \geq \overline{0}~, &
\label{eq:Ineq}\\
& \displaystyle ||\overline{X}||_{1}=1~. &
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We begin with a simple observation. An affector ${\mathcal{A}}_j$ is *redundant* if ${\mathcal{M}^+}({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathcal{A}}_j)=0$ for every $i$.
\[obs:only\_positive\] If ${\mathcal{A}}_j$ is *redundant*, then $X(j)=0$ in any optimal solution $\overline{X}$.
In view of Obs. \[obs:only\_positive\], we may hereafter restrict attention to the case where there are no redundant affectors in the system, as any redundant affector ${\mathcal{A}}_j$ can be removed and simply assigned $X(j)=0$.
We now proceed with some definitions. Let $X({\mathcal{A}})$ denote the value of ${\mathcal{A}}$ in $\overline{X}$, i.e., $X({\mathcal{A}})=X(k)$ where the $k'$th entry in $\overline{X}$ corresponds to ${\mathcal{A}}$. An affector ${\mathcal{A}}$ is *active* in a solution $\overline{X}$ if $X({\mathcal{A}})>0$. Denote the set of affectors taken to be active in a solution $\overline{X}$ by $NZ(\overline{X})=\{{\mathcal{A}}_j \mid X({\mathcal{A}}_j)> 0\}$. Let $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$ denote the optimal value of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]), i.e., the maximal positive value $\beta$ for which there exists a nonnegative, nonzero vector $\overline{X}$ satisfying the constraints of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]). When the system ${\mathcal{L}}$ is clear from the context we may omit it and simply write $\beta^*$. A vector $\overline{X}_{\widetilde{\beta}}$ is *feasible* for $\widetilde{\beta} \in (0,\beta^{*}]$ if it satisfies all the constraints of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) with $\beta=\widetilde{\beta}$. A vector $\overline{X}^{*}$ is *optimal* for ${\mathcal{L}}$ if it is feasible for $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$, i.e., $\overline{X}^{*}=\overline{X}_{\beta^{*}}$. The system ${\mathcal{L}}$ is *feasible* for $\beta$ if $\beta\leq \beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$, i.e., there exists a feasible $\overline{X}_{\beta}$ solution for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]).
For vector $\overline{X}$, the *total repression* on ${\mathit{v}}_{i}$ in ${\mathcal{L}}$ for a given $\overline{X}$ is ${T^-}(\overline{X}, {\mathcal{L}})_{i}=({\mathcal{M}^-}\cdot \overline{X})_{i}$. Analogously, the *total support* for ${\mathit{v}}_{i}$ is ${T^+}(\overline{X}, {\mathcal{L}})_{i}=({\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot \overline{X})_{i}$. We now have the following alternative formulation for the constraints of Eq. (\[eq:SR\]), stated individually for each entity ${\mathit{v}}_i$. $$\label{eq:SR_ind}
{T^-}(\overline{X}, {\mathcal{L}})_{i} ~\leq~
1/\beta \cdot {T^+}(\overline{X}, {\mathcal{L}})_{i}~\text{~for every~} i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}~.$$
\[fc:feasible\_tots\_totr\] Eq. (\[eq:SR\]) holds iff Eq. (\[eq:SR\_ind\]) holds.
We classify the $m+n$ linear inequality constraints of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) into two types of constraints:
[(1)]{} SR (Support-Repression) constraints: the $n$ constraints of Eq. (\[eq:SR\]) or alternatively of Eq. (\[eq:SR\_ind\]).
[(2)]{} Nonnegativity constraints: the $m$ constraints of Eq. (\[eq:Ineq\]).
When ${\mathcal{L}}$ is clear from context, we may omit it and simply write ${T^-}(\overline{X})_{i}$ and ${T^+}(\overline{X})_{i}$. As a direct application of the generalized PF Theorem, there is an exact polynomial time algorithm for solving Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) for irreducible systems, as defined next.
Irreducibility of PF systems
----------------------------
#### Irreducibility of square systems.
A square system ${\mathcal{L}}=\langle {\mathcal{M}^+},{\mathcal{M}^-}\rangle\in {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$ is [*irreducible*]{} iff (a) ${\mathcal{M}^+}$ is nonsingular and (b) ${\mathcal{M}^-}$ is irreducible. Given an irreducible square ${\mathcal{L}}$, let $$Z({\mathcal{L}}) ~=~ \left({\mathcal{M}^+}\right)^{-1} \cdot {\mathcal{M}^-}~.$$ Note the following two observations.
\[cl:irreducible\_supporter\] (a) If ${\mathcal{M}^+}$ is nonsingular, then ${\mathcal{S}}_i \cap {\mathcal{S}}_j = \emptyset$.\
(b) If ${\mathcal{L}}$ is an irreducible system, then $Z({\mathcal{L}})$ is an irreducible matrix as well.
Consider part (a). Since ${\mathcal{L}}$ is square, $|{\mathcal{S}}_i|=1$ for every $i$. Combining with the fact that ${\mathcal{M}^+}$ is nonsingular, it holds that ${\mathcal{M}^+}$ is equivalent (up to column alternations) to a diagonal matrix with a fully positive diagonal, hence ${\mathcal{S}}_i \cap {\mathcal{S}}_j= \emptyset$. Part (b) follows by definition.
Throughout, when considering square systems, it is convenient to assume that the entities and affectors are ordered in such a way that ${\mathcal{M}^+}$ is a diagonal matrix, i.e., in ${\mathcal{M}^+}$ (as well as in ${\mathcal{M}^-}$) the $i^{th}$ column corresponds to ${\mathcal{A}}_{k} \in {\mathcal{S}}_i$, the unique supporter of ${\mathit{v}}_i$.
#### Selection matrices.
To define a notion of irreducibility for a nonsquare system ${\mathcal{L}}\notin {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$, we first present the notion of a [*selection matrix*]{}. A selection matrix ${F}\in \{0,1\}^{m \times n}$ is *legal* for ${\mathcal{L}}$ iff for every entity ${\mathit{v}}_i \in {\mathcal{V}}$ there exists exactly one supporter ${\mathcal{A}}_j \in {\mathcal{S}}_i$ such that ${F}(j,i)=1$. Such a matrix ${F}$ can be thought of as representing a selection performed on ${\mathcal{S}}_i$ by each entity ${\mathit{v}}_i$, picking exactly one of its supporters. Let ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$ be the square system corresponding to the legal selection matrix ${F}$, namely, ${\mathcal{L}}({F})=\displaystyle \langle {\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot
{F}, {\mathcal{M}^-}\cdot {F}\rangle.$ In the resulting system there are $m' \leq n$ non-redundant affectors. Since redundant affectors can be discarded from the system (by Obs. \[obs:only\_positive\]), it follows that the number of active affectors becomes at most the number of entities, resulting in a square system. Denote the family of legal selection matrices, capturing the ensemble of all square systems hidden in ${\mathcal{L}}$, by $$\label{eq:FilterMatrixFamily}
{\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{L}}) ~=~
\{{F}\mid {F}\text{~is legal for~} {\mathcal{L}}\}.$$ When ${\mathcal{L}}$ is clear from the context, we simply write ${\mathcal{F}}$. Let $\overline{X}_{\beta} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ be a solution for the square system ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$ for some ${F}$. The *natural extension* of $\overline{X}_{\beta} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ into a solution $\overline{X}^{m}_{\beta} \in {\mathbb{R}}^m$ of the original system ${\mathcal{L}}$ is defined by letting $X^{m}_{\beta}({\mathcal{A}}_k)=X_{\beta}({\mathcal{A}}_k)$ if $\sum_{{\mathit{v}}_i \in {\mathcal{V}}}{F}({\mathcal{A}}_k, {\mathit{v}}_i)>0$ and $X^{m}_{\beta}({\mathcal{A}}_k)=0$ otherwise.
\[obs:filter\_to\_square\] (a) ${\mathcal{L}}({F}) \in {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$ for every ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$.\
(b) For every solution $\overline{X}_{\beta} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ for system ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$, for some matrix ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$, its natural extension $\overline{X}_{\beta}^{m}$ is a feasible solution for the original ${\mathcal{L}}$.\
(c) $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}) \geq \beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}({F}))$ for every selection matrix ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$.
#### Irreducibility of nonsquare systems.
We are now ready to define the notion of irreducibility for nonsquare systems, as follows. A nonsquare system ${\mathcal{L}}$ is *irreducible* iff ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$ is irreducible for every selection matrix ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$. Note that this condition is the “minimal” *necessary* condition for our theorem to hold, as explained next. Our theorem states that the optimum solution for the nonsquare system is the optimum solution for the best *embedded* square system. It is easy to see that for any nonsquare system ${\mathcal{L}}=\langle {\mathcal{M}^+}, {\mathcal{M}^-}\rangle$, one can increase or decrease any entry $g(i,j)$ in the matrices, while maintaining the sign of each entry in the matrices, such that a particular selection matrix ${F}^{*} \in {\mathcal{F}}$ would correspond to the optimal square system. With an optimal embedded square system at hand, which is also guaranteed to be irreducible (by the definition of irreducible nonsquare systems), our theorem can then apply the traditional [PF Theorem]{}, where a spectral characterization for the solution of Program (\[LP:Stand\_Perron\]) exists. Note that irreducibility is a *structural* property of the system, in the sense that it does not depend on the exact gain values, but rather on the sign of the gains, i.e., to determine irreducibility, it is sufficient to observe the binary matrices ${\mathcal{M}^+}_{B}, {\mathcal{M}^-}_{B}$, treating $g(i,j) \neq 0$ as $1$. On the other hand, deciding which of the embedded square systems has the maximal eigenvalue (and hence is optimal), depends on the *precise* values of the entries of these matrices. It is therefore necessary that the structural property of irreducibility would hold for any specification of gain values (while maintaining the binary representation of ${\mathcal{M}^+}_{B}, {\mathcal{M}^-}_{B}$). Indeed, consider a reducible nonsquare system, for which there exists an embedded square system ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$ that is reducible. It is not hard to see that there exists a specification of gain values that would render this square system ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$ optimal (i.e., with the maximal eigenvalue among all other embedded square systems). But since ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$ is reducible, the [PF Theorem]{} cannot be applied, and in particular, the corresponding eigenvector is no longer guaranteed to be *positive*.
\[cor:distinct\] In an irreducible system ${\mathcal{L}}$, ${\mathcal{S}}_i \cap {\mathcal{S}}_j=\emptyset$ for every ${\mathit{v}}_i, {\mathit{v}}_j$.
Assume, toward contradiction, that there exists some affector ${\mathcal{A}}_k \in {\mathcal{S}}_i \cap {\mathcal{S}}_j$, and consider a selection matrix ${F}$ for which ${F}(k,i)=1$ and ${F}(k,j)=1$. It then follows by Obs. \[cl:irreducible\_supporter\](a) that ${\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot {F}$ is singular. But the irreducibility of ${\mathcal{L}}$ implies that ${\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot {F}$ is nonsingular for every ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$; contradiction.
#### Constraint graphs: a graph theoretic representation.
We now provide a graph theoretic characterization of irreducible systems ${\mathcal{L}}$. Let ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(V,E)$ be the directed *constraint graph* for the system ${\mathcal{L}}$, defined as follows: $V= {\mathcal{V}}$, and the rule for a directed edge $e_{i,j}$ from ${\mathit{v}}_i$ to ${\mathit{v}}_j$ is $$\label{eq:cg_condition}
e_{i,j} \in E ~~~~\mbox{~iff~}~~~~
{\mathcal{S}}_{i} \cap {\mathcal{R}}_j \neq \emptyset.$$ Note that it is possible that ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}} \nsubseteq {\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$ for some ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$. A graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(V,E)$ is *robustly strongly connected* if ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}(V,E)$ is strongly connected for every ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$.
\[obs:reducible\_graph\_connected\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be an irreducible system.
[(a)]{} If ${\mathcal{L}}$ is square, then ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(V,E)$ is strongly connected.
[(b)]{} If ${\mathcal{L}}$ is nonsquare, then ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(V,E)$ is robustly strongly connected.
Starting with part (a), in a square system $|{\mathcal{S}}_i|=1$ and therefore by definition, the two graphs coincide. Next note that for a diagonal ${\mathcal{M}^+}$ (as can be achieved by column reordering), ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(V,E)$ corresponds to $({\mathcal{M}^-})^{T}$ (by treating positive entries as $1$). Since ${\mathcal{M}^-}$ is irreducible (and hence corresponds to a strongly connected digraph), it follows that the matrix $({\mathcal{M}^-})^{T}$ is irreducible, and hence ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}(V,E)$ is strongly connected. To prove part (b), consider an arbitrary ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$. Since ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$ is irreducible, it follows that ${\mathcal{M}^-}\cdot {F}$ is irreducible, and by Obs. \[obs:reducible\_graph\_connected\](a), ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}(V,E)$ is strongly connected. The claim follows.
#### Partial selection for irreducible systems.
Let ${\bold{S}}' \subseteq {\mathcal{A}}$ be a subset of affectors in an irreducible system ${\mathcal{L}}$. Then ${\bold{S}}'$ is a *partial selection* if there exists a subset of entities $V' \subseteq {\mathcal{V}}$ such that (a) $|{\bold{S}}'|=|V'|$, and (b) for every ${\mathit{v}}_i \in V'$, $|{\mathcal{S}}_i \cap {\bold{S}}'|=1$.\
That is, every entity in $V'$ has a single representative supporter in ${\bold{S}}'$. We refer to $V'$ as the set of entities *determined* by ${\bold{S}}'$. In the system ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')$, the supporters ${\mathcal{A}}_k$ of any ${\mathit{v}}_i \in V'$ that were not selected by ${\mathit{v}}_i$, i.e., ${\mathcal{A}}_k \notin {\bold{S}}' \cap {\mathcal{S}}_i$, are discarded. In other words, the system’s affectors set consists of the selected supporters ${\bold{S}}'$, and the supporters of entities that have not made up their selection in ${\bold{S}}'$. We now turn to describe ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')$ formally. The set of affectors in ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')$ is given by ${\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')) =
{\bold{S}}' \cup
\bigcup_{{\mathcal{S}}_i \cap {\bold{S}}'=\emptyset} {\mathcal{S}}_i$. The number of affectors in ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')$ is denoted by $m({\bold{S}}')=|{\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}'))|$. Recall that the $j^{th}$ column of the matrices ${\mathcal{M}^+},{\mathcal{M}^-}$ corresponds to ${\mathcal{A}}_j$. Let $ind({\mathcal{A}}_j) =
j-|\{{\mathcal{A}}_\ell \notin {\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')), \ell\leq j-1\}|$ be the index of the affector ${\mathcal{A}}_j$ in the new system, ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')$ (i.e, the $ind({\mathcal{A}}_j)^{th}$ column in the contracted matrices ${\mathcal{M}^+}({\bold{S}}'),{\mathcal{M}^-}({\bold{S}}')$ corresponds to ${\mathcal{A}}_j$). Define the partial selection matrix ${F}({\bold{S}}') \in \{0,1\}^{m \times m({\bold{S}}')}$ such that ${F}({\bold{S}}')_{i,ind({\mathcal{A}}_j)}=1$ for every ${\mathcal{A}}_j \in {\mathcal{A}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}'))$, and ${F}({\bold{S}}')_{i,j}=0$ otherwise. Finally, let ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}') = \displaystyle \langle
{\mathcal{M}^+}({\bold{S}}'),{\mathcal{M}^-}({\bold{S}}')\rangle,$ where ${\mathcal{M}^+}({\bold{S}}') =
\displaystyle {\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot {F}({\bold{S}}')
\mbox{~~and~~} {\mathcal{M}^-}({\bold{S}}') =
{\mathcal{M}^-}\cdot {F}({\bold{S}}')$. Note that ${\mathcal{M}^+}({\bold{S}}'), {\mathcal{M}^-}({\bold{S}}')
\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times m({\bold{S}}')}$. Observe that if the selection ${\bold{S}}'$ is a complete legal selection, then $|{\bold{S}}'|=n$ and the system ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')$ is a square system. In summary, we have two equivalent representations for square systems in the nonsquare system ${\mathcal{L}}$:\
(a) by specifying a complete selection ${\bold{S}}$, $|{\bold{S}}|=n$, and\
(b) by specifying the selection matrix, ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$.\
Representations (a) and (b) are equivalent in the sense that the two square systems ${\mathcal{L}}({F}({\bold{S}}))$ and ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}})$ are the same. We now show that if the system ${\mathcal{L}}$ is irreducible, then so must be any ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')$, for any partial selection ${\bold{S}}'$.
\[obs:irreducible\_selection\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be an irreducible system. Then ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')$ is also irreducible, for every partial selection ${\bold{S}}'$.
Recall that a system is irreducible iff every hidden square system is irreducible. I.e., the square system ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$ is irreducible for every ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{L}})$. We now show that if ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}'))$, then ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{L}})$. This follows immediately by Eq. (\[eq:FilterMatrixFamily\]) and the fact that ${\mathcal{S}}_i({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')) \subseteq {\mathcal{S}}_i({\mathcal{L}})$.
[**Agreement of partial selections.**]{} Let ${\bold{S}}_1, {\bold{S}}_2 \subseteq {\mathcal{A}}$ be partial selections for $V_1, V_2 \subseteq {\mathcal{V}}$ respectively. Then we denote by ${\bold{S}}_1 \sim {\bold{S}}_2$ the property that the partial selections *agree*, namely, ${\bold{S}}_1 \cap {\mathcal{S}}_j={\bold{S}}_2 \cap {\mathcal{S}}_j$ for every ${\mathit{v}}_j \in V_1 \cap V_2$.
\[obs:chain\_sym\] Consider $V_1,V_2, V_3 \subseteq {\mathcal{V}}$ determined by the partial selections ${\bold{S}}_1,{\bold{S}}_2,{\bold{S}}_3$ respectively, such that $V_1 \subset V_2$, ${\bold{S}}_1 \sim {\bold{S}}_2$ and ${\bold{S}}_2 \sim {\bold{S}}_3$. Then also ${\bold{S}}_3 \sim {\bold{S}}_1$.
${\bold{S}}_{2}$ is more restrictive than ${\bold{S}}_1$ since it defines a selection for a strictly larger set of entities. Therefore every partial selection ${\bold{S}}_3$ that agrees with ${\bold{S}}_2$ agrees also with ${\bold{S}}_1$.
#### Generalized [PF Theorem]{} for nonnegative irreducible systems.
Recall that the root of a square system ${\mathcal{L}}\in {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$ is ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}})=\max \left \{{EigVal}(Z({\mathcal{L}})) \right\}.$ ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$ is the eigenvector of $Z({\mathcal{L}})$ corresponding to ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}})$. We now turn to define the *generalized Perron–Frobenius (PF) root* of a nonsquare system ${\mathcal{L}}\notin {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$, which is given by $$\label{eq:general_pf_root}
{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}) ~=~ \min_{{F}\in {\mathcal{F}}}
\left \{{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F})) \right\}.$$ Let ${F}^*$ be the selection matrix that achieves the minimum in Eq. (\[eq:general\_pf\_root\]). We now describe the corresponding eigenvector ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$. Note that ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m}$, whereas ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^*)) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$.
Consider $\overline{X}'={\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^*))$ and let ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})=\overline{X}$, where $$\label{eq:general_pf_vector}
X({\mathcal{A}}_j) ~=~
\begin{cases}
X'({\mathcal{A}}_j), & \text{if $\sum_{i=1}^{n}{F}^{*}(j,i)>0$;}
\\
0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ We next state our main result, which is a generalized variant of the [PF Theorem]{} for every nonnegative nonsquare irreducible system.
\[thm:pf\_ext\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be an irreducible and nonnegative nonsquare system. Then
[(Q1)]{} ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}})>0$,
[(Q2)]{} ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}) \geq 0$,
[(Q3)]{} $|NZ({\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}))|=n$,
[(Q4)]{} ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$ is not unique.
[(Q5)]{} The generalized Perron root of ${\mathcal{L}}$ satisfies $\displaystyle {\mathit{r}}= \min\limits_{\overline{X} \in \mathcal{N}}
\left\{ \mathfrak{f}(\overline{X}) \right\}$, where $$\mathfrak{f}(\overline{X}) ~=~ \max\limits_{1 \leq i \leq n, \left({\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot \overline{X} \right)_{i}\neq 0}
\{ \frac{\left({\mathcal{M}^-}\cdot \overline{X} \right)_{i}}
{ \left({\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot \overline{X} \right)_{i}} \}$$ and $\mathcal{N}=\{\overline{X} \geq 0,||\overline{X}||_{1}=1,
{\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot \overline{X}\neq 0\}.$ I.e., the Perron-Frobenius (PF) eigenvalue is $1/\beta^{*}$ where $\beta^{*}$ is the optimal value of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]), and the [PF eigenvalue]{} is the corresponding optimal point. Hence for $\beta^{*}$, the $n$ constraints of Eq. (\[eq:SR\]) hold with equality.
#### The difficulty: Lack of log-convexity.
Before plunging into a description of our proof, we first discuss a natural approach one may consider for proving Thm. \[thm:pf\_ext\] in general and solving Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) in particular, and explain why this approach fails in this case.
A non-convex program can often be turned into an equivalent convex one by performing a standard variable exchange. This allows the program to be solved by convex optimization techniques (see [@TanFL11] for more information). An example for a program that’s amenable to this technique is Program (\[LP:Stand\_Perron\]), which is *log-convex* (see Claim \[cl:non\_convex\](a)), namely, it becomes convex after certain term replacements. Unfortunately, in contrast with Program (\[LP:Stand\_Perron\]), the generalized Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) is not log-convex (see Claim \[cl:non\_convex\](b)), and hence cannot be handled in this manner.
More formally, for vector $\overline{X}=(X(1), \ldots, X(m))$ and $\alpha\in {\mathbb{R}}$, denote the component-wise $\alpha$-power of $\overline{X}$ by $\overline{X}^{\alpha}=(X(1)^{\alpha}, \ldots, X(m)^{\alpha})$. An optimization program $\Pi$ is *log-convex* if given two feasible solutions $\overline{X}_1, \overline{X}_2$ for $\Pi$, their log-convex combination $\overline{X}_{\delta}= \overline{X}_1^{\delta} \cdot \overline{X}_2^{(1-\delta)}$ (where “$\cdot$" represents component-wise multiplication) is also a solution for $\Pi$, for every $\delta \in [0,1]$. In the following we ignore the constraint $||\overline{X}||_{1}=1$, since we only validate the feasibility of nonzero nonnegative vectors; this constraint can be established afterwards by normalization.
\[cl:non\_convex\] (a) Program (\[LP:Stand\_Perron\]) is log-convex (without the $||\overline{X}||_{1}=1$ constraint).\
(b) Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) is not log-convex (even without the $||\overline{X}||_{1}=1$ constraint).
We start with (a). In [@LogConvex] it is shown that the power-control problem is log-convex. The log-convexity of Perron-Frobenius eigenvalue is also discussed in [@Boyd-Conv-Opt-Book], for completeness we prove it here. We use the same technique of [@LogConvex] and show it directly for Program (\[LP:Stand\_Perron\]). Let $A$ be a non-negative irreducible matrix and let $\overline{X}_1,\overline{X}_2$ be two feasible solutions for Program (\[LP:Stand\_Perron\]) with $\beta_1$, resp. $\beta_2$. We now show that $\overline{X}_3=\overline{X}_1^{\alpha} \cdot \overline{X}_2^{(1-\alpha)}$ (where “$\cdot$" represents entry-wise multiplication). is a feasible solution for $\beta_3=\beta_1^{\alpha} \cdot \beta_2^{1-\alpha}$, for any $\alpha \in [0,1]$. I.e., we show that $A \cdot \overline{X}_3 \leq 1/\beta_3 \cdot \overline{X}_3$. Let $\eta_i=X_1(i)/(A \cdot \overline{X}_1)_{i}$, $\gamma_i=X_2(i)/(A \cdot \overline{X}_2)_{i}$, $\delta_i=X_3(i)/(A \cdot \overline{X}_3)_{i}$. By the feasibility of $X_1$ (resp., $X_2$) it follows that $\eta_i \geq \beta_1$ (resp., $\gamma_i \geq \beta_2$) for every $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$. It then follows that $$\label{eq:log_con}
\frac{\delta_i}{\eta_i^{\alpha} \cdot \gamma_i^{1-\alpha}}= \frac{\left(\sum_{j}A(i,j) \cdot X_1(j)\right)^{\alpha} \cdot \left(\sum_{j}A(i,j) \cdot X_2(j)\right)^{1-\alpha} }{\sum_{j}A(i,j) \cdot X_1(j)^{\alpha} \cdot X_2(j)^{1-\alpha}}~.$$ Let $p_j=\left(A(i,j)X_1(j)\right)^{\alpha}$ and $q_j=\left(A(i,j)X_2(j)\right)^{1-\alpha}$. Then Eq. (\[eq:log\_con\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:log_con2}
\frac{\delta_i}{\eta_i^{\alpha} \cdot \gamma_i^{1-\alpha}}&=& \frac{\left(\sum_{j} p_{j}^{1/\alpha}\right)^{\alpha} \cdot \left( \sum_{j} q_{j}^{1/(1-\alpha)}\right)^{1-\alpha} }{\sum_{j}p_j \cdot q_j}\geq 1\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows by Holder Inequality which can be safely applied since $p_j,q_j \geq 0$ for every $j \in \{1, \ldots,n\}$. We therefore get that for every $i$, $\delta_i \geq \eta_i^{\alpha} \cdot \gamma_i^{1-\alpha} \geq \beta_3$, concluding that $X_3(i)/(A \cdot \overline{X}_3)_{i}\geq \beta_3$ and $A \cdot X_3 \leq 1/\beta_3 \cdot X_3$ as required. Part (a) is established. We now consider (b). For vector $\overline{Y} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m}$, $m \geq i$, recall that $\overline{Y}_{i}=(Y(1), \ldots, Y(i))$, the $i$ first coordinates of $\overline{Y}$. For given repressor and supporter matrices ${\mathcal{M}^-},{\mathcal{M}^+}\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times m}$, define the following program. For $\overline{Y}\in \mathbb{R}^{m+1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LP:not convex}
&&\max ~ Y({m+1}) ~
\mathrm{s.t.}~\\
&&
\displaystyle Y(m+1)\cdot {\mathcal{M}^-}\cdot(\overline{Y}_{m})^T
\leq {\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot(\overline{Y}_m)^T \nonumber
\\
&& \displaystyle \overline{Y} \geq \overline{0} \nonumber
\\
&& \displaystyle \overline{Y}_m \neq \overline{0} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This program is equivalent to Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]). An optimal solution $\overline{Y}$ for Program (\[LP:not convex\]) “includes" an optimal solution for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]), where $\beta=Y(m+1)$ and $\overline{X}=\overline{Y}_m$. We prove that Program (\[LP:not convex\]) is not log-convex by showing the following example. Consider the repressor and supporters matrices $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{M}^-}=
\begin{pmatrix}
0 & 2 & 1\\
1 & 0 & 0
\end{pmatrix}
\mbox{ ~~~and~~~ }
{\mathcal{M}^+}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1/2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 4 & 4
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ It can be verified that $Y_1=(2, 1/2, 0, 1)$ and $Y_2= (4, 0, \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{2})$ are feasible. However, their log-convex combination $Y=Y_1^{1/2} \cdot Y_2^{1/2}$ is not a feasible solution for this system. Lemma follows.
### Algorithm for testing irreducibility
In this subsection, we provide a polynomial-time algorithm for testing the irreducibility of a given nonnegative system ${\mathcal{L}}$. Note that if ${\mathcal{L}}$ is a square system, then irreducibility can be tested in a straightforward manner by checking that ${\mathcal{M}^-}$ is irreducible and that ${\mathcal{M}^+}$ is nonsingular.
However, recall that a nonsquare system ${\mathcal{L}}$ is irreducible iff every hidden square system ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$, ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$, is irreducible. Since ${\mathcal{F}}$ might be exponentially large, a brute-force testing of ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$ for every ${F}$ is too costly, hence another approach is needed. Before presenting the algorithm, we provide some notation.
Consider a directed graph $G=(V,E)$. Denote the set of incoming neighbors of a node ${\mathit{v}}_k$ by $\Gamma^{in}({\mathit{v}}_k,D)=\{ {\mathit{v}}_j \mid e_{j,i} \in E(D)\}$. The incoming neighbors of a set of nodes $V' \in {\mathcal{V}}$ is denoted $\Gamma^{in}(V',D)=\bigcup_{{\mathit{v}}_k \in V'}\Gamma^{in}({\mathit{v}}_k,D)$.
#### Algorithm Description.
To test irreducibility, Algorithm [Irr\_Test]{} (see Fig. \[figure:irreducibility\_tester\]) must verify that the constraint graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$ of every ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$ is strongly connected. The algorithm consists of at most $n-1$ rounds. In round $t$, it is given as input a partition $\mathcal{C}^{t}=\{C^{t}_{1}, \ldots, C^{t}_{k_t}\}$ of ${\mathcal{V}}$ into $k_t$ disjoint clusters such that $\bigcup_{i} C^{t}_{i}={\mathcal{V}}$. For round $t=0$, the input is a partition $\mathcal{C}^{0}=\{C^{0}_{1}, \ldots, C^{0}_{n}\}$ of the entity set ${\mathcal{V}}$ into $n$ singleton clusters $C^{0}_{i}=\{{\mathit{v}}_i\}$. The output at round $t$ is a coarser partition $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$, in which at least two clusters of $\mathcal{C}^{t}$ were merged into a single cluster in $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$. The partition $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$ is formed as follows. The algorithm first forms a graph $D_t=(\mathcal{C}^{t}, E_t)$ on the clusters of the input partition $\mathcal{C}^{t}$, treating each cluster $C^{t}_i \in \mathcal{C}^{t}$ as a node, and including in $E_t$ a directed edge $(i,j)$ from $C^{t}_i$ to $C^{t}_j$ if and only if there exists an entity node ${\mathit{v}}_k \in C^{t}_{i}$ such that *each* of its supporters ${\mathcal{A}}_i \in {\mathcal{S}}_k$ is a repressor of *some* entity ${\mathit{v}}_{k'} \in C^{t}_{j}$, i.e., ${\mathcal{S}}_k \subseteq \bigcup_{{\mathit{v}}_{k'} \in C^{t}_{j}} {\mathcal{R}}_{k'}$.
The partition $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$ is now formed by merging clusters $C^{t}_j$ that belong to the same [strongly connected component]{} in $D_{t}$ into a single cluster $C^{t+1}_{k'}$ in $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$. Each cluster of $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$ corresponds to a unique [strongly connected component]{} in $D_t$. If $D_t$ contains no [strongly connected component]{} except for singletons, which implies that no two cluster nodes of $D_t$ can be merged, then the algorithm declares the system ${\mathcal{L}}$ as reducible and halts. Otherwise, it proceeds with the new partition $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$. Importantly, in $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$ there are at least two entity subsets that belong to distinct clusters in $\mathcal{C}^{t}$ but to the same cluster node in $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$. If none of the rounds ends with the algorithm declaring the system reducible (due to clusters “merging" failure), then the procedure proceeds with the cluster merging until at some round $t^* \leq n-1$ the remaining partition $\mathcal{C}^{t^*}=\{\{{\mathcal{V}}\}\}$ consists of a single cluster node that encompasses the entire entity set.
#### Analysis.
We first provide some high level intuition for the correctness of the algorithm. Recall, that the goal of the algorithm is to test whether the entire entity set ${\mathcal{V}}$ resides in a single [strongly connected component]{} in the constraint graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$ for every selection matrix ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$. This test is performed by the algorithm in a gradual manner by monotonically increasing the subsets of nodes that belong to the same [strongly connected component]{} in every ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$. In the beginning of the execution, the most one can claim is that every entity ${\mathit{v}}_k$ is in its own [strongly connected component]{}. Over time, clusters are merged while maintaining the invariant that all entities of the same cluster belong to the same [strongly connected component]{} in every ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$. More formally, the following invariant is maintained in every round $t$: the entities of each cluster $C^t_i \subseteq {\mathcal{V}}$ of the graph $D_t$ are guaranteed to be in the same [strongly connected component]{} in the constraint graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$ for every selection matrix ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$. We later show that if the system ${\mathcal{L}}$ is irreducible, then the merging process never fails and therefore the last partition $\mathcal{C}^{t^*}=\{\{{\mathcal{V}}\}\}$ consists of a single cluster node that contains all entities, and by the invariant, all entities are guaranteed to be in the same [strongly connected component]{} in the constraint graph of any hidden square subsystem.
We now provide some high level explanation for the validity of this invariant. Starting with round $t=0$, each cluster node $C^0_i=\{{\mathit{v}}_i\}$ is a singleton and every singleton entity is trivially in its own [strongly connected component]{} in any constraint graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$. Assume the invariant holds up to round $t$, and consider round $t+1$. The key observation in this context is that the new partition $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$ is defined based on the graph $D_t=(\mathcal{C}^{t}, E_{t})$, whose edges are independent of the specific supporter selection that is made by the entities (and that determines the resulting hidden square subsystem). This holds due to the fact that a directed edge $(i,j) \in E_{t}$ between the clusters $C^{t}_{i}, C^{t}_{j} \in \mathcal{C}^{t}$ exists if and only if there exists an entity node ${\mathit{v}}_k \in C^{t}_{i}$ such that *each* of its supporter ${\mathcal{A}}_i \in {\mathcal{S}}_k$ is a repressor of *some* entity ${\mathit{v}}_{k'} \in C^{t}_{j}$. Therefore, if the edge $(i,j)$ exists in the $D_{t}$, then it exists also in the cluster graph corresponding to the constraint graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$ (i.e., the graph formed by representing every [strongly connected component]{} of ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$ by a single node) for *every* hidden square subsystem ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$, no matter which supporter ${\mathcal{A}}_i \in {\mathcal{S}}_k$ was selected by ${F}$ for ${\mathit{v}}_k$. Hence, under the assumption that the invariant holds for $\mathcal{C}^{t}$, the coarse-grained representation of the clusters of $\mathcal{C}^t$ in $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$ is based on their membership in the same [strongly connected component]{} in the “selection invariant" graph $D_{t}$, thus the invariant holds also for $t+1$.
We next formalize this argumentation. We say that round $t$ is *successful* if $D_t$ contains a [strongly connected component]{} of size greater than 1. We begin by proving the following.
\[cl:partition\_induc\] For every successful round $t$, the partition $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$ satisfies the following properties.
[(A1)]{} $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$ is a partition of ${\mathcal{V}}$, i.e., $C^{t+1}_i \subseteq {\mathcal{V}}$, $C^{t+1}_{j} \cap C^{t+1}_{i}=\emptyset$ for every $i,j \in [1,k_{t+1}]$, and $\bigcup_{j\leq k_{t+1}} C^{t+1}_{j}={\mathcal{V}}$.
[(A2)]{} Every $C^{t+1}_{j} \in \mathcal{C}^{t+1}$ is a [strongly connected component]{} in the constraint graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$ for every selection matrix ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$.
By induction on $t$. Clearly, since $C^{0}_{i}=\{{\mathit{v}}_i\}$ for every $i$, Properties (A1) and (A2) trivially hold for $\mathcal{C}^{0}$. We now show that if round $t=0$ is successful, then (A1) and (A2) hold for $\mathcal{C}^{1}$. Since the edges of $D_0$ exist also in the corresponding cluster graph of ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$ under any selection ${F}$ of the entities, the clusters of $\mathcal{C}^{0}$ that are merged into a single [strongly connected component]{} in $\mathcal{C}^{1}$, belong also to the same [strongly connected component]{} in the constraint graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$ of every ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$. Next, assume these properties to hold for every round up to $t-1$ and consider round $t$. Since round $t$ is successful, any prior round $t' <t$ was successful as well, and thus the induction assumption can be applied on round $t-1$. In particular, since $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$ corresponds to [strongly connected component]{}s of $D_t$, it represents a partition of the clusters of $\mathcal{C}^{t}$. By the induction assumption for round $t-1$, Property (A1) holds for $\mathcal{C}^{t}$ and therefore $\mathcal{C}^{t}$ is a partition of the entity set ${\mathcal{V}}$. Since $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$ corresponds to a partition of $\mathcal{C}^t$, it is a partition of ${\mathcal{V}}$ as well so (A1) is established. Property (A2) holds for $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$ by the same argument provided for the induction base. The claim follows. We next show that the algorithm return “yes" for every irreducible system. Specifically, we show that for an irreducible system, if $|\mathcal{C}^{t}|>1$ then round $t$ is *successful*, i.e., the merging operation of the cluster graph $D_t$ succeeds. Once $\mathcal{C}^t$ contains a single cluster (containing all entities), the algorithm terminates and returns “yes". We first provide an auxiliary claim.
\[cl:aux\] If ${\mathcal{L}}$ is irreducible and $|\mathcal{C}^{t}|>1$, then $|\Gamma^{in}(C^{t}_{j},D_{t})| \geq 1$ for every $C^{t}_{j} \in \mathcal{C}^{t}$.
First note that if $\mathcal{C}^{t}$ is defined, then round $t-1$ was successful. Therefore, by Property (A1) of Cl. \[cl:partition\_induc\], $\mathcal{C}^{t}$ is a partition of the entity set ${\mathcal{V}}$. Assume, towards contradiction that the claim does not hold, and let $C^{t}_{j}\in \mathcal{C}^{t}$ be such that $\Gamma^{in}(C^{t}_{j},D_{t})=\emptyset$. Denote the set of incoming neighbors of component $C^{t}_{j}$ in the constraint graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}$ by $W=\Gamma^{in}(C^{t}_{j},{\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}) \setminus C^{t}_{j}$. Since ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}$ is irreducible, the vertices of $C^{t}_{j}$ are reachable from the outside, so $W \neq \emptyset$. Let the repressors set of $C^{t}_{j}$ be ${\mathcal{R}}(C^{t}_{j})=\bigcup_{{\mathit{v}}_k \in C^{t}_{j}} {\mathcal{R}}_{k}$. We now construct a square hidden system ${\mathcal{L}}({F}^*)$ which is reducible, in contradiction to the irreducibility of ${\mathcal{L}}$. Specifically, we look for a selection matrix ${F}^*$ satisfying that for every entity ${\mathit{v}}_k \in W$, its selected supporter ${\mathcal{A}}_k$ in ${\mathcal{L}}({F}^*)$ (i.e., the one for which ${F}^*( {\mathcal{A}}_k, {\mathit{v}}_k)=1$) is not a repressor of any of the entities in $C^{t}_{j}$, i.e., ${\mathcal{A}}_k
\in {\mathcal{S}}_k \setminus {\mathcal{R}}(C^{t}_{j})$. Recall, that since ${\mathcal{L}}$ is irreducible, the supporter sets ${\mathcal{S}}_i, {\mathcal{S}}_j$ are pairwise disjoint (see Claim \[cor:distinct\]). Note that since $\Gamma^{in}(C^{t}_{j},D_{t})=\emptyset$, such a selection matrix ${F}^*$ exists. To see this, assume, towards contradiction that ${F}^*$ does not exist. This implies that there exists an entity ${\mathit{v}}_{k} \in W$ such that ${\mathcal{S}}_{k} \setminus {\mathcal{R}}(C^{t}_{j})=\emptyset$ and therefore an affector in ${\mathcal{S}}_k \setminus {\mathcal{R}}(C^{t}_{j})$ could not be selected for ${F}^*$. Hence, ${\mathcal{S}}_k \subseteq {\mathcal{R}}(C^{t}_{j})$. Let $C^{t}_{i} \in \mathcal{C}^{t}$ be the cluster such that ${\mathit{v}}_k \in C^{t}_{i}$. Since $\mathcal{C}^{t}$ is a partition of the entity set ${\mathcal{V}}$, such $ C^{t}_{i}$ exists. Since ${\mathcal{S}}_k \subseteq {\mathcal{R}}(C^{t}_{j})$, it implies that the edge $e_{i,j} \in D_{t}$, in contradiction to the fact that $C^{t}_{j}$ has no incoming neighbors in $D_{t}$. We therefore conclude that ${F}^*$ exists.
We now show that ${\mathcal{L}}({F}^*)$ is reducible. In particular, we show that the incoming degree of the component $C^{t}_{j}$ (from entities in other components) in the constraint graph ${\mathcal{L}}({F}^*)$ of the square system ${\mathcal{L}}({F}^*)$, is zero, i.e., $\Gamma^{in}(C^{t}_{j},{\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F}^*)})=\emptyset$. Assume, towards contradiction, that there exists a directed edge $e_{x,y}$ from entity ${\mathit{v}}_x \in {\mathcal{V}}\setminus C^{t}_{j}$ to some ${\mathit{v}}_y \in C^{t}_{j}$ in ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F}^*)}$. This implies that $e_{x,y} \in {\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}$ exists in the constraint graph of the original (nonsquare) system ${\mathcal{L}}$ and thus ${\mathit{v}}_x$ is in $W$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}_{x'} \in {\mathcal{S}}_x$ be the selected supporter of ${\mathit{v}}_x$ in ${F}^*$. By construction of ${F}^*$, ${\mathcal{A}}_{x'} \notin {\mathcal{R}}(C^{t}_{j})$, in contradiction to the fact that the edge $e_{x,y} \in {\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F}^*)}$ exists.
Since there exists a node in ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F}^*)}$ with no incoming neihbors, this graph is not strongly connected, implying that ${\mathcal{L}}({F}^*)$ is reducible.
Finally, as ${\mathcal{L}}$ is irreducible, it holds that every hidden square system is irreducible, in particular ${\mathcal{L}}({F}^*)$, hence, contradiction. The claim follows.
\[cl:pos\] If ${\mathcal{L}}$ is irreducible then Algorithm [Irr\_Test]{}(${\mathcal{L}}$) returns “yes".
By Cl. \[cl:aux\], we have that if ${\mathcal{L}}$ is irreducible and $|\mathcal{C}^{t}|>1$, then every node in $D_t$ has an incoming edge, which necessitates that there exists a (directed) cycle $C=(C_{i_1}, \ldots, C_{i_k})$, for $k \geq 2$ in $D^{t}$. Since the nodes in such cycle $C$ are strongly connected, they can be merged in $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$, and therefore round $t$ is successful. Moreover, since at least two clusters of $\mathcal{C}^t$ are merged into a single cluster in $\mathcal{C}^{t+1}$, we have that $|\mathcal{C}^{t+1}|<|\mathcal{C}^{t}|$. This means that the merging never fails as long as $|\mathcal{C}^{t}|>1$, so $k_{t}=|\mathcal{C}^{t}|$ is monotonically decreasing. It follows that the algorithm terminates within at most $n-1$ rounds with a “yes". The Lemma follows. We now consider a reducible system ${\mathcal{L}}$ and show that [Irr\_Test]{}(${\mathcal{L}}$) returns “no".
\[lem:neg\] If ${\mathcal{L}}$ is reducible, then Algorithm [Irr\_Test]{}(${\mathcal{L}}$) returns “no".
Towards contradiction, assume otherwise, i.e., suppose that the algorithm accepts ${\mathcal{L}}$. This implies that every round $t \in [1, t^*]$ in which $|\mathcal{C}^{t}|>1$ is successful.
The reducibility of ${\mathcal{L}}$ implies that there exists (at least one) hidden square system ${\mathcal{L}}({F})$ which is reducible, namely, its constraint graph $\widehat{D}={\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})}$ is not strongly connected. Thus $\widehat{D}$ contains at least two nodes ${\mathit{v}}_i$ and ${\mathit{v}}_j$ that belong to distinct [strongly connected component]{}s in $\widehat{D}$. Note that ${\mathit{v}}_i$ and ${\mathit{v}}_j$ are in distinct clusters in $\mathcal{C}^{0}$, but belong to the same cluster in the partition of the final $\mathcal{C}^{t^*}$. Therefore, there must exists a round $t' \in (0, t^*)$ in which the cluster $C^{t'}_{i'}$ that contains ${\mathit{v}}_i$ and the cluster $C^{t'}_{j'}$ that contains ${\mathit{v}}_j$ appeared in the same [strongly connected component]{} in $D_{t'}$ and were merged into a single [strongly connected component]{} in $\mathcal{C}^{t'+1}$. (Note that since $t'-1$ is a successful round, $\mathcal{C}^{t'}$ is a partition of the entity set (Prop. (A1) of Cl. \[cl:partition\_induc\]) and therefore $C^{t'}_{i'}$ and $C^{t'}_{j'}$ exist.) Since round $t'$ is successful (otherwise the algorithm would terminates with “no"), by to Property (A2) of Cl. \[cl:partition\_induc\], it follows that the entity subset of the unified cluster $\mathcal{C} \in \mathcal{C}^{t'+1}$ is in the same connected component in the constraint graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F}')}$ for every ${F}' \in {\mathcal{F}}$. Since ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$ as well it holds that ${\mathit{v}}_i$ and ${\mathit{v}}_j$ are in the same connected component in $\widehat{D}$. Hence, contradiction. The lemma follows. By Lemmas \[cl:pos\] and \[lem:neg\] it follows that Algorithm [Irr\_Test]{}(${\mathcal{L}}$) returns “yes" iff the system ${\mathcal{L}}$ is irreducible, which establish the correctness of the algorithm.
\[cl:runtime\] Algorithm [Irr\_Test]{} terminates in $O(m \cdot n^2)$ rounds.
The algorithm consists of at most $n-1$ rounds In each round $t$, it constructs the cluster graph $D_t=(\mathcal{C}^{t-1}, E_t)$ in time $O(n \cdot m)$. The decomposition into [strongly connected component]{}s can be done in $O(|D_t|)=O(n^2)$. The claim follows.
\[lem:alg\_irred\] There exists a polynomial time algorithm for deciding irreducibility on nonnegative systems.
Proof of the generalized [PF Theorem]{}
=======================================
Proof overview and roadmap
--------------------------
Our main challenge is to show that the optimal value of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) is related to an *eigenvalue* of some hidden square system ${\mathcal{L}}^{*}$ in ${\mathcal{L}}$ (where “hidden" implies that there is a selection on ${\mathcal{L}}$ that yields ${\mathcal{L}}^{*}$). The flow of the analysis is as follows. In Subsec. \[sec:geometry\_n\_1\], we consider a convex relaxation of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) and show that the set of feasible solutions of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]), for every $\beta \in (0, \beta^{*}]$, corresponds to a bounded polytope. By dimension considerations, we then show that the vertices of such polytope correspond to feasible solutions with at most $n+1$ nonzero entries. In Subsec. \[sec:weak\], we show that for irreducible systems, each vertex of such a polytope corresponds to a hidden *weakly square* system ${\mathcal{L}}^{*} \in {\mathfrak{L}^{W}}$. That is, there exists a hidden weakly square system in ${\mathcal{L}}$ that achieves $\beta^{*}$. Note that a solution for such a hidden system can be extended to a solution for the original ${\mathcal{L}}$ (see Obs. \[obs:filter\_to\_square\]).
Next, in Subsec. \[sec:zerostar\], we exploit the generalization of Cramer’s rule for homogeneous linear systems (Cl. \[cl:cramer\_non\_square\]) as well as a separation theorem for nonnegative matrices to show that there is a hidden optimal *square* system in ${\mathcal{L}}$ that achieves $\beta^{*}$, which establishes the lion’s share of the theorem.
Arguably, the most surprising conclusion of our generalized theorem is that although the given system of matrices is not square, and eigenvalues cannot be straightforwardly defined for it, the nonsquare system contains a *hidden optimal* square system, optimal in the sense that a solution $\overline{X}$ for this system can be translated into a solution $\overline{X}^m$ to the original system (see Obs. \[obs:filter\_to\_square\]) that satisfies Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) with the optimal value $\beta^{*}$. The power of a nonsquare system is thus not in the ability to create a solution better than *any* of its hidden square systems, but rather in the *option* to *select* the best hidden square system out of the possibly exponentially many ones.
Existence of a solution with $n+1$ affectors {#sec:geometry_n_1}
--------------------------------------------
We now turn to characterize the feasible solutions of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]). The following is a convex variant of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]). $$\begin{aligned}
\label{LP:Ext_Perron_convex}
\mbox{maximize~~} ~& 1 \mbox{~~subject to:~~}
\\
& \displaystyle {\mathcal{M}^-}\cdot \overline{X} ~\leq~
1/\beta \cdot {\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot \overline{X} ~,&
\label{eq:SR-convex} \\
& \displaystyle \overline{X} \geq \overline{0}~, &
\label{eq:Ineq-convex}\\
& \displaystyle ||\overline{X}||_{1}=1~. &
\label{eq:eq-one-convex}\end{aligned}$$
Note that Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]) has the same set of constraints as those of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]). However, due to the fact that $\beta$ is no longer a variable, we get the following.
\[cl:convex\] Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]) is convex.
To characterize the set of feasible solutions $(\overline{X}, \beta)$, $\beta>0$ of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]), we fix some $\beta>0$, and characterize the solution set of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]) with this $\beta$. It is worth noting at this point that using the above convex relaxation, one may apply a binary search for finding a [*near-optimal*]{} solution for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]), up to any predefined accuracy. In contrast, our approach, which is based on exploiting the special geometric characteristics of the optimal solution, enjoys the theoretically pleasing (and mathematically interesting) advantage of leading to an efficient algorithm for computing the optimal solution precisely, and thus establishing the polynomiality of the problem.
Throughout, we restrict attention to values of $\beta \in (0, \beta^{*}]$. Let ${\mathcal{P}}(\beta)$ be the polyhedron corresponding to Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]) and denote by $V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta))$ the set of vertices of ${\mathcal{P}}(\beta)$.
\[cl:n\_zero\_polytope\] (a) ${\mathcal{P}}(\beta)$ is bounded (or a polytope). (b) For every $\overline{X} \in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta))$, $|NZ(\overline{X})| \leq n+1$. This holds even for reducible systems.
Part (a) holds by the Equality constraint (\[eq:eq-one-convex\]) which enforces $||\overline{X}||_{1}~=~1$. We now prove Part (b). Every vertex $\overline{X} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m}$ is defined by a set of $m$ linearly independent equalities. Recall that one equality is imposed by the constraint $||\overline{X}||_{1}~=~1$ (Eq. (\[eq:eq-one-convex\])). Therefore it remains to assign $m-1$ linearly independent equalities out of the $n+m$ (possibly dependent) inequalities of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]). Hence even if all the (at most $n$) linearly independent SR constraints (\[eq:SR-convex\]) become equalities, we are still left with at least $m-1-n$ unassigned equalities, which must be taken from the remaining $m$ nonnegativity constraints (\[eq:Ineq-convex\]). Hence, at most $n+1$ nonnegativity inequalities were not fixed to zero, which establishes the proof.
Existence of a weak ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$-solution {#sec:weak}
---------------------------------------------------
We now consider the case where the system ${\mathcal{L}}$ is irreducible and a more delicate characterization of $V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta))$ can be deduced.
We begin with some definitions. A solution $\overline{X}$ is called a [*${\boldsymbol{0^{f}}}$ solution*]{} (for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\])) if it is a feasible solution $\overline{X}_{\widetilde{\beta}}$, $\widetilde{\beta} \in (0,\beta^{*}]$, in which for each ${\mathit{v}}_i \in {\mathcal{V}}$ only one affector has a non-zero assignment, i.e., $NZ(\overline{X}) \cap {\mathcal{S}}_i=1$ for every $i$. A solution $\overline{X}$ is called a [*${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{f}}}$ solution*]{}, or a [*“weak” ${\boldsymbol{0^{f}}}$ solution*]{}, if it is a feasible vector $\overline{X}_{\widetilde{\beta}}$, $\widetilde{\beta} \in (0,\beta^{*}]$, in which for each ${\mathit{v}}_i$, [*except at most one*]{}, say ${\mathit{v}}_\ell \in {\mathcal{V}}$, $|NZ(\overline{X}) \cap {\mathcal{S}}_i| = 1$, ${\mathit{v}}_i \in {\mathcal{V}}\setminus \{{\mathit{v}}_\ell\}$ and $|NZ(\overline{X}) \cap {\mathcal{S}}_\ell| = 2$. A solution $\overline{X}$ is called a [*${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution*]{} if it is an optimal ${\boldsymbol{0^{f}}}$ solution. Let ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{*}}}$ be an optimal ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{f}}}$ solution.
For a feasible vector $\overline{X}$, we say that ${\mathcal{A}}_k$ is *active* in $\overline{X}$ iff $X({\mathcal{A}}_k)>0$. A subgraph ${CG}$ of a constraint graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}$ is *active* in $\overline{X}$ iff every edge in ${CG}$ can be associated with (or “explained by") an active affector, namely, $$e(i, j) \in E({CG}) ~~~\mbox{~iff~}~~~
{\mathcal{S}}_{i} \cap {\mathcal{R}}_{j} \cap NZ(\overline{X}) \neq \emptyset.$$
Towards the end of this section, we prove the following lemma which holds for every feasible solution of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]).
\[cl:entity\_one\_nonzero\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be an irreducible system with a feasible solution $\overline{X}_{\beta}$ of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]). For every entity ${\mathit{v}}_i$ there exists an active affector ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)} \in {\mathcal{S}}_i$, such that $X_{\beta}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)}) >0$, or in other words, ${\mathcal{S}}_{i} \cap NZ(\overline{X}_{\beta})\neq \emptyset$.
Let ${\bold{S}}'$ be a partial selection determining $V' \subseteq {\mathcal{V}}$. Define the collection of constraint graphs agreeing with ${\bold{S}}'$ as $$\label{eq:graph_family_selection}
\mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}') ~=~ \{{\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}})} \mid
\text{a complete selection~} {\bold{S}}\text{~satisfying~}{\bold{S}}\sim {\bold{S}}'\}.$$ Note that by Obs. \[obs:reducible\_graph\_connected\](b), every constraint graph ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}')$ for every partial selection ${\bold{S}}'$ is strongly connected. I.e., $\mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}')$ contains the constraint graphs for all square systems restricted to the partial selection dictated by ${\bold{S}}'$ for $V'$. Note that when $|{\bold{S}}'|=n$, ${\bold{S}}'$ is a complete selection, i.e., ${F}({\bold{S}}') \in {\mathcal{F}}$, and $\mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}')$ contains a single graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')}$ corresponding to the square system ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')$.
Given a feasible vector $\overline{X}$ and an irreducible system ${\mathcal{L}}$, the main challenge is to find an active (in $\overline{X}$) irreducible spanning subgraph of ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}$. Finding such a subgraph is crucial for both Lemma \[cl:entity\_one\_nonzero\] and Lemma \[lem:strict\_equality\] later on.
We begin by showing that given just one active affector ${\mathcal{A}}_{p_1}$ in $\overline{X}$, it is possible to “bootstrap" it and construct an active irreducible spanning subgraph of ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}}$ (in $\overline{X}$).
Let ${\mathit{v}}_{i_1}$ be an entity satisfying that ${\mathcal{A}}_{p_1} \in {\mathcal{S}}_{i_1}$. (Such entity ${\mathit{v}}_{i_1}$ must exist, since there are no redundant affectors). In what follows, we build an “influence tree" starting at ${\mathit{v}}_{i_1}$ and spanning the entire set of entities ${\mathcal{V}}$.
For a directed graph $G$ and vertex $v \in G$ let ${BFS}(G, v)$ be the *breadth-first search* tree of $G$ rooted at $v$, obtained by placing vertex $w$ at level $i$ of the tree if the shortest directed path from $v$ to $w$ is of length $i$. Given a constraint graph ${CG}$, let $L_{i}({CG})$ be the $i^{th}$ level of ${BFS}({CG},{\mathit{v}}_{i_1})$.
We now describe an iterative process for constructing a complete selection ${\bold{S}}^{*}$ of $n$ supporters with positive entries in $\overline{X}_{\beta}$, i.e., such that ${\bold{S}}^{*} \subseteq NZ(\overline{X}_{\beta})$ and $|{\mathcal{S}}_i \cap {\bold{S}}^{*}| =1$ for every ${\mathit{v}}_i$. At step $t$, we start from the partial selection ${\bold{S}}_{t-1}$ constructed in the previous step, and extend it to ${\bold{S}}_{t}$. The partial selection ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ should satisfy the following four properties.
[(A1)]{} ${\bold{S}}_{t} \subseteq NZ(\overline{X}_{\beta})$ (i.e., it consists of strictly positive supporters).
Consider the graph family $\mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t})$ defined in Eq. (\[eq:graph\_family\_selection\]), consisting of all constraint graphs for square systems induced by a selection that agrees with ${\bold{S}}_{t}$.
[(A2)]{} For every $i \in \{0, \ldots, t-1\}$ it holds that $L_{i}({CG}_1) = L_{i}({CG}_2), \text{~for every~} {CG}_1, {CG}_2 \in \bigcup_{j=i}^{t} \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{j})$, i.e., from step $i$ ahead, the $i$’th first levels coincide.
[(A3)]{} $L_{t}({CG}_1) = L_{t}({CG}_2), \text{~for every~} {CG}_1, {CG}_2 \in
\mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t})$, (i.e., level $t$ coincides as well).
Denote ${L}_{i}=L_{i}({CG})$, ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t})$, for $i \in \{0, \ldots, t\}$ (by (A2) and (A3) this is well-defined). Let $Q_{-1}=\emptyset$, and $Q_{t}=\bigcup_{i=0}^{t} {L}_{i}$ for $t \geq 0$, be set of entities in the first $t$ levels of $\mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t})$ graphs.
[(A4)]{} ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ is a partial selection determining the entities in $Q_{t-1}$, (i.e., $|{\bold{S}}_{t}|=|Q_{t-1}|$ and $|{\bold{S}}_t \cap {\mathcal{S}}_i|=1$ for every ${\mathit{v}}_i \in Q_{t-1}$).
Let us now describe the construction process of ${\bold{S}}^{*}$ in more detail. At step $t=0$, let ${\bold{S}}_{0}=\emptyset$. Note that in this case $$\mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{0}) ~=~
\{{\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F})} ~\mid~ {F}\in
{\mathcal{F}}\}.$$ It is easy to see that Properties (A1)-(A4) are satisfied. For $t=1$, let ${\bold{S}}_{1}=\{{\mathcal{A}}_{p_1}\}$. As $L_0({CG})=\{{\mathit{v}}_{i_1}\}$ and $L_1({CG})=\{{\mathit{v}}_{i_2}~\mid~ {\mathcal{A}}_{p_1} \in {\mathcal{R}}_{i_2}\}$ for every ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{1})$, Properties (A2) and (A3) holds. Property (A4) holds as well since ${\bold{S}}_{1}$ determines $Q_0=\{{\mathit{v}}_{i_1}\}$.
Now assume that Properties (A1)-(A4) hold after step $t$ (for $t \geq 1$), and consider step $t+1$. We show how to construct ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}$ given ${\bold{S}}_{t}$, and then show that it satisfies Properties (A1)-(A4). Note that by definition ${L}_{t} \subseteq {\mathcal{V}}\setminus Q_{t-1}$. Our goal is to find a partial selection $\Delta_t$ determining ${L}_{t}$ such that $\Delta_t \subseteq NZ(\overline{X}_{\beta})$
Once finding such a set $\Delta_t$, the partial selection ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}$ is taken to be ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}={\bold{S}}_{t} \cup \Delta_t$, where ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ is the partial selection determining nodes in $Q_{t-1}$ by Property (A4) for step $t$. Note that since $Q_{t-1} \cap {L}_{t}=\emptyset$, the corresponding selections ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ and ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}$ agree. We now show that such $\Delta_t$ exists. This follows by the next claim.
\[cl:aux1\] For every $t>1$, every entity ${\mathit{v}}_j \in {L}_t$ has an active repressor in $\overline{X}_{\beta}$, i.e., ${\mathcal{R}}_j \cap NZ(\overline{X}_{\beta}) \neq \emptyset$.
We prove the claim by showing a slightly stronger statement, namely, that for every ${\mathit{v}}_j \in {L}_t$ there exists an affector ${\mathcal{A}}_k \in {\mathcal{R}}_j \cap {\bold{S}}_{t}$.
For ease of analysis, let’s focus on one specific ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t})$. Since ${\mathit{v}}_j \in {L}_{t}$, it follows that there exists some ${\mathit{v}}_i \in {L}_{t-1}$ such that $({\mathit{v}}_i, {\mathit{v}}_j) \in E({CG})$. Since ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ determines $Q_{t-1}$ and ${\mathit{v}}_i \in Q_{t-1}$, there exists a unique affector ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)}={\bold{S}}_{t} \cap {\mathcal{S}}_{i}$. In addition, by Property (A1) for step $t$, $X_{\beta}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)})>0$. Therefore, since ${\mathit{v}}_j$ is an immediate outgoing neighbor of ${\mathit{v}}_i$, it holds by Eq. (\[eq:cg\_condition\]) that ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)} \in {\mathcal{R}}_j$, which establishes the claim.
We now complete the proof for the existence of $\Delta_t$. By Claim \[cl:aux1\], each entity ${\mathit{v}}_i \in {L}_{t}$ has a strictly positive repression, or, ${T^-}(\overline{X}_{\beta}, {\mathcal{L}})_{i}>0$. Since $\overline{X}_{\beta}$ is feasible, it follows by Fact \[fc:feasible\_tots\_totr\] that also ${T^+}(\overline{X}_{\beta}, {\mathcal{L}})_{i}>0$. Therefore we get that for every ${\mathit{v}}_i \in {L}_{t}$, there exists an affector ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)} \in {\mathcal{S}}_{i} \cap NZ(\overline{X}_{\beta})$. Consequently, set $\Delta_t=\{{\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)} ~\mid~ {\mathit{v}}_i \in {L}_t \}$ and let ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}= {\bold{S}}_{t} \cup \Delta_t$.
\[obs:sim\_relation\] ${\bold{S}}_{t} \sim {\bold{S}}_{t+1}$.
By definition, ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ determines $Q_{t-1}=\bigcup_{j=0}^{t-1} L_{j}({CG})$, for every ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t})$. The selection ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}$ consists of ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ and a new selection for the new layer ${L}_{t}$ such that ${L}_{t} \cap Q_{t-1}=\emptyset$ and therefore ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ and ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}$ agree on their common part.
We now turn to prove Properties (A1)-(A4) for step $t+1$. Property (A1) follows immediately by the construction of ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}$. We next consider (A2).
\[cl:aux4\] $\mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1}) \subseteq \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t})$.
Consider some ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$. By Eq. (\[eq:graph\_family\_selection\]), there exists a complete selection ${\bold{S}}^{*}$, where ${CG}={\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}^{*})}$, such that ${\bold{S}}^{*} \sim {\bold{S}}_{t+1}$. Recall that ${L}_{i}=L_{i}({CG}')$ for every ${CG}' \in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t})$ and for every $i \in \{0, \ldots, t\}$ and that $Q_{t-1}=\bigcup_{i=0}^{t-1} {L}_{i}$ and $Q_{t}=Q_{t-1} \cup {L}_{t}$ where $Q_{t-1} \cap {L}_{t}=\emptyset$. Therefore $Q_{t-1} \subset Q_{t}$. By the inductive assumption, ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ determines $Q_{t-1}$ and by construction ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}$ determines $Q_{t}$. Combining all the above, Obs. \[obs:sim\_relation\], ${\bold{S}}_{t+1} \sim {\bold{S}}_{t}$. Obs. \[obs:chain\_sym\] implies that ${\bold{S}}^{*} \sim {\bold{S}}_{t}$. Therefore, by Eq. (\[eq:graph\_family\_selection\]) again, ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t})$.
Due to Claim \[cl:aux4\], and Properties (A2) and (A3) for step $t$ , Property (A2) follows for step $t+1$. It is therefore possible to fix some ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$ and define ${L}_{i}=L_{i}({CG})$ for every $i \in \{0,\ldots, t\}$ (by (A2) for $t+1$ this is well-defined)
We consider now Property (A3) and show that $L_{t+1}({CG}_1)=L_{t+1}({CG}_2)$ for every ${CG}_1, {CG}_2 \in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$.
For every graph ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$, define $W({CG})$ as the set of all immediate outgoing neighbors of ${L}_{t}$ in ${CG}$, $W({CG}) = \{{\mathit{v}}_k \mid \exists {\mathit{v}}_i \in {L}_{t} \text{~such that~}
({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathit{v}}_k) \in E({CG})\}$.
\[obs:w\] $W({CG}_1)=W({CG}_2)$ for every ${CG}_1, {CG}_2 \in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$.
Let ${CG}_1={\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_1)}$ and ${CG}_2={\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_2)}$, where ${\bold{S}}_1, {\bold{S}}_2$ correspond to complete legal selections. Since ${CG}_1, {CG}_2 \in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$, it follows that ${\bold{S}}_1, {\bold{S}}_2 \sim {\bold{S}}_{t+1}$. Since $\Delta_t$ determines ${L}_t$, every entity ${\mathit{v}}_i \in {L}_t$ has the same unique supporter ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)} \in {\bold{S}}_{t+1} \cap {\mathcal{S}}_i$ in both ${\bold{S}}_1, {\bold{S}}_2$. By the definition of the constraint graph in Eq. (\[eq:cg\_condition\]), it then follows that for graph ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$, the immediate outgoing neighbors of ${L}_t$, $W({CG})$ are fully determined by the partial selection $\Delta_t$. The observation follows.
Hereafter, let $W=W({CG})$, ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$, be the set of immediate neighbors of ${L}_t$ in ${CG}$ (by Obs. \[obs:w\], this is well-defined). Finally, note that $L_{t+1}({CG})=W \setminus \left(\bigcup_{i=1}^{t} L_{i}({CG}) \right)$, for every ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$. By Property (A2), ${L}_{i}=L_{i}({CG})$ for every ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$ and $i \in \{0, \ldots,t\}$. Hence, $L_{t+1}({CG})=W \setminus Q_t$ and by Obs. \[obs:w\], Property (A3) is established.
Finally, it remains to consider Property (A4). First, note that by Property (A2) and (A3) for step $t+1$, we get that $Q_{t}=Q_{t-1} \cup L_{t}({CG})$ for every ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$. By Property (A4) for step $t$ and Properties (A2) and (A3) for step $t+1$, it follows that the selection ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}$ determines $Q_{t}$.
We now turn to discuss the stopping criterion. Let $t^{*}$ be the first time step $t$ where ${\bold{S}}_{t^{*}}={\bold{S}}_{t^{*}-1}$. (Since ${\bold{S}}_{t} \subseteq {\bold{S}}_{t+1}$ for every $t\geq 0$, such $t^*$ exists). We then have the following.
$|{\bold{S}}_{t^{*}}|=n$ hence ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_{t^{*}})$ is a square system, and $\mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t^{*}})=\{{\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_{t^{*}})}\}$,
Recall that for every $i \in \{0, \ldots, t^{*}\}$, by Eq. (\[eq:graph\_family\_selection\]), ${CG}' \in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{i})$ represents a square system, and therefore by Obs. \[obs:reducible\_graph\_connected\] it is strongly connected. Fix some arbitrary ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t^{*}})$ and let ${L}_i=L_i({CG})$ for every $i \in \{0, \ldots, t^{*}\}$ (By Property (A2) and (A3) this is well defined). By Property (A4) it holds that the partial selection ${\bold{S}}_{t^{*}-1}$ (resp., ${\bold{S}}_{t^{*}}$) determines $Q_{t^*-2}$ (resp., $Q_{t^*-1}$). As ${\bold{S}}_{t^{*}-1}={\bold{S}}_{t^{*}}$, we have that $Q_{t^*-2}=Q_{t^*-1}$. Hence, $Q_{t^*-1} \setminus Q_{t^*-2}={L}_{t^*-1}=\emptyset$. This implies that the BFS graph $BFS({CG}, {\mathit{v}}_{i_1})$ consists of $t^*-1$ levels $Q_{t^*-2}$. In addition, since ${CG}$ is strongly connected it follows that $Q_{t^*-2}={\mathcal{V}}$. By Property (A4), ${\bold{S}}_{t^{*}}$ determines $Q_{t^*}$, hence $|{\bold{S}}_{t^{*}}|=n$ meaning that ${\bold{S}}_{t^{*}}$ is a complete selection, so ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_{t^{*}})$ corresponds to a unique square system. Finally, since the $t^*-1$ layers of every ${CG}\in \mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$ are the same (Property (A2) and (A3)) and span all the entities it follows that $\mathfrak{G}({\bold{S}}_{t+1})$ consists of a single constraint graph, the lemma follows. In summary, we end with a complete selection ${\bold{S}}_{t^{*}}$ that spans the $n$ entities. Every affector ${\mathcal{A}}_k \in {\bold{S}}_{t^{*}}$ is active and therefore the constraint graph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_{t^{*}}}$ is active in $\overline{X}_{\beta}$. This establishes the following lemma.
\[lem:one\_active\] For every feasible point $\overline{X}_{\beta}$ for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]) and every active affector ${\mathcal{A}}_{p_1}$ in $\overline{X}_{\beta}$, there exists a complete selection ${\bold{S}}^{*}$ for ${\mathcal{V}}$ such that ${\bold{S}}^{*} \subseteq NZ(\overline{X}_{\beta})$, hence the corresponding constraint subgraph ${\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}^{*})}$ is active in $\overline{X}_{\beta}$.
The following is an interesting implication.
\[cor:active\] For every feasible vector there exists an active spanning irreducible graph.
Since every feasible vector is non-negative, there exists at least one active affector in it, from which an active spanning irreducible graph can be constructed by Lemma \[lem:one\_active\].
Finally, we are ready to complete the proof of Lemma \[cl:entity\_one\_nonzero\] for any irreducible system ${\mathcal{L}}$. Since $\sum_{i} X_{\beta}(i)>0$, it follows that there exists at least one affector ${\mathcal{A}}_{p_1}$ such that $X_{\beta}({\mathcal{A}}_{p_1})>0$. By Lemma \[lem:one\_active\], there is a complete selection vector ${\bold{S}}^{*} \subseteq NZ( X_{\beta})$. The lemma follows.
We end this subsection by showing that every vertex $\overline{X} \in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta))$ is a ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{f}}}$ solution.
\[cl:weak\_zero\_polytope\] If the system of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]) is irreducible, then every $\overline{X} \in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta))$ is a ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{f}}}$ solution for it, and in particular every optimal solution $\overline{X}^* \in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta^*))$ is a ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{*}}}$ solution.
By Claim \[cl:n\_zero\_polytope\], for every $\overline{X} \in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta))$, $|NZ(\overline{X})| \leq n+1$. By Lemma \[cl:entity\_one\_nonzero\], for every $1 \leq i \leq n$, $|NZ(\overline{X}) \cap {\mathcal{S}}_i| \geq 1$. Therefore there exists at most one entity ${\mathit{v}}_{i}$ such that $|NZ(\overline{X}) \cap {\mathcal{S}}_i|=2$, and $|NZ(\overline{X}) \cap {\mathcal{S}}_j|=1$ for every $j \neq i$, i.e., the solution is ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{f}}}$. The above holds for every $\beta \in (0, \beta^*]$. In particular, for the optimal $\beta$ value, $\beta^*$, it holds that $\overline{X}^* \in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta^*))$ is a ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{*}}}$ solution.
Existence of a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution {#sec:zerostar}
----------------------------------------------
In the previous section we established the fact that when ${\mathcal{L}}$ is irreducible, every vertex $\overline{X} \in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta))$ corresponds to an ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{f}}}$ solution for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]). In particular, this statement holds for $\beta=\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$, the optimal $\beta$ for ${\mathcal{L}}$. By the feasibility of the system for $\beta^{*}$, the corresponding polytope is non-empty and bounded (and each of its vertices is a ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{*}}}$ solution), hence there exist ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{*}}}$ solutions for the problem. The goal of this subsection is to establish the existence of a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution for the problem and thus complete the proof of Thm. \[thm:pf\_ext\]. In particular, we consider Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]) for an irreducible system ${\mathcal{L}}$ and $\beta=\beta^{*}$, i.e., the optimal value of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) for ${\mathcal{L}}$, and show that [*every*]{} optimal $\overline{X} \in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta^{*}))$ solution is in fact a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution.
We begin by showing that for $\beta^{*}$, the set of $n$ SR Inequalities (Eq. (\[eq:SR-convex\])) hold with equality for every optimal solution $\overline{X}^{*}$, including one that is not a ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{*}}}$ solution.
\[lem:strict\_equality\] If ${\mathcal{L}}=\langle {\mathcal{M}^+},{\mathcal{M}^-}\rangle$ is irreducible, then ${\mathcal{M}^-}\cdot \overline{X}^{*} =
1/\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}) \cdot {\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot \overline{X}^{*}$ for every optimal solution $\overline{X}^{*}$ of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]).
Consider an irreducible system ${\mathcal{L}}$. By Lemma \[cl:entity\_one\_nonzero\], every entity ${\mathit{v}}_i$ has at least one active supporter in $NZ(\overline{X}^{*})$. Select, for every $i$, one such supporter ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)} \in {\mathcal{S}}_i \cap NZ(\overline{X}^{*})$. Let ${\bold{S}}^{*}= \{{\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)} \mid 1\le i\le n \}$. By definition, ${\bold{S}}^{*} \subseteq NZ(\overline{X}^{*})$. Also, by Claim \[cor:distinct\] the sets ${\mathcal{S}}_i$ are disjoint. Therefore ${\bold{S}}^{*}$ is a complete selection (i.e, for every ${\mathit{v}}_i$, $|{\mathcal{S}}_i \cap {\bold{S}}^{*}|=1$), and hence ${\mathcal{L}}^{*}={\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}^{*})$ is a square irreducible system. Let ${CG}^*={\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}^{*}}$ be the constraint graph of ${\mathcal{L}}^{*}$. By Obs. \[obs:reducible\_graph\_connected\](a), ${CG}^*$ is strongly connected. In addition, since ${\mathcal{L}}^*$ has exactly one affector ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)}$ for every ${\mathit{v}}_i$, and this affector is active, it follows that every edge $e({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathit{v}}_j) \in E({CG}^*)$ corresponds to an *active* affector in $\overline{X}^{*}$, i.e., ${\mathcal{S}}_i \cap {\mathcal{R}}_j \cap NZ(\overline{X}^{*}) \neq \emptyset$, and hence ${CG}^*$ is active.
Therefore, for an edge $(v_i,v_j)$ in ${CG}^*$, if we reduce the power of the active supporter of $v_i$ which, by the definition of ${CG}^*$ (see Eq. (\[eq:cg\_condition\])) is a repressor of $v_j$, then $v_j's$ inequality can be made strict. Such reduction makes sense only because we consider active affectors. This intuition is next used in order to prove the lemma. For a feasible solution $\overline{X}$ of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]) and vaule $\beta$, let us formulate the SR constraints in terms of total support and total repression as in (Eq. (\[eq:SR\_ind\])) , and let $$\label{eq:residual}
R_{i}(\overline{X}) = 1/\beta \cdot
{T^+}(\overline{X})_{i}-{T^-}(\overline{X})_{i}$$ be the residual amount of the $i'th$ SR constraint of (\[eq:SR\_ind\])(hence $R_{i}(\overline{X})>0$ implies strict inequality on the $i$th constraint with $\overline{X}$). Then the lemma claims that for the optimal solution $\overline{X}^*$ and $\beta^*$, $R_{i}(\overline{X}^*)=0$ for every $i$.
Assume, toward contradiction, that there exists at least one entity, w.l.o.g. ${\mathit{v}}_{0}$, for which $R_{0}(\overline{X}^*)>0$. In what follows, we gradually construct a new assignment $\overline{X}^{**}$ that achieves a strictly positive residue $R_{i}(\overline{X}^{**})>0$ , or, a strict inequality in the SR constraint of Eq. (\[eq:SR\_ind\]), for all ${\mathit{v}}_i \in {\mathcal{V}}$. Clearly, if all SR constraints are satisfied with strict inequality, then there exists some larger $\beta^{**}>\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$ that still satisfies all the constraints, in contradiction to the optimality of $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$.
To construct $\overline{X}^{**}$, we trace paths of influence in the strongly connected (and active) constraint graph ${CG}^*$. Think of ${\mathit{v}}_0$ as the root, and let $L_{j}({CG}^*)$ be the $j^{th}$ level of ${BFS}({CG}^*, {\mathit{v}}_{0})$ (with $L_0=\{{\mathit{v}}_{0}\}$). Let $Q_{-1}=\emptyset$, and $Q_{t}=\bigcup_{i=0}^{t} L_{i}({CG}^*)$ for $t \geq 0$. Let ${\bold{S}}_{t}=\{{\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)} ~\mid~ {\mathit{v}}_{i} \in Q_{t-1}\} \subseteq {\bold{S}}^{*}$ be the partial selection determining the entities in $Q_{t-1}$. I.e., $|{\bold{S}}_{t}|=|Q_{t-1}|$ and for every ${\mathit{v}}_i \in Q_{t-1}$, $|{\bold{S}}_{t} \cap {\mathcal{S}}_{i}|=1$.
The process of constructing $\overline{X}^{**}$ consists of $d$ steps, where $d$ is the depth of ${BFS}({CG}^*, {\mathit{v}}_{0})$. At step $t$, we are given $\overline{X}_{t-1}$ and use it to construct $\overline{X}_{t}$. Essentially, $\overline{X}_{t}$ should satisfy the following properties.
[(B1)]{} The set of SR inequalities corresponding to $Q_{t-1}$ entities hold with strict inequality with $\overline{X}_{t}$. That is, for every ${\mathit{v}}_i \in Q_{t-1}$, $R_{i}(\overline{X}_{t})>0$, i.e., $$1/\beta^{*} \cdot {T^+}(\overline{X}_t)_{i} ~>~
{T^-}(\overline{X}_t)_{i} ~.$$
[(B2)]{} $\overline{X}_{t}$ is an optimal solution, i.e., it satisfies Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) with $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$.
[(B3)]{} $X_{t}({\mathcal{A}})=X^{*}({\mathcal{A}})$ for every ${\mathcal{A}}\notin {\bold{S}}_{t}$ and $X_{t}({\mathcal{A}})<X^{*}({\mathcal{A}})$ for every ${\mathcal{A}}\in {\bold{S}}_{t}$.
Let us now describe the construction process in more detail. Let $\overline{X}_0=\overline{X}^{*}$. Consider step $t=1$ and recall that $R_{0}(\overline{X}_0)>0$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}_{k_0}$ be the active supporter of ${\mathit{v}}_{0}$, i.e., ${\mathcal{A}}_{k_0} \in {\mathcal{S}}_{0} \cap {\bold{S}}^{*}$. Then it is possible to slightly reduce the value of ${\mathcal{A}}_{k_0}$ in $\overline{X}_0$ while still maintaining feasibility, yielding $\overline{X}_1$. Formally, let $X_{1}({\mathcal{A}}_{k_0}) = X_0({\mathcal{A}}_{k_0})-
\min\{X_0({\mathcal{A}}_{k_0}),R_{0}(\overline{X}_0)\}/2$ and leave the rest of the entries unchanged, i.e., $X_{1}({\mathcal{A}}_{k})=X^{*}({\mathcal{A}}_{k})$ for every other $k \neq k_0$. We now show that Properties (B1)-(B3) are satisfied for $t\in \{0,1\}$ and then proceed to consider the construction of $\overline{X}_{t}$ for $t>1$. Since $L_{0}({CG}^*)=\{{\mathit{v}}_{0}\}$, and $Q_{-1}=\emptyset$, also ${\bold{S}}_{0}=\emptyset$, so (B1) holds vacuously, and (B2) and (B3) follow by the fact that $\overline{X}_{0}=\overline{X}^*$. Next, consider $\overline{X}_{1}$. By the irreducibility of the system (in particular, see Cl. \[cor:distinct\]), since only ${\mathcal{A}}_{k_0}$ was reduced in $\overline{X}_1$ (compared to $\overline{X}^{*}$), only the constraint of ${\mathit{v}}_0$ could have been damaged (i.e., become unsatisfied). Yet, it is easy to verify that the constraint of ${\mathit{v}}_{0}$ still holds with strict inequality for $\overline{X}_{1}$, so Property (B2) holds. As $Q_{0}=\{{\mathit{v}}_0\}$, Property (B1) needs to be verified only for ${\mathit{v}}_0$, and indeed the new value of $X_1({\mathcal{A}}_{k_0})$ ensures $R_0(\overline{X}_{1})>0$, so (B1) is satisfied. Finally, ${\bold{S}}_{1}=\{{\mathcal{A}}_{k_0}\}$, and Property (B3) checks out as well.
Next, we describe the general construction step. Assume that we are given solution $\overline{X}_{r}$ satisfying Properties (B1)-(B3) for each $r\leq t$. We now describe the construction of $\overline{X}_{t+1}$ and then show that it satisfies the desired properties. We begin by showing that the set of SR inequalities of Eq. (\[eq:SR\_ind\]) on the entities ${\mathit{v}}_i$ in $L_{t}({CG}^*)$ hold with strict inequality with $\overline{X}_{t}$.
\[cl:strict\_inequality\_induc\] $R_j(\overline{X}_{t})>0$, or, ${T^-}(\overline{X}_{t})_{j} < 1/\beta^{*} \cdot {T^+}(\overline{X}_{t})_{j}$, for every entity ${\mathit{v}}_j \in L_{t}({CG}^*)$.
Consider some ${\mathit{v}}_j \in L_{t}({CG}^*)$. By definition of $L_{t}({CG}^*)$, there exists an entity ${\mathit{v}}_i \in L_{t-1}({CG}^*)$ such that $e(i,j) \in E({CG}^*)$. Since ${\mathit{v}}_{i} \in Q_{t-1}$ and ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ is a partial selection determining $Q_{t-1}$, a (unique) supporter ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)} \in {\bold{S}}_{t} \cap {\mathcal{S}}_{i}$ is guaranteed to exist. By the definition of ${CG}^*$, $e({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathit{v}}_j) \in E({CG}^*)$ implies that ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)} \in {\mathcal{R}}_{j}$. Finally, note that by Property (B3), $X_{t}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)})<X^*({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)})$ and $X_{t}({\mathcal{A}})=X^{*}({\mathcal{A}})=X_{t-1}({\mathcal{A}})$ for every ${\mathcal{A}}\in {\mathcal{S}}_j$ (since ${\bold{S}}_{t} \cap {\mathcal{S}}_j =\emptyset$). I.e., $$\label{eq:tot_sup_rep_ineq}
{T^+}(\overline{X}_{t})_{j}={T^+}(\overline{X}_{t-1})_{j} \text{~and~}
{T^-}(\overline{X}_{t})_{j}<{T^-}(\overline{X}_{t-1})_{j},$$ which implies by Eq. (\[eq:SR\_ind\]) that $$\label{eq:residual_step}
R_j(\overline{X}_{t-1})<R_j(\overline{X}_{t})~.$$
By the optimality of $\overline{X}_{t-1}$ (Property (B2) for step $t-1$), we have that $R_j(\overline{X}_{t-1}) \geq 0$. Combining this with Eq. (\[eq:residual\_step\]), $0 \leq R_j(\overline{X}_{t-1})<R_j(\overline{X}_{t})$, which establishes the claim for ${\mathit{v}}_j$. The same argument can be applied for every ${\mathit{v}}_j \in L_{t}({CG}^*)$, thus the claim is established.
Let $\Delta_t \subseteq {\bold{S}}^{*}$ be the partial selection that determines $L_{t}({CG}^*)$. In the solution $\overline{X}_{t+1}$, only the entries of $\Delta_t$ have been reduced and the other entries remain as in $\overline{X}_{t}$. Recall that by construction, ${\bold{S}}^{*} \subseteq NZ(\overline{X}^{*})$ and therefore also ${\bold{S}}^{*} \subseteq NZ(\overline{X}_{t})$. By Claim \[cl:strict\_inequality\_induc\], the constraints of $L_{t}({CG}^*)$ nodes hold with strict inequality, and therefore it is possible to slightly reduce the value of their positive supporters while still maintaining the strict inequality (although with a lower residue). Formally, for every ${\mathit{v}}_k \in L_{t}({CG}^*)$, consider its unique supporter in $\Delta_t$, ${\mathcal{A}}_{i_k}\in \Delta_t \cap {\mathcal{S}}_k$. By Claim \[cl:strict\_inequality\_induc\], $R_{k}(\overline{X}_{t})>0$. Set $X_{t+1}({\mathcal{A}}_{i_k}) =
X_{t}({\mathcal{A}}_{i_k})-\min(X_{t}({\mathcal{A}}_{i_k}),R_{k}(\overline{X}_{t}))/2$. In addition, $X_{t+1}({\mathcal{A}}_{i_k})=X_{t}({\mathcal{A}}_{i_k})$ for every other supporter ${\mathcal{A}}_{i_k} \notin \Delta_t$.
It remains to show that $\overline{X}_{t+1}$ satisfies the Properties (B1)-(B3). (B1) follows by construction. To see (B2), note that since ${\mathcal{S}}_{i} \cap {\mathcal{S}}_{j} = \emptyset$ for every ${\mathit{v}}_i, {\mathit{v}}_j \in {\mathcal{V}}$, only the constraints of $L_{t}({CG}^*)$ nodes might have been violated by the new solution $\overline{X}_{t+1}$. Formally, ${T^+}(\overline{X}_{t+1})_{i}={T^+}(\overline{X}_{t})_{i}$ and ${T^-}(\overline{X}_{t+1})_{i} \leq {T^-}(\overline{X}_{t})_{i}$ for every ${\mathit{v}}_i \notin L_{t}({CG}^*)$. Although, for ${\mathit{v}}_i \in L_{t}({CG}^*)$, we get that ${T^+}(\overline{X}_{t+1})_{i}<{T^+}(\overline{X}_{t})_{i}$ (yet ${T^-}(\overline{X}_{t+1})_{i} = {T^-}(\overline{X}_{t})_{i}$), this reduction in the total support of $L_{t}({CG}^*)$ nodes was performed in a controlled manner, guaranteeing that the corresponding $L_{t}({CG}^*)$ inequalities hold with *strict* inequality. Finally, (B3) follows immediately. After $d+1$ steps, by Property (B1) all inequalities hold with strict inequality (as $Q_{d}={\mathcal{V}}$) with the solution $\overline{X}_{d+1}$. Thus, it is possible to find some $\beta^{**}>\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$ that would contradict the optimally of $\beta^{*}$. Formally, let $R^{*}=\min R_{i}(\overline{X}_{d+1})$. Since $R^{*}>0$, we get that $\overline{X}_{d+1}$ is feasible with $\beta^{**}=\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})+R^{*}>\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$, contradicting the optimally of $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$. Lemma \[lem:strict\_equality\] follows.
We proceed by considering a vertex of $\overline{X}^{*} \in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta^{*}))$. By Lemma \[cl:weak\_zero\_polytope\], $\overline{X}^{*}$ is a ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{*}}}$ solution. To complete the proof of Thm. \[thm:pf\_ext\], we have to prove that it is a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution. To do that, we first transform ${\mathcal{L}}$ into a weakly square system ${\mathcal{L}^{W}}$. First, if $m=n+1$, then the system is already weak. Otherwise, without loss of generality, let the $i^{th}$ entry in $\overline{X}^{*}$ correspond to ${\mathcal{A}}_i$ where ${\mathcal{A}}_i=NZ(\overline{X}^{*}) \cap {\mathcal{S}}_i$ for $i \in \{1,\ldots, n-1\}$ and the $n^{th}$ and $(n+1)^{st}$ entries correspond to ${\mathcal{A}}_n$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_{n+1}$ respectively such that $\{{\mathcal{A}}_n, {\mathcal{A}}_{n+1}\}=NZ(\overline{X}^{*}) \cap {\mathcal{S}}_n$. It then follows that $X^{*}(i) \neq 0$ for every $i \in \{1,\ldots,n+1\}$ and $X^{*}(i) = 0$ for every $i \in \{n+2, \ldots, m\}$. Let $\overline{X}^{**}=\left(X^{*}(1),\ldots, X^{*}(n+1)\right)$. Let ${\mathcal{M}^{+}_{w}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n \times (n+1)}$ where ${\mathcal{M}^{+}_{w}}(i,j)={\mathcal{M}^+}(i,j)$ for every $i \in \{1,\ldots, n\}$ and every $j \in \{1,\ldots, n+1\}$, and define ${\mathcal{M}^{-}_{w}}$ analogously. From now on, we restrict attention to the weakly square system ${\mathcal{L}^{W}}=\langle {\mathcal{M}^{+}_{w}},{\mathcal{M}^{-}_{w}}\rangle$ where $|{\mathcal{S}}_{n}|=2$. Note that this system results from ${\mathcal{L}}$ by discarding the corresponding entries of ${\mathcal{A}}\setminus NZ(\overline{X}^{*})$. Therefore, $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})=\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}^{W}})$. Let ${\mathcal{M}^+}_{n-1}$ correspond to the upper left $(n-1) \times (n-1)$ submatrix of ${\mathcal{M}^{+}_{w}}$. Let ${\mathcal{M}^+}_{n}$ be obtained from ${\mathcal{M}^{+}_{w}}$ by removing the $(n+1)^{st}$ column. Finally, ${\mathcal{M}^+}_{n+1}$ is obtained from ${\mathcal{M}^{+}_{w}}$ by removing the $n^{th}$ column. The matrices ${\mathcal{M}^-}_{n-1},{\mathcal{M}^-}_{n},{\mathcal{M}^-}_{n+1}$ are defined analogously.
To study the weakly square system ${\mathcal{L}^{W}}$, we consider the following three *square* systems: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ssystem_def}
{\mathcal{L}}_{n-1} &=& \langle {\mathcal{M}^+}_{n-1}, {\mathcal{M}^-}_{n-1}\rangle~,
\\
{\mathcal{L}}_{n} &=& \langle {\mathcal{M}^+}_{n}, {\mathcal{M}^-}_{n}\rangle~, \nonumber
\\
{\mathcal{L}}_{n+1} &=& \langle {\mathcal{M}^+}_{n+1}, {\mathcal{M}^-}_{n+1}\rangle~. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Note that a feasible solution $\overline{X}_{n+b}$ for the system ${\mathcal{L}}_{n+b}$, for $b \in \{0,1\}$, corresponds to a feasible solution for ${\mathcal{L}^{W}}$ by setting $X_{w}({\mathcal{A}}_j)=X_{n+b}({\mathcal{A}}_j)$ for every $j \neq n+(1-b)$ and $X_{w}({\mathcal{A}}_{n+(1-b)})=0$. For ease of notation, let ${\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda) = {\mathrm{P}}(Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n}), \lambda)$, ${\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda) = {\mathrm{P}}(Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n+1}), \lambda)$ and ${\mathrm{P}}_{n-1}(\lambda) = {\mathrm{P}}(Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n-1}), \lambda)$, where ${\mathrm{P}}$ is the characteristic polynomial defined in Eq. (\[eq:CP\]). Let $\beta^{*}_{n+b}=\beta^*({\mathcal{L}}_{n+b})$ be the optimal value of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) for the system ${\mathcal{L}}_{n+b}$. Let $\beta^*=\beta^*({\mathcal{L}})$ and let $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda^{*}&=&1/\beta^{*} ,\\
\lambda^{*}_{n+b}&=&1/\beta^{*}_{n+b},
\mbox{~for~} b \in \{-1,0,1\}~.\end{aligned}$$
\[cl:n\_1\_beta\_optimal\] $\max\{\beta^{*}_{n}, \beta^{*}_{n+1}\} \leq \beta^{*} < \beta^{*}_{n-1}$.
The left inequality follows as any optimal solution $\overline{X}^{*}$ for ${\mathcal{L}}_{n}$ (respectively, ${\mathcal{L}}_{n+1}$) can be achieved in the weakly square system ${\mathcal{L}^{W}}$ by setting $X^{*}({\mathcal{A}}_{n+1})=0$ (resp., $X^{*}({\mathcal{A}}_{n})=0$).
Assume towards contradiction that $\beta^*=\beta^*_{n-1}$ and let $\overline{X}'$ be the optimal solution for ${\mathcal{L}^{W}}$.
By Lemma \[cl:entity\_one\_nonzero\], it holds that $X'({\mathcal{A}}_{n})+ X'({\mathcal{A}}_{n+1}) >0$. Without loss of generality, assume that $X'({\mathcal{A}}_{n})>0$. By Obs. \[obs:reducible\_graph\_connected\](a) and the irreducibility of ${\mathcal{L}^{W}}$, ${\mathit{v}}_{n}$ is strongly connected to the rest of the graph for every selection of one of its two supporters. Thus there exists at least one entity ${\mathit{v}}_{j}$, $j \in [1,n-1]$ such that ${\mathcal{A}}_{n} \in {\mathcal{R}}_{j}$.
Let $\overline{X}'' \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ be obtained by taking the values of the first $n-1$ affectors as in $\overline{X}'$ and discarding the values of ${\mathcal{A}}_{n}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_{n+1}$. We have the following. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:totstotr}
{T^+}(\overline{X}'', {\mathcal{L}}_{n-1})_{j}={T^+}(\overline{X}', {\mathcal{L}^{W}})_{j} \mbox{~and~}
{T^-}(\overline{X}'', {\mathcal{L}}_{n-1})_{j}<{T^-}(\overline{X}', {\mathcal{L}^{W}})_{j}~,\end{aligned}$$ where strict inequality follows by the assumption that $X'({\mathcal{A}}_{n})>0$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_{n}$ is a repressor of ${\mathit{v}}_j$. Since $\overline{X}'$ is an optimal solution for the system ${\mathcal{L}^{W}}$, by Lemma \[lem:strict\_equality\], it holds that ${T^+}(\overline{X}', {\mathcal{L}^{W}})_{j}={T^-}(\overline{X}', {\mathcal{L}^{W}})_{j}$. Combining with Eq. (\[eqn:totstotr\]), we get that ${T^+}(\overline{X}'', {\mathcal{L}}_{n-1})_{j}<{T^-}(\overline{X}'', {\mathcal{L}}_{n-1})_{j}$. Since $\overline{X}''$ is an optimal solution for ${\mathcal{L}}_{n-1}$, we end with contradiction to Lemma \[lem:strict\_equality\], concluding that $\beta^* <\beta^*_{n-1}$. The claim follows.
Our goal in this section is to show that the optimal $\beta^{*}$ value for ${\mathcal{L}^{W}}$ can be achieved by setting either $X^{*}({\mathcal{A}}_{n})=0$ or $X^{*}({\mathcal{A}}_{n+1})=0$, essentially showing that the optimal ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{*}}}$ solution corresponds to a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution. This is formalized in the following lemma.
\[thm:0\_solution\] $\beta^{*}=\max\{\beta^{*}_{n}, \beta^{*}_{n+1}\}$.
The following observation holds for every $b \in \{-1,0,1\}$ and follows immediately by the definitions of feasibility and irreducibility and the [PF Theorem]{} \[thm:pf\_full\].
\[obs:perron\_application\]
[(1)]{} $\lambda^*_{n+b}>0$ is the maximal eigenvalue of $Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n+b})$.
[(2)]{} For an irreducible system ${\mathcal{L}}$, $\lambda^*_{n+b}=1/\beta^*_{n+b}$.
[(3)]{} If the system is feasible then $\lambda^*_{n+b}>0$.
For a square system ${\mathcal{L}}\in {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$, let $W^1$ be a modified form of the matrix $Z$, defined as follows. $$W^1({\mathcal{L}}, \beta) ~=~ Z({\mathcal{L}})-1/\beta \cdot I ~~~\text{for}~~~ \beta \in (0, \beta^{*}].$$ More explicitly, $$W^{1}({\mathcal{L}}, \beta)_{i,j} ~=~
\begin{cases}
-1/\beta, & \text{if $i=j$;}\\
-g({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathcal{A}}_j)/g(i,i), & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Clearly, $W^1({\mathcal{L}}, \beta)$ cannot be defined for a nonsquare system ${\mathcal{L}}\notin {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$. Instead, a generalization $W^2$ of $W^1$ for any (nonsquare) $m \geq n$ system ${\mathcal{L}}$ is given by $$W^2({\mathcal{L}}, \beta) ~=~
{\mathcal{M}^-}- 1/\beta \cdot {\mathcal{M}^+},
~~~\text{for}~~~ \beta \in (0, \beta^{*}],$$ or explicitly, $$W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}, \beta)_{i,j} ~=~
\begin{cases}
-g(i,i)/\beta, & \text{if $i=j$;}\\
-g({\mathit{v}}_i,{\mathcal{A}}_j), & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$ Note that if $\overline{X}_{\beta}$ is a feasible solution for ${\mathcal{L}}$, then $W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}, \beta) \cdot \overline{X}_{\beta} \leq 0$. If ${\mathcal{L}}\in {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$, it also holds that $W^{1}({\mathcal{L}}, \beta) \cdot \overline{X}_{\beta} \leq 0$.
For ${\mathcal{L}}\in {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$, where both $W^{1}({\mathcal{L}}, \beta)$ and $W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}, \beta)$ are well-defined, the following connection becomes useful in our later argument. Recall that ${\mathrm{P}}(Z({\mathcal{L}}),t)$ is the characteristic polynomial of $Z({\mathcal{L}})$ (see Eq. (\[eq:CP\])).
\[obs:x\_y\_relation\] For a square system ${\mathcal{L}}$,\
(a) $\det(-W^{1}({\mathcal{L}}, \beta))={\mathrm{P}}(Z({\mathcal{L}}),1/\beta)$ and\
(b) $\det(-W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}, \beta)) ~=~
{\mathrm{P}}(Z({\mathcal{L}}),1/\beta) \cdot \prod_{i=1}^{n} g(i,i)$.
The observation follows immediately by noting that $W^{1}({\mathcal{L}}, \beta)_{i,j}=W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}, \beta)_{i,j} \cdot g(i,i)$ for every $i$ and $j$, and by Eq. (\[eq:CP\]). The next equality plays a key role in our analysis.
\[lem:P\_n\_n+1\] $\displaystyle \frac{g(n,n) \cdot X^{*}(n) \cdot {\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda^{*})}
{{\mathrm{P}}_{n-1}(\lambda^{*})} +
\frac{g(n,n+1) \cdot X^{*}(n+1) \cdot {\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda^{*})}
{{\mathrm{P}}_{n-1}(\lambda^{*})} = 0.$
By Lemma \[lem:strict\_equality\], it follows that $-W^{2}({\mathcal{L}^{W}},\beta^{*}) \cdot \overline{X}^{*}=0$, or $$\begin{pmatrix}
g(1,1)/\beta^{*} & g(1,2) & \ldots &
g(1,n)&
g(1,n+1)\\
g(2,1) & g(2,2)/\beta^{*} & \ldots &
g(2,n)&
g(2,n+1)\\
\vdots & \ldots & \ldots & \vdots\\
g(n,1) & g(n,2) & \ldots &
g(n,n)/\beta^{*}&
g(n,n+1)/\beta^{*}\\
\end{pmatrix}
\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
X^{*}(1)\\
X^{*}(2)\\
\vdots\\
X^{*}(n)\\
X^{*}(n+1)
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\
\vdots\\
0\\
0
\end{pmatrix}$$ Next, we need to apply Claim \[cl:cramer\_non\_square\](b). To do that, we first need to verify that $W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n-1},\beta^{*})$, i.e., the $(n-1) \times (n-1)$ upper left submatrix of $W^{2}({\mathcal{L}^{W}},\beta^{*})$, is nonsingular. This follows by noting that $\lambda^{*} \in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ and by Claim \[cl:n\_1\_beta\_optimal\], $\lambda^{*}>\lambda^{*}_{n-1}$. Moreover, note that $\lambda^{*}_{n-1}$ is the largest real root of ${\mathrm{P}}_{n-1}(\lambda)$, hence $$\label{eq:cpnz}
{\mathrm{P}}_{n-1}(\lambda^{*}) \neq 0~.$$ Combining with Obs. \[obs:x\_y\_relation\](b), it follows that $\det(-W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n-1}, \beta^{*})) \neq 0$ or that $W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n-1}, \beta^{*})$ is nonsingular.
Now we can safely apply Claim \[cl:cramer\_non\_square\](b), yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Cramer_SINR_mid}
X^{*}(n) \cdot \frac{\det \left(-W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n},\beta^{*}) \right)}
{\det \left(-W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n-1},\beta^{*}) \right)}+ X^{*}(n+1) \cdot \frac{\det (-W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n+1},\beta^{*}))}
{\det \left(-W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n-1},\beta^{*}) \right)} = 0~.\end{aligned}$$ By plugging Obs. \[obs:x\_y\_relation\](b) and simplifying, the lemma follows.
Our work plan from this point on is as follows. We first define a range of ‘candidate’ values for $\beta^{*}$. Essentially, our interest is in *real* positive $\beta^{*}$. Recall that $Z({\mathcal{L}^{W}}), Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n})$ and $Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n+1})$ are nonnegative irreducible square matrices and therefore Theorem \[thm:pf\_full\] can be applied throughout the analysis. Without loss of generality, assume that $\beta^{*}_{n} \geq \beta^{*}_{n+1}$ (and thus $\lambda_{n}^{*}\leq \lambda_{n+1}^{*}$) and let $Range_{\beta^*}=(\beta^{*}_{n}, \beta^{*}_{n-1}) \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$. Let the corresponding range of $\lambda^{*}$ be $$\label{eq:lambda_range}
Range_{\lambda^{*}}=(\lambda^{*}_{n-1},\lambda^{*}_{n})=(1/\beta^{*}_{n-1}, 1/\beta^{*}_{n}).$$ To complete the proof for Lemma \[thm:0\_solution\] we assume, towards contradiction, that $\beta^{*} > \beta^{*}_{n}$. According to Claim \[cl:n\_1\_beta\_optimal\] and the fact that $\beta^{*} \neq \beta^{*}_{n}$, it then follows that $\beta^{*} < \beta^{*}_{n}$, $\lambda^*< \lambda^*_{n}, \lambda^*_{n+1}$ and hence ${\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda^*),{\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda^*)\neq 0$.
In addition, $\beta^{*} \in Range_{\beta^*}$. Note that since $Range_{\beta^{*}} \subseteq {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$, also $Range_{\lambda^{*}}\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$, namely, the corresponding $\lambda^*$ is real and positive as well. This is important mainly in the context of nonnegative irreducible matrices $Z({\mathcal{L}}')$ for ${\mathcal{L}}' \in {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$. In contrast to nonnegative primitive matrices (where ${\mathit{h}}=1$) for irreducible matrices, such as $Z({\mathcal{L}}')$, by Thm. \[thm:pf\_full\] there are ${\mathit{h}}\geq 1$ eigenvalues, $\lambda_i \in {EigVal}({\mathcal{L}}')$, for which $|\lambda_i|={\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}')$. However, note that only one of these, namely, ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}')$, might belong to $Range_{\lambda^{*}}\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$. (This follows as by Thm. \[thm:pf\_full\], every other such $\lambda_i$ is either real but negative or with a nonzero complex component).
Fix $b \in \{-1,0,1\}$ and let $k_{n+b}$ be the number of real and positive eigenvalues of $Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n+b})$. Let $0<\lambda_{n+b}^{1} \leq \lambda_{n+b}^{2} \ldots \leq \lambda_{n+b}^{k_{n+b}}$ be the ordered set of *real and positive* eigenvalues for $Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n+b})$, i.e., real positive roots of ${\mathrm{P}}_{n+b}(\lambda)$. Note that $\lambda_{n+b}^{k_{n+b}}=\lambda_{n+b}^{*}$. By Theorem \[thm:pf\_full\], we have that for every $b \in \{-1,0,1\}$\
(a) $\lambda_{n+b}^{*} \in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$, and\
(b) $\lambda_{n+b}^{*} > |\lambda_{n+b}^{p}|$, $p \in \{1,\ldots, k_{n+b}-1\}$.
We proceed by showing that the potential range for $\lambda^{*}$, namely, $Range_{\lambda^{*}}$, can contain no root of ${\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda)$ and ${\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda)$. Since $Range_{\lambda^{*}}$ is real and positive, it is sufficient to consider only real and positive roots of ${\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda)$ and ${\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda)$ (or real and positive eigenvalues of $Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n})$ and $Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n+1})$).
![Real positive roots of ${\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda)$, ${\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda)$, and ${\mathrm{P}}_{n-1}(\lambda)$. Each eigenvalue sequence $\lambda^p_{n+b}$ is ordered increasingly, but the relative ordering in which the sequences are merged in the figure is arbitrary, except $\lambda^{*}_{n-1}, \lambda^*_{n}$ and $\lambda^*_{n+1}$. Note that in the range $Range_{\lambda^{*}}$ that are no roots of ${\mathrm{P}}_{n+b}(\lambda)$ for $b \in \{-1,0,1\}$. \[fig:eigenval\]](eigen_vals_3)
\[cl:no\_root\_in\_range\] $\lambda_{n}^{p_0}, \lambda_{n+1}^{p_1} \notin Range_{\lambda^{*}}$ for every real $\lambda_{n}^{p_0}, \lambda_{n+1}^{p_1}$, for $p_0 <k_{n}, p_1<k_{n+1}$.
Note that $Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n-1})$ is the principal $(n-1)$ minor of both $Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n})$ and $Z({\mathcal{L}}_{n+1})$. By the separation theorem of Hall and Porsching, see Lemma. \[lem:sep\_thm\], we get that $\lambda_{n}^{p_0}, \lambda_{n+1}^{p_1} \leq \lambda_{n-1}^{*}$ for every $p_0 <k_{n}$ and $p_1 < k_{n+1}$, concluding by Eq. (\[eq:lambda\_range\]) that $\lambda_{n}^{p_0}, \lambda_{n+1}^{p_1} \notin Range_{\lambda^{*}}$.
We proceed by showing that ${\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda)$ and ${\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda)$ have the same sign in $Range_{\lambda^{*}}$. See Fig. \[fig:eigenval\] for a schematic description of the system.
\[cl:same\_sign\] ${\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda)) ={\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda))$ for every $\lambda \in Range_{\lambda^{*}}$.
Fix $b \in \{0,1\}$. By Claim \[cl:no\_root\_in\_range\], ${\mathrm{P}}_{n+b}$ has no roots in $Range_{\lambda^{*}}$, so ${\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n+b}(\lambda_1)) ={\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n+b}(\lambda_2))$ for every $\lambda_1, \lambda_2 \in Range_{\lambda^{*}}$. Also note that by Thm. \[thm:pf\_full\], ${\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n+b}(\lambda_1) ) ={\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n+b}(\lambda_2))$, for every $\lambda_1, \lambda_2 > \lambda_{n+b}^{*}$. We now make two crucial observations. First, as ${\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda)$ and ${\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda)$ correspond to a characteristic polynomial of an $n \times n$ matrix, they have the same leading coefficient (any characteristic polynomial is monic, i.e., with leading coefficient 1 and degree $n$) and therefore ${\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda))={\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda))$ for $\lambda > \lambda_{n+1}^{*}$ (recall that we assume that $\lambda_{n+1}^{*}\geq\lambda_{n}^{*}$). Second, due to the [PF Theorem]{}, the maximal roots of ${\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda)$ and ${\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda)$ are of multiplicity one and therefore the polynomial ${\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda)$ (resp., ${\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda)$) necessarily changes its sign when $\lambda$ passes through its maximal real positive root $\lambda_{n}^{*}$ (respectively, $\lambda_{n+1}^{*}$). Using these two observations, we now prove the claim via contradiction. Assume, toward contradiction, that ${\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda)) \neq {\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda))$ for some $\lambda \in Range_{\lambda^{*}}$. Then ${\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda_1)) \neq {\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda_2))$ for $\lambda_1 > \lambda_{n}^{*}$ and $\lambda_2 \in Range_{\lambda^{*}}$ also ${\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda_1) )\neq {\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda_2))$ for $\lambda_1 > \lambda_{n+1}^{*}$ and $\lambda_2 \in Range_{\lambda^{*}}$. (This holds since when encountering a root of multiplicity one, the sign necessarily flips). In particular, this implies that ${\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda))\neq {\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda))$ for every $\lambda \geq \lambda_{n+1}^{*}$, in contradiction to the fact that ${\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n}(\lambda))={\mathrm{sign}}({\mathrm{P}}_{n+1}(\lambda))$ for every $\lambda>\lambda_{n+1}^{*}$. The claim follows. We now complete the proof of Lemma \[thm:0\_solution\]. By Eqs. (\[eq:cpnz\]) and (\[eq:lambda\_range\]), ${\mathrm{P}}_{n-1}(\lambda) \neq 0$ for every $\lambda \in Range_{\lambda^{*}}$. We can safely apply Claim \[cl:same\_sign\] to Lemma \[lem:P\_n\_n+1\] and and get that ${\mathrm{sign}}(X^{*}(n)) \neq {\mathrm{sign}}(X^{*}(n+1))$. Since $X^{*}(n),X^{*}(n+1)$ and $g(n,n),g(n,n+1)$ are nonnegative, it follows that $X^{*}(n)=0$ and $X^{*}(n+1)=0$. In contradiction to Lemma \[cl:entity\_one\_nonzero\]. We conclude that $\beta^{*}=\beta^{*}_{n}$.
We complete the geometric characterization of the generalized [PF Theorem]{} by noting the following.
\[lem:no\_weak\_vertex\] Every vertex $\overline{X}\in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta^{*}))$ is a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution.
By Lemma \[cl:weak\_zero\_polytope\], it is sufficient to show that there exists no $\overline{X}\in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta^{*}))$ that is weak, namely, which is a ${\boldsymbol{{}_w0^{*}}}$ solution but not a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution. Assume, towards contradiction, that $\overline{X}\in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta^{*}))$ and that both $X(n) >0$ and $X(n+1)>0$. From now on, we replace $\overline{X} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m}$ by its truncated sub-vector in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$, i.e., we discard the $m-n-1$ zero entries in $\overline{X}$.
Let ${\mathcal{L}}_{n-1},{\mathcal{L}}_{n}$ and ${\mathcal{L}}_{n+1}$ be defined as in Eq. (\[eqn:ssystem\_def\]). Recalling the notation of Sec. \[sec:per\] where for matrix $A$, we denote $A_{-(i,j)}$ by the matrix that results from $A$ by removing the $i$-th row and the $j$-th column, define $$a_i=(-1)^{n-i} \cdot \frac{\det \left(W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n},\beta^{*})_{-(n,i)}\right)}{\det\left( W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n-1},\beta^{*})\right)}$$ and $$b_i=(-1)^{n-i} \cdot \frac{\det \left(W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n+1},\beta^{*})_{-(n,i)} \right)}{\det\left( W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n-1},\beta^{*})\right)}$$ for $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$. By Eq. (\[eq:CP\]), Claim \[cl:cramer\_non\_square\](a) and the proof of Lemma \[lem:P\_n\_n+1\], every optimal solution, and in particular every $\overline{X}\in V({\mathcal{P}}(\beta^{*}))$, satisfies $$\label{eq:i_entries_pf}
X(i)=a_{i} \cdot X(n)+ b_{i} \cdot X(n+1)$$ for $i \in \{1,\ldots,n-1\}$. This implies that our weak solution $\overline{X}$ is given by $$\overline{X}~=~ X(n) \cdot [a_1, \ldots, a_{n-1},1,0]^{T}+X(n+1)
\cdot [b_1, \ldots, b_{n-1},0,1]^{T}.$$ Let $$c_n ~=~ X(n) \cdot \left(1+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}a_{i} \right)$$ and $$c_{n+1}=X(n+1) \cdot \left(1+\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}b_{i} \right),$$ where the feasibility of $\overline{X}$ implies $c_{n}+c_{n+1}=1$. Next, consider Lemma \[lem:P\_n\_n+1\]. Since $\overline{X}$ is optimal, with both $X(n) >0$ and $X(n+1)>0$, it follows that $\det \left(W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n},\beta^{*})\right)=\det \left( W^{2}({\mathcal{L}}_{n+1},\beta^{*})\right)=0$. This means that when constructing an optimal solution $\overline{Y}$, one has complete freedom to select any $Y(n),Y(n+1) \geq 0$ and the rest of the coordinates are determined by Eq. (\[eq:i\_entries\_pf\]). In particular, setting $Y(n)=X(n)/c_{n}$ and $Y(n+1)=X(n+1)/c_{n+1}$ yields the following two optimal solutions: $\overline{Y}_1=X(n)/c_{n}\cdot [a_1, \ldots, a_{n-1},1,0]^{T}$ and $\overline{Y}_2=X(n+1)/c_{n+1}\cdot[b_1, \ldots, b_{n-1},0,1]^{T}$. Note that $\overline{X}$ can be described as a convex combination of $\overline{Y}_1$ and $\overline{Y}_2$, i.e., $\overline{X}=c_{n} \cdot \overline{Y}_1+ c_{n+1}\cdot \overline{Y}_2$ (recall that $c_{n}+c_{n+1}=1$). This is in contradiction to the fact that $\overline{X}$ is a vertex of a polytope. The lemma follows.
\[lem:zero\_star\] There exists a selection ${F}^{*} \in {\mathcal{F}}$ such that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*}))=1/\beta^{*}$.
Recall that our ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution, $\overline{X}^{*}$, is a solution for the weak subsystem ${\mathcal{L}^{W}}$, and therefore $\overline{X}^{*} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$. In addition, $|NZ(\overline{X}^{*})|=n$ and due to Lemma \[cl:entity\_one\_nonzero\], $|NZ(\overline{X}^{*}) \cap {\mathcal{S}}_i|=1$ for every ${\mathit{v}}_{i}$, or in other words, ${\bold{S}}'=NZ(\overline{X}^{*})$ is a complete selection for ${\mathcal{V}}$ such that $|{\bold{S}}'|=n$. Taking ${F}^{*}={F}({\bold{S}}')$ yields the desired claim. The lemma follows.
Note that Eq. (\[eq:i\_entries\_pf\]) illustrates the additional degrees of freedom at the optimum point of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]). Specifically, to obtain an optimum solution for $\beta^{*}$, one has the freedom to set $X_{n}\geq 0$ and $X_{n+1} \geq 0$ (as long as at least one of them is positive) and the rest of the coordinates are determined accordingly.
We are now ready to complete the proof of Thm. \[thm:pf\_ext\]. Let ${F}^{*}$ be the selection such that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}})={\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*}))$. Note that by the irreducibility of ${\mathcal{L}}$, the square system ${\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*})$ is irreducible as well and therefore the [PF Theorem]{} for irreducible matrices can be applied. In particular, by Thm. \[thm:pf\_full\], it follows that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*})) \in {\mathbb{R}}_{>0}$ and that ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*}))>0$. Therefore, by Eq. (\[eq:general\_pf\_root\]) and (\[eq:general\_pf\_vector\]), Claims (Q1)-(Q3) of Thm. \[thm:pf\_ext\] follow.
We now turn to claim (Q4) of the theorem. Note that for a symmetric system, in which $g(i,j_1)=g(i,j_2)$ for every ${\mathcal{A}}_{j_1},{\mathcal{A}}_{j_2} \in {\mathcal{S}}_k$ and every $k,i \in [1,n]$, the system is invariant to the selection matrix and therefore ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}_1)) =
{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}_2))$ for every ${F}_1,{F}_2 \in {\mathcal{F}}$.
Finally, it remains to consider claim (Q5) of the theorem. Note that the optimization problem specified by Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) is an alternative formulation to the generalized Collatz-Wielandt formula given in (Q5). We now show that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}})$ (respectively, ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$) is the optimum value (resp., point) of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]). By Lemma \[lem:zero\_star\], there exists an optimal point $\overline{X}^{*}$ for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) which is a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution. Note that a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution corresponds to a unique hidden square system, given by ${\mathcal{L}}^{*}={\mathcal{L}}(NZ(\overline{X}^{*}))$ (${\mathcal{L}}^{*}$ is square since $|NZ(\overline{X}^{*})|=n$). Therefore, by Thm. \[thm:pf\] and Lemma \[lem:zero\_star\], we get that $$\label{eq:put_all_val}
{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}^{*}) ~=~ 1/\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}^{*}) ~=~ 1/\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}).$$ Next, by Observation \[obs:filter\_to\_square\](b), we have that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F})) \geq
{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}})$. It therefore follows that $$\label{eq:put_all}
{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}^{*}) ~=~
\min_{{F}\in {\mathcal{F}}} {\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F})).$$ Combining Eq. (\[eq:put\_all\_val\]), (\[eq:put\_all\]) and (\[eq:general\_pf\_root\]), we get that the PF eigenvalue of the system ${\mathcal{L}}$ satisfies ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}})=1/\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$ as required. Finally, note that by Thm. \[thm:pf\], ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}^{*})$ is the optimal point for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) with the square system ${\mathcal{L}}^{*}$. By Eq. (\[eq:general\_pf\_vector\]), ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$ is an extension of ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}^{*})$ with zeros (i.e., a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution). It can easily be checked that ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$ is a feasible solution for the original system ${\mathcal{L}}$ with $\beta=\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}^{*})=\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$, hence it is optimal. Note that by Lemma \[lem:strict\_equality\], it indeed follows that ${\mathcal{M}^-}\cdot {\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}) =
1/\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}) \cdot {\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot {\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$, for every optimal solution $\overline{X}^{*}$. Theorem \[thm:pf\_ext\] follows.
Computing the generalized PF vector {#short:sec:Algorithm}
===================================
In this section we present a polynomial time algorithm for computing the generalized Perron eigenvector ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$ of an irreducible system ${\mathcal{L}}$.
#### The method.
By Property (Q5) of Thm. \[thm:pf\_ext\], computing ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$ is equivalent to finding a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) with $\beta=\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$. For ease of analysis, we assume throughout that the gains are integral, i.e., $g(i,j) \in \mathbb{Z}^{+}$, for every $i \in \{1, \ldots, n\}$ and $j \in \{1, \ldots, m\}$. If this does not hold, then the gains can be rounded or scaled to achieve this. Let $$\label{eq:gmax}
{\mathcal{G}_{max}}({\mathcal{L}}) ~=~ \max_{i \in \{1,\ldots, n\}, j \in \{1, \ldots, m\}} \left\{|g(i,j)| \right\},$$ and define ${\mbox{T}_{LP}}$ as the running time of an LP solver such as the interior point algorithm [@Boyd-Conv-Opt-Book] for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]). Recall that we look for an exact optimal solution for a non-convex optimization problem (see Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\])). Using the convex relaxation of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]), a binary search can be applied for finding an approximate solution up to a predefined accuracy. The main challenge is then to find (a) an optimal solution (and not an approximate one), and (b) among all the optimal solutions, to find one that is a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution. Let ${F}_1, {F}_2 \in {\mathcal{F}}$ be two selection matrices for ${\mathcal{L}}$. By Thm. \[thm:pf\_ext\], there exists a selection matrix ${F}^{*}$ such that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}})={\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*}))$ and ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$ is a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution corresponding to ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*}))$ (in addition $\beta^{*}=1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*}))$). Our goal then is to find a selection matrix ${F}^{*} \in {\mathcal{F}}$ where $|{\mathcal{F}}|$ might be exponentially large.
\[thm:algorithm\] Let ${\mathcal{L}}$ be an irreducible system. Then ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$ can be computed in time $O(n^{3} \cdot {\mbox{T}_{LP}}\cdot
\left(\log \left(n \cdot {\mathcal{G}_{max}}\right) +n \right))$.
Let $$\label{eq:delta_beta}
\Delta_{\beta} ~=~ (n{\mathcal{G}_{max}})^{-8n^3}.$$ The key observation in this context is the following “minimum gap" observation.
\[lem:apart\_in\_range\] Consider a selection matrix ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$. If $\beta^*({\mathcal{L}})-1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F})) \leq \Delta_{\beta}$, then $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})=1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}))$.
By performing a polynomial number of steps of binary search for the optimal $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$, one can converge to a value $\beta^{-}$ that is at most $\Delta_{\beta}$ far from $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$, i.e., $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})-\beta^{-}<\Delta_\beta$. Let $Range_{\beta^{*}}=[\beta^{-}, \beta^{*}]$. Then by Lemma \[lem:zero\_star\], we are guaranteed that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}))=1/\beta^{*}$ for any selection matrix ${F}\in {\mathcal{F}}$ such that $1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F})) \in Range_{\beta^{*}}$ (there could be many such matrices ${F}$, but in this case, they all correspond to systems with PF value $1/\beta^{*}$). To prove Lemma \[lem:apart\_in\_range\], we first establish a lower bound on the difference between *any* two different PF eigenvalues of any two irreducible square systems, i.e., we show that the PF roots ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}^{s}_1)$ and ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}^{s}_2)$ of any two irreducible square systems ${\mathcal{L}}^{s}_1, {\mathcal{L}}^{s}_2 \in {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$ cannot be too close if they are different. Recall that for an irreducible square system ${\mathcal{L}}^{s}$, $Z({\mathcal{L}}^{s})=({\mathcal{M}^+})^{-1} \cdot {\mathcal{M}^-}$, where ${\mathcal{M}^+}$ can be considered to be diagonal with a strictly positive diagonal. We begin the analysis by scaling the entries of $Z({\mathcal{L}}^{s})$ to obtain an integer-valued matrix $Z^{\mathrm{int}}$. The scaling is needed in order to employ a well-known bound due to Bugeaud and Mignotte [@OnDistBetwRoots] on the minimal distance between the roots of integer polynomials (Lemma \[lemma:distance\_of\_roots\]). The guaranteed distance on ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}^{s}_1)$ and ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}^{s}_2)$ is later translated into a minimal bound on distance for their reciprocals $1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}^{s}_1)$ and $1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}^{s}_2)$, which correspond to $\beta$ values of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]), i.e., optimal $\beta$ values of two different irreducible square systems for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]). Specifically, we show that for any given sufficiently small range of $\beta$ values, $Range_\beta=[\beta_1, \beta_2]$ such that $|\beta_1-\beta_2| \leq \Delta_{\beta}$, there cannot be two selection matrices ${F}_1,{F}_2 \in {\mathcal{F}}$ such that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}_1)) \neq
{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}_2))$ and yet both $1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}_1)),
1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}_2)) \in Range_\beta$.
The *naïve height* of an integer polynomial $P$, denoted $H(P)$, is the maximum of the absolute values of its coefficients.
\[lemma:distance\_of\_roots\] Let $P(X)$ and $Q(X)$ be nonconstant integer polynomials of degree $n$ and $m$, respectively. Denote by $r_P$ and $r_Q$ a zero of $P(X)$ and $Q(X)$, respectively. Assuming that $P(r_Q)\ne 0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\ r_P - r_Q |\ \ge
2^{1-n}(n+1)^{\frac{1}{2}-m}(m+1)^{-\frac{n}{2}}H(P)^{-m}H(Q)^{-n}.\end{aligned}$$
We first show the following.
\[lem:new\_height\] $|{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}^{s}_1)-{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}^{s}_2)| \ge
(n{\mathcal{G}_{max}})^{-6n^3}$ for every ${\mathcal{L}}^{s}_1, {\mathcal{L}}^{s}_2\in {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$.
Recall that for an irreducible square system ${\mathcal{L}}^{s}$, $Z({\mathcal{L}}^{s})=({\mathcal{M}^+})^{-1} \cdot {\mathcal{M}^-}$, where ${\mathcal{M}^+}$ can be considered to be diagonal with strictly positive diagonal. Therefore, $Z({\mathcal{L}}^{s})_{i,j}=|g(i,j)|/g(i,i)$ where $g(i,i)$ corresponds to the gain of the unique supporter of ${\mathit{v}}_i$.
For ease of notation, let $Z_1=Z({\mathcal{L}}^{s}_1)$, $Z_2=Z({\mathcal{L}}^{s}_2)$, $r_1={\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}^{s}_1)$ and $r_2={\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}^{s}_2)$. Let $i_1$ (resp., $i_2$) be the index of the unique supporter of entity ${\mathit{v}}_{i}$ in the square system ${\mathcal{L}}^{s}_1$ (resp., ${\mathcal{L}}^{s}_2$).
To employ Lemma \[lemma:distance\_of\_roots\], we first scale $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ to obtain two integer-valued matrices $Z^{\mathrm{int}}_1$ and $Z^{\mathrm{int}}_2$. The new matrix $Z_b^{\mathrm{int}}$, for $b \in \{1,2\}$, is constructed by multiplying each entry of $Z_b$ by the common denominator of its entries, i.e., $Z_{b}^{\mathrm{int}}(i,j)=Z_b(i,j)\cdot\prod_{i} \left(|g(i,i_1)| \cdot |g(i,i_2)| \right)$. Thus all entries of $Z_b^{\mathrm{int}}$ are integers and bounded by ${\mathcal{G}_{max}}^{2n}$ (since $|g(i,j)|\le {\mathcal{G}_{max}}$). Let $P_1(x)={\mathrm{P}}(Z^{\mathrm{int}}_1,x)$ and $P_2(x)={\mathrm{P}}(Z^{\mathrm{int}}_2,x)$ be the characteristic polynomials of the matrices $Z^{\mathrm{int}}_1$ and $Z^{\mathrm{int}}_2$ respectively, see Eq. (\[eq:CP\]). Note that $P_1(x)$ and $P_2(x)$ are integer polynomials of degree $n$, and $H(P_1),H(P_2) \leq {\mathcal{G}_{max}}^{2n^2}$ (since $|\det(Z)|\le ({\mathcal{G}_{max}}^{2n})^n$). Let $r_1^{\mathrm{int}}$ and $r_2^{\mathrm{int}}$ correspond to the PF eigenvalues of $Z_{1}^{\mathrm{int}}$ and $Z_{2}^{\mathrm{int}}$ respectively. Lemma \[lemma:distance\_of\_roots\] yields $$\begin{aligned}
|r_1^{\mathrm{int}}-r_2^{\mathrm{int}}| &\geq&
2^{1-n}(n+1)^{\frac{1}{2}-n}(n+1)^{-\tfrac{n}{2}}
({\mathcal{G}_{max}}^{2n^2})^{-n}({\mathcal{G}_{max}}^{2n^2})^{-n}
= 2^{1-n}(n+1)^{\frac{1-3n}{2}}{\mathcal{G}_{max}}^{-4n^3}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, by definition of $Z^{\mathrm{int}}_1$ and $Z^{\mathrm{int}}_2$, $$\begin{aligned}
|r_1^{\mathrm{int}}-r_2^{\mathrm{int}}| ~=~ |r_1-r_2|\prod_{i} \left(|g(i,i_1)| \cdot |g(i,i_2)|\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
|r_1-r_2| &\geq&
\frac{2^{1-n}(n+1)^{\frac{1-3n}{2}}{\mathcal{G}_{max}}^{-4n^3}}{\prod_{i}\left(|g(i,i_1)| \cdot |g(i,i_2)| \right)}
~\geq~
\frac{2^{1-n}(n+1)^{\frac{1-3n}{2}}{\mathcal{G}_{max}}^{-4n^3}}{{\mathcal{G}_{max}}^{2n}}
\geq (n{\mathcal{G}_{max}})^{-6n^3}.\end{aligned}$$ We now turn to translate the distance between $r_1$ and $r_2$ into a distance between $1/r_1$ and $1/r_2$ (corresponding to the optimal $\beta$ values of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) with ${\mathcal{L}}^{s}_1$ and ${\mathcal{L}}^{s}_2$, respectively). The next auxiliary claim gives a bound for $\lambda \in {EigVal}(A)$ as a function of ${\mathcal{G}_{max}}$.
\[claim:lambd\_up\_bound\] Let $\lambda$ be an eigenvalue of an $n\times n$ matrix $Z$ such that $|Z(i,j)|\le {\mathcal{G}_{max}}$. Then $|\lambda|\le n {\mathcal{G}_{max}}$.
Let $\overline{X}$ be the eigenvector of $Z$ and assume that $||\overline{X}||_{2}=1$. Since $\overline{X}^{T} \cdot Z \cdot \overline{X} =
\lambda \overline{X}^{T} \cdot \overline{X}=\lambda$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
|\lambda | &=& |\overline{X}^{T}Z \overline{X}|
~=~ |\sum_i\sum_j X(i) Z(i,j) X(j)|
~\le~ {\mathcal{G}_{max}}\cdot |\sum_i\sum_j X(i) \cdot X(j)|\\
\\ &=& {\mathcal{G}_{max}}\cdot |\sum_i X(i)|\cdot |\sum_j X(j)|
~=~ {\mathcal{G}_{max}}\cdot\|\overline{X} \|_1^2
~\le~ {\mathcal{G}_{max}}\cdot(\sqrt{n}\|\overline{X}\|_2)^2 ~=~ n{\mathcal{G}_{max}}~.\end{aligned}$$ We now turn to prove Lemma \[lem:apart\_in\_range\].\
By Lemma \[lem:new\_height\] and \[claim:lambd\_up\_bound\], $$\left|\frac{1}{r_2}-\frac{1}{r_1}\right| =
\left|\frac{r_1-r_2}{r_1 r_2}\right| \ge
\frac{\left|r_1-r_2\right|}{(n{\mathcal{G}_{max}})^2} \ge
(n{\mathcal{G}_{max}})^{-8n^3}.$$ So far, we proved that if ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}_1)) \not=
{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}_2))$, then $|1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}_1))
- 1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}_2))| \geq \Delta_{\beta}$, for every ${F}_1,{F}_2 \in {\mathcal{F}}$. By Thm. \[thm:pf\_ext\], there exists a selection ${F}^{*} \in {\mathcal{F}}$ such that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*}))=1/\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$. Assume, toward contradiction, that there exists some ${F}^{'} \in {\mathcal{F}}$ such that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{'}))\neq 1/\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$ but $|\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})-1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{'}))| \leq
\Delta_{\beta}$. Let $r_1={\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*}))$ and $r_2={\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{'}))$. In this case, we get that $|1/r_1-1/r_2|\leq \Delta_{\beta}$, contradiction. Lemma \[lem:apart\_in\_range\] follows.
#### Algorithm description.
We now describe Algorithm ${\tt Compute{\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})}$ for ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$ computation. Consider some partial selection ${\bold{S}}'\subseteq{\mathcal{A}}$ for $V'\subseteq {\mathcal{V}}$. For ease of notation, let ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')=\langle {\mathcal{M}^-}({\bold{S}}'), {\mathcal{M}^+}({\bold{S}}') \rangle$, where ${\mathcal{M}^-}({\bold{S}}')={\mathcal{M}^-}\cdot {F}({\bold{S}}')$ and ${\mathcal{M}^+}({\bold{S}}')={\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot {F}({\bold{S}}')$. Consider the Program $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:alg}
\text{maximize} & ~\beta \text{~subject to:~}
\\
&
\displaystyle {\mathcal{M}^-}({\bold{S}}') \nonumber \cdot\overline{X} \leq
1/\beta \cdot {\mathcal{M}^+}({\bold{S}}') \cdot\overline{X} , &
\\
& \displaystyle \overline{X} \geq \overline{0} ,& \nonumber
\\
& \displaystyle ||\overline{X}||_{1}~=~1~. & \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Note that if ${\bold{S}}'=\emptyset$, then Program (\[eq:alg\]) is equivalent to Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]), i.e., ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')={\mathcal{L}}$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
{f}(\beta,{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}'))=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \mbox{if there exists an~} \overline{X} \mbox{ such that }
||\overline{X}||_{1}~=~1, ~\overline{X}\geq \overline{0}, \mbox{ and }
\\ &
\displaystyle {\mathcal{M}^-}({\bold{S}}')\cdot\overline{X} \leq
1/\beta \cdot {\mathcal{M}^+}({\bold{S}}')\cdot\overline{X},
\\
0, & \hbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$
Note that ${f}(\beta,{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}'))=1$ iff ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}')$ is feasible for $\beta$ and that ${f}$ can be computed in polynomial time using the interior point method.
Algorithm ${\tt Compute{\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})}$ is composed of two main phases. In the first phase it finds, using binary search, an estimate $\beta^-$ such that $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})-\beta^- \leq \Delta_{\beta}$. In the second phase, it finds a hidden square system ${\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*})$, ${F}^{*} \in {\mathcal{F}}$, corresponding to a complete selection vector ${\bold{S}}_n$ of size $n$ for ${\mathcal{V}}$. By Lemma \[lem:apart\_in\_range\], it follows that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*}))=1/\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$.
We now describe the construction of ${\bold{S}}_n$ in more detail. The second phase consists of $n$ iterations. Iteration $t$ obtains a partial selection ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ for ${\mathit{v}}_1, \ldots, {\mathit{v}}_t$ such that ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_t))=1$. The final step achieves the desired ${\bold{S}}_n$, where ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n) \in {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$ and ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n))=1$ (therefore also ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}}({F}({\bold{S}}_n)))=1$). Initially, ${\bold{S}}_0$ is empty. The $t$’th iteration sets ${\bold{S}}_t={\bold{S}}_{t-1} \cup \{{\mathcal{A}}_j\}$ for some supporter ${\mathcal{A}}_j \in{\mathcal{S}}_{t}$ such that ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_{t-1} \cup \{{\mathcal{A}}_j\}))=1$. We later show (in proof of Thm. \[thm:algorithm\]) that such a supporter ${\mathcal{A}}_j$ exists.
Finally, we use ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n))$ to construct the Perron vector ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$. This vector contains zeros for the $m-n$ non-selected affectors, and the values of the $n$ selected affectors are as in ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n))$.
The pseudocode is presented formally next.
To establish Theorem \[thm:algorithm\], we prove the correctness of Algorithm ${\tt Compute{\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})}$ and bound its runtime. We begin with two auxiliary claims.
\[cl:max\_beta\] $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}) \leq {\mathcal{G}_{max}}$.
Let $\overline{X}^{*}={\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$ and let ${\bold{S}}^{*}=NZ(\overline{X}^{*})$. Then by claims (Q3) and (Q5) of Thm. \[thm:pf\_ext\] we have that $|{\bold{S}}^{*}|=n$. Define ${F}^{*}= {F}({\bold{S}}^{*})$. Since ${\bold{S}}^{*}$ is a complete selection vector (see Claim \[cl:entity\_one\_nonzero\]), we have that ${F}^{*}\in {\mathcal{F}}$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i)}$ be the supporter of entity ${\mathit{v}}_i$ in ${\bold{S}}^{*}$, for every $i \in \{1,\ldots, n\}$.
Let $D={\mathcal{CG}}_{{\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*})}$. Since ${\mathcal{L}}$ is irreducible, it follows by Obs. \[obs:reducible\_graph\_connected\] that $D$ is strongly connected. Let $C=({\mathit{v}}_{i_1}, \ldots, {\mathit{v}}_{i_k})$ be a directed cycle in $D$, i.e., $({\mathit{v}}_{i_j},{\mathit{v}}_{i_{j+1}}) \in E(D)$ for every $j \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$ and $({\mathit{v}}_{i_k},{\mathit{v}}_{i_{1}}) \in E(D)$. For ease of notation, let ${\mathit{v}}_{i_k}={\mathit{v}}_{i_{-1}}$. Since $D$ is strongly connected, such a cycle $C$ exists. By the optimality of $\overline{X}^{*}$ we have that $$\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}) \cdot {T^-}(\overline{X}^{*}, {\mathcal{L}})_{i} ~=~
{T^+}(\overline{X}^{*}, {\mathcal{L}})_{i}$$ for every ${\mathit{v}}_i$. Note that by definition $|g({\mathit{v}}_{i_j},{\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_{j-1})})| \cdot X^{*}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_{j-1})}) \leq
{T^-}(\overline{X}^{*}, {\mathcal{L}})_{i_j}$ for every $j \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$, and by the graph definition, ${\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_{j-1})} \in {\mathcal{R}}_{i_j}$ or $g({\mathit{v}}_{i_j},{\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_{j-1})})<0$, for every $j \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$. Combining this with Fact \[fc:feasible\_tots\_totr\], we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}) |g({\mathit{v}}_{i_j},{\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_{j-1})})| X^{*}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_{j-1})}) ~\leq~
g({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_j)},{\mathit{v}}_{i_j}) \cdot X^{*}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_j)})\end{aligned}$$ for every $j \in \{1, \ldots, k\}$, and therefore $$\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}) ~\leq~ \min_{j \in \{1, \ldots, k\}}\left\{
\frac{g({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_j)},{\mathit{v}}_{i_j})}{|g({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_{j-1})},{\mathit{v}}_{i_j})|}
\cdot \frac{X^{*}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_j)})}{X^{*}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_{j-1})})} \right\}.$$ It is easy to verify that $\min_{j \in \{1, \ldots, k\}}
\left \{\frac{X^{*}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_j)})}{X^{*}({\mathcal{A}}_{{\gamma}(i_{j-1})})}\right\} \leq 1$. Therefore, by Eq. (\[eq:gmax\]) we get that $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}) \leq {\mathcal{G}_{max}}$, as required.
\[cl:phase\_1\] Phase 1 of Alg. ${\tt Compute{\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})}$ finds $\beta^{-}$ such that $\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})-\beta^{-} \leq \Delta_{\beta}$.
By Property (Q5) of Thm. \[thm:pf\_ext\], ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})$ is an optimal solution for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) and ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}})=1/\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$. Therefore ${f}(\beta,{\mathcal{L}})=1$ for every $\beta \in (0,\beta^{*}]$. Steps 3 and 5(b) in Alg. ${\tt Compute{\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})}$ yield ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}})=1$. Therefore $\beta^{-} \leq \beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$. By the stopping criterion of step 5, it ends with ${f}(\beta^{+},{\mathcal{L}})=0$, ${f}(\beta^{-},{\mathcal{L}})=1$ and $\beta^{+}-\beta^{-} \leq \Delta_{\beta}$. The first 2 conditions imply that $\beta^{*} \in [\beta^{-},\beta^{+})$ as required. The claim follows. Let $Range_{\beta^{*}}=[\beta^{-},\beta^{+})$.
\[cl:selection\_opt\] By the end of phase 2, the selection ${\bold{S}}_n$ satisfies ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n))=1/\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$.
Let ${\bold{S}}_t$ be the partial selection obtained at step $t$, ${\mathcal{L}}_{t}={\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_{t})$ be the corresponding system for step $t$ and $\beta_{t}=\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}}_{t})$ the optimal solution of Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]) for system ${\mathcal{L}}_{t}$. We claim that ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ satisfies the following properties for each $t \in \{0, \ldots, n\}$:
[(C1)]{} ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ is a partial selection vector of length $t$, such that ${\bold{S}}_t \sim {\bold{S}}_{t-1}$.
[(C2)]{} ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_{t})$ is feasible for $\beta^{-}$.
The proof is by induction. Beginning with ${\bold{S}}_{0}=\emptyset$, it is easy to see that (C1) and (C2) are satisfied (since ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_0)={\mathcal{L}}$). Next, assume that (C1) and (C2) hold for ${\bold{S}}_{i}$ for $i \leq t$ and consider ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}$. Let $V_{t}\subseteq {\mathcal{V}}$ be such that ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ is a partial selection for $V_{t}$ (i.e., $|V_{t}|=|{\bold{S}}_{t}|$, and $|{\mathcal{S}}_{i}({\mathcal{L}}) \cap {\bold{S}}_{t}|=1$ for every ${\mathit{v}}_i \in V_{t}$). Given that ${\bold{S}}_{t}$ is a selection for nodes ${\mathit{v}}_1, \ldots, {\mathit{v}}_t$ that satisfies (C1) and (C2), we show that ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}$ satisfies (C1) and (C2) as well.
In particular, it is required to show that there exists at least one supporter of ${\mathit{v}}_{t+1}$, namely, ${\mathcal{A}}_k \in {\mathcal{S}}_{t+1}({\mathcal{L}})$, such that ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_{t} \cup \{{\mathcal{A}}_k\}))=1$. This will imply that step 7(a) of the algorithm always succeeds in expanding ${\bold{S}}_{t}$.
By Observation \[obs:irreducible\_selection\] and Property (C2) for step $t$, the system ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_{t})$ is irreducible with $\beta_{t} \geq \beta^{-}$. In addition, note that ${\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{L}}_{t}) \subseteq {\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{L}})$ (as every square system of ${\mathcal{L}}_t$ is also a square system of ${\mathcal{L}}$). By Theorem \[thm:pf\_ext\], there exists a square system ${\mathcal{L}}_{t}({F}^{*}_{t})$, ${F}^{*}_{t} \in {F}({\mathcal{L}}_{t})$, such that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}_{t}({F}^{*}_{t}))=1/\beta_{t}$. In addition, ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}_{t}({F}^{*}_{t}))$ is a feasible solution for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]) with the system ${\mathcal{L}}_{t}({F}^{*}_{t})$ and $\beta=\beta_{t}$.
By Eq. (\[eq:FilterMatrixFamily\]), the square system ${\mathcal{L}}_{t}({F}^{*}_{t})$ corresponds to a complete selection ${\bold{S}}^{**}$, where $|{\bold{S}}^{**}|=n$ and ${\bold{S}}_{t} \subseteq {\bold{S}}^{**}$, i.e., ${\mathcal{L}}_{t}({F}^{*}_{t})={\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}^{**})$. Observe that by Property (Q5) of Thm. \[thm:pf\_ext\] for the system ${\mathcal{L}}_{t}$, there exists a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution for Program (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\_convex\]) that achieves $\beta_{t}$. This ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution is constructed from ${\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}}_{t}({\bold{S}}^{**}))$, the PF eigenvector of ${\mathcal{L}}_{t}({\bold{S}}^{**})$.
Let ${\mathcal{A}}_k \in {\mathcal{S}}_{t+1}({\mathcal{L}}_{t}) \cap {\bold{S}}^{**}$. Note that by the choice of ${\bold{S}}^{**}$, such an affector ${\mathcal{A}}_k$ exists. We now show that ${\bold{S}}_{t+1}={\bold{S}}_{t} \cup \{{\mathcal{A}}_k\}$ satisfies Property (C2), thus establishing the existence of ${\mathcal{A}}_k \in {\mathcal{S}}_{t+1}({\mathcal{L}}_{t})$ in step 7(a). We show this by constructing a feasible solution $X^{*}_{\beta^-} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m({\bold{S}}_{t+1})}$ for ${\mathcal{L}}_{t+1}$. By the definition of ${\bold{S}}^{**}$, ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}^{**}))=1$ and therefore there exists a feasible solution $\overline{X}^{t+1}_{\beta^-} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ for ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}^{**})$. Since ${\bold{S}}_{t+1} \subseteq {\bold{S}}^{**}$, it is possible to extend $\overline{X}^{t+1}_{\beta^-} \in {\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ to a feasible solution $X^{*}_{\beta^{-}}$ for system ${\mathcal{L}}_{t+1}$, by setting $X^{*}_{\beta^{-}}({\mathcal{A}}_q)=X^{t+1}_{\beta^{-}}({\mathcal{A}}_q)$ for every ${\mathcal{A}}_q \in {\bold{S}}^{**}$ and $X^{*}_{\beta^{-}}({\mathcal{A}}_q)=0$ otherwise. It is easy to verify that this is indeed a feasible solution for $\beta^{-}$, concluding that ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}}_{t+1})=1$.
So far, we have shown that there exists an affector ${\mathcal{A}}_k \in {\mathcal{S}}_{t+1}({\mathcal{L}}_t)$ such that ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}}_{t+1})=1$. We now claim that for any ${\mathcal{A}}_k \in {\mathcal{S}}_{t+1}({\mathcal{L}}_t)$ such that ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}}_{t+1})=1$, Properties (C1) and (C2) are satisfied. This holds trivially, relying on the criterion for selecting ${\mathcal{A}}_k$, since ${\mathcal{S}}_{t+1}({\mathcal{L}}_t) \cap {\bold{S}}_{t}=\emptyset$.
After $n$ steps, we get that ${\bold{S}}_n$ is a complete selection, ${F}({\bold{S}}_n) \in {\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{L}}_{n-1})$, and therefore by Property (C1) for steps $t=1,\ldots,n$, it also holds that ${F}({\bold{S}}_n) \in {\mathcal{F}}({\mathcal{L}})$. In addition, by Property (C2), ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}}_n)=1$. Since ${\mathcal{L}}_n$ is equivalent to ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n) \in {\mathfrak{L}^{S}}$ (obtained by removing the $m-n$ columns corresponding to the affectors not selected by ${\bold{S}}_n$), it is easy to verify that ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n))=1$. Next, by Thm. \[thm:pf\] we have that $1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n)) \in Range_{\beta^{*}}$.
It remains to show that $1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n))= \beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$. By Theorem \[thm:pf\_ext\], there exists a square system ${\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*})$, ${F}^{*} \in {F}({\mathcal{L}})$, such that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*}))=1/\beta^{*}$. Assume, toward contradiction, that $1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n)) \neq 1/\beta^{*}$. Obs. \[obs:filter\_to\_square\](b) implies that ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*})) <
{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n))$. It therefore follows that ${\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*})$ and ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n)$ are two non-equivalent hidden square systems of ${\mathcal{L}}$ such that $1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F}^{*})),
1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n)) \in Range_{\beta^{*}}$, or, that $1/{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n))-
1/{\mathit{r}}({F}^{*}) \leq \Delta_{\beta}$, in contradiction to Lemma \[lem:apart\_in\_range\]. This completes the proof of Lemma \[cl:selection\_opt\]. We are now ready to complete the proof of Thm. \[thm:algorithm\]. We show that Alg. ${\tt Compute{\mathbf{\overline{P}}}({\mathcal{L}})}$ satisfies the requirements of the theorem. By Obs. \[obs:filter\_to\_square\](b), $\min_{{F}\in {\mathcal{F}}} \left\{{\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({F})) \right\}
\geq 1/\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$. Therefore, since ${\mathit{r}}({\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n))=1/\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})$, the square system ${\mathcal{L}}({\bold{S}}_n)$ constructed in step 7 of the algorithm indeed yields the Perron value (by Eq. (\[eq:general\_pf\_root\])), hence the correctness of the algorithm is established.
Finally, we analyze the runtime of the algorithm. Note that there are $O(\log \left(\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})/\Delta_{\beta}\right)+n)$ calls for the interior point method (computing ${f}(\beta^-,{\mathcal{L}}_{i})$), namely, $O(\log \left(\beta^{*}({\mathcal{L}})/\Delta_{\beta}\right))$ calls in the first phase and $n$ calls in the second phase. By plugging Eq. (\[eq:gmax\]) in Claim \[cl:max\_beta\], Thm. \[thm:algorithm\] follows.
Limitations for the existence of a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ {#sec:limit}
=========================================================
In this section we provide a characterization of systems in which a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution does not exist.
#### Bounded value systems.
Let ${X_{\max}}$ be a fixed constant. For a nonnegative vector $\overline{X}$, let $$\max(\overline{X}) ~=~
\max\left\{X(j)/X(i) \mid 1 \leq i,j \leq n, X(i)>0\right\}.$$ A system ${\mathcal{L}}$ is called a *bounded power system* if $\max(\overline{X}) \leq {X_{\max}}$.
\[lem:bounded\_system\] There exists a bounded power system ${\mathcal{L}}$ such that no optimal solution $\overline{X}^{*}$ for ${\mathcal{L}}$ is a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution.
Consider the optimization problem (\[LP:Ext\_Perron\]), and the following system ${\mathcal{L}}=\langle {\mathcal{M}^+},{\mathcal{M}^-}\rangle$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{M}^+}&=
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a&a&0&0\\0&0&a&a\end{array}\right),
~~~~~~~~~~~
{\mathcal{M}^-}=
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0&0&4c{X_{\max}}^2&4c{X_{\max}}^2\\c&c&0&0\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ for constants $a,c>0$. We first show that it is impossible to attain the optimal value $\beta^{*}$ if $\overline{X}$ is a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution. Then, we show that there exists a non-${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution $\overline{X}$ that attains $\beta^{*}$. Thus, for a given system, no ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution is optimal.
Assume, by contradiction, that we have a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution that achieves $\beta^{*}$ on ${\mathcal{L}}$. Due to symmetry, every ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution will yield the same $\beta^{*}$, so without loss of generality assume that $X(2)=0$ and $X(4)=0$, and thus the corresponding square system is $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{{\mathcal{M}^+}} &=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}a&0\\0&a\end{array}\right),
~~~~~~~~~~
\widehat{{\mathcal{M}^-}} =
\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&4c{X_{\max}}^2\\c&0\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lem:strict\_equality\], at the optimum value $\beta^{*}$, the inequality constraints of Eq. (\[eq:SR\]) holds with equality, namely, $\left(\widehat{{\mathcal{M}^-}}-\frac{1}{\beta^{*}}\widehat{{\mathcal{M}^+}}\right)
\cdot \overline{X}=0$. Plugging in the chosen values, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-\frac{a}{\beta}&4c{X_{\max}}^2
\\
c&-\frac{a}{\beta}
\end{array}\right)
\cdot
\left(\begin{array}{c}
X(1)
\\
X(3)
\end{array}\right)
=0~,\end{aligned}$$ leading to the equations $-\frac{a}{\beta}X(1)+4c{X_{\max}}^2X(3)=0$ and $cX(1)-\frac{a}{\beta}X(3)=0$. Rewriting these two equations as $\frac{X(1)}{X(3)} = 4c{X_{\max}}^2 / (a/\beta)$ and $\frac{X(1)}{X(3)} = (a/\beta) / c$ , we get that $\left(\frac{X(1)}{X(3)}\right)^2 =
4{X_{\max}}^2$, or, $\frac{X(1)}{X(3)} =
2{X_{\max}}$. But this contradicts the assumption that ${\mathcal{L}}$ is a bounded value system, namely, $\max(\overline{X}) \leq {X_{\max}}$. It follows that there is no optimal ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution for such a system.
Now we show that there exists a non-${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution $\overline{X}$ for ${\mathcal{L}}$ that achieves $\beta^{*}$. Consider some $\overline{X}$ satisfying $X(2)=0,X(1)>0,X(3)>0$ and $X(4)>0$. Similar to the above steps, we derive that $\frac{X(1)}{X(3)+X(4)} = \frac{\beta c}{a}$ and $\frac{X(3)+X(4)}{X(1)} = \frac{4\beta c {X_{\max}}^2}{a}~$, hence $\left(\frac{X(3)+X(4)}{X(1)}\right)^2 = 4{X_{\max}}^2$, or, $\frac{X(3)+X(4)}{X(1)} =2{X_{\max}}$. Clearly, the last equation does not contradict the value boundedness of ${\mathcal{L}}$, since $\max(\overline{X}) \leq {X_{\max}}$ only imposes the constraint $\frac{X(3)+X(4)}{X(1)}\le2{X_{\max}}$. It follows that there exists a non-${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution that attains $\beta^{*}$.
#### Second eigenvalue maximization.
One of the most common applications of the [PF Theorem]{} is the existence of the stationary distribution for a transition matrix (representing a random process). The stationary distribution is the eigenvector of the largest eigenvalue of the transition matrix. We remark that if the transition matrix is stochastic, i.e., the sum of each row is $1$, then the largest eigenvalue is equal to $1$. So this case does not give rise to any optimization problem. However, in many cases we are interested in processes with fast mixing time. Assuming the process is ergodic, the mixing time is determined by the difference between the largest eigenvalue and the second largest eigenvalue. So we can try to solve the following problem. Imagine that there is some rumor that we are interested in spreading over two or more social networks. Each node can be a member of several social networks. We would like to merge all the networks into one large social network in a way that will result in fast mixing time. This problem looks very similar to the one solved in this paper. Indeed, one can use similar techniques and get an approximation. But interestingly, this problem does not have the ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution property, as illustrated in the following example.
Assume we are given $n$ nodes. Consider the $n!$ different social networks that arise by taking, for each permutation $\pi \in S(n)$, the path $P_\pi$ corresponding to the permutation $\pi$. Clearly, the best mixing graph we can get is the complete graph $K_n$. We can get this graph if each node chooses each permutation with probability $\frac{1}{n!}$. We remind the reader that the mixing time of the graph $K_n$ is 1. On the other hand, any ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution have a mixing time $O(n^2)$. This example shows that in the second largest eigenvalue, the solution is not always a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution.
Applications {#short:sec:Applications}
============
We have considered several applications for our generalized [PF Theorem]{}. All these examples concern generalizations of well-known applications of the standard [PF Theorem]{}. In this section, we illustrate applications for power control in wireless networks, and input–output economic model. (In fact, our initial motivation for the study of generalized [PF Theorem]{} arose while studying algorithmic aspects of wireless networks in the SIR model [@Avin2009PODC; @KLPP2011STOC; @Avin2012SINR].)
Power control in wireless networks. {#subsec:power_control_app}
-----------------------------------
The rules governing the availability and quality of wireless connections can be described by [*physical*]{} or [*fading channel*]{} models (cf. [@PL95; @B96; @R96]). Among those, a commonly studied is the [*signal-to-interference ratio (SIR)*]{} model[^8]. In the SIR model, the energy of a signal fades with the distance to the power of the [*path-loss parameter*]{} $\alpha$. If the signal strength received by a device divided by the interfering strength of other simultaneous transmissions is above some *reception threshold* $\beta$, then the receiver successfully receives the message, otherwise it does not. Formally, let ${\mathrm{d} ({p,q})}$ be the Euclidean distance between $p$ and $q$, and assume that each transmitter $t_i$ transmits with power $X_i$. At an arbitrary point $p$, the transmission of station $t_i$ is correctly received if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sinr}
\frac{X_i \cdot {\mathrm{d} ({p, t_i})}^{-\alpha}}
{\sum_{j \neq i} X_j \cdot {\mathrm{d} ({p, t_j})}^{-\alpha}}
~ \geq ~ \beta ~ .\end{aligned}$$ In the basic setting, known as the SISO (Single Input, Single Output) model, we are given a network of $n$ receivers $\{r_i\}$ and transmitters $\{t_i\}$ embedded in $\mathbb{R}^d$ where each transmitter is assigned to a single receiver. The main question is then is to find the optimal (i.e., largest) $\beta^*$ and the power assignment $\overline{X^{*}}$ that achieves it when we consider Eq. (\[eq:sinr\]) at each receiver $r_i$. The larger $\beta$, the simpler (and cheaper) is the hardware implementation required to decode messages in a wireless device. In a seminal and elegant work, Zander [@Zander92b] showed how to compute $\beta^*$ and $\overline{X}^{*}$, which are essentially the [PF root]{} and [PF vector]{}, if we generate a square matrix $A$ that captures the signal and interference for each station.
The motivation for the general [PF Theorem]{} appears when we consider Multiple Input Single Output (MISO) systems. In the MISO setting, a set of multiple synchronized transmitters, located at different places, can transmit at the same time to the same receiver. Formally, for each receiver $r_i$ we have a set of $k_i$ transmitters, to a total of $m$ transmitters. Translating this to the generalized [PF Theorem]{}, the $n$ receivers are the entities and the $m$ transmitters are affectors. For each receiver, its supporter set consists of its $k_i$ transmitters and its repressor set contains all other transmitters. The SIR equation at receiver $r_i$ is then: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sinr2}
\frac{\sum_{\ell \in {\mathcal{S}}_i} X_{\ell} \cdot {\mathrm{d} ({r_i, t_{\ell}})}^{-\alpha}}
{\sum_{\ell \in {\mathcal{R}}_i} X_{\ell} \cdot {\mathrm{d} ({r_i, t_{\ell}})}^{-\alpha}}
~ \geq ~ \beta ~,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\mathcal{S}}_i$ and ${\mathcal{R}}_i$ are the sets of supporters and repressors of $r_i$, respectively. As before, the gain $g(i,j)$ is proportional to $1/{\mathrm{d} ({r_i, t_j})}^{-\alpha}$ (where the sign depends on whether $t_j$ is a supporter or repressor of $r_i$). Using the generalized [PF Theorem]{} we can again find the optimal reception threshold $\beta^*$ and the power assignment $\overline{X}^{*}$ that achieves it.
An interesting observation is that since our optimal power assignment is a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution using several transmitters at once for a receiver is not necessary, and will not help to improve $\beta^*$, i.e., only the “best" transmitter of each receiver needs to transmit (where “best" is with respect to the entire set of receivers).
#### Related work on MISO power control.
We next highlight the differences between our proposed MISO power-control algorithm and the existing approaches to this problem. The vast literature on power control in MISO and MIMO systems considers mostly the joint optimization of power control with beamforming (which is represented by a precoding and shaping matrix). In the commonly studied [*downlink scenario*]{}, a single transmitter with $m$ antennae sends independent information signals to $n$ decentralized receivers. With this formulation, the goal is to find an optimal power vector of length $n$ and a $n \times m$ beamforming matrix. The standard heuristic applied to this problem is an iterative strategy that alternatively repeats a [*beamforming*]{} step (i.e., optimizing the beamforming matrix while fixing the powers) and a [*power control*]{} step (i.e., optimizing powers while fixing the beamforming matrix) till convergence [@CaiQT11; @Cai2011; @Chiang2007; @Schu2004; @Chee11]. In [@CaiQT11], the geometric convergence of such scheme has been established. In addition, [@WieselES06] formalizes the problem as a conic optimization program that can be solved numerically. In summary, the current algorithms for MIMO power-control (with beamforming) are of numeric and iterative flavor, though with good convergence guarantees. In contrast, the current work considers the simplest MISO setting (without coding techniques) and aims at *characterizing* the mathematical *structure* of the optimum solution. In particular, we establish the fact that the optimal max-min SIR value is an algebraic number (i.e., the root of a characteristic polynomial) and the optimum power vector is a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution. Equipped with this structure, we design an efficient algorithm which is more accurate than off-the-shelf numeric optimization packages that were usually applied in this context. Needless to say, the structural properties of the optimum solution are of theoretical interest in addition to their applicability.
We note that our results are (somewhat) in contradiction to the well-established fact that MISO and MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) systems, where transmitters transmit in parallel, do improve the capacity of wireless networks, which corresponds to increasing $\beta^*$ [@Foschini98onlimits]. There are several reasons for this apparent dichotomy, but they are all related to the simplicity of our SIR model. For example, if the ratio between the maximal power to the minimum power is bounded, then our result does not hold any more (as discussed in Section \[sec:limit\]). In addition, our model does not capture random noise and small scale fading and scattering [@Foschini98onlimits], which are essential for the benefits of a MIMO system to manifest themselves.
Input–output economic model.
----------------------------
Consider a group of $n$ industries that each produce (output) one type of commodity, but requires inputs from other industries [@meyer2000matrix; @pillai2005pft]. Let $a_{ij}$ represent the number of $j$th industry commodity units that need to be purchased by the $i$th industry to operate its factory for one time unit divided by the number of commodity units produced by the $i$th industry in one time unit, where $a_{ij} \ge 0$.
Let $X_j$ represent a unit price of the $i$th commodity to be determined by the solution. In the following profit model (variant of Leontief’s Model [@pillai2005pft]), the percentage profit margin of an industry for a time unit is: $$\beta_i ~=~ \text{Profit} ~=~ \text{Total income}/\text{Total expenses}.$$ That is, $\beta_i = X_i /\left(\sum_{j=1}^n a_{ij}X_j\right)$. Maximizing the the profit of each industry can be solved via Program (\[LP:Stand\_Perron\]), where $\beta^*$ is the minimum profit and $\overline{X}^{*}$ is the optimal pricing.
Consider now a similar model where the $i$th industry can produce $k_i$ alternative commodities in a time unit and requires inputs from other commodities of industries. The industries are then the entities in the generalized Perron–Frobenius setting, and for each industry, its own commodities are the supporters and input commodities are optional repressors.
The repression gain ${\mathcal{M}^-}(i,j)$ of industry $i$ and commodity $j$ (produced by some other industry $i'$), is the number of $j$th commodity units that are required by the $i$th industry to produce (i.e., operate) for a one unit of time. Thus, $({\mathcal{M}^-}\cdot \overline{X})_i$ is the total expenses of industry $i$ in one time unit.
The supporter gain ${\mathcal{M}^+}(i,j)$ of industry $i$ to its commodity $j$ is the number of units it can produce in one time unit. Thus, $({\mathcal{M}^+}\cdot \overline{X})_i$ is the total income of industry $i$ in one time unit. Now, similar to the basic case, $\beta^*$ is the best minimum percentage profit for an industry and $\overline{X}^{*}$ is the optimal pricing for the commodities. The existence of a ${\boldsymbol{0^{*}}}$ solution implies that it is sufficient for each industry to charge a nonzero cost for only *one* of its commodities and produce the rest for free.
Discussion and open problems
============================
Our results concern the generalized eigenpair of a nonsquare system of dimension $n \times m$, for $m \geq n$. We provide a definition, as well as a geometric and a graph theoretic characterization of this eigenpair, and present centralized algorithm for computing it. A natural question for future study is whether there exists an iterative method with a good convergence guarantees for this task, as exists for (the maximal eigenpair of) a square system. In addition, another research direction involves studying the other eigenpairs of a nonsquare irreducible system. In particular, what might be the meaning of the 2nd eigenvalue of this spectrum? Yet another interesting question involves studying the relation of our spectral definitions with existing spectral theories for nonsquare matrices. Specifically, it would be of interest to characterize the relation between the generalized eigenpairs of irreducible systems according to our definition and the eigenpair provided by the SVD approach. Finally, we note that a setting in which $n < m$ might also be of practical use (e.g., for the power control problem in *Single Input Multiple Output* systems), and therefore deserves exploration.
[10]{}
C. Avin, A. Cohen, Y. Haddad, E. Kantor, Z. Lotker, M. Parter, and D. Peleg. diagram with interference cancellation. In [*Proc. 23rd ACM-SIAM SODA*]{}, 502–515, 2012.
C. Avin, Y. Emek, E. Kantor, Z. Lotker, D. Peleg, and L. Roditty. SINR Diagrams: Convexity and Its Applications in Wireless Networks , 59(4): 18, 2012.
U. Black. . Prentice Hall, 1996.
G. Boutry, M. Elad, G.H. Golub, and P. Milanfar. The generalized eigenvalue problem for nonsquare pencils using a minimal perturbation approach. , 27(2):582–601, 2005.
S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe. . Cambridge Univ. Press, NY, 2004.
Y. Bugeaud and M. Mignotte. On the distance between roots of integer polynomials. In [*Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc.*]{}, vol. 47, 553–556. Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004.
D. W. H. Cai, T. Q. S. Quek, and C. W. Tan. A unified analysis of max-min weighted [SINR]{} for [MIMO]{} downlink system. , 59, 2011.
D. W. H. Cai, T. Q. S. Quek, C. W. Tan, and S. H. Low. Max-min weighted [SINR]{} in coordinated multicell [MIMO]{} downlink. In [*Proc. WiOpt*]{}, 2011.
M. Chiang, P. Hande, T. Lan, and C. W. Tan. Power control in wireless cellular networks. , 2(4):381–533, 2007.
D. Chu and G. H. Golub. On a generalized eigenvalue problem for nonsquare pencils. , 28(3):770–787, 2006.
L. Collatz. inschlie[ß]{}ungssatz für die charakteristischen zahlen von matrize. , 48:221–226, 1942.
G. J. Foschini and M. J. Gans. On limits of wireless communications in a fading environment when using multiple antennas. , 6:311–335, 1998.
S. Friedland. On an inverse problem for nonnegative and eventually nonnegative matrices. , 29:43-60, 1978.
G.F. Frobenius. Uber matrizen aus nicht negativen elementen. , 456-477, 1912.
C. A. Hall and T. A. Porshing. A separation theorem for nonsymmetric matrices,. , 23:209–212, 1968.
E. Kantor, Z. Lotker, M. Parter, and D. Peleg. The topology of wireless communication. In [*Proc. 43rd ACM STOC*]{} 383–392, 2011.
L. G. Khachiyan. A polynomial algorithm in linear programming. , 244:1093–1096, 1979.
U. Krause. erron’s stability theorem for non-linear mappings. , 15:275 – 282, 1986. U. Krause. Concave [P]{}erron-[F]{}robenius theory and applications. , 47:1457 – 1466, 2001.
D. Kressner, E. Mengi, I. Nakic, and N. Truhar. Generalized eigenvalue problems with specified eigenvalues. , 2011, submitted.
O.L. Mangasarian. erron-[F]{}robenius properties of ${A}x=\lambda{B}x$. , 36, 1971.
V. Mehrmann, R. Nabben, and E. Virnik. On [P]{}erron-[F]{}robenius property of matrices having some negative entries. , 412:132–153, 2006. C. W. Sung. Log-convexity property of the feasible [SIR]{} region in power-controlled cellular systems. , 6:209–212, 2002.
C.D. Meyer. , vol. 2. SIAM, 2000.
K. Pahlavan and A. Levesque. . Wiley, 1995.
O. Perron. Grundlagen für eine theorie des [J]{}acobischen kettenbruchalgorithmus. , 64:248–263, 1907.
S.U. Pillai, T. Suel, and S. Cha. . , 22:62–75, 2005. P. Psarrakos and M. Tsatsomeros. A primer of [P]{}erron-[F]{}robenius theory for matrix polynomials. , 393:333–351, 2004.
T. S. Rappaport. . Prentice Hall, 1996.
S.M. Rump. erron-[F]{}robenius theory for complex matrices. , 363:251–273, 2003.
M. Schubert and H. Boche. Solution of the multiuser downlink beamforming problem with individual [SINR]{} constraints. In [*IEEE Tr. Vehic. Tech.*]{}, 2004.
R. Sine. A nonlinear [P]{}erron-[F]{}robenius theorem. , 109:331–336, 1990.
C. Avin, M. Borokhovich, Y. Haddad, E. Kantor, Z. Lotker, M. Parter and D. Peleg. Testing Irreducibility of Non-Square Matrices.
C. W. Tan, S. Friedland, and S.H. Low. Nonnegative matrix inequalities and their application to nonconvex power control optimization. , 32(3):1030–1055, 2011.
C.W. Tan, M. Chiang, and R. Srikant. Maximizing sum rate and minimizing [MSE]{} on multiuser downlink: Optimality, fast algorithms, and equivalence via max-min [SINR]{}. , 59:6127–6143, 2011. V.V. Vazirani. The notion of a rational convex program, and an algorithm for the [A]{}rrow-[D]{}ebreu [N]{}ash bargaining game. In [*Proc. 23rd ACM-SIAM SODA*]{}, 973–992, 2012.
H. Wielandt. nzerlegbare, nicht negative matrizen. , 52:642–648, 1950.
A. Wiesel, Y. C. Eldar, and S. Shamai. Linear precoding via conic optimization for fixed [MIMO]{} receivers. , 54:161–176, 2006. J. Zander. Performance of optimum transmitter power control in cellular radiosystems. , 41:57–62, 1992.
[^1]:
[^2]: Jerusalem College of Technology, Jerusalem, Israel.
[^3]: The Technion, Haifa, Israel. Email: [[email protected]]{}. Supported by Eshkol fellowship, the Israel Ministry of Science and Technology.
[^4]: Supported by a grant of the Israel Science Foundation.
[^5]: The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. Email: [{merav.parter,david.peleg}@ weizmann.ac.il]{}.
[^6]: Recipient of the Google Europe Fellowship in distributed computing; research supported in part by this Google Fellowship.
[^7]: Supported in part by the Israel Science Foundation (grant 894/09), the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (grant 2008348), the I-CORE program of the Israel PBC and ISF (grant 4/11), the Israel Ministry of Science and Technology (infrastructures grant), and the Citi Foundation.
[^8]: This is a special case of the [*signal-to-interference & noise ratio (SINR)*]{} model where the noise is zero.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate Riemannian (non-Kähler) Ricci flow solutions that develop finite-time Type-I singularities with the property that parabolic rescalings at the singularities converge to singularity models taking the form of shrinking Kähler–Ricci solitons. More specifically, the singularity models for these solutions are given by the “blowdown soliton" discovered in [@FIK03]. Our results support the conjecture that the blowdown soliton is stable under Ricci flow. This work also provides the first set of rigorous examples of non-Kähler solutions of Ricci flow that become asymptotically Kähler, in suitable space-time neighborhoods of developing singularities, at rates that break scaling invariance. These results support the conjectured stability of the subspace of Kähler metrics under Ricci flow.'
address:
- University of Oregon
- University of Texas at Austin
- Rutgers University
author:
- James Isenberg
- Dan Knopf
- Nataša Šešum
title: 'Non-Kähler Ricci flow singularities that converge to Kähler–Ricci solitons'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#Intro}
============
While the behavior of Ricci flow is fairly well-understood for three-dimensional Riemannian geometries, significantly less is known about four-dimensional Ricci flow. In this work, we study Ricci flow for a certain family of four-dimensional geometries (defined in Section 1.3) that develop finite-time Type-I singularities. The behavior of these solutions illuminates two outstanding issues concerning four-dimensional Ricci flow: i) the stability of certain singularity models in such flows, and ii) the behavior of Ricci flows that start at non-Kähler Riemannian geometries which are nonetheless close to Kähler geometries. To motivate our work here, we discuss each of these issues in turn.
Behavior of “generic Ricci flow”
--------------------------------
One of the keys to understanding the nature of singularities that develop in solutions of $n$-dimensional Ricci flow is to adequately classify the set of singularity models that may arise. Singularity formation in $3$-dimensional Ricci flow has been fairly well-understand since the work of Hamilton [@Ha1] and of Perelman [@Pe]. Indeed, it follows from the pinching estimate derived by Ivey [@Ivey93] and improved by Hamilton [@Ha1] that the only possible $3$-dimensional singularity models have nonnegative sectional curvature, which is a highly restrictive condition. By contrast, Máximo’s results [@Maximo14] imply that, starting in dimension $n=4$, models of finite-time singularity formation can have Ricci curvature of mixed sign (even for Kähler solutions). This leaves nonnegative scalar curvature as the only known restriction on singularity models for $n\geq4$. This restriction is too weak to be useful.
In dimensions $n\geq4$, therefore, a classification of all singularity models is impractical. A more promising alternative is to try to classify those models that are generic, or at least stable. A singularity model developing from certain original data is labeled *stable* if flows starting from all sufficiently small perturbations of that data develop singularities with the same singularity model; it is labeled *generic* if flows that start from an open dense subset of all possible initial data develop singularities having the same singularity model. Clearly, a singularity model can be generic only if it is stable
Important work of Colding and Minicozzi (see [@CM12] and [@CM15]) provides strong support in favor of the conjecture that the only generic singularities of Mean Curvature Flow are generalized cylinders ${\mathbb}R^m\times{\mathcal}S^{n-m}$. Although no analogous result is currently known for Ricci flow, a conjectural picture comes from the work of Cao, Hamilton, and Ilmanen [@CHI04], who define the *central density* $\Theta$ and the *entropy* $\nu({\mathcal}M)$ of a shrinking Ricci soliton ${\mathcal}M$, using Perelman’s reduced volume and entropy, respectively (see [@Pe]). They observe that their central density imposes a partial order on shrinking solitons: monotonicity of the $\nu$-functional in time means that if perturbations of a shrinking soliton develop singularities, these cannot be modeled on solitons of lower density. (Compare [@CM12].)
Motivated partly by [@CHI04], it is conjectured by experts (see, e.g., [@HHS14]) that the only candidates to be generic singularity models in dimension $n=4$ are ${\mathcal}S^4$, ${\mathcal}S^3\times{\mathbb}R$, ${\mathcal}S^2\times{\mathbb}R^2$, and ${\mathbb}{CP}^2$ (all with their canonical metrics), and $({\mathcal}L^2_{-1},h)$. (Although the Fubini–Study metric on ${\mathbb}{CP}^n$ is well known to be weakly linearly stable, an argument for its dynamic instability is presented Kröncke [@Kro13].) The manifold $({\mathcal}L^2_{-1},h)$, which is constructed and studied in [@FIK03], is a ${\mathrm}U(2)$-invariant gradient Kähler shrinker on the complex line bundle[^2] ${\mathbb}C\hookrightarrow{\mathcal}L_{-1}^2\twoheadrightarrow{\mathbb}{CP}^1$, which is the complex bundle ${\mathcal}O(-1)$; i.e., it is the blow-up of ${\mathbb}C^2$ at the origin. (We note that Perelman’s $\nu$ functional is not defined on the noncompact manifold $({\mathcal}L^2_{-1},h)$. This is one of the reasons why the claim that the list above includes all $4$-dimensional generic singularity models is conjectural.)
While the construction of the $({\mathcal}L^2_{-1},h)$ shrinker involves the blowup of a point on ${\mathbb}C^2$, following the authors of [@CHI04]), we call $({\mathcal}L^2_{-1},h)$ the *blowdown soliton*. We do this because, as shown in Theorem 1.6 of [@FIK03], there is a family of Riemannian manifolds ${\mathcal}N_t$, $-\infty<t<\infty$, with the following features: for $t<0$, ${\mathcal}N_t$ is $({\mathcal}L^2_{-1},h(t))$; for $t=0$, ${\mathcal}N_0$ is a Kähler cone on ${\mathbb}C^2$ with an isolated singularity at the origin; and for $t>0$, ${\mathcal}N_t$ is an expanding soliton discovered by Cao [@Cao97]. It is expected that according to most (if not all) of the definitions of a *weak solution of Ricci flow* which are currently being explored (e.g., see [@HN15] and [@Stu16]), the family ${\mathcal}N_t$ will qualify for such a designation. Consequently, in this weak sense, one sees that Ricci flow can carry out an algebraic-geometric blowdown.
As noted above, a pre-condition for a singularity model being generic is that it must be a stable attractor for Ricci flow — regarded as a dynamical system on the space of Riemannian metrics. Stability of ${\mathcal}S^4$ is well established. (In fact, Brendle and Schoen [@BS] show that its basin of attraction includes all $1/4$-pinched metrics.) Stability of generalized cylinders is strongly conjectured but not known for Ricci flow. Stability of the blowdown soliton is also not known, although Máximo’s proof [@Maximo14] shows that arbitrarily small ${\mathrm}U(2)$-invariant Kähler perturbations of the shrinking soliton on ${\mathbb}{CP}^2\#\,\overline{{\mathbb}{CP}}^{\,2}$ (which was discovered independently by Koiso [@Koiso90] and by Cao [@Cao96]) develop singularities modeled on $({\mathcal}L^2_{-1},h)$. (We remark that prior to Máximo’s results, it was shown in [@HM11] that the Koiso-Cao soliton is *linearly* unstable.)
Our results in this paper prove that the blowdown soliton is a singularity model attractor for solutions of Ricci flow that originate from a set of Riemannian initial data defined by a structural (isometry) hypothesis and by a (weak) set of pinching conditions that we specify in Section \[sec:evolve\] below. Metrics in this set are not Kähler. These results provide evidence in favor of the conjectured stability of $({\mathcal}L^2_{-1},h)$.
Behavior of Ricci flow near Kähler geometries
---------------------------------------------
As noted above, the $({\mathcal}L^2_{-1},h)$ shrinker is Kähler. Hence, the study of non-Kähler Ricci flows near the blowdown soliton provides information about the difficult issue of the behavior of Ricci flow solutions that start near, but not in, the subspace of Kähler metrics. Do those solutions stay near or (better) asymptotically approach that subspace, which is of infinite codimension? It is believed by many experts that the subspace of Kähler metrics *should* be dynamically stable for nearby solutions of Ricci flow. Evidence of favor of this conjecture is provided by the work of Streets and Tian [@ST11], who prove that the Kähler subspace is an attractor for Hermitian curvature flow.
While we do not establish a general stability principle for Kähler geometries, the results of this paper do provide the first rigorous examples of non-Kähler solutions of Ricci flow that become asymptotically Kähler, in suitable space-time neighborhoods of developing singularities, at rates that break scaling invariance. We hope that these examples provide motivation for further study of the general question, particularly in (real) dimension $n=4$.
Organization and main results
-----------------------------
The general class of Riemannian geometries that we study in this paper are smooth cohomogeneity-one metrics on the closed manifold ${\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2$ (the “twisted bundle" of ${\mathcal}S^2$ over ${\mathcal}S^2$). We describe these geometries (which we label “\[${\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2$\]-warped Berger geometries") in detail below in Section \[sec:evolve\]. Here, for the purposes of stating our main theorem, we note that for these metrics, there are two distinguished fibers ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$ (at either “pole”); by contrast, a generic fiber is diffeomorphic to ${\mathcal}S^3$.
In Section \[sec-assume\], we identify an open subset of the \[${\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2$\]-warped Berger geometries by means of five pinching inequalities. These inequalities constitute our Closeness Assumptions, which we require the initial data for our Ricci flow solutions to satisfy. These assumptions ensure that our initial data, while not Kähler, are “not too far” from the subspace of Kähler metrics. In Section \[sec-initial\], we prove that our assumptions are not vacuous; i.e., we show that the open subset of initial data satisfying the Closeness Assumptions is not empty.
We clarify the relationship between Kähler geometries and the \[${\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2$\]-warped Berger geometries in Section \[SingularityModel\]. Also in that section, we provide some background information about the blowdown soliton.
In the remainder of this paper, we prove a sequence of Lemmata and Corollaries that combine to establish the following result:
There exists a nonempty open set of non-Kähler metrics on ${\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2$ (contained in the \[${\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2$\]-warped Berger class, and satisfying the Closeness Assumptions) such that any Ricci flow solution originating from this set has the following properties:
1. Inequalities (a)–(d) in the Closeness Assumptions are preserved by the flow.
2. The solution develops a Type-I singularity at $T<\infty$, with $|{\mathcal}S^2_-(T)|=0$.
3. Every blow-up sequence $\big({\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2,G_k(t),p\big)$ with $p\in{\mathcal}S^2_-$ subconverges to a Kähler singularity model that is the blowdown shrinking soliton $({\mathcal}L^2_{-1},h)$.
The set-up {#sec:evolve}
==========
Topology and geometry
---------------------
In [@IKS14], we study “warped Berger” metrics which take the form $$\label{metric-standard}
G = {{\mathrm}{d}s}{\otimes}{{\mathrm}{d}s}+\Big\{f^2\,\omega^1{\otimes}\omega^1
+ g^2\big(\omega^2{\otimes}\omega^2
+ \omega^3{\otimes}\omega^3\big)\Big\}$$ on $[s_-,s_+]\times{\mathrm}{SU}(2)$, where $\{ \omega^1, \omega^2, \omega^3\}$ constitutes a one-form basis for ${\mathrm}{SU}(2)$, where $s(x,t)$ denotes arclength from $x=0$, with $x\in[-1,1]$, and where we set $s_\pm:=s(\pm1)$. The functions $f$ and $g$ depend only on $x$ (or equivalently on $s$); hence these metrics are cohomogeneity one. In [@IKS14], we choose boundary conditions on $f$ and $g$ that result in these metrics inducing geometries on ${\mathcal}S^3\times{\mathcal}S^1$. Here, we instead choose boundary conditions on $f$ and $g$ that result in smooth cohomogeneity geometries on ${\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2$, thereby defining the class of \[${\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2$\]-warped Berger geometries. We do this as follows.
It is a standard result in Riemannian geometry that one may smoothly close the boundary at $s_-$, provided that the functions $f_-(s):=f(s_-+s)$ and $g_-(s):=g(s_-+s)$ defined for $0\leq s\leq s_+-s_-$ satisfy $$\label{close-}
f_-^{({\mathrm}{even})}(0)=0,\quad
f_-'(0)=1,\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
g_-(0)>0,\quad g_-^{({\mathrm}{odd})}(0)=0.$$ The topology then locally becomes that of the disc bundle ${\mathcal}D^2\hookrightarrow{\mathcal}D_1^4\twoheadrightarrow{\mathcal}S^2$ with Euler class $1$ and boundary $\partial{\mathcal}D_1^4\approx{\mathcal}S^3$ that appears in the handlebody construction of ${\mathbb}{CP}^2$. Note that the $2$-sphere here is the base of the Hopf fibration on ${\mathcal}S^3\approx{\mathrm}{SU}(2)$. If one repeats this construction at $s_+$, with $f_+(s):=f(s_++s)$ and $g_+(s):=g(s_++s)$ defined for $s_--s_+\leq s\leq 0$ satisfying $$\label{close+}
f_+^{(\mathrm{even})}(0)=0,\quad
f_+'(0)=-1,\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
g_+(0)>0,\quad g_+^{({\mathrm}{odd})}(0)=0,$$ one obtains a closed $4$-manifold with the topology of ${\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2$. We denote by ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$ the distinguished $2$-spheres that appear as the base spaces in the closing construction at either “pole” $s_\pm$. We note that while ${\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2$ is diffeomorphic to ${\mathbb}{CP}^2\#\,\overline{{\mathbb}{CP}}^{\,2}$, the Ricci flow evolutions we study are not Kähler.
The metrics $G = {{\mathrm}{d}s}{\otimes}{{\mathrm}{d}s}+f^2\,\omega^1{\otimes}\omega^1+g^2\omega^2{\otimes}\omega^2+h^2\omega^3{\otimes}\omega^3$ described in Appendix A of [@IKS14] are clearly ${\mathrm}{SU}(2)$-invariant. The simplifying assumption $h\equiv g$ made here enlarges their symmetry group to ${\mathrm}U(2)$. However, although ${\mathbb}{CP}^2\#\,\overline{{\mathbb}{CP}}^{\,2}$ admits Kähler metrics, including the ${\mathrm}U(2)$-invariant Kähler–Ricci soliton mentioned above, we observe in Lemma \[CalabiCondition\] that metrics of the form cannot be Kähler unless they satisfy the closed condition $f=gg_s$.
Ricci flow equations
--------------------
We study in this work solutions $\big({\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2,G(t)\big)$ of Ricci flow that originate from smooth initial data $G(0)$ satisfying the closing conditions and for the \[${\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2$\]-warped Berger geometries, as outlined above. For as long as such solutions remain smooth, the functions $f$ and $g$ continue to satisfy conditions and , and hence remain \[${\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2$\]-warped Berger geometries.
Since the metrics studied in [@IKS14] and those studied here are the same apart from boundary conditions, we may use formulas (10)–(13) of [@IKS14] to obtain the sectional curvatures of the metric[^3] $G$:
\[curvatures\] $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_{12}=\kappa_{31}&=\frac{f^2}{g^4}-\frac{f_s g_s}{fg},\\
\kappa_{23}&=\frac{4g^2-3f^2}{g^4}-\frac{g_s^2}{g^2},\\
\kappa_{01}&=-\frac{f_{ss}}{f},\\
\kappa_{02}=\kappa_{03}&=-\frac{g_{ss}}{g}.\end{aligned}$$
Writing the metric in coordinate form , we note that its evolution under Ricci flow is governed by the evolution equations for $f$ and $g$, which (as shown in (14) of [@IKS14]) take the following form:
\[RF\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f-evolution}
f_t&=f_{ss}+2\frac{g_s}{g}f_s-2\frac{f^3}{g^4},\\
\label{g-evolution}
g_t&=g_{ss}+\left(\frac{f_s}{f}+\frac{g_s}{g}\right)g_s
+2\frac{f^2-2g^2}{g^3}.\end{aligned}$$
The variable $s=s(x,t)$, representing arclength from the ${\mathcal}S^3$ at $x=0$, is a choice of gauge that results in this system being manifestly strictly parabolic. The cost one pays for this is the non-vanishing commutator, $$\label{Commutator}
\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial t},\frac{\partial}{\partial s}\right]
=-(\log\rho)_t\frac{\partial}{\partial s}
=-\left(\frac{f_{ss}}{f}+2\frac{g_{ss}}{g}\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial s}.$$
Closeness Assumptions {#sec-assume}
---------------------
The Riemannian Ricci flow solutions we study here originate from an open set of cohomogeneity-one metrics that is defined by certain mild hypotheses, which effectively guarantee that at least initially, the metrics are “somewhat close” to the subspace of Kähler metrics.
\[assumption-main\] At time $t=0$, the metric $G$ of the form determined by the pair $(f,g)$ satisfies the following:
1. $f\leq g$;
2. $g|g_s|\leq f$;
3. $|f_s| \le 2/\sqrt3$;
4. $g^2(s_+)-3g^2(s_-)\geq\delta^2$ for some $\delta>0$; and
5. $g_s\geq0$, with strict inequality off ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$.
It follows from Lemma 26 of [@IKS14] that condition (a) is preserved under the flow. We prove in Section \[FirstOrder\] that condition (b) — which, as we show there, may be regarded as a “Kähler pinching condition” — and condition (c) are preserved by the flow. We prove in Section \[Singular\] that (d) is preserved. We do not need (e) to be preserved; we need it only for initial comparison with a barrier function constructed in Section \[Singular\].
Regarding our Closeness Assumptions, we note the following: i) Even for Kähler metrics, condition (d) is necessary so that the $g^2\big(\omega^2{\otimes}\omega^2 + \omega^3{\otimes}\omega^3\big)$ factor in the metric $G$ vanishes before the $\big({{\mathrm}{d}s}{\otimes}{{\mathrm}{d}s}+f^2\,\omega^1{\otimes}\omega^1\big)$ factor does; this is necessary for the singularities to form on ${\mathcal}S^2_-$ (see Theorem 1.1 of [@SW11] and Remark \[kappa-dichotomy\] below). ii) Although we cannot prove that monotonicity of $g$ is preserved for non-Kähler metrics satisfying our Closeness Assumptions, we use condition (e) to prove that for any such metric, $g$ remains above a subsolution we construct that *does* remain strictly monotone in space.
Construction of metrics satisfying the Closeness Assumptions {#sec-initial}
------------------------------------------------------------
We choose $f$ to be any smooth function that is defined for $s\in[s_-,s_+]$, is strictly positive except at $s_\pm$, satisfies $|f_s|\leq1$ with equality only at $s_\pm$, and satisfies the closing conditions and . For each such function, we now construct an infinite-dimensional family ${\mathcal}G_{\alpha,\delta,{\varepsilon}}$ of initial metrics which satisfy our Closeness Assumptions. The family depends on parameters $\alpha,\delta$, and ${\varepsilon}$, to be chosen below. We define $$A^2:=2\int_{s_-}^{s_+} f(s)\,{\mathrm}d s,$$ noting that we are free to let the difference $s_+-s_-$, and hence $A^2$, be as large as we wish. We then choose $\alpha$ and $\delta$ to be any positive parameters satisfying $$\label{2d}
\alpha^2+\delta^2\leq\frac{A^2}{2}.$$
To define $g$, and hence a metric $(f,g)\in{\mathcal}G_{\alpha,\delta,{\varepsilon}}$, we choose ${\varphi}$ to be any smooth function satisfying $1-{\varepsilon}\leq{\varphi}\leq1$, requiring that it be nonconstant unless ${\varepsilon}=0$. Clearly ${\varepsilon}$ controls how much ${\varphi}$ can stray from being constant. We then set $$g^2(s):=\alpha^2+2\int_{s_-}^s {\varphi}(\bar s)f(\bar s)\,{\mathrm}d\bar s.$$ We readily verify that $g$ defined in this way satisfies closing conditions and .
To verify that part (a) of our Closeness Assumptions is satisfied, we observe that the gradient restriction $|f_s|\leq1$ implies that $$\begin{aligned}
f^2(s)&=2 \int_{s_-}^s f(\bar s)f_{\bar s}(\bar s)\,{\mathrm}d\bar s\\
&\leq2 \int_{s_-}^s \big\{{\varphi}+(1-{\varphi})\big\}f(\bar s)\,{\mathrm}d\bar s\\
&\leq g^2-\alpha^2+{\varepsilon}A^2\\
&\leq g^2,\end{aligned}$$ provided that $${\varepsilon}\leq\frac{\alpha^2}{A^2}.$$ It immediately follows that part (b) holds for all ${\varepsilon}\in[0,1)$, with equality — which Lemma \[CalabiCondition\] (below) shows is equivalent to the metric being Kähler — if and only if ${\varepsilon}=0$. Part (c) holds as a consequence of the gradient restriction $|f_s|\leq1$.
To verify that part (d) holds, we observe that one has $$\begin{aligned}
g^2(s_+)-3g^2(s_-)&\geq\big\{\alpha^2+(1-{\varepsilon})A^2\big\}-3\alpha^2\\
&=(A^2-2\alpha^2)-{\varepsilon}A^2\\
&\geq2\delta^2-{\varepsilon}A^2,\end{aligned}$$ with the last inequality following from the restrictions on $\alpha$ and $\delta$ that we have imposed in . Hence we satisfy part (d) so long as $${\varepsilon}\leq\frac{\delta^2}{A^2}.$$
Finally, it is clear that part (e) is satisfied, because $gg_s\geq(1-{\varepsilon})f\geq0$.
Characterizing Kähler metrics {#SingularityModel}
=============================
We prove in this paper that as they become singular, solutions originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions asymptotically approach the blowdown soliton. For the reader’s convenience, we include here a brief review of metrics related to that singularity model.
The Calabi construction {#CalabiConstruction}
-----------------------
We call a metric on ${\mathbb}{CP}^2\#\,\overline{{\mathbb}{CP}}^{\,2}$ or ${\mathcal}L_{-1}^2$ a *Calabi metric* if it is Kähler and ${\mathrm}U(2)$-invariant. As part of a much more general construction [@Calabi82], Calabi has observed that any ${\mathrm}U(2)$-invariant Kähler metric on ${\mathbb}C^2\backslash(0,0)$ has the form $$\label{U2-complex}
h_{\,{\mathbb}C^2\backslash(0,0)}
=\Big\{e^{-r}\phi\,\delta_{\alpha\beta}
+e^{-2r}(\phi_r-\phi)\,\bar z^\alpha z^\beta\Big\}\,
{\mathrm}dz^\alpha{\otimes}{\mathrm}d\bar z^\beta.$$ Here $r:=\log(|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2)$ is Calabi’s coordinate, and $\phi(r)=P_r(r)$, where $P$ is the Kähler potential. The metric closes smoothly at the origin, hence induces a smooth metric on the total space of the bundle ${\mathcal}L_{-1}^2$ (or on a neighborhood of ${\mathcal}S^2_-$ in ${\mathbb}{CP}^2\#\,\overline{{\mathbb}{CP}}^{\,2}$) if and only if there are $a_0,a_1>0$ such that $$\label{ClosingCondition}
\phi(r)=a_0+a_1 e^r + a_2 e^{2r}+ {\mathcal}O(e^{3r})\quad\mbox{ as }\quad
r\rightarrow-\infty.$$ The metric closes smoothly at spatial infinity, hence induces a smooth Kähler metric with respect to the unique complex structure on ${\mathbb}{CP}^2\#\,\overline{{\mathbb}{CP}}^{\,2}$, if and only if two conditions hold: i) $\phi_r>0$ everywhere, and ii) there are $b_0>a_0$ and $b_1<0$ such that $$\phi(r)=b_0+b_1 e^{-r} + b_2 e^{-2r}+ {\mathcal}O(e^{-3r})\quad\mbox{ as }\quad
r\rightarrow\infty.$$ Alternatively, one may obtain a complete Calabi metric on the noncompact space ${\mathcal}L^2_{-1}$ by imposing conditions at spatial infinity that guarantee completeness; see, e.g., [@FIK03]. As noted in equation (19) of that paper, any ${\mathrm}U(2)$-invariant metric on ${\mathbb}C^2\backslash(0,0)$ can be written in real coordinates on ${\mathbb}R^4\backslash(0,0,0,0)$ as $$\label{U2-real}
h_{\,{\mathbb}R^4\backslash(0,0,0,0)}
=\phi_r\big(\frac14{\mathrm}dr{\otimes}{\mathrm}dr+\omega^1{\otimes}\omega^1\big)
+\phi\big(\omega^2{\otimes}\omega^2+\omega^3{\otimes}\omega^3\big).$$
A coordinate transformation {#Diffeos}
---------------------------
A comparison of equations and shows that a coordinate transformation is needed to write a Calabi metric in the $s$-coordinate system. We implement this as follows. Recalling that $s(x,t)$ denotes arclength from the ${\mathcal}S^3$ at the “interior” point $x=0$, and motivated by Calabi’s (fixed) $r$-coordinate introduced in Section \[CalabiConstruction\], we define here a function $$\label{magic}
\rho(s,t):=2\int_0^s\frac{{\mathrm}d\bar s}{f(\bar s,t)}.$$ The closing conditions then show that $\rho\rightarrow\pm\infty$ at ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$. Moreover, one has $$\label{dsdr}
{{\mathrm}{d}s}=\frac12f\,{\mathrm}d\rho,$$ so that equation may be re-expressed in the form $$\label{transformation}
G = f^2\big(\frac14 {\mathrm}d\rho{\otimes}{\mathrm}d\rho+\omega^1{\otimes}\omega^1\big)
+ g^2\big(\omega^2{\otimes}\omega^2+ \omega^3{\otimes}\omega^3\big),$$ where we emphasize that the coordinate $\rho$ is allowed to depend on time. We note that $\rho$ and its time evolution depend only on $s(x,t)$ and $f(s(x,t),t)$, neither of which depend on $\rho$.
We observe that equation has the form of a Calabi metric $h$ if and only if $g^2=\phi$ and $f^2=(g^2)_\rho$, in which case one has $$f=gg_s\qquad\mbox{ and }\qquad f_s=gg_{ss}+g_s^2.$$
We summarize this simple observation, which is crucial to our work here, as follows:
\[CalabiCondition\] A $[{\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2]$-warped Berger metric is Kähler if and only if $f=gg_s$.
If $G$ is Kähler, then its sectional curvatures (which generally take the form ) take the following special form: $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa_{12}=\kappa_{31}=\kappa_{02}=\kappa_{03}&=-\frac{g_{ss}}{g},\\
\kappa_{23}&=4\frac{1-g_s^2}{g^2},\\
\kappa_{01}&=-\frac{g_{sss}}{g_s}-3\frac{g_{ss}}{g}.\end{aligned}$$ As must be true for a Kähler metric on a complex surface, the Ricci endomorphism then has only two eigenvalues, $$R_0^0=R_1^1=-\frac{g_{sss}}{g_s}-5\frac{g_{ss}}{g}\qquad\mbox{ and }\qquad
R_2^2=R_3^3=-2\frac{g_{ss}}{g}+4\frac{1-g_s^2}{g^2}.$$
Because Kähler–Ricci flow is strictly parabolic, no time-dependent choice of gauge $s(x,t)$ is needed to ensure parabolicity. Rather, one can write the Kähler–Ricci <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pde</span> with respect to a time-independent coordinate. The following observation is a particular instance of this general fact.
\[rho-evolution-proof\] The evolution equation for the coordinate $\rho$ under Ricci flow takes the form $$\label{rho-evolution}
\rho_t=2\int_0^\rho\left\{\frac{g_{ss}}{g}-\frac{f_sg_s}{fg}+\frac{f^2}{g^4}\right\}{\mathrm}d\bar\rho.$$ For a Kähler geometry, the integrand in vanishes pointwise; hence, for Kähler initial data, the coordinate $\rho$ is independent of $t$.
For Kähler initial data, one may therefore assume without loss of generality that $\rho$ is identical to Calabi’s coordinate $r=\log(|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2)$.
It follows from equation (56) in [@IKS14] and from above that the gauge quantity $\frac{\partial s}{\partial x}$ evolves according to the equation $$\Big(\frac{\partial s}{\partial x}\Big)_t=
\left\{\frac{f_{ss}}{f}+2\frac{g_{ss}}{g}\right\}\frac{\partial s}{\partial x}.$$ Hence, using equations and , we determine that the time derivative of $\rho$ at fixed $x$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac12\rho_t&=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\left(\int_0^x f^{-1}\big(s(\bar x,t),t\big)\,\frac{\partial s}{\partial\bar x}\,{\mathrm}d\bar x\right)\\
&=\int_0^x\left\{f^{-1}\Big(\frac{\partial s}{\partial\bar x}\Big)_t-f^{-2}f_t\Big(\frac{\partial s}{\partial\bar x}\Big)
\right\}{\mathrm}d\bar x\\
&=2\int_0^s\left\{\frac{g_{\bar s\bar s}}{fg}-\frac{f_{\bar s}g_{\bar s}}{f^2g}+\frac{f}{g^4}\right\}{\mathrm}d\bar s.\end{aligned}$$ This proves the first claim. The second follows by direct computation.
Ricci flow of Calabi metrics
----------------------------
Lemma \[CalabiCondition\] states that the initial metric is Calabi if and only if $f=gg_s$. Because Ricci flow preserves the Kähler condition with respect to the original complex structure (here, the unique complex structure on ${\mathbb}{CP}^2\#\,\overline{{\mathbb}{CP}}^{\,2}$) and also preserves initial symmetries, a solution originating from Calabi initial data remains Calabi for as long as it exists. This can be seen directly, as we now observe.
In this section, which is not needed for the rest of the paper, we find it convenient to work with $u:=f^2$ and $v:=g^2$. The Ricci flow evolution equations for these quantities are given by $$\begin{aligned}
u_t &= u_{ss}-\frac{u_s^2}{2u}+\frac{u_s v_s}{v}-4\frac{u^2}{v^2},\\
v_t &= v_{ss}+\frac{u_s v_s}{2u}+4\frac{u-2v}{v}.\end{aligned}$$ On a Calabi solution, one can use the relation $u=v_s^2/4$ (equivalent to $f=gg_s$) to simplify the evolution equation above for $v$, thereby obtaining $$\label{Calabi-v-evolution}
v_t=2v_{ss}+\frac{v_s^2}{v}-8.$$ One now has two ways of computing the evolution of $u$. Evaluating the equation above for $u_t$ by using the Kähler condition $u=v_s^2/4$ to convert the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">rhs</span> into terms involving only $v$ and its derivatives, one obtains $$\label{Calabi-u-evolution}
u_t=\frac12v_sv_{sss}+\frac12\frac{v_{ss}v_s^2}{v}-\frac14\frac{v_s^4}{v^2}.$$ On the other hand, one can differentiate the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">rhs</span> of $u=v_s^2/4$ directly, use the commutator $[\partial_t,\partial_s]$ given in equation , and then apply , obtaining $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{v_s^2}{4}\right)_t
&=\frac12v_s(v_s)_t\\
&=\frac12v_s\left\{(v_t)_s-\left(\frac{f_{ss}}{f}+2\frac{g_{ss}}{g}\right)v_s\right\}\\
&=\frac12v_sv_{sss}+\frac12\frac{v_{ss}v_s^2}{v}-\frac14\frac{v_s^4}{v^2},\end{aligned}$$ as above. This calculation verifies directly what one knows from general principles: that the Calabi condition is preserved by the flow. We note in particular that for a Calabi solution, the Ricci flow system reduces to a scalar <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pde</span>, in the sense that the evolution of $u$ is completely determined by the evolution of $v$.
For solutions with initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions, the fact that $g_s>0$ everywhere except at ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$ holds initially. For as long as this remains true (presumably only a short time for non-Kähler solutions), there is a well-defined function $\theta$ such that $$f=\theta\,gg_s.$$ We note that $\theta\equiv1$ for a Kähler solution, and that the evolution equation for $\theta$ is $$\theta_t=\theta_{ss}+2\frac{fg_s-2f_sg}{g^2}(\theta^2-1),$$ which yields an easy direct proof that the Kähler condition is preserved for these geometries.
The blowdown soliton {#ModelSoliton}
--------------------
Under Kähler–Ricci flow, the evolution of an arbitrary Calabi metric $$\label{Calabih}
h =\Big\{e^{-r}\phi\,\delta_{\alpha\beta}
+e^{-2r}(\phi_r-\phi)\,\bar z^\alpha z^\beta\Big\}\,
{\mathrm}dz^\alpha{\otimes}{\mathrm}d\bar z^\beta,$$ written in terms of Calabi’s fixed $r$-coordinate on ${\mathcal}L_{-1}^2$ or on ${\mathbb}{CP}^2\#\,\overline{{\mathbb}{CP}}^{\,2}$, is determined by the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">pde</span> $$\label{KRF}
\phi_t=\frac{\phi_{rr}}{\phi_r}+\frac{\phi_r}{\phi}-2.$$
The blowdown soliton is specified by setting $\phi$ in equal to a function ${\varphi}$ which (following Lemma 6.1 and equation (27) of [@FIK03] with $\lambda=-1$, $\mu=\sqrt2$, and $\nu=0$) satisfies the separable first-order <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ode</span> $$\label{phi-ode1}
{\varphi}_r=\frac{1}{\sqrt2}{\varphi}-(\sqrt2-1)-\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right){\varphi}^{-1}.$$ Rewriting this <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ode</span> in the form $${\mathrm}dr = \frac{{\varphi}\,{\mathrm}d{\varphi}}{{\varphi}-1}-\frac{{\varphi}\,{\mathrm}d{\varphi}}{{\varphi}+\sqrt2-1},$$ one can solve it implicitly, obtaining $$\label{phi-implicit}
e^{r+\chi}=\frac{{\varphi}-1}{\big({\varphi}+\sqrt2-1\big)^{\sqrt2-1}}.$$ The arbitrary constant $\chi$ above reflects the fact that the soliton is unique only modulo translations in $r$. Examination of formula also shows that the soliton is cone-like at spatial infinity and hence complete.
Equation (24) of [@FIK03] implies that the blowdown soliton function ${\varphi}$ also satisfies the second-order <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ode</span> $$\label{phi-ode2}
\frac{{\varphi}_{rr}}{{\varphi}_r}+\frac{{\varphi}_r}{{\varphi}}-\sqrt2{\varphi}_r+{\varphi}-2=0.$$ It follows from that ${\varphi}$ satisfies ${\varphi}_t=\sqrt2{\varphi}_r-{\varphi}$; hence the soliton evolves by translation and scaling.
Basic estimates
===============
In this section, we prove a number of estimates that are needed for the proof of our Main Theorem.
A weak one-sided Kähler stability result {#Weak}
----------------------------------------
We begin by introducing the useful quantity $$\label{KahlerQuantity}
\psi:=\left(\frac{gg_s}{f}\right)^2-1.$$ This quantity $\psi$ is well defined at ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$, because it follows from l’Hôpital’s rule that $\frac{gg_s}{f}{\big|_{{\mathcal}S^2_\pm}}=gg_{ss}$.
Lemma \[CalabiCondition\] tells us that $\psi\equiv0$ if and only if the metric $G$ from is Kähler. Therefore, we use $\psi$ to measure, in a precise sense, how far away a solution is from being Kähler. The following result is thus a statement of weak (one-sided) stability for the Kähler condition. Note that part (b) of our Closeness Assumptions ensures that $\psi\leq0$ at $t=0$.
\[NearCalabi\] If $-1\leq\psi\leq0$ initially, then $-1\leq\psi\leq0$ as long as the flow exists.
It is only necessary to prove the upper bound. The quantity $\psi$ evolves under Ricci flow by $$\label{psi-evolution}
\psi_t=\psi_{ss}+\left\{3\frac{f_s}{f}-2\frac{g_s}{g}\right\}\psi_s
-\frac{\psi_s^2}{2(\psi+1)}+\left\{4\frac{g_s^2}{g^2}-8\frac{f_sg_s}{fg}\right\}\psi.$$ From this equation, it is clear that the condition $\psi\leq0$ is preserved if all maxima of $\psi$ occur away from ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$.
If a maximum occurs instead at ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$, then we apply l’Hôpital to determine that $$\frac{f_s\psi_s}{f}{\big|_{{\mathcal}S^2_\pm}}=\psi_{ss}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\frac{f_sg_s}{fg}{\big|_{{\mathcal}S^2_\pm}}=\frac{g_{ss}}{g}.$$ Hence $$\psi_t{\big|_{{\mathcal}S^2_\pm}}=4\psi_{ss}-8\frac{g_{ss}}{g}\psi.$$ However, smoothness of either function $\psi_\pm(s,\cdot):=\psi(s-s_\pm,\cdot)$ at a maximum on ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$ shows that $\psi_{ss}{\big|_{{\mathcal}S^2_\pm}}=(\psi_\pm)_{ss}{\big|_{{\mathcal}S^2_\pm}}\leq0$. The result follows.
First derivative estimates {#FirstOrder}
--------------------------
Based on the one-sided Kähler stability established in Lemma \[NearCalabi\], we now derive estimates on the first derivatives of $f$ and $g$, and consequently on the curvatures which depend on these first derivatives. We first state an immediate corollary of Lemma \[NearCalabi\], which controls $|g_s|$.
\[cor-gs\] Solutions originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions have $|g_s|\leq1$ for as long as they exist.
Because, as noted above, the ordering $f\leq g$ is preserved by the flow, it follows from Lemma \[NearCalabi\] that $f^2g_s^2\leq g^2g_s^2\leq f^2$. The result follows.
Next, we obtain a bound for $|f_s|$.
\[lem-fs\] If $f\leq g$ initially, then for as long as the flow exists, $$|f_s|\leq\max\left\{\frac{2}{\sqrt3},\,\max|f_s(\cdot,0)|\right\}.$$
Using equation (21) of [@IKS14] together with the fact that $$\Delta\Omega=\Omega_{ss}+(f_s/f+2g_s/g)\Omega_s$$ holds for any smooth function $\Omega(s,t)$, we see that $f_s$ evolves by $$\label{f_s-evolution}
(f_s)_t=(f_s)_{ss}+\left\{2\frac{g_s}{g}-\frac{f_s}{f}\right\}(f_s)_s
-\left\{6\frac{f^2}{g^4}+2\frac{g_s^2}{g^2}\right\}f_s
+8\frac{f^3}{g^5}\,g_s.$$ Because $f_s{\big|_{{\mathcal}S^2_\pm}}=\pm1$, we do not need to worry about a maximum of $|f_s|$ on ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$.
We apply the weighted Cauchy–Schwarz inequality $|ab|\leq\epsilon a^2+(1/4\epsilon)b^2$ to the term $8f^3g_s/g^5$ above, with $a=g_s/g$ and $b=f^3/g^4$. Thus if $(f_s)_{\max}=C>0$ at some time, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt} (f_s)_{\max}
&\leq -(f_s)_{\max}\, \left(6 \frac{f^2}{g^4} + 2 \frac{g_s^2}{g^2}\right) + 8 \frac{f^3}{g^5} g_s \\
&\leq\left(\frac{4}{\sqrt3}-2C\right)\frac{g_s^2}{g^2}
+\left(\frac{12}{\sqrt3}\frac{f^4}{g^4}-6C\right)\frac{f^2}{g^4}\\
&\leq 0\end{aligned}$$ if $C \ge 2/\sqrt3$, because $f/g\leq1$.
A similar argument shows that $\frac{d}{dt} (f_s)_{\min}\geq0$ if $(f_s)_{\min}=-C$ at some time.
These uniform bounds on the first derivatives of $f$ and $g$ lead to the following.
\[lem-curv-1-der\] For any solution originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions, there exists a uniform constant $C$ such that $$|\kappa_{12}| + |\kappa_{31}| + |\kappa_{23}| \le \frac{C}{g^2}$$ for as long as the flow exists.
It follows from Lemma \[NearCalabi\] that the inequality $(gg_s/f)^2\leq1$ persists if it is true initially. This implies that $|g_s| \leq f/g$ for as long as the flow exists. Combining this estimate with the identities in , using Corollary \[cor-gs\], Lemma \[lem-fs\], and the fact that $f \leq g$, we obtain $$|\kappa_{12}| + |\kappa_{31}| + |\kappa_{23}| \le \frac{C}{g^2}.$$
Second derivative estimates {#SecondOrder}
---------------------------
Here we derive estimates for the remaining curvatures — those that depend on second-order derivatives of $(f,g)$.
\[lem-k02\] For any solution originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions, there exists a uniform constant $C$ such that $$|\kappa_{02}| = \left|\frac{g_{ss}}{g}\right| \le \frac{C}{g^2}$$ for as long as the flow exists.
We define $Q = g g_{ss} - A g_s^2 - Bf_s^2$, where $A, B > 0$ are to be suitably chosen below. We first show that there exists a uniform constant $C$ so that $Q \ge -C$ for as long as the flow exists. A straightforward computation shows that the evolution of $Q$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq-Q}
\frac{\partial Q}{\partial t} = \Delta Q + \frac{12 B f^2 f_s^2}{g^4}
+ \frac{4 f_s^2}{g^2} + \frac{24 f^2 g_s^2}{g^4} + \frac{12A f^2 g_s^2}{g^4} + \frac{2Af_s^2 g_s^2}{f^2} + \frac{4Bf_s^2g_s^2}{g^2} \\
+ \frac{2g_s^4}{g^2} + \frac{2A g_s^4}{g^2} + 2B f_{ss}^2 + 2(A - 1) g_{ss}^2
- g g_{ss}\left(\frac{4f^2}{g^4} + \frac{2f_s^2}{f^2} + \frac{4Ag_s^2}{g^2}\right) \\
- \frac{16 B f^3 f_s g_s}{g^5} - \frac{24 f f_s g_s}{g^3} - \frac{8A f f_s g_s}{g^3} + \frac{2g f_s^3 g_s}{f^3} - \frac{8 g_s^2}{g^2} - \frac{8A g_s^2}{g^2} \\
+ \frac{4 f f_{ss}}{g^2} + \frac{4B f_s^2 f_{ss}}{f} - \frac{8B f_s g_s f_{ss}}{g} - \frac{2g f_s g_s f_{ss}}{f^2},\end{gathered}$$ where as noted above, $\Delta Q=Q_{ss}+(f_s/f+2g_s/g)Q_s$. We observe that l’Hôpital’s rule implies that the terms $$\frac{Q_s f_s}{f}, \qquad \frac{2Af_s^2 g_s^2}{f^2}, \qquad 2g f_s^2\, \frac{(f_s g_s - f g_{ss})}{f^3},
\qquad \frac{4B f_s^2 f_{ss}}{f},$$ appearing in equation are well defined and smooth at ${\mathcal}S^2_{\pm}$. We now distinguish between two cases.
\[case-1\] A minimum of $Q$ occurs away from ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$.
We assume that at a minimum of $Q$ at some time $t$, we have $g g_{ss} - Ag_s^2 - Bf_s^2 \le -\bar{C}$ for a large constant $\bar{C}>0$ to be chosen. Because we are bounding $Q$ from below, we may assume that $g_{ss}\leq0$. Then since Corollary \[cor-gs\] and Lemma \[lem-fs\] give uniform bounds for $|f_s|$ and $|g_s|$, we may choose $\bar{C}$ sufficiently large relative to $A$ and $B$ such that $$\label{eq-help-term}
-g g_{ss} \left(\frac{4f^2}{g^4} + \frac{2f_s^2}{f^2} + \frac{4Ag_s^2}{g^2}\right) \ge \frac{\bar{C} f^2}{2 g^4}
+ \frac{\bar{C} f_s^2}{2f^2} + \frac{\bar{C} A g_s^2}{g^2}.$$ It then follows from that at a minimum of $Q$ at time $t$, we have $$\label{eq-Q100}
\begin{split}
\frac{d}{dt} Q_{\min} &\ge 2Bf_{ss}^2 + \frac{\bar{C} f^2}{2 g^4}
+ \frac{\bar{C} f_s^2}{2f^2} + \frac{\bar{C} A g_s^2}{g^2} \\
&- \frac{16 B f^3 f_s g_s}{g^5} - \frac{24 f f_s g_s}{g^3} - \frac{8A f f_s g_s}{g^3} + \frac{2g f_s^3 g_s}{f^3}
- \frac{8 g_s^2}{g^2} - \frac{8A g_s^2}{g^2}\\
&+ \frac{4 f f_{ss}}{g^2} + \frac{4B f_s^2 f_{ss}}{f} - \frac{8B f_s g_s f_{ss}}{g} - \frac{2g f_s g_s f_{ss}}{f^2}.
\end{split}$$ To estimate the terms in containing $f_{ss}$, we use Lemma \[NearCalabi\], Corollary \[cor-gs\], Lemma \[lem-fs\], the facts that $f \le g$ and $|g_s|\leq f/g$, and a weighted Cauchy–Schwarz inequality to determine that there exists a uniform constant $C'$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|\frac{4 f f_{ss}}{g^2}\right| + \left|\frac{4B f_s^2 f_{ss}}{f}\right| + \left|\frac{8B f_s g_s f_{ss}}{g}\right|
+ \left|\frac{2g f_s g_s f_{ss}}{f^2}\right|\\
&\quad\leq\left(\frac 12 f_{ss}^2 + \frac{C' f^2}{g^4}\right) + \left(\frac{B}{2}\, f_{ss}^2 + C' B \frac{f_s^2}{f^2}\right)
+ \left(\frac B2 f_{ss}^2 + C'B \frac{g_s^2}{g^2}\right) + \left(\frac 12 f_{ss}^2 + C'\frac{f_s^2}{f^2}\right) \\
&\quad\leq(B+1) f_{ss}^2 + C'(B+1)\left( \frac{f_s^2}{f^2} + \frac{g_s^2}{g^2} +\frac{f^2}{g^4}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The remaining terms in can be estimated in a similar manner. Thus we find that $$\begin{split}
\frac{d}{dt} Q_{\min} &\ge 2Bf_{ss}^2 + \frac{\bar{C} f^2}{2 g^4} + \frac{\bar{C} f_s^2}{2f^2} + \frac{\bar{C} A g_s^2}{g^2} \\
&\qquad- C'(1 + A + B) \left(\frac{f^2}{g^4} + \frac{f_s^2}{f^2} + \frac{g_s^2}{g^2}\right) - (B + 1) f_{ss^2} \\
&\ge 0,
\end{split}$$ if we choose $A = 1$, $B = 2$ and $\bar{C}$ sufficiently large so that $\bar{C} > C'(1 + A + B)$. Therefore, in this case, either $Q \ge -\bar{C}$ or $\frac{d}{dt}Q_{\min} \ge 0$.
\[case-2\] A minimum of $Q$ occurs on ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$.
The only difference from Case \[case-1\] is that one must deal with the term $\frac{Q_s f_s}{f}$ at ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$. We apply l’Hôpital’s rule to see that $$\frac{Q_s f_s}{f}\Big|_{{\mathcal}S^2_{\pm}}
= \left(Q_{ss} + Q_s \frac{f_{ss}}{f_s}\right)\Big|_{{\mathcal}S^2_{\pm}}
= Q_{ss}\big|_{{\mathcal}S^2_{\pm}}.$$ However, smoothness of either function $Q_{\pm}(s,\cdot) :=Q(s - s_{\pm}, \cdot)$ at a minimum on ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$ shows that $Q_{ss}|_{{\mathcal}S^2_{\pm}} = (Q_{\pm})_{ss}|_{{\mathcal}S^2_{\pm}} \ge 0$. A similar computation as in Case \[case-1\] then yields $$\frac{d}{dt}Q|_{{\mathcal}S^2_{\pm}} \ge 0,$$ unless $Q_{\min}(t) = Q(\cdot,t)|_{{\mathcal}S^2_{\pm}} \ge -\bar{C}$, for the constant $\bar{C}$ chosen in Case \[case-1\].
Combined, Case \[case-1\] and Case \[case-2\] show that $$Q(\cdot,t) \ge \min\big\{-\bar{C},\,Q_{\min}(0)\big\}.$$ In particular, this implies that $$\frac{g_{ss}}{g} \ge -\frac{C}{g^2},$$ for a uniform constant $C$ as long as the flow exists.
Finally, considering the quantity $\tilde{Q} := g g_{ss} + Ag_s^2 + Bf_s^2$ and bounding $\tilde{Q}$ from above using similar arguments yields a uniform constant $C$ such that $$\frac{g_{ss}}{g} \le \frac{C}{g^2}$$ for as long as the flow exists. This concludes the proof of the Lemma.
We now define $$\label{define-lambda}
\mu(t) := \min_{{\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2} g(\cdot,t),$$ observing that Lemmas \[lem-curv-1-der\] and \[lem-k02\] imply that there exists a uniform constant $C$ such that as long as the flow exists, one has $$\label{eq-help-111}
|\kappa_{12}| + |\kappa_{13}| + |\kappa_{23}| + |\kappa_{02}| + |\kappa_{03}| \le \frac{C}{\mu^2}.$$
\[kappa-dichotomy\] Controlling the curvature $\kappa_{01}$ is considerably more subtle. This is because, even for Kähler solutions, the alternative in statement <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">(ii)</span> of Lemma \[lem-k01\] below is truly necessary: estimate need not hold unless such solutions originate from initial data satisfying part (d) of our Closeness Assumptions. Solutions for which part (d) is false can have $f\searrow0$ uniformly as $t\nearrow T$, with $g(\cdot,T)>0$ everywhere. Each such (unrescaled) solution converges in the Gromov–Hausdorff sense to a ${\mathbb}{CP}^1$ of multiplicity two; see Theorem 1.1 of [@SW11].
\[lem-k01\] For any solution originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions, the following are true:\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">(i)</span> The sectional curvature $\kappa_{01}=-f_{ss}/f$ satisfies $$\label{eq-k01-below}
\kappa_{01} \ge -\frac{C}{g^2}$$ for a uniform constant $C$.\
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">(ii)</span> Either there is an analogous upper bound $$\label{eq-k01-above}
\kappa_{01} \le \frac{C}{\mu^2},$$ or any finite-time singularity is Type-I.
Because the scalar curvature $R$ is a supersolution of the heat equation (in the sense that $(\partial_t - \Delta)\, R \ge 0$), there exists a constant $r_0$ depending only on the initial data such that for as long as the flow exists, one has $$r_0 \le R = \kappa_{01} + \kappa_{02} + \kappa_{03} + \kappa_{12} + \kappa_{23} + \kappa_{31},$$ where $\kappa_{02} = \kappa_{03}$. Using this together with Lemma \[lem-curv-1-der\], Lemma \[lem-k02\], and the fact that $\frac{d}{dt}g_{\max}\leq0$, we get the lower bound .
To prove <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">(ii)</span>, we assume that fails and use a blow-up argument at a finite-time singularity. In particular, we assume that $T < \infty$ is a singular time for the flow, and that $$\label{eq-contra-ass}
\limsup_{t\to T} \left( \sup_{{\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2} \kappa_{01}(\cdot,t) \mu(t)^2\right) = \infty.$$ We now let $t_i\to T$ as $i\to\infty$ such that $$\
\sup_{t\in [0,t_i]} \left(\sup_{{\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2} \kappa_{01}(\cdot,t) \mu(t)^2\right) = \kappa_{01}(p_i,t_i) \mu(t_i)^2$$ for some $p_i\in M$, and we let $K_i := \kappa_{01}(p_i,t_i)$. It follows from our choice of $t_i$ that $$\label{eq-infty}
K_i \mu(t_i)^2 \to \infty\quad \mbox{as}\quad i\to\infty.$$
We define the blow-up sequence of solutions $G$ of metric form as follows: $$G_i(\cdot,t) := K_i G(\cdot, t_i + t K_i^{-1}), \qquad
\big(-K_i t_i \le t < (T - t_i)K_i\big).$$ We claim that the curvatures of the rescaled metrics $G_i$ are uniformly bounded. To prove the claim for $\kappa_{12}$, say, we begin by noting that estimate implies that $$\label{eq-k12-ex}
\big|\kappa_{12}^i(\cdot,t)\big| = \frac{|\kappa_{12}(\cdot,t_i+tK_i^{-1})|}{K_i} \le \frac{C}{K_i \mu(t_i+tK_i^{-1})^2}.$$ It follows from Remark 1 of [@IKS14] that the evolution equation for $g(\cdot,t)$ can be written as $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} (\log g) = -\kappa_{02} - \kappa_{23} - \kappa_{31},$$ which implies that $$\left|\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log g\right| \le \frac{C}{g^2},$$ and therefore that $$\left|\frac{d}{dt}\mu^2\right| \le C.$$ Integrating this over $[t_i+tK_i^{-1}, t_i]$ yields $$|\mu(t_i+tK_i^{-1})^2 - \mu(t_i)^2| \le \frac{C}{K_i},$$ for, say, $t\in[-1,0]$. This implies that $$\mu(t_i+tK_i^{-1})^2 \ge \mu(t_i)^2 - \frac{C}{K_i},$$ whereupon implies for $t\in [-1,0]$ that $$|\kappa_{12}^i(\cdot,t)| \le \frac{C}{K_i\mu(t_i)^2 - C} \to 0$$ as $i\to \infty$, because holds.
To bound the remaining curvatures of the rescaled metrics, we use similar arguments together with to conclude that $$|\kappa_{12}^i(\cdot,t)| + |\kappa_{13}^i(\cdot,t)| + |\kappa_{23}^i(\cdot,t)|
+ |\kappa_{02}^i(\cdot,t)| + |\kappa^i_{03}(\cdot,t)| \le \frac{C}{K_i\mu(t_i)^2 - C} \rightarrow 0$$ as $i\to \infty$, and we use to show that $$\kappa_{01} \ge -\frac{C}{K_i\mu(t_i)^2 - C} \to 0,$$ as $i\to\infty$.
After extracting a convergent subsequence, we determine that $({\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2, G_i(t), p_i)$ converges in the pointed Cheeger–Gromov–Hamilton sense to a complete ancient solution $$({\mathcal}M^4_{\infty}, {\mathcal}{G}_{\infty}(t), p_{\infty})$$ that exists for $t\in (-\infty, t^*)$ where $t^*:= \lim_{i\to\infty} (T - t_i)\, K_i \le \infty$. Moreover, one has $$\label{eq-kappa-infty}
\kappa_{12}^{\infty} = \kappa_{13}^{\infty} = \kappa_{23}^{\infty} = \kappa_{02}^{\infty} = 0,
\qquad\mbox{ and }\qquad\kappa_{01}^{\infty} \ge 0,$$ with $\kappa_{01}(p_{\infty},0) = 1$. By applying Hamilton’s splitting theorem [@Ha1] twice, we find that the universal cover $(\tilde{{\mathcal}M}^4_{\infty}, \mathcal{G}_{\infty},p_{\infty})$ splits isometrically as the product of $\mathbb{R}^2$ and a complete ancient solution $({\mathcal}N^2, \mathcal{G}_{\infty}|_{{\mathcal}N^2})$ with bounded positive scalar curvature. It follows from the classification in [@DHS] and [@DS] that $({\mathcal}N^2, {\mathcal}{G}_{\infty}|_{{\mathcal}N^2})$ is either the King–Rosenau solution, the cigar, or the round sphere ${\mathcal}S^2$. In the former case, it is a standard fact that by choosing a modified sequence $\tilde p_i$ of blow-up points, one can obtain the cigar as a limit. But this is impossible by Perelman’s $\kappa$-non-collapsing result [@Pe]. So the limit must be isometric to one of the products ${\mathcal}S^2\times{\mathbb}R^2$ or ${\mathbb}R^2\times{\mathcal}S^2$. In either case,[^4] the singularity is Type-I, and we have $\kappa_{01}\leq C/(T-t)$.
Singularity formation {#Singular}
=====================
Our main results in this section show that for Ricci flow solutions originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions, all singularities are Type-I, with $|{\mathcal}S^2_-|=0$ at the singular time $T<\infty$. This requires some work, for the following reason. Away from the special fibers ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$, the geometry of $({\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2,G)$ is that of $(a,b)\times{\mathcal}S^3$. So without appropriate assumptions on the initial data, it is highly plausible that neckpinch singularities like those analyzed in [@IKS14] could develop at a fiber $\{s_0\}\times{\mathcal}S^3$ far from ${\mathcal}S^2_-$. Our results in this section rule out this possibility for solutions originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions.
As shown in [@SW11] and as noted above, the behavior of Kähler solutions depends strongly on whether $|{\mathcal}S^2_+| < 3|{\mathcal}S^2_-|$, $|{\mathcal}S^2_+| = 3|{\mathcal}S^2_-|$, or $|{\mathcal}S^2_+| > 3|{\mathcal}S^2_-|$. It follows from part (d) of our Closeness Assumptions that the solutions we study have $|{\mathcal}S^2_+| > 3|{\mathcal}S^2_-|$ initially. Our first result in this section shows that this threshold condition is preserved by the flow, even for non-Kähler solutions, provided they originate from initial data satisfying the Closeness Assumptions.
\[big-end\] Solutions originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions satisfy $$g^2(s_+,t) - 3g^2(s_-,t) \ge \delta^2$$ for as long as they exist.
We recall that $$g_t = g_{ss} + \left(\frac{f_s}{f} + \frac{g_s}{g}\right)\, g_s + 2\, \frac{(f^2 - 2g^2)}{g^3}.$$ Using l’Hôpital’s rule, we compute at $s_+$ that $$\lim_{s\to s_+} \frac{f_s g_s}{f} = g_{ss}(s_+,t).$$ Because $g_s(s_+,t) = 0$, we have $$\frac{d}{dt} g(s_+,t) = 2g_{ss}(s_+,t) - \frac{4}{g(s_+,t)}.$$ Lemma \[NearCalabi\] tells us that $g |g_s|\leq f$, which as a consequence of l’Hôpital’s rule, implies at $s_+$ that $$g g_{ss} \ge -1.$$ It follows that $$\label{eq-s+}
\frac{d}{dt} g^2(s_+,t) \ge -12.$$
Similarly, using the fact that $g |g_s|\leq f$ and using l’Hôpital’s rule, we have that $g g_{ss} \le 1$ at $s_-$, from which we obtain $$\label{eq-s-}
\frac{d}{dt} g^2(s_-,t) \le -4.$$ Estimates and together imply that $$\frac{d}{dt} \big(g^2(s_+,t) - 3g^2(s_-,t)\big) \ge 0,$$ which yields $$g^2(s_+,t) - 3g^2(s_-,t) \ge g^2(s_+,0) - 3g^2(s_-,0).$$
Our second result in this section proves that solutions originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions become singular at $T<\infty$ only if $g$ vanishes somewhere.
\[lem-balancing\] If a solution originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions becomes singular at time $T$, then $\mu(T) = 0$.
Lemma \[lem-k01\] proves that either there is a two-sided curvature bound for $\kappa_{01}$ or the singularity is Type-I.
If there is a two-sided bound $|\kappa_{01}| \le C/\mu^2$, then combining this with estimate we obtain a uniform constant $C$ such that $$|\operatorname{Rc}(G(t))| \le \frac{C}{\mu^2},$$ for as long as the flow exists. Because [@Ses05] proves that $\limsup_{t\nearrow T}|\operatorname{Rc}|=\infty$ if $T<\infty$ is the singularity time, it follows that $\mu(T) = 0$.
To complete the proof, we may assume, to obtain a contradiction, that a solution encounters a finite-time Type-I singularity for which $\lim_{t\to T} \mu(t) = 0$ is false.
We first claim that this assumption implies that there exists $\eta> 0$ such that $\mu(t) \ge \eta > 0$ for $t \in [0,T)$. We prove this claim by contradiction. Observe that the maximum principle implies that $$\frac{d}{dt} \mu(t) \ge -\frac{4}{\mu(t)}.$$ So for $t \ge \tau$ in $[0,T)$, one has $$\label{mu-estimate}
\mu(t)^2 \ge \mu(\tau)^2 - 8(t - \tau).$$ If it is not true that $\lim_{t\to T} \mu(t) = 0$, then there exists a sequence $\tau_i \to T$ along which $\mu(\tau_i) \ge \eta > 0$ for all $i$. On the other hand, if there exists another sequence $t_i\to T$ along which $\lim_{i\to \infty} \mu(t_i) = 0$, then by passing to subsequences, we may assume that $t_i \ge \tau_i$, and hence that $$\mu(t_i)^2 \ge \mu(\tau_i)^2 - 8(t_i - \tau_i) \ge \eta^2 - 8(t_i - \tau_i).$$ But this is impossible, because $\lim_{i\to \infty}\mu(t_i) = 0$ and $\lim_{i\to\infty} (t_i - \tau_i) = 0$. This contradiction proves the claim.
The proof of Lemma \[lem-k01\] tells us that the inequality $\mu(t) \ge \eta > 0$ implies that the universal cover of any Type-I singularity model must be ${\mathcal}S^2\times\mathbb{R}^2$. Compactness of the ${\mathcal}S^2$ factor implies there is a sequence $t_i\to T$ along which $\sup_{s_-\leq s\leq s_+}f(s,t_i)\leq C\sqrt{T-t_i}$. On the other hand it follows from Lemma \[NearCalabi\] that $$g |g_s|\le f \le C\sqrt{T - t_i}$$ at those times, which implies that $$\label{eq-est111}
g^2(s_+,t_i) - g^2(s_-,t_i) \le C\sqrt{T - t_i} (s_+ - s_-).$$ We recall that $$\frac{d}{dt}(s - s_-) = \int_{s_-}^s \left(\frac{f_{ss}}{f} + 2\frac{g_{ss}}{g}\right)\,{\mathrm}ds
= -\int_{s_-}^s (\kappa_{01} + 2\kappa_{02})\,{\mathrm}ds.$$ Combining Lemma \[lem-k02\] and part <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">(i)</span> of Lemma \[lem-k01\], we obtain $$\frac{d}{dt} (s - s_-) \le \frac{C(s - s_-)}{\mu(t)^2} \le C^\prime(s - s_-),$$ because $\mu(t) \ge \eta > 0$. Integrating this over $[0,T)$ yields a constant $C^{\prime\prime}$ such that $$\label{eq-diam}
|s - s_-| \le C^{\prime\prime} \qquad\mbox{ for all }\quad t\in [0,T) \quad \mbox{ and }\quad s\in [s_-,s_+].$$ Combining and then gives us $$\label{eq-contr1}
g^2(s_+,t_i) - g^2(s_-,t_i) \le C\, \sqrt{T - t_i}.$$ But this is incompatible with the conclusion of Lemma \[big-end\] that $$g^2(s_+,t_i) - 3g^2(s_-,t_i) \ge \delta^2>0.$$ This contradiction proves the result.
Although we are not able to prove that part (e) of our Closeness Assumptions—monotonicity in space of $g(s,0)$— is preserved, we are able to show that $g$ is trapped above a lower barrier that is monotone increasing in space. Consequently the spatial minimum $\mu(t)$ of $g(s,t)$ must occur at $s_-$ for all time.
\[SouthPole\] If a solution originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions exists for $t\in[0,T)$, then $$\mu(t)=g(s_-,t)$$ for all $0\leq t\leq T$.
We define the constant $c=4+2/\sqrt3$ and the function $$H=g^2+2ct.$$ We claim that $H$ is a supersolution of the heat equation. To prove the claim, we recall that it follows from Lemma \[NearCalabi\] that $g|g_s|\leq f$. Using this together with Lemma \[lem-fs\], we estimate that $$\begin{aligned}
gg_t &=gg_{ss}+g_s^2+\frac{gg_s}{f}f_s+2\frac{f^2}{g^2}-4\\
&\geq gg_{ss}+ g_s^2-|f_s|-4 \\
&\geq gg_{ss}+g_s^2-c.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$H_t-H_{ss}=(g^2)_t-(g^2)_{ss}+2c\geq0,$$ which proves the claim.
We now let $h$ be a solution of the linear heat equation, $h_t=h_{ss}$, with initial condition $$h(s,0) = H(s,0)$$ and with boundary values $$h(s_-,t) = H(s_-,t), \qquad h(s_+,t) = H(s_+,t).$$ Then the maximum principle implies that $H\geq h$ for as long as both functions exist.
Finally, by construction and as a consequence of part (e) of our Closeness Assumptions, we observe that $h_s(s,0)=H_s(s,0)=2gg_s(s,0)\geq0$, with strict inequality off ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$. We use the commutator to compute that $$(h_s)_t = (h_s)_{ss} + \left(\frac{f_{ss}}{f} + \frac{2g_{ss}}{g}\right)h_s.$$ For each ${\varepsilon}>0$, because the metric $G(t)$ is smooth for $t\in[0,T-{\varepsilon}]$, there exists a constant $C_{\varepsilon}$ such that $$(h_s)_t \geq (h_s)_{ss} -C_{\varepsilon}h_s,\qquad (0\leq t\leq T-{\varepsilon}).$$ Applying the maximum principle on each time interval and then letting ${\varepsilon}\searrow0$, we obtain $h_s\geq0$ for $s\in[s_-,s_+]$ and $t\in[0,T)$, and by continuity, for $t=T$ as well. This implies that $g^2$ is bounded from below by a barrier, $h-2ct$, that is monotone increasing in space at each time. Because $$g^2(s_-,t)=h(s_-,t)-2ct=\min_{s_-\leq s\leq s_+}\big\{h(s,t)-2ct\big\}\leq\mu(t),$$ the result follows.
Combining this result with Lemma \[lem-balancing\], we determine that solutions originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions become singular only by crushing the fiber ${\mathcal}S^2_-$. We state this as follows:
\[crush\] If a solution originating from initial data satisfying our Closeness Assumptions becomes singular at time $T$, then $g(s_-,T) = 0$.
\[TypeOne\] All solutions originating from initial data satisfying our Closensss Assumptions develop finite-time Type-I singularities.
It follows from Lemma \[SouthPole\] and from estimate that $$\label{crush-est}
\frac{d}{dt}\big(\mu^2(t)\big)\leq-4.$$ So a finite-time singularity is inevitable. As a consequence of Lemma \[lem-k01\], to prove that the singularity is Type-I, we may assume there is a two-sided curvature bound for $\kappa_{01}$. Such a bound, together with estimate , gives a uniform constant $C$ such that $|\operatorname{Rc}(G(t))| \leq C\mu^{-2}(t)$ for as long as the flow exists. But then the result follows easily from estimate .
Convergence to the blowdown soliton
===================================
Corollaries \[crush\] and \[TypeOne\] tell us that any point $p\in{\mathcal}S^2_-$ is a *special Type-I singular point* in the sense of Enders–Müller–Topping [@EMT]. It follows from that work that every blow-up sequence $\big({\mathcal}S^2\tilde\times{\mathcal}S^2,G_k(t),p\big)$ subconverges to a smooth nontrivial gradient shrinking soliton $\big({\mathcal}M, G_\infty(\tau)\big)$ defined for $-\infty<\tau<0$. Using Lemma \[big-end\], we determine that the limit is noncompact. So ${\mathcal}M$ is diffeomorphic to ${\mathbb}C^2$ blown up at the origin; that is, ${\mathcal}O(-1)$. Moreover, the symmetries of $G(t)$ are preserved in the limit, so the metric retains the form exhibited in : $$\label{limit}
G_\infty = {{\mathrm}{d}s}{\otimes}{{\mathrm}{d}s}+\Big\{f^2\,\omega^1{\otimes}\omega^1
+ g^2\big(\omega^2{\otimes}\omega^2
+ \omega^3{\otimes}\omega^3\big)\Big\}.$$ Here and in the remainder of this section, we abuse notation by using $s$ for the soliton coordinate, and using $f$ and $g$ for the components of the limit soliton metric.
The quantity $\psi$ that we estimate in Lemma \[NearCalabi\] is scale-invariant, so the limit soliton satisfies $$\label{almostKahler}
-1\leq\frac{gg_s}{f}\leq1,$$ which implies that the limit is “not too far” from Kähler in a precise sense. It is a general principle that shrinking solitons appear in discrete rather than continuous families, modulo scaling and isometry. So it is reasonable to conjecture that there are no other cohomogeneity-one shrinking solitons in the neighborhood of such metrics satisfying estimate . That “gap conjecture” is true, as we now demonstrate. (For a related rigidity result, see recent work [@Kot17] of Kotschwar.)
Any smooth gradient shrinking soliton $\big({\mathcal}M, G_\infty(\tau)\big)$ having the form and satisfying estimate is Kähler.
We work at a fixed time $\tau<0$ and so suppress time below. However, we continue to use subscripts to indicate spatial derivatives. We note here that smoothness requires that the closing conditions hold at $s=0$, a fact we use freely below.
We define $$F(s)=f-gg_s.$$ We have $F(0)=0$. The estimate tells us that this is a global minimum. So $F_s(0)=0$ as well.
We now let $\Gamma$ denote the soliton potential function, and we set $\gamma=\Gamma_s$. Using equation (51) from [@IKS14] to compute the Lie derivative, we find that the soliton equation $$-\operatorname{Rc}[G_\infty]=\lambda G_\infty+\frac12{\mathcal}L_{\nabla \Gamma}G_\infty$$ becomes the system
\[soliton\] $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_s&=\frac{f_{ss}}{f}+2\frac{g_{ss}}{g}-\lambda, \label{h1d} \\
\frac{f_{ss}}{f}&=\frac{f_s\gamma}{f}-2\frac{f_sg_s}{fg}+2\frac{f^2}{g^4}+\lambda, \label{f2d} \\
\frac{g_{ss}}{g}&=\frac{g_s\gamma}{g}-\frac{f_sg_s}{fg}-\frac{g_s^2}{g^2}-2\frac{f^2}{g^4}+\frac{4}{g^2}+\lambda, \label{g2d}\end{aligned}$$
where $\lambda<0$ depends on our choice of $\tau$ above.
Computing $F_s$ using equation , one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
F_s&=f_s-g_s^2-gg_{ss}\notag \\
&=f_s-gg_s\gamma+\frac{gf_sg_s}{f}+2\frac{f^2}{g^2}-\lambda g^2-4\notag\\
&=\left(\gamma-\frac{f_s}{f}\right)F+2f_s-f\gamma+2\frac{f^2}{g^2}-\lambda g^2 -4. \label{F1d}\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$F_{ss}=\left(\gamma-\frac{f_s}{f}\right)F_s+\left(\gamma-\frac{f_s}{f}\right)_sF+X,$$ where we use to rewrite the final term above as $$\begin{aligned}
X&=2f_{ss}-f_s\gamma-f\gamma_s+4\left(\frac{ff_s}{g^2}-\frac{f^2g_s}{g^3}\right)-2\lambda gg_s\\
&=\left(4\frac{f^2}{g^4}+4\frac{f_s}{g^2}+2\lambda\right)F+\gamma^2\left(\frac{f}{\gamma}\right)_s.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $F$ satisfies the linear second-order (seemingly inhomogeneous) <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ode</span> $$F_{ss}+\left(\frac{f_s}{f}-\gamma\right)F_s
-\left\{\left(\frac{f_s}{f}-\gamma\right)_s+4\frac{f_s}{g^2}+4\frac{f^2}{g^4}+2\lambda\right\} F=\gamma^2\left(\frac{f}{\gamma}\right)_s. \label{LiH}$$
We now show that the term on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">rhs</span> can be rewritten in terms of $F$ and $F_s$. Using equations , , and in order, and then applying the identity $gg_s=f-F$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac12 \gamma^2\left(\frac{f}{\gamma}\right)_s&=\frac12(f_s\gamma-f\gamma_s)\notag\\
&=\frac12\left(f_s\gamma-f_{ss}-2\frac{fg_{ss}}{g}+\lambda f\right)\notag\\
&=\frac{f_sg_s}{g}-\frac{f^3}{g^4}-\frac{fg_{ss}}{g}\notag\\
&=2\frac{f_sg_s}{g}-\frac{fg_s\gamma}{g}+\frac{fg_s^2}{g^2}+\frac{f^3}{g^4}-4\frac{f}{g^2}-\lambda f\notag\\
&=-\left(2\frac{f_s}{g^2}+\frac{f^2}{g^4}+\frac{fgg_s}{g^4}-\frac{f\gamma}{g^2}\right)F+Y, \label{inhom}\end{aligned}$$ where $$Y=2\frac{ff_s}{g^2}+2\frac{f^3}{g^4}-4\frac{f}{g^2}-\frac{f^2\gamma}{g^2}-\lambda f.$$ Using equation to rewrite the first term on the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">rhs</span>, it is easy to see that $$Y=\frac{f}{g^2}F_s+\frac{f_s-f\gamma}{g^2}F. \label{Ynice}$$ So by using equations and , we find that equation can be rewritten as the linear second-order *homogeneous* <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ode</span> $$F_{ss}+\left(\frac{f_s}{f}-\gamma-2\frac{f}{g^2}\right)F_s
+\left\{-\left(\frac{f_s}{f}-\gamma\right)_s+2\frac{fgg_s}{g^4}-2\frac{f_s}{g^2}-2\frac{f^2}{g^4}-2\lambda\right\} F=0.$$ Because $f_s/f\sim1/s$ and $-(f_s/f)_s\sim1/s^2$ as $s\searrow0$, this <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">ode</span> has a regular singular point at $s=0$. It is approximated in a neighborhood of $s=0$ by the equidimensional Euler equation $s^2y(s)+sy'(s)+y(s)=0$, for which a fundamental set of solutions is $\{\cos(\log s),\,\sin(\log s)\}$. It then follows from a theorem of Frobenius that a fundamental set of solutions of the exact equation has the form $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_ns^n\big[\cos(\log s)\big]\qquad\mbox{ and }\qquad \sum_{n=0}^\infty b_ns^n\big[\sin(\log s)\big],$$ where all coefficients except $a_0$ and $b_0$ are determined by recurrence relations. We conclude that $F$ is identically zero for all $s\geq0$, hence that the soliton is Kähler.
Theorem 1.5 of [@FIK03] tells us that the blowdown soliton is unique up to scaling and isometry among ${\mathrm}U(2)$-invariant Kähler–Ricci solitons. Hence this completes our proof of the Main Theorem.
[ABC17]{}
**Brendle, Simon; Schoen.** Richard Manifolds with 1/4-pinched curvature are space forms. *J. Amer. Math. Soc.* **22** (2009), no. 1, 287–307.
**Calabi, Eugenio.** Extremal Kähler metrics. *Seminar on differential geometry* (S.-T. Yau, editor), Princeton University Press (1982) 259–290.
**Cao, Huai-Dong.** Existence of gradient Kähler-Ricci solitons, *Elliptic and parabolic methods in geometry* (B. Chow, R. Gulliver, S. Levy, J. Sullivan, editors), AK Peters (1996) 1–16.
**Cao, Huai-Dong.** Limits of solutions to the Kähler-Ricci flow, *J. Differential Geom.* **45** (1997) 257–272.
**Cao, Huai-Dong; Hamilton, Richard S.; Ilmanen, Tom.** Gaussian densities and stability for some Ricci solitons. `arXiv:math/0404165v1`.
**Colding, Tobias Holck; Minicozzi, William P., II.** Generic mean curvature flow I; generic singularities. *Ann. of Math.* **175** (2012), 755–833.
**Colding, Tobias Holck; Minicozzi, William P., II.** Uniqueness of blowups and Łojaciewicz inequalities. *Ann. of Math. (2)* **182** (2015), no. 1, 221–285.
**Daskalopoulos, Panagiota; Hamilton, Richard; Šešum, Nataša.** Classification of ancient compact solutions to the Ricci flow on surfaces. *J. Differential Geom.* **91** (2012), no. 2, 171–214.
**Daskalopoulos, Panagiota; Šešum, Nataša.** Eternal solutions to the Ricci flow on ${\mathbb}R^2$. *Int. Math. Res. Not.* (2006) Art. ID 83610.
**Enders, Joerg; Müller, Reto; Topping, Peter M.** On type-I singularities in Ricci flow. *Comm. Anal. Geom.* **19** (2011), no. 5, 905–922.
**Feldman, Mikhail; Ilmanen, Tom; Knopf, Dan.** Rotationally symmetric shrinking and expanding gradient Kähler–Ricci solitons. *J. Differential Geom.* **65** (2003), no. 2, 169–209.
**Hall, Stuart; Haslhofer, Robert; Siepmann, Michael.** The stability inequality for Ricci-flat cones. *J. Geom. Anal.* **24** (2014), no. 1, 472–494.
**Hall, Stuart J.; Murphy, Thomas.** On the linear stability of Kähler–Ricci solitons. *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **139** (2011), no. 9, 3327–3337.
**Hamilton, Richard S.** The formation of singularities in the Ricci flow. *Surveys in differential geometry, Vol. II* (Cambridge, MA, 1993), 7–136, Internat. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995
**Haslhofer, Robert; Naber, Aaron.** Weak solutions for the Ricci flow I. `arXiv:1504.00911v1`.
**Isenberg, James; Knopf, Dan; Šešum, Nataša.** Ricci flow neckpinches without rotational symmetry. *Comm. Partial Differential Equations.* In press. `DOI:10.1080/03605302.2016.1233982`.
**Ivey, Thomas.** Ricci solitons on compact three-manifolds. *Differential Geom. Appl. ***3** (1993), no. 4, 301–307.
**Koiso, Norihito.** On rotationally symmetric Hamilton’s equation for Kähler-Einstein metrics, *Recent Topics in Differential and Analytic Geometry* (T. Ochiai, editor), Advanced Studies in Pure Math **18**-1, Kinokuniya and Academic Press (1990) 327–337.
**Kotschwar, Brett.** Kählerity of shrinking gradient Ricci solitons asymptotic to Kähler cones. `arXiv:1701.08486v1`.
**Kröncke, Klaus.** Ricci flow, Einstein metrics and the Yamabe invariant. `arXiv:1312.2224v1`.
**Máximo, Davi.** On the blow-up of four-dimensional Ricci flow singularities. *J. Reine Angew. Math.* **692** (2014), 153–171.
**Perelman, Grisha.** The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications. `arXiv:math.DG/0211159`.
**Šešum, Nataša.** Curvature tensor under the Ricci flow. *Amer. J. Math.* **127** (2005), no. 6, 1315–1324.
**Song, Jian; Weinkove, Ben.** The Kähler-Ricci flow on Hirzebruch surfaces. *J. Reine Angew. Math.* **659** (2011), 141–168.
**Streets, Jeffrey; Tian, Gang.** Hermitian curvature flow. *J. Eur. Math. Soc.* (JEMS) **13** (2011), no. 3, 601–634.
**Sturm, Karl-Theodor.** Super-Ricci flows for metric measure spaces. I. `arXiv:1603.02193v1`.
[^1]: JI thanks the NSF for support in PHY-1306441. DK thanks the NSF for support in DMS-1205270. NŠ thanks the NSF for support in DMS-0905749 and DMS-1056387.
[^2]: The bundle we label ${\mathcal}L^2_{-1}$ here is denoted by ${\mathcal}L^{-1}$ in [@FIK03] and by $L(2,-1)$ in [@CHI04].
[^3]: Using L’Hôpital’s rule, is is straightforward to verify that all quantities appearing in this section are well defined at ${\mathcal}S^2_\pm$. We make this explicit below.
[^4]: For the metrics we study here, the case ${\mathcal}S^2\times{\mathbb}R^2$ corresponds to the $g^2\big(\omega^2{\otimes}\omega^2 + \omega^3{\otimes}\omega^3\big)$ factor becoming flat after rescaling, while the case ${\mathbb}R^2\times{\mathcal}S^2$ corresponds to the $\big({{\mathrm}{d}s}{\otimes}{{\mathrm}{d}s}+f^2\,\omega^1{\otimes}\omega^1\big)$ factor becoming flat.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The resource-constrained nature of the Internet of Things (IoT) devices, poses a challenge in designing a secure, reliable, and particularly high-performance communication for this family of devices. Although side-channel resistant ciphers (either block cipher or stream cipher) are the well-suited solution to establish a guaranteed secure communication, the *energy*-intensive nature of these ciphers makes them undesirable for particularly lightweight IoT solutions. In this paper, we introduce *ExTru*, a novel encrypted communication protocol based on stream ciphers that adds a configurable switching & toggling network (*CSTN*) to not only boost the performance of the communication in lightweight IoT devices, it also consumes far less energy compared with the conventional side-channel resistant ciphers. Although the overall structure of the proposed scheme is leaky against physical attacks, such as side-channel or new scan-based Boolean satisfiability (*SAT*) attack or algebraic attack, we introduce a dynamic encryption mechanism that removes this vulnerability. We demonstrate how each communicated message in the proposed scheme reduces the level of trust. Accordingly, since a specific number of messages, $N$, could break the communication and extract the key, by using the dynamic encryption mechanism, *ExTru* can re-initiate the level of trust periodically after $T$ messages where $T<N$, to protect the communication against side-channel and scan-based attacks (e.g. SAT attack). Furthermore, we demonstrate that by properly configuring the value of $T$, *ExTru* not only increases the strength of security from per “*device*” to per “*message*”, it also significantly improves energy consumption as well as throughput in comparison with an architecture that only uses a conventional side-channel resistant block/stream cipher.'
author:
- Hadi Mardani Kamali
- Kimia Zamiri Azar
- |
\
Shervin Roshanisefat
- Ashkan Vakil
- Avesta Sasan
bibliography:
- 's-bibliography.bib'
nocite:
- '[@azar2019smt]'
- '[@roshanisefat2018srclock]'
- '[@kamali2018lut]'
title: '*ExTru*: A Lightweight, Fast, and Secure *Ex*pirable *Tru*st for the Internet of Things'
---
Introduction
============
The Internet of Things (IoT), which has been foreseen to become the most successful business for the next decade by *International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors* (ITRS), is an inevitable landmark of smart life providing novel applications and services, ranging from business automation to personal day-to-day life [@gubbi2013internet; @al2015internet; @li2015internet]. The IoT infrastructure is the seamless connection of billions of heterogeneous devices (*“things”*) within a large integrated network (the *“Internet”*). The heterogeneity of IoT constitutes from a wide variety of devices, such as smartwatches, mobile phones, etc, which results in a drastic increase in the number of IoT devices, estimated to be 26 billion connected IoT devices by the end of 2020 [@evans2011internet].
Although IoT devices provide a more efficient, automated, and smart life, from security/privacy perspective, many threats and vulnerabilities have been raised in IoT devices. Many investigations on cyber-based threats demonstrate that there are 176 new cyber-threats every minute, and over 2.5 million within only four months [@frustaci2017evaluating]. Several incidents have highlighted the massive influence of counterfeit/cloned/tampered devices into the supply chain [@guin2014counterfeit; @rostami2014primer]. As an instance, influencing and controlling every connected device within a ZigBee network, which is one of the most prevalent wireless communications in IoT, has been illustrated in [@zillner2015zigbee; @ronen2017iot]. Another recent evaluation by HP demonstrates that 70% of the devices in IoT are vulnerable to different types of threats, including physical attacks [@kumar2016security].
In current IoT applications, almost all proposed IoT devices are working (and communicating) based on a very well known 3-layer hierarchical architecture that is illustrated in Fig. \[IoTarch\]. These three layers, i.e. ***“devices”***, ***“gateways”*** and ***“servers”*** are the main layers in IoT architecture [@atzori2010internet; @da2014internet]. The devices that are responsible for interacting between the physical environment and computer-based systems, called *edge*, can connect with servers through gateways. Accordingly, equipping edge devices with some fundamental components, including sensors, analog to digital (A/D) converters, inter-communication frameworks, memories, and embedded micro-controllers, is required, to provide the capability of collecting, processing, and relaying data in a heterogeneous network.
Although several IoT security challenges should be considered meticulously, combating hardware threats that are generally initiated at *edge* (devices layer), requires more attention [@frustaci2017evaluating]. Numerous solutions, including communication standards optimization, more secure configuration, etc, have been introduced to protect IoT devices and their communications against physical threats, which help to prevent the wide variety of conventional attacks [@pinto2017iioteed; @yuan2018reliable]. For instance, the utilization of symmetric-based secret-key ciphers or keyed hash-based authentication code (HMAC) is prevalent in IoT devices to provide integrity and authentication while securely protect the inter-communication of IoT edge devices [@koteshwara2017comparative; @shivraj2015one; @kamali2016fault].
Considering that the power consumption (particularly energy consumption) constraints in resource-constrained edge devices are very strict, the energy overhead of security solutions against hardware threats must be minimized. For instance, tight restrictions in edge devices enforce the designer to employ lightweight ciphers, such as stream ciphers or lightweight block ciphers [@dinu2019triathlon; @beaulieu2015simon]. However, the energy consumption of this breed of encryption architectures is still high for a high portion of IoT edge devices. Also, the performance of these ciphers considerably lower than regular block ciphers. This creates an inevitable security/cost trade-off in lightweight IoT devices, which results in sacrificing one of them, i.e. the security or the cost, which motivates the research community to carry on working/investigating on a low-energy and security-enhanced communication scheme in IoT while the performance is not degraded.
In this paper, we introduce a new lightweight, fast, and provably secure *Exp*irable *Tr*ust (*ExTru*) mechanism relied on a configurable switching and toggling network (CSTN) as well as the winner of the Competition for Authenticated Encryption: Security, Applicability, and Robustness (CAESAR) [@caesar2013competition], called ACORN [@wu2016acorn]. *ExTru* provably protects the inter-communication of IoT edge devices while it even obtains higher performance and mitigates the energy consumption compared to the case in which the regular block/stream ciphers have been used. Moreover, we show how *ExTru* engages dynamicity in the circuit to provide guaranteed protection against different types of physical and scan-based attacks, such as side-channel, Boolean satisfiability (SAT) attack, and algebraic attack. We demonstrate that by using this dynamic encryption scheme, the strength of security could be elevated from *per device* to *per message*. The contributions of our paper are as follows:
1. By introducing a near non-blocking configurable switching and toggling network (CSTN), we show how we add dynamicity to the IoT devices intercommunication.
2. We show that this dynamicity along with the fast and efficient ACORN invalidates the possibility of the leakage of each message, which helps to show that this approach is provably resilient against physical attacks such as side-channel, scan-based SAT attack, and algebraic attack.
3. The dynamicity of *ExTru* allows us to relax the responsibility of ACORN, which helps to considerably boost the performance of the communication channel between IoT devices while the possibility of leakage is almost *ZERO*. Also by conveying part of the responsibility to the near non-blocking CSTN, we show that the energy consumption would be mitigated considerably.
4. To depict the efficiency of *ExTru* in terms of security, energy, and performance, we provide a full-detailed post-route evaluation on the proposed scheme compared to conventional IoT inter-communication mechanisms that almost use a conventional side-channel resistant block/stream.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section \[sec:related\] presents the previous work. Section \[sec:proposed\] elaborates the overall structure of the proposed dynamically encrypted scheme and how it is able to guarantee the security of IoT communication with significant energy mitigation as well as throughput improvement compared to conventional cipher-based communication schemes. In section \[attacks\], we evaluate the security of ExTru against physical attacks such as side-channel, scan-based SAT, and algebraic attack. In \[sec:results\], the experimental results have been provided and discussed. Finally, Section \[sec:conclusion\] concludes the paper.
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Due to the resource-constrained nature of IoT devices, a big challenge in guaranteeing the security of this group of devices is that the implementation of the security measures must be sufficiently lightweight, which prevents the designers to directly use conventional block ciphers, such as AES-GCM [@dworkin2007sp]. Many studies have been taken by the research community to not only address security issues in IoT networks but also to increase the efficiency by lowering the power (particularly energy) consumption and increasing the throughput. For instance, the fact that the elliptic curves cryptography (ECC) achieves guaranteed security with reduced resource requirements has attracted the research community [@piedra2013extending; @nam2014provably]. The work in [@marin2015optimized] has constructed an optimized ECC for secure communication in heterogeneous IoT devices based on Schnorr signature. Also, a simple key negotiation protocol has been introduced in this work that is based on the Schnorr scheme to demonstrate the usability of the presented ECC optimizations.
Based on the desirable features of a physically unclonable function (PUF), such as lightweightedness, unpredictability, unclonability, and uniqueness, many researchers have been motivated to concentrate on the usage of this module to build a secure communication for IoT devices. Among several studies on PUF-based secure communication for IoT devices [@halak2016overview; @chatterjee2017puf; @chatterjee2018building; @liu2019xor], the work in [@chatterjee2017puf] has introduced an authentication, key sharing, and secure communication architecture, in which each IoT device has an integrated PUF. In this work, the identity of each device is created by the challenge-response pair signature of its PUF instance, and by engaging the identity-based encryption scheme proposed in Boneh and Franklin, the security of this approach is proven against attacks like chosen-plaintext/ciphertext attack.
Numerous software/hardware implementation of lightweight ciphers suited for IoT devices have been proposed in recent few years, including RECTANGLE [@zhang2015rectangle], PICO [@bansod2016pico], Extended-LILIPUT [@ali2017optimised], SIT [@usman2017sit], SKINNY [@beierle2016skinny], MANTIS [@beierle2016skinny], to name but a few. Some of these ciphers could provide the best performance on software implementation, however, a portion of them have better performance in hardware implementation. For instance, the work in [@usman2017sit] introduces a lightweight 64-bit symmetric block cipher, called SIT, whose implementation is a mixture of Feistel and a uniform substitution-permutation network. The proposed approach uses some logical operations along with some swapping and substitution. Most of the encryption algorithms designed for IoT reduced the number of rounds to make a cost-security trade-off. For instance, SIT uses five rounds of encryption with 5 different keys to improve energy efficiency.
The lightweightedness of the stream ciphers, on the other hand, has received fascinated attention from many researchers’ in recent years [@mohd2015survey; @singh2017advanced; @sfar2018roadmap; @manifavas2016survey]. Since IoT being an emerging field requires lightweight cipher designs with robustness, less complexity, and lower energy consumption, stream ciphers are very suited for particularly edge devices. Many studies evaluate the possibility of engaging stream ciphers in IoT devices, such as WG-8 [@fan2013wg], Trivium [@de2005trivium], Quavium [@tian2012quavium], and ACORN [@wu2016acorn].
*ExTru* Infrastructure {#sec:proposed}
======================
*ExTru* consists of four main sub-modules: (1) ACORN as a stream cipher that would be used periodically (The frequency will be discussed further), (2) a configurable switching and toggling network (CSTN) that dynamically permutes/toggles the data based on the configuration generated by TRNG, (3) a random number generator (RNG) that is responsible for generating random data for Threshold Implementation of ACORN as well as for generating the CSTN configuration, and (4) a substitution box placed after CSTN to eliminate the linearity/predictability of the ciphertext. The overall architecture of *ExTru* has been demonstrated in Fig. \[extruarch\] for both transmitter side and receiver side.
On the transmitter side, the CSTN is used to permute/toggle the plaintext using the configuration (TRN) generated by the random number generator (RNG). The RNG will periodically change the configuration (TRN) to add dynamicity into the permutation/toggle network (CSTN). Parts of the configuration is fed by the permuted/toggled data (the output of the CSTN) to make the operation stateful (data-dependent). The CSTN is followed only by a substitution-box to eliminate the linearity/predictability of the output. The TRN that is used to configure the CSTN has been also encrypted using the authenticated cipher to be transmitted to the receiver. The key used for authenticated cipher could be pre-stored in the secure memory or produced by a PUF. The output of the transmitter (ciphertext) would be selected from the output of the s-box (permuted/toggled + substituted plaintext) or authenticated cipher output (encrypted TRN).
On the receiver side, on the other hand, the reverse CSTN (RCSTN) must be used to recover the permuted/toggled + substituted plaintext. We will show that similar to ACORN that engages only one hardware module for both encryption/decryption, the CSTN hardware is the same for both receiving/sending operations (same hardware for both CSTN and RCSTN). Hence, no duplicated hardware (one for CSTN and one for RCSTN) is required to be added on each side. When TRN is received from the transmitter it must be decrypted using the authenticated cipher to be used as the configuration of the RCSTN. If the received data is not TRN, it first must pass the s-box to accomplish re-substitution, then it must pass the RCSTN to recover the plaintext.
Fig. \[expdyn\] depicts the overall structure of dynamic encryption provided by *ExTru*, which has no sign of leaky communication. As shown in Fig. \[expdyn\](b), for each specific number of transmission ($T$), which must be less than $N$, a new CSTN configuration will be sent via side-channel resistant cipher. As it is shown, a secure message ($S$), which contains TRN, will be sent periodically after every $T$ messages ($I$) that are handled by CSTN/RCSTN. Based on different forms of attacks, such as side-channel, scan-based SAT, and algebraic attack, messages ($I$) are leaky. So, periodically changing TRN ($S$) and sending through side-channel resistant ciphers re-intensify the security of the communication.
Based on the size of the CSTN/RCSTN (number of I/O), we will show that the maximum feasible update frequency ($N$) would be changed. Consequently, the CSTN configuration (TRN), which is fed by RNG, must be changed dynamically after every $T$ iterations, where $T < N$. Also, the size of CSTN/RCSTN determines the number of configuration bits (size of each $S$) must be generated by the RNG. In the following sub-sections we discuss the details of *ExTru* implementation.
Configurable Switching & Toggling Network (CSTN) {#CSTN_section}
------------------------------------------------
The CSTN is a logarithmic routing (permutation) network that could permute the order of the signals at its input pins to its output pins while possibly toggling their logic levels based on its configuration (TRN). Fig. \[CSTN\_arch\](a) captures a simple implementation of an 8$\times$8 CSTN based on *OMEGA* network [@ahmadi1989survey]. The network is constructed using permutation elements, denoted as Re-Routing Blocks (RRB). Each RRB is able to possibly toggle and permute each of the input signals to each of its outputs. The number of RRBs needed to implement this simple CSTN for $N$ inputs ($N$ is a power of 2) is simply $N/2\times logN$.
Each CSTN should be paired with an RCSTN. RCSTN must be able to reverse all operations accomplished by CSTN to re-generate the plaintext. Due to the structure of CSTN, RCSTN can be implemented by *vertically flipping* the CSTN without any change in configuration [@goke1973banyan]. In fact, by vertically flipping the CSTN, and then applying the same configuration, we re-generate plaintext. So, implementing RCSTN by vertically flipping the CSTN allows us to use the same configuration for both CSTN and RCSTN. However, to avoid duplicating the hardware (to put one dedicated hardware for CSTN and one dedicated hardware for RCSTN), by flipping the configuration bits (row-pivot reversed TRN), the CSTN would operate as its corresponded reverse CSTN. Hence, only one hardware is enough to operate as both CSTN and RCSTN (using TRN or row-pivot reversed TRN).
The *OMEGA* network along with many other networks of such nature (*BUTTERFLY*, etc.) are blocking networks [@ahmadi1989survey], in which we cannot produce all permutations of input at the network’s output pins. This limitation significantly reduces the ability of a CSTN to randomize its input. Also, Evaluation of this permutation networks as a means of obfuscation to defend supply chain shows that the blocking version of this breed of networks could be easily broken by a SAT attack within few iterations [@kamali2019full; @azar2019coma].
Being a blocking or a non-blocking CSTN depends on the number of stages in CSTN. Since no two paths in an RRB are allowed to use the same link to form a connection, for a specific number of RRB columns, only a limited number of permutations is feasible. However, adding extra stages could transform a blocking CSTN into a strictly non-blocking CSTN. Using a strictly non-blocking CSTN not only improves the randomization of propagated messages through the CSTN, but also improves the resiliency of these networks against possible SAT attacks for extraction of a TRN used as the key for a CSTN-RCSTN cipher. A non-blocking logarithmic network could be represented using $LOG_{n, m, p}$, where $n$ is the number of inlets/outlets, $m$ is the number of extra stages, and $p$ indicates the number of copies *vertically cascaded* [@shyy1991log].
According to [@shyy1991log], to have a strictly non-blocking CSTN for an arbitrary $n$, the smallest feasible values of $p$ and $m$ impose very large area/power overhead. For instance, for $n=64$, the smallest feasible values, which make it strictly non-blocking, are $m=3$ and $p=6$, which means there exists more than $5\times$ as much overhead compared to a blocking CSTN with the same $n$, resulting in a significant increase in the area and delay overhead. To avoid such large overhead, we employ a *close to non-blocking CSTN* described in [@shyy1991log] to implement the CSTN-RCSTN pair. This network is able to generate not all, but *almost all* permutations, while it could be implemented using a $LOG_{n, log_2(n) - 2, 1}$ configuration, meaning it needs $log_2(n) - 2$ extra stages and no additional copy. Fig. \[CSTN\_arch\](b), demonstrates an example of such a near non-blocking CSTN with $n = 8$.
Based on the structure of CSTN/RCSTN, and the size used for implementation, the size of configuration bits ($S$) would be changed. For instance, for a near non-blocking $LOG_{64, 4, 1}$, the number of selectors is 960 $(2log_2(64) - 2)(32)(3)$ (3 selectors in each $2 \times 2$ switches (Fig. \[CSTN\_arch\])). Based on the size of configuration, and the number of messages that could be sent in each interval ($T$), the overhead (time/energy) would be changed in *ExTru*. However, we show that since ($T$) is large enough, the performance boost, as well as the mitigating of the energy consumption, would be considerably high.
Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data {#AEAD}
---------------------------------------------
The Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) is used in *ExTru* for the transmission of the CSTN-RCSTN configuration (TRN). Authenticated ciphers incorporate the functionality of confidentiality, integrity, and authentication. The input of an authenticated cipher includes *plaintext* (message), *associated data* (AD), *public message number* (NPUB), and *secret key*. Then, the *ciphertext* is generated as a function of these inputs. A *tag*, which depends on all inputs, is generated after message encryption to assure the integrity and authenticity of the transaction. This tag is then verified after the decryption process. The choice of AEAD could significantly affect the area overhead of the solution, the speed of encrypted communication, and the extra energy/power consumption. To show the performance, power/energy, and area trade-offs, we employ two AEAD solutions: a NIST compliant solution (AES-GCM) [@dworkin2007sp], and a promising lightweight solution (ACORN) [@wu2016acorn].
AES-GCM is the current National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard for authenticated encryption and decryption as defined in [@dworkin2007sp]. ACORN is one of two finalists of the Competition for Authenticated Encryption: Security, Applicability, and Robustness (CAESAR), in the category of lightweight authenticated ciphers, as defined in [@wu2016acorn]. An 8-bit side-channel protected version of AES-GCM and a 1-bit side-channel protected version of ACORN are implemented as described in [@diehl2018face]. Both implementations comply with lightweight version of the CAESAR HW API [@homsirikamol2015gmu].
Our methodology for side-channel resistant is threshold implementation (TI), which has wide acceptance as a provably secure Differential Power Analysis (DPA) countermeasure [@nikova2006threshold]. In TI, sensitive data is separated into shares and the computations are performed on these shares independently. TI must satisfy three properties: (1) Non-completeness: Each share must lack at least one piece of sensitive data, (2) Correctness: The final recombination of the result must be correct, and (3) Uniformity: An output distribution should match the input distribution. To ensure uniformity, we refresh TI shares after non-linear transformations using randomness. We use a hybrid 2-share/3-share approach, where all linear transformations in each cipher are protected using two shares, which are expanded to three shares only for non-linear transformations.
To verify the resistance against DPA, we employ the Test Vector Leakage Assessment methodology in [@gilbert2011testing]. We leverage a “fixed versus random” non-specific t-test, in which we randomly interleave first fixed test vectors and then randomly-generated test vectors, leading to two sequences with the same length but different values. Using means and variances of power consumption for our fixed and random sequences, we compute a figure of merit $t$. If $|t| > 4.5$, we reason that we can distinguish between the two populations and that our design is leaking information. The protected AES-GCM design has a 5-stage pipeline and encrypts one 128-bit input block in 205 cycles. This requires 40 bits of randomness per cycle. In ACORN-1, there are ten 1-bit TI-protected AND-gate modules, which consume a total of 20 random re-share, and 10 random refresh bits per state update. In a two-cycle architecture, 15 random bits are required per clock cycle.
**Random Number Generator (RNG)** {#RNG}
---------------------------------
A RNG unit is required on both sides to generate random bits for side-channel protection of AEAD units, a random public message number (NPUB) for AEAD, and TRNs for CSTN-RCSTN. We adopted the ERO TRNG core described in [@petura2016survey], which is capable of generating only 1-bit of random data per over 20,000 clock cycles. In our TI implementations, AES-GCM needs 40 and ACORN 15 bits of random data per cycle. So, we employed a hybrid RNG unit combining the ERO TRNG with a Pseudo Random Number Generator (PRNG). TRNG output is used as a 128-bit seed to PRNG. The PRNG generates random numbers needed by other components. The reseeding is performed only once per activation.
We adopted two different implementations of PRNG: (1) AES-CTR PRNG, which is based on AES, is compliant with the NIST standard SP 800-90A, and generates 12.8 bits per cycle. (2) Trivium based PRNG, which is based on the Trivium stream cipher described in [@de2005trivium]. The Trivium-based PRNG is significantly smaller in terms of area and much faster than AES-CTR PRNG. It can generate 64 bits of random data per cycle, however, it is not compliant with the NIST standard.
Also, the ERO TRNG is equipped with standard-statistical-tests applied post-fabrication, such as Repetition-Count test and the Adaptive-Proportion test, as described in NIST SP 800-90B [@barker2012recommendation], any attempt at weakening the TRNG during regular operation (i.e. fault attack) can be detected by continuously checking the output of a source of entropy for any signs of a significant decrease in entropy, noise source failure, and hardware failure.
**Substitution Box (S-Box)** {#sbox}
----------------------------
To eliminate the linearity/predictability in *ExTru*, a non-feistel trial strategy has been used that is based on Khazad block cipher [@barreto2000khazad]. The wide trial strategy is composed of several linear and non-linear transformations that ensures the dependency of output bits on input bits in a complex manner [@daemen1995cipher]. The input and output correlation of this strategy is very large if the linear approximation is done for even one round. Also the transformation is kept uniform which treats every bit in a similar manner and provides opposition to differential attacks.
Security Analysis of *ExTru* {#attacks}
============================
Assuming that the attacker can monitor the side-channel information of the chips during normal operations (based on power/current traces), and the possibility of having access to the scan chain to apply any form of scan-based attack, in this section we evaluate the resiliency of *ExTru* against different physical attacks, such as side-channel, the scan-based SAT, and algebraic attack. An Attack objective may be (1) extracting the secret key, or (2) extracting CSTN configuration (TRNs), or (3) eavesdropping on messages exchanged between the devices.
\
**Side-Channel Attack (SCA)**
-----------------------------
The objective of SCA on *ExTru* is to extract either the secret key used by AEAD (ACORN) or the TRN used by CSTN. Extracting a secret key is sufficient to break the communication. By extracting the secret key, the attacker can decrypt the TRN transmitted between transmitter/receiver, and by knowing the TRN, the plaintext could be recovered. Similarly, extracting the TRN reveals the communicated messages, however, since the TRN would be updated dynamically, extracting the TRN would reveal only part of the messages. It is worth mentioning that assuming that the secret key or TRN is extracted, the functionality of the s-box would be revealed using specific messages.
Fig. \[ttest\] captures our assessment of the side-channel resistance of AEAD using a t-test for unprotected and protected implementations of AES-GCM and ACORN [@diehl2018comparison]. As illustrated, both implementations pass the t-test, indicating the guaranteed resistance against SCA. Note that this guaranteed resistance against SCA shows the robustness of communication channel during TRN transmission.
In addition, by adding the dynamicity in *ExTru*, any form of attacks, including SCA, the SAT, and algebraic, must be carried out in a limited time while the TRN of the CSTN/RCSTN is unchanged. As soon as the TRN is renewed, the previous side-channel traces or SAT iterations or algebraic calculations are useless. The period of TRN updates introduces a trade-off between energy and security and can be pushed to maximum security by changing the TRN for every new input.
**TRN Extraction using the SAT attack**
---------------------------------------
Since the attacker might have access to the scan chain to apply any form of scan-based attack, it might be possible to recover and extract the TRN by applying specific inputs to the CSTN and observing the output. This could be done by using the SAT attack that is a very applicable and known attack on logic locking schemes [@zamiri2019threats]. In this scheme, assuming that the TRN is the unknown parameters (such as key in logic locking), based on Table \[omega\_sat\], it is evident that using blocking CSTN, particularly small size CSTN, does not make the design resilient against the SAT attacks. The number of iterations in Table \[omega\_sat\] shows the number ($N$) of specific inputs identified by SAT solver, called Discriminating Inputs (DIPs) [@subramanyan2015evaluating]. Finding $N$ DIPs by SAT solver allows the attacker to find CSTN/RCSTN configuration (TRN), and consequently breaks the scheme. It is evident that increasing the size of CSTN will increase $N$ (e.g. from $N=6$ in size 4 to $N=25$ in size 256). For an *OMEGA*-based CSTN with size 512, SAT is not able to find the TRN after $2\times10^6$ seconds. Even after $2\times10^6$ seconds execution of SAT, it could find only 7 DIPs. However, we expect that for an *OMEGA*-based CSTN with size 512, SAT needs more than 25 DIPs to find TRN.
[@ l \*9c @]{} CSTN Size ($n$) & 4 & 8 & 16 & 32 & 64 & 128 & 256 & 512\
SAT Iterations & 6 & 7 & 8 & 12 & 14 & 24 & 25 & TO\
SAT Execution Time $_{(Seconds)}$ & 0.01& 0.03 & 0.2 & 0.8 & 5.9 & 130.5 & 1136.2 & TO\
*TO: Timeout = $2\times10^6$ seconds*
Table \[nonblk\_sat\] illustrates that using near non-blocking CSTN considerably enhances the resiliency of this approach against the SAT attack. As shown in Table \[nonblk\_sat\], for a near non-blocking CSTN with a size of 64 ($LOG_{64, 4, 1}$), the SAT is not able to find the TRN after $2\times10^6$ seconds. Even after $2\times10^6$ seconds execution of SAT, it cannot find more than 5 DIPs. However, based on the SAT iterations for $LOG_{32, 3, 1}$, we expect that for a close to non-blocking CSTN with size 64, more than 32 DIPs are required to extract CSTN configuration.
[@ l \*9c @]{} CSTN Size ($n$) & 4 & 8 & 16 & 32 & 64\
SAT Iterations & 14 & 18 & 25 & 32 & TO\
SAT Execution Time $_{(Seconds)}$ & 0.01& 0.015 & 2.35 & 79.18 & TO\
*TO: Timeout = $2\times10^6$ seconds*
**Algebraic Attacks**
---------------------
Algebraic attacks involve (a) expressing the cipher operations as a system of equations, (b) substituting in known data for some variables, and (c) solving for the key. ACORN has been demonstrated to be resistant against all known types of algebraic attacks, including linear cryptanalysis. Therefore, in the absence of any new attacks, the TRN transmission mode is resistant against algebraic attacks. Using CSTN and RCSTN by itself is new and requires more analysis. CSTN can be expressed as an affine function of the data input $x$, of the form $y=A\cdot x + b$, where $A$ is an $n \times n$ matrix and $b$ is an $n \times 1$ vector, with all elements dependent on the input TRN. Although recovering $A$ and $b$ is not equivalent to finding the TRN, it may enable the successful decryption of all blocks encrypted using a given TRN. We protect against this threat in numerous ways: (1) The number of blocks encrypted using a given TRN is set to the value smaller than $n$, which prevents generating and solving a system of linear equations with $A$ and $b$ treated as unknowns, (2) a part of the configuration is data-dependent and is fed from the output of the CSTN (stateful), so the values of $A$ and $b$ are not the same in any two encryptions, without the need of feeding CSTN with two completely different TRN values, (3) the substitution box added after the CSTN will eliminate all linearity/predictability of the CSTN using the algebraic attack.
Experimental Setup and Analysis {#sec:results}
===============================
For evaluation, all designs have been implemented using Verilog HDL, and have been synthesized for both FPGA and ASIC targets. For ASIC verification, we used Synopsys generic 32nm process. For FPGA verification, we targeted a small FPGA board, Digilent Nexys-4 DDR with Xilinx Artix 7 (XC7A100T-1CSG324). In addition, for SAT evaluation, we employed the Lingling-based SAT attack [@subramanyan2015evaluating] on a Dell PowerEdge R620 equipped with Intel Xeon E5-2670 2.6 GHz and 64GB of RAM. Also, as noted, a run-time limit of $2 \times 10^6$ seconds was set for the SAT solver. For ciphers, we used two side-channel resistant ciphers (AES-GCM128 as a block authenticated cipher, and ACORN as a lightweight stream cipher). We have two modes in *ExTru*: (1) *ExTru* with AES-GCM, compared with its corresponding cipher (AES-GCM), (2) *ExTru* with ACORN, compared with its corresponding cipher (ACORN). All configurations are listed in Table \[extru\_config\].
[@ l \*3c @]{} & Block & Stream\
AEAD & AES-GCM & ACORN\
PRNG & AES-CTR & Trivium\
BUS Width & 8 & 8\
Pins used for Communication & 8 & 8\
CSTN-RCSTN Size & 64 & 64\
Trusted Memory & 4 Kbits & 4 Kbits\
C$_{fix}$: initialization overhead (cycles) & 10,492 & 20,452\
C$_{byte}$: cycles needed for encrypting each byte & 72 & 17\
PRNG$_{perf}$: Throughput of generating TRN & $128bit / 10cycles$ & $64bit / cycle$\
Table \[basic\_ppa\] demonstrates the resource utilization of $LOG_{64, 4, 1}$ compared to both ciphers using Synopsys generic 32nm library, after post-layout (route) verification (PLS). As it can be seen, PLS reports show that the power consumption of $LOG_{64, 4, 1}$ is higher than ACORN. However, based on the area utilization, $LOG_{64, 4, 1}$ is considerably smaller than ACORN and AES-GCM. The main reason is that the switching activity of CSTN is high due to numerous permutation/toggling + substitution which leads to have higher power consumption than ACORN. Additionally, the delay of critical paths in both ciphers is higher than that of CSTN. Based on Fig. \[extruarch\], it is obvious that critical path in *ExTru* is same as that of its corresponding cipher. Consequently, we expect that the delay of critical path in *ExTru* is approximately equal with that of ciphers.
Also, Table \[blk\_vs\_nonblk\] depicts area, power, and the delay of CSTNs in both blocking and near non-blocking mode with different sizes in the Synopsys generic 32nm process. As shown, it is evident that using a close to non-blocking CSTN with size 64, $LOG_{64, 4, 1}$, provides the most efficient CSTN structure, which is resilient against SAT attack. It should be noted that due to having extra stages in close to non-blocking CSTNs, the delay of these networks is slightly higher than the blocking CSTNs with the same $n$, which is negligible.
[@ l \*9c @]{} & & & Power ($uW$) & & & Area ($nm^2$)& & & Delay ($ns$)\
$LOG_{64, 4, 1}$ & & & 1625.5 & & & 9965.9 & & & 1.74\
AES-GCM & & & 3587.1 & & & 102487.5 & & & 2.48\
ACORN & & & 880.9 & & & 21843.4 & & & 2.3\
[@ l \*9c @]{} & Area ($nm^2$) & Power ($uW$) & Delay ($ns$) & SAT-Resilient\
omega32 & 1013.1 & 44.8 & 1.12 &\
log(32, 3, 1) & 3067.5 & 213.5 & 1.33 &\
omega64 & 2285.5 & 107.1 & 1.22 &\
**log(64, 4, 1)** & **7438.8** & **845.1** & **1.73** & ****\
omega128 & 5081.5 & 250.3 & 1.25 &\
omega256 & 11364.9 & 579.1 & 1.35 &\
**omega512** & **25458.3** & **2308** & **1.42** & ****\
Table \[extru\_ppa\] depicts resource utilization of *ExTru* in each mode of using AES-GCM or ACORN. As we expected, the critical paths of *ExTru* in each mode is same as that of corresponding cipher. In addition, since *ExTru* consists of both CSTN and cipher, it is evident that area and power of *ExTru* in each mode is approximately equal to summation of total area and total power of both sub-modules, i.e. CSTN and corresponding cipher. The active power of each design for different message sizes has been gathered using Synopsys PrimeTime PX. Fig. \[PL\_power\] demonstrates the power breakdown in each design for a 1KB message. As it is shown, the leakage powers are roughly the same. The internal power and switching power of *ExTru* is almost 23% worse. The main reason for increasing switching activity is the structure of CSTN for bit-wise permutation/toggling. Also, internal power has been increased due to merging both CSTN and cipher into one design.
[@ l \*9c @]{} & & & Power ($uW$) & & & Area ($nm^2$)& & & Delay ($ns$)\
*ExTru* with AES-GCM & & & 4448.9 & & & 122457.4 & & & 2.48\
*ExTru* with ACORN & & & 1694.6 & & & 33344.7 & & & 2.3\
Energy/Performance Improvement in ExTru
---------------------------------------
Although combining CSTN and cipher into *ExTru* imposes area and power overhead by almost 24.5% compared to the corresponding cipher, CSTN can generate {permuted/toggled + substituted} data in only one cycle which provides significant speed-up compared to especially side-channel resistant ciphers that require randomness or complex initialization. Fig. \[time\_exe\] demonstrates the time of preparing data (encryption *or* permutation/toggling + substitution) for different message sizes. Increasing the size of the message, which increases the proportion of $I$ to $S$, significantly (superlinearly) increases the gap between the execution time of *ExTru* compared to its corresponding cipher. As shown, since CSTN prepares each $I$ in one cycle, increasing the size of the message imposes no degradation on *ExTru* performance. The main part of the execution time of *ExTru* is dedicated to encrypting and sending $S$. On the other hand, all data must be encrypted before sending it while only a cipher is used. So, it increases the execution time of ciphers linearly due to encryption time. Note that based on our SAT-based evaluation, the guaranteed number of $I$ messages is 32 (Table \[nonblk\_sat\]). Since we use $LOG_{64, 4, 1}$, each $I$ is 64 bits, so 256KB ($64 \times 32$ = 2Kb = 256KB) is the safe size of sending data through CSTN. The guaranteed speed-up is $3.4\times$ and $1.3\times$ compared to AES-GCM and ACORN, respectively.
It is evident that for small messages, *ExTru* works slower than ciphers due to time overhead of sending encrypted TRN. However, *ExTru* can accelerate the execution time up to $25\times$ while the message size is even 2KB. The speed-up gained by *ExTru* depends on the structure of the cipher. For instance, the AES-GCM needs around 300 cycles per each plain data to be first-order side-channel resistant. However, ACORN as a stream cipher needs fewer cycles per data. So, *ExTru* provides better speed-up while the cipher is not streamed/pipelined.
\
Table \[energy\_cmp\] depicts energy consumption for different designs, with different message sizes. Since energy is a function of time and power, it is obvious that the energy consumption in *ExTru* is higher for small message sizes due to the time overhead of sending encrypted TRN. However, increasing the size of the network results in significantly less energy consumption in *ExTru* compared to corresponding ciphers. As it can be seen, *ExTru* reduces energy consumption by 94.5% and 67.8% compared to GCM and ACORN, respectively.
[@ \*9c @]{} & 32B & 64B & 128B & 256B & 512B & 768B & 1KB & 2KB\
ACORN & 17.01 & 18.69 & 22.06 & 28.79 & 42.26 & 55.73 & 69.20 & 123.1\
*ExTru* with ACORN & 30.66 & 30.80 & 31.09 & 31.67 & 32.82 & 33.98 & 35.13 & 39.75\
AES-GCM & 46.28 & 93.28 & 188.2 & 379.8 & 756.6 & 1143 & 1523 & 3055\
*ExTru* with AES-GCM & 151.1 & 151.4 & 152.1 & 153.3 & 155.8 & 158.4 & 160.9 & 173.1\
*\* Message Size*
[@ l \*9c @]{} & & & LUTs & & & Registers & & & Maximum Frequency\
ACORN & & & 1090 & & & 530 & & & 178.5 MHz\
*ExTru* with ACORN & & & 1609 & & & 1573 & & & 172.5 MHz\
AES-GCM & & & 3803 & & & 4418 & & & 158.3 MHz\
*ExTru* with AES-GCM & & & 4376 & & & 5461 & & & 152.4 MHz\
As mentioned previously, *ExTru* has been verified on both ASIC and FPGA. Table \[fpga\_res\] demonstrates the resource utilization of the proposed scheme compared to ciphers on Nexys-4 DDR with Xilinx Artix 7. The results in FPGA are approximately similar to that of ASIC. As expected, ACORN provides higher maximum frequency due to its lightweight structure. However, using more resources in high-performance AES-GCM results in better throughput even with lower frequency.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we proposed *ExTru* as a dynamic encrypted high speed communication, which is able to provide a level of trust using near non-blocking configurable switching and toggling network (*CSTN*). *ExTru* uses near non-blocking CSTN as a transceiver data. Although the configuration of CSTN will be generated by TRNG, *ExTru* changes the configuration based on a time-interval which is identified by the SAT to guarantee the security of communication. Using this dynamically encrypted mechanism mitigates energy consumption by 94.5% and 67.8% compared to AES-GCM (authenticated) and ACORN (stream) while security is guaranteed. In addition, *ExTru* is able to provide up to $24.4\times$ and $4.3\times$ speed-up for 2KB messages in comparison with AES-GCM and ACORN, respectively.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We aim to detect all instances of a category in an image and, for each instance, mark the pixels that belong to it. We call this task Simultaneous Detection and Segmentation (SDS). Unlike classical bounding box detection, SDS requires a segmentation and not just a box. Unlike classical semantic segmentation, we require individual object instances. We build on recent work that uses convolutional neural networks to classify category-independent region proposals (R-CNN [@GirshickCVPR14]), introducing a novel architecture tailored for SDS. We then use category-specific, top-down figure-ground predictions to refine our bottom-up proposals. We show a 7 point boost (16% relative) over our baselines on SDS, a 5 point boost (10% relative) over state-of-the-art on semantic segmentation, and state-of-the-art performance in object detection. Finally, we provide diagnostic tools that unpack performance and provide directions for future work.'
author:
- Bharath Hariharan$^1$
- 'Pablo Arbeláez$^{1,2}$'
- Ross Girshick$^1$
- |
Jitendra Malik$^1$\
`{bharath2,arbelaez,rbg,malik}@eecs.berkeley.edu`
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: Simultaneous Detection and Segmentation
---
Introduction
============
Object recognition comes in many flavors, two of the most popular being object detection and semantic segmentation. Starting with face detection, the task in object detection is to mark out bounding boxes around each object of a particular category in an image. In this task, a predicted bounding box is considered a true positive if it overlaps by more than 50% with a ground truth box, and different algorithms are compared based on their precision and recall. Object detection systems strive to find every instance of the category and estimate the spatial extent of each. However, the detected objects are very coarsely localized using just bounding boxes.
In contrast, semantic segmentation requires one to assign a category label to all pixels in an image. The MSRC dataset [@ShottonECCV06] was one of the first publicly available benchmarks geared towards this task. Later, the standard metric used to evaluate algorithms in this task converged on pixel IU (intersection over union): for each category, this metric computes the intersection over union of the predicted pixels and ground truth pixels over the entire dataset. This task deals with “stuff" categories (such as grass, sky, road) and “thing" categories (such as cow, person, car) interchangeably. For things, this means that there is no notion of object instances. A typical semantic segmentation algorithm might accurately mark out the dog pixels in the image, but would provide no indication of how many dogs there are, or of the precise spatial extent of any one particular dog.
These two tasks have continued to this day and were part of the PASCAL VOC challenge [@EveringhamIJCV10]. Although often treated as separate problems, we believe the distinction between them is artificial. For the “thing" categories, we can think of a unified task: detect all instances of a category in an image and, for each instance, correctly mark the pixels that belong to it. Compared to the bounding boxes output by an object detection system or the pixel-level category labels output by a semantic segmentation system, this task demands a richer, and potentially more useful, output. Our aim in this paper is to improve performance on this task, which we call **Simultaneous Detection and Segmentation** (SDS).
The SDS algorithm we propose has the following steps (Figure \[fig:overview\]):
1. **Proposal generation**: We start with category-independent bottom-up object proposals. Because we are interested in producing segmentations and not just bounding boxes, we need *region* proposals. We use MCG [@ArbelaezCVPR14] to generate 2000 region candidates per image. We consider each region candidate as a putative object hypothesis.
2. **Feature extraction**: We use a convolutional neural network to extract features on each region. We extract features from both the bounding box of the region as well as from the region foreground. This follows work by Girshick [*et al*. ]{}[@GirshickCVPR14] (R-CNN) who achieved competitive semantic segmentation results and dramatically improved the state-of-the-art in object detection by using CNNs to classify region proposals. We consider several ways of training the CNNs. We find that, compared to using the same CNN for both inputs (image windows and region masks), using separate networks where each network is finetuned for its respective role dramatically improves performance. We improve performance further by training both networks jointly, resulting in a feature extractor that is trained end-to-end for the SDS task.
3. **Region classification**: We train an SVM on top of the CNN features to assign a score for each category to each candidate.
4. **Region refinement**: We do non-maximum suppression (NMS) on the scored candidates. Then we use the features from the CNN to produce category-specific coarse mask predictions to refine the surviving candidates. Combining this mask with the original region candidates provides a further boost.
Since this task is not a standard one, we need to decide on evaluation metrics. The metric we suggest in this paper is an extension to the bounding box detection metric. It has been proposed earlier [@TigheCVPR14; @YangTPAMI12]. Given an image, we expect the algorithm to produce a set of object hypotheses, where each hypothesis comes with a predicted *segmentation* and a score. A hypothesis is correct if its *segmentation* overlaps with the *segmentation* of a ground truth instance by more than 50%. As in the classical bounding box task, we penalize duplicates. With this labeling, we compute a precision recall (PR) curve, and the average precision (AP), which is the area under the curve. We call the AP computed in this way AP$^r$, to distinguish it from the traditional bounding box AP, which we call AP$^b$ (the superscripts $r$ and $b$ correspond to region and bounding box respectively). AP$^r$ measures the accuracy of segmentation, and also requires the algorithm to get each instance separately and completely. Our pipeline achieves an AP$^r$ of 49.5% while at the same time improving AP$^b$ from 51.0% (R-CNN) to 53.0%.
One can argue that the 50% threshold is itself artificial. For instance if we want to count the number of people in a crowd, we do not need to know their accurate segmentations. On the contrary, in a graphics application that seeks to matte an object into a scene, we might want extremely accurate segmentations. Thus the threshold at which we regard a detection as a true positive depends on the application. In general, we want algorithms that do well under a variety of thresholds. As the threshold varies, the PR curve traces out a PR surface. We can use the volume under this PR surface as a metric. We call this metric AP$^r_{vol}$ and AP$^b_{vol}$ respectively. AP$^r_{vol}$ has the attractive property that an AP$^r_{vol}$ of 1 implies we can perfectly detect and precisely segment all objects. Our pipeline gets an AP$^r_{vol}$ of 41.4%. We improve AP$^b_{vol}$ from 41.9% (R-CNN) to 44.2%.
We also find that our pipeline furthers the state-of-the-art in the classic PASCAL VOC semantic segmentation task, from 47.9% to 52.6%. Last but not the least, following work in object detection [@HoiemECCV12], we also provide a set of diagnostic tools for analyzing common error modes in the SDS task. Our algorithm, the benchmark and all diagnostic tools are publicly available at http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/Research/Projects/CS/vision/shape/sds.
![Overview of our pipeline. Our algorithm is based on classifying region proposals using features extracted from both the bounding box of the region and the region foreground with a jointly trained CNN. A final refinement step improves segmentation.[]{data-label="fig:overview"}](figs/overview_figure/eccv14overview2.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Related work
============
For semantic segmentation, several researchers have tried to use activations from off-the-shelf object detectors to guide the segmentation process. Yang [*et al*. ]{}[@YangTPAMI12] use object detections from the deformable parts model [@FelzenszwalbPAMI10] to segment the image, pasting figure-ground masks and reasoning about their relative depth ordering. Arbeláez [*et al*. ]{}[@ArbelaezCVPR12] use poselet detections [@BourdevECCV10] as features to score region candidates, in addition to appearance-based cues. Ladicky [*et al*. ]{}[@LadickyECCV10] use object detections as higher order potentials in a CRF-based segmentation system: all pixels in the foreground of a detected object are encouraged to share the category label of the detection. In addition, their system is allowed to switch off these potentials by assigning a true/false label to each detection. This system was extended by Boix [*et al*. ]{}[@BoixIJCV12] who added a global, image-level node in the CRF to reason about the categories present in the image, and by Kim [*et al*. ]{}[@KimECCV12W] who added relationships between objects. In more recent work, Tighe [*et al*. ]{}[@TigheCVPR14] use exemplar object detectors to segment out the scene as well as individual instances.
There has also been work on localizing detections better using segmentation. Parkhi [*et al*. ]{}use color models from predefined rectangles on cat and dog faces to do GrabCut and improve the predicted bounding box [@ParkhiICCV11]. Dai and Hoiem generalize this to all categories and use instance and category appearance models to improve detection [@DaiCVPR12]. These approaches do well when the objects are coherent in color or texture. This is not true of many categories such as people, where each object can be made of multiple regions of different appearance. An alternative to doing segmentation *post facto* is to use segmentation to generate object proposals which are then classified. The proposals may be used as just bounding boxes [@VanICCV11] or as region proposals [@CarreiraCVPR10; @ArbelaezCVPR14]. These proposals incorporate both the consistency of appearance in an object as well as the possibility of having multiple disparate regions for each object. State-of-the-art detection systems [@GirshickCVPR14] and segmentation systems [@CarreiraECCV12] are now based on these methods.
In many of these approaches, segmentation is used only to localize the detections better. Other authors have explored using segmentation as a stronger cue. Fidler [*et al*. ]{}[@FidlerCVPR13] use the output of a state-of-the-art semantic segmentation approach [@CarreiraECCV12] to score detections better. Mottaghi [@MottaghiCVPR12] uses detectors based on non-rectangular patches to both detect and segment objects.
The approaches above were typically built on features such as SIFT[@LoweIJCV04] or HOG[@DalalCVPR05]. Recently the computer vision community has shifted towards using convolutional neural networks (CNNs). CNNs have their roots in the Neocognitron proposed by Fukushima [@Fukushima80]. Trained with the back-propagation algorithm, LeCun [@LecunNC89] showed that they could be used for handwritten zip code recognition. They have since been used in a variety of tasks, including detection [@SermanetCVPR13; @SermanetICLR14] and semantic segmentation [@FarabetPAMI13]. Krizhevsky [*et al*. ]{}[@KrizhevskyNIPS12] showed a large increase in performance by using CNNs for classification in the ILSVRC challenge [@ILSVRC12]. Donahue [*et al*. ]{}[@Donahue13] showed that Krizhevsky’s architecture could be used as a generic feature extractor that did well across a wide variety of tasks. Girshick [*et al*. ]{}[@GirshickCVPR14] build on this and finetune Krizhevsky’s architecture for detection to nearly double the state-of-the-art performance. They use a simple pipeline, using CNNs to classify bounding box proposals from [@VanICCV11]. Our algorithm builds on this system, and on high quality region proposals from [@ArbelaezCVPR14].
Our approach {#sec:approach}
============
Proposal generation {#sec:prop}
-------------------
A large number of methods to generate proposals have been proposed in the literature. The methods differ on the type of outputs they produce (boxes vs segments) and the metrics they do well on. Since we are interested in the AP$^r$ metric, we care about segments, and not just boxes. Keeping our task in mind, we use candidates from MCG [@ArbelaezCVPR14] for this paper. This approach significantly outperforms all competing approaches on the object level Jaccard index metric, which measures the average best overlap achieved by a candidate for a ground truth object. In our experiments we find that simply switching to MCG from Selective Search [@VanICCV11] improves AP$^b$ slightly (by 0.7 points), justifying this choice.
We use the proposals from MCG as is. MCG starts by computing a segmentation hierarchy at multiple image resolutions, which are then fused into a single multiscale hierarchy at the finest scale. Then candidates are produced by combinatorially grouping regions from all the single scale hierarchies and from the multiscale hierarchy. The candidates are ranked based on simple features such as size and location, shape and contour strength.
Feature extraction {#sec:feat}
------------------
We start from the R-CNN object detector proposed by Girshick [*et al*. ]{}[@GirshickCVPR14] and adapt it to the SDS task. Girshick [*et al*. ]{}train a CNN on ImageNet Classification and then finetune the network on the PASCAL detection set. For finetuning they took bounding boxes from Selective Search, padded them, cropped them and warped them to a square and fed them to the network. Bounding boxes that overlap with the ground truth by more than 50% were taken as positives and other boxes as negatives. The class label for each positive box was taken to be the class of the ground truth box that overlaps the most with the box. The network thus learned to predict if the bounding box overlaps highly with a ground truth bounding box. We are working with MCG instead of Selective Search, so we train a similar object detection network, finetuned using bounding boxes of MCG regions instead of Selective Search boxes.
At test time, to extract features from a bounding box, Girshick [*et al*. ]{}pad and crop the box, warp it to a square and pass it through the network, and extract features from one of the later layers, which is then fed into an SVM. In this paper we will use the penultimate fully connected layer.
For the SDS task, we can now use this network finetuned for detection to extract feature vectors from MCG bounding boxes. However these feature vectors do not contain any information about the actual region foreground, and so will be ill-equipped to decide if the region overlaps highly with a ground truth segmentation or not. To get around this, we start with the idea used by Girshick [*et al*. ]{}for their experiment on semantic segmentation: we extract a second set of features from the region by feeding it the cropped, warped box, but with the background of the region masked out (with the mean image.) Concatenating these two feature vectors together gives us the feature vector we use. (In their experiments Girshick [*et al*. ]{}found both sets of features to be useful.) This method of extracting features out of the region is the simplest way of extending the object detection system to the SDS task and forms our baseline. We call this feature extractor **[**A**]{}**.
The network we are using above has been finetuned to classify bounding boxes, so its use in extracting features from the region foreground is suboptimal. Several neurons in the network may be focussing on context in the background, which will be unavailable when the network is fed the region foreground. This suggests that we should use a different network to extract the second set of features: one that is finetuned on the kinds of inputs that it is going to see. We therefore finetune another network (starting again from the net trained on ImageNet) which is fed as input cropped, padded bounding boxes of MCG regions with the background masked out. Because this region sees the actual foreground, we can actually train it to predict region overlap instead, which is what we care about. Therefore we change the labeling of the MCG regions to be based on segmentation overlap of the region with a ground truth region (instead of overlap with bounding box). We call this feature extractor **[**B**]{}**.
The previous strategy is still suboptimal, because the two networks have been trained in isolation, while at test time the two feature sets are going to be combined and fed to the classifier. This suggests that one should train the networks jointly. We formalize this intuition as follows. We create a neural network with the architecture shown in Figure \[fig:net\]. This architecture is a single network with two pathways. The first pathway operates on the cropped bounding box of the region (the “box" pathway) while the second pathway operates on the cropped bounding box with the background masked (the “region" pathway). The two pathways are disjoint except at the very final classifier layer, which concatenates the features from both pathways. Both these pathways individually have the same architecture as that of Krizhevsky [*et al*. ]{}Note that both [**A**]{} and [**B**]{} can be seen as instantiations of this architecture, but with different sets of weights. [**A**]{} uses the same network parameters for both pathways. For [**B**]{}, the box pathway gets its weights from a network finetuned separately using bounding box overlap, while the region pathway gets its parameters from a network finetuned separately using region overlap.
Instead of using the same network in both pathways or training the two pathways in isolation, we now propose to train it as a whole directly. We use segmentation overlap as above. We initialize the box pathway with the network finetuned on boxes and the region pathway with the network finetuned on regions, and then finetune the entire network. At test time, we discard the final classification layer and use the output of the penultimate layer, which concatenates the features from the two pathways. We call this feature extractor **[**C**]{}**.
![Left: The region with its bounding box. Right: The architecture that we train for [**C**]{}. The top pathway operates on cropped boxes and the bottom pathway operates on region foregrounds. []{data-label="fig:net"}](figs/pinet2.pdf){width="80.00000%"}
Region classification {#sec:classify}
---------------------
We use the features from the previous step to train a linear SVM. We first train an initial SVM using ground truth as positives and regions overlapping ground truth by less than 20% as negative. Then we re-estimate the positive set: for each ground truth we pick the highest scoring MCG candidate that overlaps by more than 50%. Ground truth regions for which no such candidate exists (very few in number) are discarded. We then retrain the classifier using this new positive set. This training procedure corresponds to a multiple instance learning problem where each ground truth defines a positive bag of regions that overlap with it by more than 50%, and each negative region is its own bag. We found this training to work better than using just the ground truth as positives.
At test time we use the region classifiers to score each region. Because there may be multiple overlapping regions, we do a strict non-max suppression using a region overlap threshold of 0. This is because while the bounding box of two objects can in fact overlap, their pixel support in the image typically shouldn’t. Post NMS, we work with only the top 20,000 detections for each category (over the whole dataset) and discard the rest for computational reasons. We confirmed that this reduction in detections has no effect on the AP$^r$ metric.
Region refinement {#sec:refine}
-----------------
![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/train_1_img.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/train_1_reg.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/train_1_grid.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/train_1_sp.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/train_1_stage2.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/train_1_fin.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"}\
![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/car_1_img.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/car_1_reg.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/car_1_grid.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/car_1_sp.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/car_1_stage2.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/car_1_fin.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"}\
![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/cat_1_img.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/cat_1_reg.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/cat_1_grid.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/cat_1_sp.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/cat_1_stage2.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"} ![Some examples of region refinement. We show in order the image, the original region, the coarse $10 \times 10$ mask, the coarse mask projected to superpixels, the output of the final classifier on superpixels and the final region after thresholding. Refinement uses top-down category specific information to fill in the body of the train and the cat and remove the road from the car.[]{data-label="fig:refinement"}](figs/refinement_vis_imgs/cat_1_fin.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"}
We take each of the remaining regions and refine its support. This is necessary because our region candidates have been created by a purely bottom-up, class agnostic process. Since the candidate generation has not made use of category-specific shape information, it is prone to both undershooting ([*i.e.* ]{}missing some part of the object) and overshooting ([*i.e.* ]{}including extraneous stuff).
We first learn to predict a coarse, top-down figure-ground mask for each region. To do this, we take the bounding box of each predicted region, pad it as for feature extraction, and then discretize the resulting box into a $10\times 10$ grid. For each grid cell we train a logistic regression classifier to predict the probability that the grid cell belongs to the foreground. The features we use are the features extracted from the CNN, together with the figure-ground mask of the region discretized to the same $10 \times 10$ grid. The classifiers are trained on regions from the training set that overlap by more than 70% with a ground truth region.
This coarse figure-ground mask makes a top-down prediction about the shape of the object but does not necessarily respect the bottom-up contours. In addition, because of its coarse nature it cannot do a good job of modeling thin structures like aircraft wings or structures that move around. This information needs to come from the bottom-up region candidate. Hence we train a second stage to combine this coarse mask with the region candidate. We project the coarse mask to superpixels by assigning to each superpixel the average value of the coarse mask in the superpixel. Then we classify each superpixel, using as features this projected value in the superpixel and a 0 or 1 encoding if the superpixel belongs to the original region candidate. Figure \[fig:refinement\] illustrates this refinement.
Experiments and results {#sec:experiments}
=======================
We use the segmentation annotations from SBD [@HariharanICCV11] to train and evaluate. We train all systems on PASCAL VOC 2012 train. For all training and finetuning of the network we use the recently released Caffe framework [@Jia13].
Results on AP$^r$ and AP$^r_{vol}$
----------------------------------
Table \[table:APr\] and Table \[table:APrvol\] show results on the AP$^r$ and the AP$^r_{vol}$ metrics respectively on PASCAL VOC 2012 val (ground truth segmentations are not available for test). We compute AP$^r_{vol}$ by averaging the AP$^r$ obtained for 9 thresholds.
1. **O$_2$P** uses features and regions from Carreira [*et al*. ]{}[@CarreiraECCV12], which is the state-of-the-art in semantic segmentation. We train region classifiers on these features and do NMS to get detections. This baseline gets a mean AP$^r$ of 25.2% and a mean AP$^r_{vol}$ of 23.4%.
2. **[**A**]{}** is our most naive feature extractor. It uses MCG candidates and features from the bounding box and region foreground, using a single CNN finetuned using box overlaps. It achieves a mean AP$^r$ of 42.9% and a mean AP$^r_{vol}$ of 37.0%, a large jump over O$_2$P. This mirrors gains in object detection observed by Girshick [*et al*. ]{}[@GirshickCVPR14], although since O$_2$P is not designed for this task the comparison is somewhat unfair.
3. **[**B**]{}** is the result of finetuning a separate network exclusively on region foregrounds with labels defined by region overlap. This gives a large jump of the AP$^r$ metric (of about 4 percentage points) and a smaller but significant jump on the AP$^r_{vol}$ metric of about 2.5 percentage points.
4. **[**C**]{}** is the result of training a single large network with two pathways. There is a clear gain over using two isolated networks: on both metrics we gain about 0.7 percentage points.
5. **[**C**]{}+ref** is the result of refining the masks of the regions obtained from [**C**]{}. We again gain 2 points in the AP$^r$ metric and 1.2 percentage points in the AP$^r_{vol}$ metric. This large jump indicates that while MCG candidates we start from are very high quality, there is still a lot to be gained from refining the regions in a category specific manner.
A paired sample t-test indicates that each of the above improvements are statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level.
The left part of Figure \[improvovthresh\] plots the improvement in mean AP$^r$ over [**A**]{} as we vary the threshold at which a detection is considered correct. Each of our improvements increases AP$^r$ across all thresholds, indicating that we haven’t overfit to a particular regime.
Clearly we get significant gains over both our naive baseline as well as O2P. However, prior approaches that reason about segmentation together with detection might do better on the AP$^r$ metric. To see if this is the case, we compare to the SegDPM work of Fidler [*et al*. ]{}[@FidlerCVPR13]. SegDPM combined DPMs [@FelzenszwalbPAMI10] with O$_2$P [@CarreiraECCV12] and achieved a 9 point boost over DPMs in classical object detection. For this method, only the bounding boxes are available publicly, and for some boxes the algorithm may choose not to have associated segments. We therefore compute an upper bound of its performance by taking each detection, considering all MCG regions whose bounding box overlaps with the detection by more than 70%, and selecting the region which best overlaps a ground truth.
Since SegDPM detections are only available on PASCAL VOC2010 val, we restrict our evaluations only to this set. Our upper bound on SegDPM has a mean AP$^r$ of **31.3**, whereas [**C**]{}+ref achieves a mean AP$^r$ of **50.3**.
\[table:APr\]
\[table:APrvol\]
Producing diagnostic information
--------------------------------
Inspired by [@HoiemECCV12], we created tools for figuring out error modes and avenues for improvement for the SDS task. As in [@HoiemECCV12], we evaluate the impact of error modes by measuring the improvement in AP$^r$ if the error mode was corrected. For localization, we assign labels to detections under two thresholds: the usual strict threshold of 0.5 and a more lenient threshold of 0.1 (note that this is a threshold on region overlap). Detections that count as true positives under the lenient threshold but as false positives under the strict threshold are considered mislocalizations. Duplicate detections are also considered mislocalizations. We then consider the performance if either a) all mislocalized instances were removed, or b) all mislocalized instances were correctly localized and duplicates removed.
Figure \[personPR\] shows how the PR curve for the AP$^r$ benchmark changes if mislocalizations are corrected or removed for two categories. For the person category, removing mislocalizations brings precision up to essentially 100%, indicating that mislocalization is the predominant source of false positives. Correcting the mislocalizations provides a huge jump in recall. For the cat category the improvement provided by better localization is much less, indicating that there are still some false positives arising from misclassifications.
We can do this analysis for all categories. The average improvement in AP$^r$ by fixing mislocalization is a measure of the impact of mislocalization on performance. We can also measure impact in this way for other error modes: for instance, false positives on objects of other similar categories, or on background [@HoiemECCV12]. (For defining similar and non-similar categories, we divide object categories into “animals", “transport" and “indoor" groups.) The left subfigure in Figure \[misloc\] shows the result of such an analysis on our best system ([**C**]{}+ref). The dark blue bar shows the AP$^r$ improvement if we remove mislocalized detections and the light blue bar shows the improvement if we correct them. The other two bars show the improvement from removing confusion with similar categories and background. Mislocalization has a huge impact: it sets us back by about 16 percentage points. Compared to that confusion with similar categories or background is virtually non-existent.
We can measure the impact of mislocalization on the other algorithms in Table \[table:APr\] as well, as shown in Table \[table:loc\]. It also shows the upper bound AP$^r$ achievable when all mislocalization is fixed. Improvements in the feature extractor improve the upper bound (indicating fewer misclassifications) but also reduce the gap due to mislocalization (indicating better localization). Refinement doesn’t change the upper bound and only improves localization, as expected.
To get a better handle on what one needs to do to improve localization, we considered two statistics. For each detection and a ground truth, instead of just taking the overlap ([*i.e.* ]{}intersection over union), we can compute the pixel precision (fraction of the region that lies inside the ground truth) and pixel recall (fraction of the ground truth that lies inside the region). It can be shown that having both a pixel precision $>$ 67% and a pixel recall $>$ 67% is guaranteed to give an overlap of greater than 50%. We assign detection labels using pixel precision or pixel recall using a threshold of 67% and compute the respective AP. Comparing these two numbers then gives us a window into the kind of localization errors: a low pixel precision AP indicates that the error mode is overshooting the region and predicting extraneous background pixels, while a low pixel recall AP indicates that the error mode is undershooting the region and missing out some ground truth pixels.
The second half of Figure \[misloc\] shows the difference between pixel precision AP (AP$^{pp}$) and pixel recall AP (AP$^{pr}$). Bars to the left indicate higher pixel recall AP, while bars to the right indicate higher pixel precision AP. For some categories such as person and bird we tend to miss ground truth pixels, whereas for others such as bicycle we tend to leak into the background.
![PR on person(left) and cat(right). Blue is [**C**]{}+ref. Green is if an oracle removes mislocalized predictions, and red is if the oracle corrects our mislocalizations.[]{data-label="personPR"}](figs/person_PR.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![PR on person(left) and cat(right). Blue is [**C**]{}+ref. Green is if an oracle removes mislocalized predictions, and red is if the oracle corrects our mislocalizations.[]{data-label="personPR"}](figs/cat_PR.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
![Left: Improvement in mean AP$^r$ over [**A**]{} due to our 3 variants for a variety of overlap thresholds. We get improvements for all overlap thresholds. Right: A similar plot for AP$^b$. Improvements are relative to R-CNN with Selective Search proposals [@GirshickCVPR14]. As the threshold becomes stricter, the better localization of our approach is apparent.[]{data-label="improvovthresh"}](figs/apr_improv.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![Left: Improvement in mean AP$^r$ over [**A**]{} due to our 3 variants for a variety of overlap thresholds. We get improvements for all overlap thresholds. Right: A similar plot for AP$^b$. Improvements are relative to R-CNN with Selective Search proposals [@GirshickCVPR14]. As the threshold becomes stricter, the better localization of our approach is apparent.[]{data-label="improvovthresh"}](figs/apb_improv.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
![Left: Impact of the three kinds of false positives on mean AP$^r$. L : mislocalization, B : detection on background, and S : misfirings on similar categories. Right: Disambiguating between two kinds of mislocalizations. Bars to the left mean that we frequently overshoot the ground truth, while bars to the right mean that we undershoot. .[]{data-label="misloc"}](figs/ap_impact.pdf "fig:"){width="43.00000%"} ![Left: Impact of the three kinds of false positives on mean AP$^r$. L : mislocalization, B : detection on background, and S : misfirings on similar categories. Right: Disambiguating between two kinds of mislocalizations. Bars to the left mean that we frequently overshoot the ground truth, while bars to the right mean that we undershoot. .[]{data-label="misloc"}](figs/pixelpr.pdf "fig:"){width="46.00000%"}
[**A**]{} [**B**]{} [**C**]{} [**C**]{}+ref
----------------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------------
AP Upper bound 63.0 65.0 65.4 65.5
Loss due to mislocalization 20.1 18.0 17.7 15.8
: Maximum achievable AP$^r$ (assuming perfect localization) and loss in AP$^r$ due to mislocalization for all systems.
\[table:loc\]
Results on AP$^b$ and AP$^b_{vol}$
----------------------------------
Comparison with prior work is easier on the classical bounding box and segmentation metrics. It also helps us evaluate if handling the SDS task also improves performance on the individual tasks. To compare on AP$^b$, we retrain our final region classifiers for the bounding box detection task. This is because the ranking of regions based on bounding box overlap is different from that based on segmentation overlap. As in [@GirshickCVPR14], we use ground truth boxes as positive, and MCG boxes overlapping by less than 50% as negative. At test time we do not do any region refinement.
We add two baselines: R-CNN is the system of Girshick [*et al*. ]{}taken as is, and R-CNN-MCG is R-CNN on boxes from MCG instead of Selective Search. Note that neither of these baselines uses features from the region foreground.
Table \[APb\] shows the mean AP$^b$ and AP$^b_{vol}$. We get improvements over R-CNN on both AP$^b$ and AP$^b_{vol}$, with improvements on the latter metric being somewhat larger. The right half of Figure \[improvovthresh\] shows the variation in AP$^b$ as we vary the overlap threshold for counting something as correct. We plot the improvement in AP$^b$ over vanilla R-CNN. We do worse than R-CNN for low thresholds, but are much better for higher thresholds. This is also true to some extent for R-CNN-MCG, so this is partly a property of MCG, and partly a consequence of our algorithm’s improved localization. Interestingly, [**C**]{} does worse than [**B**]{}. We posit that this is because now the entire network has been finetuned for SDS.
Finally we evaluated [**C**]{} on PASCAL VOC 2012 test. Our mean AP$^b$ of **50.7** is an improvement over the R-CNN mean AP$^b$ of **49.6** (both without bounding box regression), and much better than other systems, such as SegDPM [@FidlerCVPR13] (**40.7**).
R-CNN[@GirshickCVPR14] R-CNN-MCG [**A**]{} [**B**]{} [**C**]{}
------------------- ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Mean AP$^b$ 51.0 51.7 51.9 **53.9** 53.0
Mean AP$^b_{vol}$ 41.9 42.4 43.2 **44.6** 44.2
: Results on AP$^b$ and AP$^b_{vol}$ on VOC12 val. All numbers are %.
\[APb\]
Results on pixel IU
-------------------
For the semantic segmentation task, we convert the output of our final system ([**C**]{}+ref) into a pixel-level category labeling using the simple pasting scheme proposed by Carreira [*et al*. ]{}[@CarreiraECCV12]. We cross validate the hyperparameters of this pasting step on the VOC11 segmentation Val set. The results are in Table \[pixelIU\]. We compare to O$_2$P [@CarreiraECCV12] and R-CNN which are the current state-of-the-art on this task. We advance the state-of-the-art by about 5 points, or 10% relative.
To conclude, our pipeline achieves good results on the SDS task while improving state-of-the-art in object detection and semantic segmentation. Figure \[fig:examples\] shows examples of the output of our system.
\[pixelIU\]
![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2010_002211_14192_15_in.jpg "fig:"){width="8.50000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2010_002211_14192_15_out.jpg "fig:"){width="8.50000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2010_000174_12676_15_in.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2010_000174_12676_15_out.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2009_004300_11766_15_in.jpg "fig:"){width="8.50000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2009_004300_11766_15_out.jpg "fig:"){width="8.50000%"}\
![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2009_004303_11835_2_in.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2009_004303_11835_2_out.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2009_003224_10863_2_in.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2009_003224_10863_2_out.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2011_002200_19172_11_in.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2011_002200_19172_11_out.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"}\
![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2010_005788_17013_17_in.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2010_005788_17013_17_out.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2009_003840_11310_9_in.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2009_003840_11310_9_out.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2008_006817_6342_8_in.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"} ![ Top detections: 3 persons, 2 bikes, diningtable, sheep, chair, cat. We can handle uncommon pose and clutter and are able to resolve individual instances. []{data-label="fig:examples"}](figs/qualitative_res/2008_006817_6342_8_out.jpg "fig:"){width="14.00000%"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the effects of pressure anisotropy and heat dissipation in a spherically symmetric radiating star undergoing gravitational collapse. An exact solution of the Einstein field equations is presented in which the model has a Friedmann-like limit when the heat flux vanishes. The behaviour of the temperature profile of the evolving star is investigated within the framework of causal thermodynamics. In particular, we show that there are significant differences between the relaxation time for the heat flux and the relaxation time for the shear stress.'
address: 'Astrophysics and Cosmology Research Unit, School of Mathematical Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa'
author:
- 'N F Naidu [^1]'
- 'M Govender [^2]'
- 'K S Govinder [^3]'
title: Thermal evolution of a radiating anisotropic star with shear
---
Introduction
============
It has been shown that the role of anisotropy can alter the evolution and subsequently the physical properties of stellar objects. As an example, investigations have shown that the maximal surface redshift for anisotropic stars may differ drastically from isotropic stars. The origin of anisotropy within the stellar core has received widespread attention amongst astrophysicists. A review of the origins and effects of local anisotropy in stellar objects was carried out by Herrera and Santos[@hers], and Chan [*et al*]{}[@chan1] and more recently by Herrera [*et al*]{}[@hers1]. The physical processes that are responsible for deviations from isotropy can be investigated in the high and low density regimes. Hartle [*et al*]{}[@hart] have shown that pion condensation at nuclear densities ($0.2 f^{-3} < \rho < 2.0
f^{-3}$, $1 f = 10^{-13}$ cm) can drastically reduce the pressure and hence impact on the evolution of the collapsing star. At higher densities the short range repulsion effects dominate which damp out the pionic effects giving rise to significantly different values for the pressure. As pointed out by Martinez[@mart1] viscosity effects due to neutrino trapping at nuclear densities can alter the gravitational collapse of a radiating, viscous star. Anisotropic velocity distributions and rotation can induce local anisotropy in low density systems.
The boundary of a radiating star divides spacetime into two distinct regions, the interior and the exterior region. In order to fully describe the evolution of such a system, one needs to satisfy the junctions conditions for the smooth matching of the interior and exterior spacetimes. In the case of a shear-free, spherically symmetric star undergoing dissipative gravitational collapse these conditions were first derived by Santos[@santos]. Subsequently, many models of shear-free radiative collapse were developed and the physical viability of these models were studied in great detail[@kolas; @kram; @gram2; @gov1; @gov2]. These junction conditions were later generalised to include pressure anisotropy[@chan2] and the electromagnetic field[[@ma]]{}.
There are a few exact solutions to the Einstein field equations for a bounded shearing matter configuration. There have been numerous attempts to produce models of radiative gravitational collapse which incorporate the effects of shear[@barr; @chan3; @herr]. Most treatments to date are based on numerical results as the resulting temporal evolution equation derived from the junction conditions is highly nonlinear[@chan3]. It is in this spirit that we seek an exact solution of the Einstein field equations which represents a spherically symmetric radiating star undergoing dissipative gravitational collapse with nonzero shear.
In this treatment, we consider the relaxation effects due to the heat flux and shear separately. We show that earlier assumptions of the relaxation time being proportional to the corresponding collision time only hold for a limited regime of the evolution of the star. These results agree with earlier suggestions by Anile [*et al*]{}[@anile]. We are also in a position to integrate the causal heat transport equation and obtain the corresponding causal temperature profile in the interior of the star.
This paper is organised as follows. In section 2, we provide the Einstein field equations for the most general, nonrotating, spherically symmetric line element. The energy momentum tensor for the interior spacetime is that of an imperfect fluid with heat conduction and pressure anisotropy. In section 3, the junction conditions required for the smooth matching of the interior and exterior spacetimes across a time-like hypersurface are presented. The transport equations for the dissipative fluxes within the framework of causal thermodynamics are presented in section 4. The general solution for the special case of constant mean collision time in both the causal and noncausal theories are presented. The junction conditions are used to generate a reasonable model of radiating anisotropic collapse in section 5. When the heat flux vanishes, our model tends towards a Friedmann-like limit, similar to the result obtained for the shear-free case studied by Kolassis [*et al*]{}[@kolas]. A discussion of some relevant physical parameters is presented in section 6.
Spherically symmetric Spacetimes
================================
The interior spacetime of a non-rotating spherically symmetric collapsing star is most generally described by the line element (in coordinates $(x^a) = (t, r, \theta, \phi)$) $$\label{a9}ds^2 = -A^2dt^2 + B^2dr^2 + Y^2(d\theta^2
+ \sin^2{\theta}d\phi^2)\,,$$ where $A$, $B$ and $Y$ are functions of the coordinates $t$ and $r$. The fluid four–velocity ${\bf u}$ is comoving and is given by $$u^a = \frac{1}{A}\delta^{a}_0 \,.$$ The kinematical quantities for the line element (\[a9\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a10} {\dot u}^a
&=&
\left(0, \frac{A^{\prime}}{AB^2}, 0, 0\right) \label{a10b}\\ \nonumber \\
\Theta &=& \frac{1}{A}\left(\frac{\dot B}{B} + 2 \frac{\dot
Y}{Y}\right) \label{a10c},
\end{aligned}$$ where ${\dot u}^a$ is the four–acceleration vector and $\Theta$ is the expansion scalar. The nonzero components of the shearing tensor are given by[@chan1] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{shear} {\sigma}_{11} &=&
\frac{2B^2}{3A}\left(\frac{{\dot B}}{B} - \frac{{\dot
Y}}{Y}\right)\label{sheara}\\ \nonumber \\ {\sigma}_{22} &=&
-\frac{2Y^2}{3A}\left(\frac{{\dot B}}{B} - \frac{{\dot
Y}}{Y}\right)\label{shearb}\\ \nonumber \\ {\sigma}_{33} &=&
\sigma_{22} \sin^2{\theta} .\end{aligned}$$ The magnitude of the shear scalar is given by $${\sigma_{ab}}{\sigma^{ab}} = \sigma =
-\frac{1}{3A}\left(\frac{{\dot B}}{B} - \frac{{\dot
Y}}{Y}\right)\,.$$ For a relativistic fluid, the kinematical quantities are important for studying the evolution of the system. The interior matter distribution is described by the following energy–momentum tensor $$T_{ab} = (\rho + p)u_a u_b + p g_{ab} + {\pi}_{ab} + q_a u_b
+ q_b u_a \label{u6}\,,$$ where $p$ is the isotropic pressure, $\rho$ is the density of the fluid, ${\bf \pi}_{ab}$ is the stress tensor and $q_a$ is the heat flux vector. The stress tensor takes the form $${\pi}_{ab} = (p_R - p_T)(n_an_b -
\frac{1}{3}h_{ab})\,,$$ where $p_R$ is the radial pressure, $p_T$ is the tangential pressure, and ${\bf n}$ is a unit radial vector given by $$n^a = \frac{1}{B}\delta_1^a\,.$$ The isotropic pressure $p$ is related to the radial pressure and the tangential pressure via $$p = \frac{1}{3}[p_R + 2 p_T]\,.$$ The coupled Einstein field equations for the interior matter distribution become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a18} \rho &=&
\frac{2}{A^2}\frac{{\dot B}}{B}\frac{\dot Y}{Y} + \frac{1}{Y^2} +
\frac{1}{A^2}\frac{{\dot Y}^2}{Y^2}\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&&- \frac{1}{B^2} \left( 2\frac{Y^{\prime\prime}}{Y} +
\frac{{Y^{\prime}}^2}{Y^2} -
2\frac{B^{\prime}}{B}\frac{Y^{\prime}}{Y} \right) \label{a18a} \\ \nonumber \\
p_R &=& \frac{1}{A^2} \left(-2\frac{\ddot Y}{Y} - \frac{{\dot
Y}^2}{Y^2} +
2\frac{\dot A}{A}\frac{\dot Y}{Y} \right) \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{B^2} \left(\frac{{Y^{\prime}}^2}{Y^2} +
2\frac{A^{\prime}}{A}\frac{Y^{\prime}}{Y} \right) - \frac{1}{Y^2}
\label{a18b} \\ \nonumber \\
p_T &=& -\frac{1}{A^2}\left(\frac{\ddot B}{B} - \frac{\dot
A}{A}\frac{\dot B}{B} + \frac{\dot B}{B}\frac{\dot Y}{Y} -
\frac{\dot A}{A}\frac{\dot Y}{Y} + \frac{\ddot Y}{Y}\right)
\nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{1}{B^2}\left(\frac{A^{\prime\prime}}{A} -
\frac{A^{\prime}}{A}\frac{B^{\prime}}{B} + \frac{A^{\prime}}{A}\frac{Y^{\prime}}{Y} -
\frac{B^{\prime}}{B}\frac{Y^{\prime}}{Y} + \frac{Y^{\prime\prime}}{Y}\right) \label{a18c}
\\ \nonumber \\ q &=& -\frac{2}{AB^2} \left(-\frac{{\dot Y}^{\prime}}{Y} + \frac{\dot
B}{B}\frac{Y^{\prime}}{Y} + \frac{A^{\prime}}{A}\frac{\dot Y}{Y} \right) . \label{a18d}
\end{aligned}$$ In the above we have defined $$q = q^1\,,$$ where $q^a = (0, q^1, 0, 0)$. The field equations (\[a18a\])–(\[a18d\]) describe the gravitational interaction of a shearing matter distribution with heat flux and anisotropic pressure.
Spherical collapse with heat flow
=================================
The problem of gravitational collapse within the context of general relativity was first investigated by Oppenheimer and Snyder[@snyder] in which the interior matter distribution was taken to be dust with the exterior spacetime being Schwarzschild. With the discovery of the Vaidya solution[@vaidya], it became possible to study radiative gravitational collapse where the collapsing core radiated energy to the exterior spacetime[@santos; @kram; @herr; @bon1]. The Vaidya solution which describes the exterior spacetime of a radiating star is given by $$\label{v1} ds^2 = - \left( 1 -
\frac{2m(v)}{{\sf{r}}}\right) dv^2 - 2dvd{\sf{r}} + {\sf{r}}^2
\left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta d\phi^2 \right)\,$$ in the coordinates $(x^a) = (v, {\sf r}, \theta, \phi)$. The quantity $m$($v$) represents the Newtonian mass of the gravitating body as measured by an observer at infinity. The metric (\[v1\]) is the unique spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein field equations for radiation in the form of a null fluid. The Einstein tensor for the line element (\[v1\]) is given by $$\label{v2} G_{ab} =
-\frac{2}{{\sf{r}}^2}\frac{dm}{dv} \delta^0_a \delta^0_b\,.$$ The energy–momentum tensor for null radiation assumes the form $$\label{v3} T_{ab} = {\epsilon}w_{a}w_{b}\,,$$ where the null four–vector ${\bf w}$ is given by $w_a = (1, 0, 0, 0)$. Thus from (\[v2\]) and (\[v3\]) we have that $$\label{v4} {\epsilon} = -\frac{2}{{\sf{r}}^2}\frac{dm}{dv}$$ for the energy density of the null radiation. Since the star is radiating energy to the exterior spacetime we must have $\displaystyle\frac{dm}{dv} \leq 0 $.
In deriving the junction conditions we employ the Darmois conditions as these were shown to be the most convenient and reliable[@bon2]. Here we merely state the results of the matching of the line elements (\[a9\]) and (\[v1\]) since these conditions have been extensively investigated in the past. For a more comprehensive treatment of the junction conditions the reader is referred to the works of Glass[@glass2], Chan[@chan2; @chan3] and Govender [*et al*]{}[@gov2].
We require that the metrics (\[a9\]) and (\[v1\]) match smoothly across the boundary $\Sigma$. This generates the first junction condition $$\label{25} (ds^2_-)_{\Sigma} = (ds^2_+)_{\Sigma}
= ds^2_{\Sigma} \,.$$ (We use the notation $(\hspace{0.2cm})_{\Sigma} $ to represent the value of $(\hspace{0.2cm})$ on $\Sigma$.) The second junction condition is obtained by requiring continuity of the extrinsic curvature across the boundary. This gives $$\label{26}
K^+_{ij} = K^-_{ij} \,,$$ where $$\label{27} K^{\pm}_{ij} \equiv -n^{\pm}_a
\displaystyle\frac{{{\partial}^2\cal{X}}^{a}_{\pm}}{{\partial\xi}^{i}{\partial\
xi}^j} -n^{\pm}_{a} \Gamma^{a}{}_{cd}
\displaystyle\frac{{\partial\cal{X}}^{c}_{\pm}}{{\partial\xi}^{i}}\displaystyle
\frac{{\partial\cal{X}}^{d}_{\pm}}{{\partial\xi}^{j}}\,,$$ and $ n_{a}^{\pm}$(${\cal{X}}^b_{\pm}$) are the components of the vector normal to $\Sigma$. We find that the necessary and sufficient conditions on the spacetimes for the first junction condition to be valid are that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b15} A(r_{\Sigma}, t)dt &=&
\left( 1 - \displaystyle\frac{2m}{{\sf r}_{\Sigma}} +
2\displaystyle\frac{d{\sf r}_{\Sigma}}{dv} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}}dv
\label{b15a} \\ \nonumber \\ Y(r_{\Sigma}, t) &=& {\sf
r}_{\Sigma}(v) \label{b15b} .\end{aligned}$$ By equating the appropriate extrinsic curvature components for the interior and exterior spacetimes we generate the second set of junction conditions which are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b20} m(v)
&=&
\left[\frac{Y}{2}\left(1 + \frac{{Y_t}^2}{A^2} - \frac{{Y_r}^2}{B^2}
\right)\right]_{\Sigma} \label{b20a} \\ \nonumber \\ (p_R)_{\Sigma} &=&
(qB)_{\Sigma} \label{b20b} ,\end{aligned}$$ where we may interpret $m(v)$ as representing the total gravitational mass within the surface $\Sigma$. The expression (\[b20a\]) corresponds to the mass function of Cahill and McVittie[@cah] representing spheres of radius $r$ inside $\Sigma$.
The important result $(p_R)_{\Sigma} = (qB)_{\Sigma}$, relating the radial pressure $p_R$ to the heat flow $q$, was first established by Santos[@santos] for shear–free spacetimes. The first attempt to generalise the above junction conditions to include shear for neutral matter was carried out by Glass[@glass2].
The equations (\[b15\])–(\[b20b\]) are the most general matching conditions for the spherically symmetric spacetimes ${\cal{M}}^{+}$ and ${\cal{M}}^{-}$. Relation (\[b20b\]) implies that the radial pressure $p_R$ is proportional to the magnitude of the heat flow $q$ which is non-vanishing in general.
The total luminosity for an observer at rest at infinity is given by $$\label{b25} L_{\infty}(v) =
-\left(\displaystyle\frac{dm}{dv}\right)_{\Sigma} =
\frac{(p_R)_{\Sigma}}{2}\left[Y^2\left(\frac{Y^{\prime}}{B} + {\dot
Y}\right)^2\right]_{\Sigma} \,,$$ where $\displaystyle\frac{dm}{dv}
\leq 0$ since $L_{\infty}$ is positive. An observer with four–velocity $v^a = (\dot{v}, \dot{\sf{r}}, 0, 0)$ located on $\Sigma$ has proper time $ \eta $ related to the time $ t $ by $ d
\eta = Adt $. The radiation energy density that this observer measures on $ \Sigma $ is $${\epsilon}_{\Sigma} =
\frac{1}{4\pi}\left(-\displaystyle\frac{{\dot{v}}^2}{{\sf {r}}^2}
\displaystyle\frac{dm}{dv} \right)_{\Sigma} \,,$$ and the luminosity observed on $ \Sigma$ can be written as $$L_{\Sigma} = 4{\pi}{\sf{r}}^2{\epsilon}_{\Sigma} \,.$$ The boundary redshift $z_{\Sigma}$ of the radiation emitted by the star is given by $$\label{b26} 1 +
z_{\Sigma} = \displaystyle\frac{dv}{d \eta}=
\left(\frac{Y^{\prime}}{B} + {\dot Y}\right)^{-1}_{\Sigma}$$ which can be used to determine the time of formation of the horizon. The above expressions allow us to write $$1 + z_{\Sigma} =
\left(\frac{L_{\Sigma}}{L_{\infty}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ which relates the luminosities $L_{\Sigma}$ to $L_{\infty}$. The redshift for an observer at infinity diverges at the time of formation of the horizon which is determined from $$\frac{Y^{\prime}}{B} + {\dot Y} =
0\,.$$
Thermodynamics
==============
Previous treatments of heat flow in relativistic stellar models have shown that relaxational effects play a significant role in the evolution of the temperature and luminosity profiles during late stages of collapse[@mart1; @gov1; @gov2; @di]. Since we are interested in the effects of shear within the stellar core, we employ the causal transport equations for the heat flux and the shear stress. Assuming there is no viscous/heat coupling, we have the following relevant transport equations for the dissipative fluxes[@maart2] $$\begin{aligned}
{\tau} h_a{}^b {\dot q}_{b} + q_a &=& -\kappa(D_a T + T {\dot
u}^a) - \left[\frac{1}{2}\kappa T^2\left(\frac{{\tau}_1}{\kappa
T^2}u^b\right)_{;b} q_a\right]\,\label{ctc}\\ \nonumber \\ {\tau}_1
h_a{}^ch_b{}^d {\dot {\pi}}_{cd} + {\pi}_{ab} &=&
-2\eta{\sigma}_{ab} - \left[\eta T\left(\frac{{\tau}_2}{2\eta
T}u^d\right)_{;d} {\pi}_{ab}\right]\,, \label{ctb} \end{aligned}$$ where ${\tau}$ and ${\tau}_1$ are the relaxation times of thermal and shear viscous signals respectively. The truncated transport equations, together with the no–coupling assumption are differential equations of Maxwell–Catteneo form $$\begin{aligned}
{\tau} h_a{}^b {\dot q}_{b} + q_a &=& -\kappa(D_a T + T {\dot
u}^a) \label{cmc}\\ \nonumber \\ {\tau}_1 h_a{}^ch_b{}^d {\dot
{\pi}}_{cd} + {\pi}_{ab} &=& -2\eta{\sigma}_{ab} \label{cmb}.\end{aligned}$$ Setting $\tau=\tau_1 = 0$ in the above, we regain the so-called Eckart transport equations which predict infinite propagation velocities for the dissipative fluxes.
In this paper we are primarily interested in heat transport in relativistic astrophysics and hence (\[cmc\]) plays a significant role in determining the evolution of the causal temperature profile of our models. For the line element (\[a9\]) the causal transport equation (\[cmc\]) becomes $$\label{ca1}
\tau(qB)_{,t} + A(qB) = -\kappa \frac{(AT)_{,r}}{B}$$ which governs the behaviour of the temperature. Setting $\tau = 0$ in (\[ca1\]) we obtain the familiar Fourier heat transport equation $$\label{ca2} A(qB) = -\kappa
\frac{(AT)_{,r}}{B}$$ which predicts reasonable temperatures when the fluid is close to quasi–stationary equilibrium.
For a physically reasonable model, we use the thermodynamic coefficients for radiative transfer outlined in Mart[í]{}nez[@mart1]. We consider the situation where energy is carried away from the stellar core by massless particles that are thermally generated with energies of the order of $kT$. The thermal conductivity takes the form $$\kappa =\gamma
T^3{\tau}_{\rm c} \label{a28}\,,$$ where $\gamma$ ($\geq0$) is a constant and ${\tau}_{\rm c}$ is the mean collision time between the massless and massive particles. Based on this treatment we assume the power–law behaviour $$\label{a29} \tau_{\rm c}
=\left({\alpha\over\gamma}\right) T^{-\omega} \,,$$ where $\alpha$ ($\geq 0$) and $\omega$ ($\geq 0$) are constants. With $\omega={3\over2}$ we regain the case of thermally generated neutrinos in neutron stars. The mean collision time decreases with growing temperature, as expected, except for the special case $\omega=0$, when it is constant. This special case can only give a reasonable model for a limited range of temperature. Following Mart[í]{}nez[@mart1], we assume that the velocity of thermal dissipative signals is comparable to the adiabatic sound speed which is satisfied if the relaxation time is proportional to the collision time: $$\tau =\left({\beta \gamma \over
\alpha}\right) \tau_{\rm c} \label{a30}\,,$$ where $\tau$ ($\geq 0$)is a constant. We can think of $\tau$ as the ‘causality’ index, measuring the strength of relaxational effects, with $\tau=0$ giving the noncausal case.
Using the above definitions for $\tau$ and $\kappa$, (\[ca1\]) takes the form $$\beta (qB)_{,t} T^{-\omega} + A (q
B) = - \alpha \frac{T^{3-\omega} (AT)_{,r}}{B} \label{temp1}
\,.$$ When $\beta=0$, we can find all noncausal solutions of (\[temp1\]), [*viz.*]{} $$\begin{aligned}
(AT)^{4-\omega}&=&\frac{\omega-4}{\alpha} \int A^{4-\omega} q B^2
{\rm d} r
+ F(t) \qquad \omega \ne 4\nonumber \label{noncausg}\\
\ln (AT) &=& - \frac{1}{\alpha}\int qB^2{\rm d} r + F(t)
\qquad \omega=4 \label{noncaus4}
,\end{aligned}$$ where $F(t)$ is an arbitrary function of integration. This is fixed by the expression for the temperature of the star at its surface $\Sigma$.
In the case of constant mean collision time, [*ie.*]{} $\omega=0$, the causal transport equation (\[temp1\]) is simply integrated to yield $$(AT)^4 = - \frac{4}{\alpha} \left[\beta\int A^3 B
(qB)_{,t}{\rm d} r + \int A^4 q B^2 {\rm d} r\right] + F(t)
\label{caus0}$$ while one solution valid for a less limited range of temperature can be found for $\omega=4$, which corresponds to nonconstant collision time[@gov3]: $$\begin{aligned}
(AT)^4 &=& -\frac{4
\beta}{\alpha}\exp\left(-\int\frac{4qB^2}{\alpha} {\rm d} r\right)
\int A^3 B (qB)_{,t} \exp\left(\int\frac{4qB^2}{\alpha} {\rm d}
r\right){\rm d} r \nonumber \\
&&\mbox{}+ F(t) \exp\left(-\int\frac{4qB^2}{\alpha} {\rm d}
r\right) \label{caus4} .\end{aligned}$$ In order to investigate the relaxational effects due to shear we utilise (\[cmb\]) as a definition for the relaxation time for the shear stress. For the metric (\[a9\]) the shear transport equation (\[cmb\]) reduces to $${\tau}_1 = \frac{-P}{\dot{P} + \frac{8}{15}r_0\sigma
T^4},$$ where we have used the coefficient of shear viscosity for a radiative fluid[@maart2] $$\label{eta}
\eta = \frac{4}{15}r_0T^4\tau_1,$$ $P=
\frac{1}{3}\left(p_T - p_R\right)$ and $r_0$ is the radiation constant for photons. We have further assumed that $\tau_1 = \beta_1 \tau_c$.
Radiating anisotropic collapse
==============================
The junction condition $(p_R)_{\Sigma} = (qB)_{\Sigma}$ yields $$\left[ 2Y{\ddot Y} + {\dot Y}^2 - \frac{{Y^{\prime}}^2}{B^2} +
\frac{2}{B}Y{\dot Y}^{\prime} - 2\frac{{\dot B}}{B^2} Y Y^{\prime} +
1\right]_{\Sigma} = 0 \label{x},$$ where we have set $A(r,t) = 1$. A particular solution of (\[x\]) is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fun}
Y &=& rt^{2/3} \label{fun1}\\ \nonumber \\
B &=& \left( \frac{1 + c_1(r)e^{\frac{3t^{1/3}}{r}}}{1 -
c_1(r)e^{\frac{3t^{1/3}}{r}}}\right)t^{2/3} \label{fun2}\end{aligned}$$ which yields the line element $$ds^2 = -dt^2 + t^{4/3}\left[\left( \frac{1 +
c_1(r)e^{\frac{3t^{1/3}}{r}}}{1 -
c_1(r)e^{\frac{3t^{1/3}}{r}}}\right)^2dr^2 + r^2
d{\Omega}^2\right]\label{line}\,.$$ With this form of the line element, the field equations (\[a18\])–(\[a18d\]) become $$\begin{aligned}
\label{efe}\rho &=& \frac{4}{3\,t^2}\,\left( 1 +
\frac{1}{r^3} \left( \frac{r^2\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}
{1 - e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,c_1(r)} +
\frac{18\,t}
{{\left( 1 +
e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,c_1(r)
\right) }^3}
\right. \right.\nonumber \\
&&\mbox{} \left.-
\frac{3\,\left( r\,t^{\frac{2}{3}} + 9\,t
\right) }{{\left( 1 +
e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,c_1(r)
\right) }^2} +
\frac{-\left( r^2\,t^{\frac{1}{3}} \right) +
3\,r\,t^{\frac{2}{3}} + 9\,t}{1 +
e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,c_1(r)} \right) \nonumber \\
&&\mbox{} \left.-
\frac{3\,e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,
t^{\frac{2}{3}}\,
\left( -1 + e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,
c_1(r) \right) \,c_1'(r)}{r\,
{\left( 1 + e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,
c_1(r) \right) }^3} \right) \label{efe1}\\
p_R &=& \frac{-4\,e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,c_1(r)}
{t^{\frac{4}{3}}\,{\left( r +
e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,r\,c_1(r) \right)
}^2} \label{efe2}\\
p_T &=& \frac{2}{3\,r^3\,t^{\frac{5}{3}}} \left(
\frac{-3\,r\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}
{{\left( -1 + e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,
c_1(r) \right) }^2} +
\frac{r\,\left( 2\,r - 3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}} \right) }
{-1 + e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,c_1(r)} \right. \nonumber \\
&&\mbox{}+
\frac{9\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}\,
\left( 3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}\,c_1(r) -
r^2\,c_1'(r) \right) }{c_1(r)\,
{\left( 1 + e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,
c_1(r) \right) }^2} +
\frac{6\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}\,
\left( -3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}\,c_1(r) +
r^2\,c_1'(r) \right) }{c_1(r)\,
{\left( 1 + e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,
c_1(r) \right) }^3} \nonumber \\
&&\mbox{}\left.+
\frac{2\,r^2\,c_1(r) - 9\,t^{\frac{2}{3}}\,c_1(r) +
3\,r^2\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}\,c_1'(r)}{c_1(r) +
e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,{c_1(r)}^2}
\right) \label{efe3}\\
q &=& \frac{4\,e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,c_1(r)\,
\left( -1 + e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,
c_1(r) \right) }{r^2\,t^2\,
{\left( 1 + e^{\frac{3\,t^{\frac{1}{3}}}{r}}\,
c_1(r) \right) }^3}\label{efe4}.\end{aligned}$$
In the absence of heat flux ($c_1 = 0$) our model yields $$\begin{aligned}
Y &=& rt^{2/3} \label{f1}\\ \nonumber \\
B &=& t^{2/3} \label{f2} \\ \nonumber \\
\rho &=& \frac{4}{3t^2} \label{f3} \\ \nonumber \\
p_R &=& p_T = 0 .\end{aligned}$$ (Note that the solution presented above is not simply obtained by substituting $c_1 = 0$ into (\[efe1\])–(\[efe4\]). Rather, one must go back to the original metric and then derive the field equations [*ab initio*]{}.) The above solution represents a dust sphere and the metric is described by the Einstein–de Sitter solution. We note that when $q = 0$ the pressure must vanish which allows for the matter to have free-fall motion. For $q \neq 0$, the pressure is non-vanishing so that it compensates for the outgoing heat flux thus allowing for free-fall motion. With this in mind we expect that the luminosity radius of the star in both the radiative and non-radiative cases have the same temporal dependence. Calculating the luminosity radius for our radiating model, we obtain $$Y_{\Sigma} = bt^{2/3}$$ which is independent of $c_1$. Hence the case $c_1 = 0$ reduces to the model investigated by Oppenheimer and Snyder[@snyder].
Physical considerations
=======================
In order to check the physical viability of our model, we investigate the evolution of the temperature profile within the framework of extended irreversible thermodynamics.
Utilising (\[caus0\]) and (\[line\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tt1} T^4 &=& \frac{L_{\infty}}{(4\pi
\delta Y^2)_{\Sigma}} + \frac{16\beta c_1}{3\alpha
t^{5/3}}\left[\frac{e^{3t^{1/3}/b}}{b(1 + c_1e^{3t^{1/3}/b})} -
\frac{e^{3t^{1/3}/r}}{r(1 + c_1e^{3t^{1/3}/r})}\right] \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{16}{9\alpha t^2}\left\{\log{\left[\left(\frac{-1 +
c_1e^{3t^{1/3}/b}}{-1 + c_1e^{3t^{1/3}/r}}\right)^2 \left(\frac{1
+ c_1e^{3t^{1/3}/r}}{1 +
c_1e^{3t^{1/3}/b}}\right)^3\right]}\right\}\nonumber \\ \nonumber
\\ && +\frac{16}{3\alpha t}\left[\tanh^{-1}({c_1e^{2t^{1/3}/b}}) -
\tanh^{-1}({c_1e^{2t^{1/3}/r}})\right] .\end{aligned}$$ where $L_{\infty}$ is given by (\[b25\]). We note that the causal and the noncausal ($\beta = 0$) temperatures coincide at the boundary ($r = b$): $$T(t,b)=\tilde{T}(t,b) \,
\label{t1}\,.$$
However, Figure \[fig1\] shows that at all interior points, the causal and non-causal temperatures differ. In particular, we observe that the causal temperature is greater than the non-causal temperature at each interior point of the star. For small values of $\beta$, the temperature profile is similar to that of the non-causal theory; but as $\beta$ is increased, i.e. as relaxational effects grow, it is clear from Figure \[fig1\] that the temperature profile can deviate substantially from that of the non-causal theory. Similar results were obtained in the shear-free models studied by Herrera and Santos[@hers] and Govender [*et al*]{}[@gov1; @gov2]. Also, from the plots in Figure \[fig2\] the relaxation time for the shear stress exhibits substantially different behaviour when the fluid is close to hydrostatic equilibrium as opposed to late-time collapse. In particular, we find that $$\frac{(\tau_{1})_{early}} {(\tau_{1})_{late}} \approx
100,$$ emphasizing the importance of relaxational effects during the different stages of collapse. We further note that while the relaxation time for the heat flux is taken to be constant, the relaxation time for the shear stress increases as the collapse proceeds.
Making use of (\[a9\]) and (\[fun2\]) the proper radius can be written as $$\label{nolene74}
R = \int_0^{r_{\Sigma}}Bdr = t^{2/3}\int_0^{r_{\Sigma}} \left(
\frac{1 + c_1e^{\frac{3t^{1/3}}{r}}}{1 -
c_1e^{\frac{3t^{1/3}}{r}}}\right) dr.$$ Numerical integration of (\[nolene74\]) (with $c_1(r)=-1$) shows that the proper radius is a decreasing function of time. This is expected as the star is contracting and losing mass. From Figure \[fig3\] we note that the proper radius decreases at a faster rate during the latter stages of collapse.
Discussion
==========
We have successfully provided an analytical model of a radiating star undergoing gravitational collapse with non-vanishing shear. This model has a Friedmann-like limit when the heat flux vanishes. We further showed that the causal temperature (representing the stellar fluid out of hydrostatic equilibrium) is higher than the noncausal temperature at all points of the star. Further analysis revealed that the relaxation time for the shear stress (taken to be proportional to the mean collision time) increases radially outwards, towards the surface of the star. This is expected, as the outer layers of the fluid are cooler than the central regions. Of particular significance is the result that the relaxation time for the heat flux (in our case taken to be constant) differs from the relaxation time for the shear stress. This is contrary to earlier treatments where it was assumed that $(\tau_{r})_{heat} \approx (\tau_{r})_{shear}$[@mart1; @herr].
As presented above, the solution (\[line\]) together with (\[efe1\])–(\[efe4\]) admits singularities at $t=0, r=0$ and $1\pm c_1(r)\exp(3t^{1/3}/r)=0$. The first singularity is avoided by noting that the life of the star is usually taken to start at $t=-\infty$ and end at $t=0$. The model we present here is really suitable for the early life of a star. In fact, one can show that a black hole arises as $t\longrightarrow 0$. This consideration also takes care of the third case. For early times (large negative values of $t$ in which we only take real roots) $\exp(3t^{1/3}/r)<<1$ and so the expression does not evaluate to zero regardless of the sign taken.
The singularity at $r=0$ can be avoided if the solution presented is viewed as an “envelope” with a core represented by a metric of the form $$ds^2 = - A_0(r)^2 dt^2 +B_0(r)^2(f(t)^2 dr^2 + r^2 g(t)^2 d\Omega^2), \label{core}$$ where $A_0$ and $B_0$ represent a [*known*]{} static solution (See Govender [*et al*]{}[@sharma] for a further discussion of this approach.). It is a simple matter[@gg2005] to match (\[core\]) to (\[line\]) at some inner boundary $r_0$. Since (\[core\]) is not singular at $r=0$, this singularity is avoided.
To make a more realistic comparison of the relaxation times, one requires an analytic solution of the causal temperature equation for non-constant relaxation times. Future work in this direction will also require the comparison of the various relaxation times using the truncated and full transport equations.
[0]{} L. Herrera and N. O. Santos, [*Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**287**]{} 161 (1997). R. Chan, M. F. A. da Silva, and Jaime F. Villas da Rocha, [*[J. Math. Phys.]{}*]{} [**D12**]{}, 347 (2003). L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, J. Martin, J. Ospino, N. O. Santos and O. Troconis, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**69**]{} 084026 (2004). J. B. Hartle, R. F. Sawyer and D. J. Scalapino, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**199**]{} 471 (1975). J. Mart$\acute{i}$nez, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**53**]{}, 6921 (1996). N. O. Santos, [*Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**216**]{}, 403 (1985). C. A. Kolassis, N. O. Santos and D. Tsoubelis, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**327**]{}, 755 (1988). D. Kramer, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**33**]{}, 1458 (1992). T. Grammenos, [*Il Nuovo Cimento B*]{} [**110**]{}, 197 (1995). M. Govender, S. D. Maharaj and R. Maartens, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**15**]{}, 323 (1998). M. Govender, R. Maartens and S. D. Maharaj, [*Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**310**]{}, 557 (1999). R. Chan, L. Herrera and N. O. Santos, [*Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**267**]{}, 637 (1994). S. D. Maharaj and M. Govender, [*Pramana - J. Phys.*]{} [**54**]{}, 715 (2000). W. Barreto, L. Herrera and N. Santos, [*Astrophys. Space Sci.*]{} [**187**]{}, 271 (1992). R. Chan, [*Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**316**]{}, 588 (2000). L. Herrera and J. Mart$\acute{i}$nez, [*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} [**30**]{}, 445 (1998). A. M. Anile, D. Pav[ó]{}n and V. Romano Report gr-qc/9810014 (1998). J. R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**56**]{}, 455 (1939). P. C. Vaidya, [*Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. A*]{} [**33**]{}, 264 (1951). W. B. Bonnor, A. K. G. de Oliveira N. O. Santos, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**181**]{}, 269 (1989). W. B. Bonnor and P. A. Vickers, [*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} [**13**]{} 29 (1981). E. N. Glass, [*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} [**21**]{}, 733 (1989). M. E. Cahill and G. C. McVittie, [*[J. Math. Phys.]{}*]{} [**11**]{}, 1382 (1970). A. Di Prisco, L. Herrera and M. Esculpi, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**13**]{}, 1053 (1996). R. Maartens, [*Proceedings of the Hanno Rund Conference*]{}, edited by S. D. Maharaj (Durban: University of Kwazulu-Natal) (1996). M. Govender and K. S. Govinder, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**283**]{}, 71 (2001). M. Govender, K. S. Govinder, S. D. Maharaj, R. Sharma, S. Mukherjee, and T. K. Dey, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. D*]{} [**12**]{}, 667 (2003). M. Govender and K. S. Govinder, [*Manuscript in preparation*]{} (2005).
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Experimental realizations of disorder in optical lattices generate a distribution of the Bose-Hubbard (BH) parameters, like on-site potentials, hopping strengths, and interaction energies. We analyze this distribution for bosons in a 2d bichromatic quasi-periodic potential by determining the generalized Wannier functions and calculating the corresponding BH parameters. Using a local mean-field cluster analysis, we study the effect of the corresponding disorder on the phase diagrams. We find a substantial amount of disorder in the hopping strengths, which produces strong deviations from the phase diagram of the disordered BH model with purely random on-site potentials.'
address: 'Theoretical Physics, Saarland University , D–66041 Saarbrücken, Germany'
author:
- 'A.E.Niederle and H.Rieger'
title: 'Bosons in a 2d bichromatic quasi-periodic potential: Analysis of the disorder in the Bose-Hubbard parameters and phase diagrams'
---
Introduction {#section:Introduction}
============
Bosons in a regular optical lattice, which can be described by the BH model, show a transition from an incompressible, non-coherent Mott insulator (MI) phase to a compressible, coherent superfluid (SF) phase, which has been shown experimentally [@Grei02] as well as theoretically [@Fish89; @Oost01]. In the disordered case the Bose-glass (BG) phase occurs between the MI and the SF, which is compressible, but not coherent and whose existence has been shown experimentally [@Fall07; @Meld15].\
Theoretically, disordered BH systems are modeled with isolated on-site box disorder, while the other parameters have precise values. Numerical methods like quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) methods [@Soey11; @Lin11; @Capo08; @Poll09; @Prok04; @Lee01; @Kisk97; @Kisk97a; @Krau91] and density-matrix renormalization group techniques [@Roux08; @Deng08; @Deng09; @Carr10; @Raps99] have been applied to this system in order to study the phase diagram. Based on the mean-field approximation [@Shes93] various numerical techniques, such as local mean-field (LMF) theory [@Buon09; @Buon07; @Buon04b], stochastic mean-field theory [@Biss09; @Biss10], and LMF cluster analysis [@Nied13] have been proposed. The phase diagram of the 2d disordered BH model with random on-site potentials predicted by the LMF cluster analysis [@Nied13], which interprets the BG-SF transition as a percolation of SF regions, agrees very well with the one obtained from QMC methods [@Poll09]. The authors of [@Stas14] apply the percolation criterion for their studies on the BH model with random impurities.\
Disorder in other BH parameters, like the tunneling rates or the inter-particle interactions, has not been studied as intensively as disorder in the on-site potentials. Disorder in the inter-particle interaction can be realized experimentally near a Feshbach resonance [@Gimp05; @Wild05]. A uniform distribution of this parameter has been studied in [@Gimp05; @Gimp06]. Disorder of the tunneling rates has been studied within SMF theory [@Biss10] for a uniform distribution. Other works on disordered tunneling rates focus on bimodal distributions.\
Experimentally, disorder can be introduced either by a speckle field [@Whit09] or by a bichromatic quasi-periodic lattice produced by two lasers with incommensurate wave lengths [@Lye05; @Fall07]. While the distributions of the BH parameters resulting from speckle fields have been studied in [@Whit09; @Zhou10], in this paper we focus on bosons in two-dimensional bichromatic quasi-periodic potentials and analyze the distribution of all of the BH parameters, i.e. on-site potential, hopping strength and interaction energies, by determining the generalized Wannier functions and calculating the corresponding BH parameters.\
This paper is organized as follows: First, we discuss the BH model and the LMF cluster analysis in section \[section:model\]. In section \[scenarios\] we determine the phase diagrams of the disordered BH model for three different cases of uncorrelated disorder for comparison: exclusively random on-site potentials, exclusively random hopping strengths and exclusively random interaction energies. In section \[quasi-periodic\] the BH parameters are calculated for a two-dimensional bichromatic quasi-periodic potential and their distributions are characterized. These are finally used in section \[Phase diagrams of the bichromatic potential\] to determine the phase diagrams. The paper concludes with a discussion.
The Bose-Hubbard model {#section:model}
======================
The BH Hamiltonian describing Bosons in an optical lattice [@Jaks98] is given by $$\label{BHM}
{\hat{H} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{}}=-\mu \sum_i {\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}+\frac{U}{2} \sum_i {\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}} \left({\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}-1\right)-J \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} {\hat{a} ^{\dagger}_{i}} {\hat{a} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{j}}.$$ The operator ${\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}={\hat{a} ^{\dagger}_{i}}{\hat{a} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}$ is the particle number operator of bosons on site $i$, which are annihilated and created by the operators ${\hat{a} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}$ and ${\hat{a} ^{\dagger}_{i}}$. The site index $i=1,\ldots,M$, where $M=L^2$ is the number of sites in a $L\times L$ 2d lattice, represents a tuple of spatial coordinates $\left(i_x,i_z\right)$ with $i_{x,z}=1,\ldots,L$. The chemical potential is denoted by $\mu$, the inter particle repulsion by $U$ and the tunneling rate by $J$. The last sum runs over all four ($Z=4$) nearest neighbor pairs $\langle i,j\rangle$ of the lattice.\
In the ordered case, the $\mu/U$-$J Z/U$ phase diagram displays the well-known Mott-lobes with boundaries given in LMF theory by [@Fish89; @Oost01] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Oosten}
\mu_\pm\left(J,Z,U,n\right)&=&-\frac{1}{2}\left(JZ-U\left(2 n-1\right)\right)\nonumber \\
&\phantom{=}&\pm\sqrt{\frac{1}{4}\left(JZ-U\right)^2-JZUn}.\end{aligned}$$ Inside the Mott-lobes the particle number is fixed to an integer value $n$. They are aligned along the $\mu$-axis and the particle number increases from lobe to lobe with growing $\mu$. In this region particle tunneling is prohibited due to the existence of an energy gap in the particle excitation spectrum. The Mott-lobes are surrounded by the SF phase, where particle tunneling is favorable and coherence grows with increasing tunneling rate.\
In the case of on-site disorder, the BG phase occurs between the MI and SF phase. In this phase the system is compressible, but not SF. In the present paper we will not restrict to on-site disorder, but rather study the influence of disorder on all BH parameters. Therefore, all BH parameters, except the chemical potential $\mu$, which is a global parameter fixing the particle number, now become site dependent: $$\label{BHMDis}
{\hat{H} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{}}=\sum_i \left(\epsilon_i-\mu\right) {\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}+\frac{U_i}{2} \sum_i {\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}} \left({\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}-1\right)-\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle} J_{ij} {\hat{a} ^{\dagger}_{i}} {\hat{a} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{j}}.$$ The SF parameter $$\label{SFP}
\psi_i=\langle{\hat{a_i} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{}} \rangle$$ is defined as the expectation value of the annihilation operator and can be chosen to be real because of the $U\left(1\right)\textendash$symmetry of the BH-Hamiltonian. With the help of the LMF approximation [@Shes93] $${\hat{a} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}} {\hat{a} ^{\dagger}_{j}}\approx {\hat{a} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}} \psi_j + {\hat{a} ^{\dagger}_{j}} \psi_i-\psi_i \psi_j,$$ the Hamiltonian can be transformed into a sum of local Hamiltonians ${\hat{H} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{}}=\sum_i {\hat{H} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}$, $$\label{HLMF}
{\hat{H} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}=\left(\epsilon_i-\mu\right) {\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}+\frac{U_i}{2} {\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}} \left({\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}-1\right)-\eta_i \left({\hat{a} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}+{\hat{a} ^{\dagger}_{i}}-\psi_i\right),$$ which are effectively coupled by a local hopping rate $\eta_i:=\sum_j J_{ij} A_{ij} \psi_j$, which depends on the local SF parameter of the neighboring sites with $A_{ij}=1$ for $i$ and $j$ being nearest neighbors on the square lattice with periodic boundary conditions and zero otherwise. One should note that mean field approximations as the one used here neglect spatial correlations of quantum fluctuations, which is less severe in high space dimensions. Actually it is exact in infinite dimensions and reproduces the exact critical behavior already above the upper critical dimension, which is unknown for the system we consider here but certainly larger than $4$. Consequently, we expect the approximation to be critically inaccurate for 1d systems and therefore, focus on two space dimensions. We would expect the predictions of our LMF analysis to be even more accurate for three dimensions, but 3d systems are computationally much more demanding.\
Since the Hamiltonian itself depends on the SF parameter [@Buon07], the self-consistency equation is solved recursively in order to find the ground state of the LMF Hamiltonian . In turn all local parameters of interest, especially the local particle number $n_i=\langle {\hat{a} ^{\dagger}_{i}} {\hat{a} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}} \rangle$, can be computed. In order to determine the phase boundaries, several steps are needed [@Nied13]: First, we define and identify so-called MI and SF sites. Sites with an integer number of particles are called MI sites. Note that the LMF approximation neglects quantum fluctuations and predicts an integer expectation value for the local particle number for some site even in the presence of disorder in the BH parameters. Sites with non-integer expectation value of the local particle number are denoted as SF sites. In a second step all three occurring phase are identified: In the MI phase the system only consists of MI sites and no SF site occurs. The BG is characterized by a mixture of MI and SF sites, more precisely by isolated clusters (islands) of SF sites within a sea of MI sites. In [@Nied13] we discussed how this definition is physically plausible regarding the conventional hallmarks of the BG phase, namely the lack of coherence and a gapless spectrum. Since the particle number fluctuates within the isolated SF clusters only the sites within a single cluster can be phase coherent, sites in different clusters are not, which establishes the lack of macroscopic phase coherence. Moreover, the BG phase is actually the Griffiths phase of the BH model (see [@Nied13] for a discussion), where the isolated SF clusters behave like finite systems within the SF phase and therefore, have a very small gap that decreases quickly with the size of the SF cluster. Since SF clusters can be arbitrarily large there is no lower bound for the gap and thus the BG phase is gapless. While approaching the BG-SF transition the regions with SF site grow, form connected clusters, which finally percolate. The percolation of the SF sites marks the transition to the SF phase. We call this scheme the LMF cluster analysis approach, which is described and discussed in [@Nied13]. In contrast to other LMF approaches we show, that the LMF cluster analysis reproduces the phase diagram predicted by quantum Monte Carlo [@Soey11] with excellent accuracy.
Box distributed disorder and different scenarios {#scenarios}
================================================
Before we focus on the bichromatic quasi-periodic potential, we analyze the effect of uncorrelated disorder in each of the BH parameter $\epsilon_i$, $J_{ij}$ and $U_i$ separately. Here we determine, with the LMF cluster analysis, the phase diagram for a uniform distribution for each BH parameter separately. While all three phases can be found in each disorder scenario, we find substantial differences in the phase diagrams.
Disorder in $\epsilon$ {#section:DissEps}
----------------------
The most common disorder scenario is diagonal disorder introduced by site-dependent local on-site energies $\epsilon_i$, which are drawn from a box distribution . This has been widely studied via quantum Monte-Carlo methods [@Soey11; @Capo08; @Kisk97; @Lin11], mean-field techniques [@Buon07; @Biss09; @Nied13] and analytic approaches [@Free96; @Poll09].\
a)![\[PhasenEpsilon\] Phase diagram for box distributed disordered on-site energies $\epsilon_i$ with the disorder strength $\Delta_\epsilon/U=0.35,\,0.6,\,1.5$.](EGrenzeClu4.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"} b)![\[PhasenEpsilon\] Phase diagram for box distributed disordered on-site energies $\epsilon_i$ with the disorder strength $\Delta_\epsilon/U=0.35,\,0.6,\,1.5$.](EGrenzeClu2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"} c)![\[PhasenEpsilon\] Phase diagram for box distributed disordered on-site energies $\epsilon_i$ with the disorder strength $\Delta_\epsilon/U=0.35,\,0.6,\,1.5$.](EGrenzeClu5.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"}
Figure \[PhasenEpsilon\] shows the phase diagram for different disorder strengths resulting from the LMF-Cluster-Analysis [@Nied13]. The Mott-lobes with a fixed particle number of $n=\langle {\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}\rangle_{av}$ extend from to , see [@Fish89]. Thus, all Mott-lobes simultaneously disappear at a critical disorder strength of $\Delta_\epsilon^c/U=1$. The Mott-lobes are surrounded by a BG region. For larger tunneling rates a phase transition to the SF regime occurs. While all three phases appear for $\Delta_\epsilon^c/U<1$, in the strong disorder limit only the BG in the small tunneling and the SF phase in the high tunneling regime survive.
Disorder in $J$ {#section:DissJ}
---------------
The influence of disordered tunneling rates has mainly been studied for bimodal distributions, where two values of the tunneling rate are chosen and distributed randomly among the lattice [@Seng07; @Prok04; @Bala05; @Biss10] leading to fundamentally different phase diagrams compared to the one discussed here. In contrast, here we focus on a general approach, where the local tunneling rates are uniformly distributed according to symmetric around a fixed value $J$.\
a)![\[PhasenJ\] Phase diagram for box distributed disordered tunneling rates $J_i$ with the disorder strength $\Delta_J/U=0.035,\,0.06,\,0.095$. The black line is the perturbative result for MI-SF transition in the ordered system given by .](JGrenzeClu1.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"} b)![\[PhasenJ\] Phase diagram for box distributed disordered tunneling rates $J_i$ with the disorder strength $\Delta_J/U=0.035,\,0.06,\,0.095$. The black line is the perturbative result for MI-SF transition in the ordered system given by .](JGrenzeClu2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"} c)![\[PhasenJ\] Phase diagram for box distributed disordered tunneling rates $J_i$ with the disorder strength $\Delta_J/U=0.035,\,0.06,\,0.095$. The black line is the perturbative result for MI-SF transition in the ordered system given by .](JGrenzeClu3.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"}
In Figure \[PhasenJ\] the phase diagrams resulting from LMF-Cluster-Analysis in dependence of the chemical potential $\mu/U$ and the mean tunneling rate $J Z/U$ are shown. It is important to notice that here the width of the disorder distribution is one order of magnitude smaller than for on-site disorder. Here two new unique features occur in the phase diagram: Firstly, the BG regions are separated into individual regions by SF regions reaching down to $JZ/U\rightarrow0$. Secondly, the distance between the Mott-lobes increases with their number $n$ and the number of Mott-lobes is finite. For an intuitive explanation, we recall the perturbative result of the ordered case, given in equation , which is the limiting result for vanishing disorder strength $\Delta_J\rightarrow0$. For a small but non-zero disorder strength $\Delta_J$, the first SF regions in the lattice occur at sites with $J+\Delta_J/2$. Consequently, the boundary of the MI region is shifted to the left by $-\Delta_J/2$ with respect to ordered case with tunneling rate $J$. Since in the ordered case the tip of the Mott lobes (at tunneling rate $J_{\rm max}(n)$) decreases with increasing $\mu$ as $1/\mu$ the shifted Mott lobes for tunneling disorder strength $\Delta_J$ must disappear when $1/\mu$ gets smaller than $\Delta_J$ resulting in only a finite number of Mott lobes. With other words: Even at a vanishing average tunneling rate ($J=0$) a non-vanishing disorder in the tunneling rate produces an increasing fraction of SF sites when $\mu$ is sufficiently large.\
To put it quantitatively: Along the $\mu/U$-axis ($J=0$) the MI-lobes exist between $\mu_-\left(\Delta_J/2,Z,U,n\right)$ and $\mu_+\left(\Delta_J/2,Z,U,n\right)$, with $\mu_\pm$ given by equation . For fixed disorder strength $\Delta_J$ the height of the Mott-lobes is given by , which decreases with $n$. The width becomes zero for , which means that only a finite number $n_c^{\rm MI}$ of Mott lobes exist. As a consequence, the Mott-lobes disappear one after the other for increasing disorder strength $\Delta_J$. The last Mott-lobe ($n=1$) disappears at . This is different from the on-site disorder case, where all vanish at the same critical disorder strength. In three Mott-lobes exist, two of which are visible, while in b) only one remains. In the last diagram no Mott-lobe exists, as the critical disorder strength is exceeded.\
The Mott-lobes are surrounded by the BG phase. As a new feature in comparison to on-site disorder case we find disconnected BG regions between $\mu_-\left(\Delta_J/2,Z=1,U,n\right)$ and $\mu_+\left(\Delta_J/2,Z=1,U,n\right)$, with $\mu_\pm$ given by equation , which are separated from each other by the SF region in the vicinity of integer values of $\mu/U$. The fact that the SF region survives in the limit $J\rightarrow0$, is a unique feature of tunneling disorder. The width of the BG regions along the $\mu/U$-axis is given by , which also decreases for growing $n$. The number of BG regions is given by . Even though the BG regions survive for even higher disorder strength than the MI-lobes, they analogously disappear one after the other and finally disappear completely at . The SF phase exists for infinitesimal small tunneling rates between these BG regions. At the ends of the BG regions narrowing tips occur, which are located along the line of mean integer filling but finally end in the SF region.
Disorder in $U$ {#section:DissU}
---------------
Disorder in the inter-particle interaction can be realized near the Feshbach resonance [@Gimp05; @Wild05] and a uniform distribution of this parameter has been studied in [@Gimp05; @Gimp06]. The phase diagrams for this case resulting from LMF cluster analysis are shown in Figure \[PhasenU\] for increasing disorder strength, where $U$ is the mean value of the disorder distribution $p(U_i)=U+\Theta\left(\Delta_U/2-|U_i|\right)/\Delta_U$. Analogously to the disordered tunneling case we find a finite number of Mott-lobes. Intuitively this can be understood by recalling the MI boundaries of the ordered case, as we have already discussed for tunneling disorder. For small tunneling rates, the first SF sites occur, where the tunneling rate $J$ overcomes the reduced inter-particle interaction $U-\Delta_U/2$. Thus, the Mott-lobes shrink all by the same amount for fixed disorder strength $\Delta_U$. Therefore, the smallest Mott-lobes of the ordered system disappear leading to a finite number of Mott-lobes. Along the $\mu/U-$axis they extend from $\mu_-=\left(n-1\right)\left(U+\frac{\Delta_U}{2}\right)$ to $\mu_+=n\left(U-\frac{\Delta_U}{2}\right)$ and they disappear at a critical disorder strength $\Delta_U^c/U=\frac{2}{2 n-1}$, where $\mu_-$ and $\mu_+$ meet [@Gimp05]. As the critical disorder strength $\Delta_U^c$ depends on the number $n$ of the specific Mott-lobe, they vanish one after another, until for $\Delta_U^c/U=2$ the first Mott-lobe is the last to disappear. For all disorder strengths there is only one connected BG region, respectively one SF region. This is different from the system with tunneling disorder, but analogous to the on-site disordered case.\
a)![\[PhasenU\] Phase diagram for box distributed disordered two-particle interactions $U_i$ with the disorder strength and a blow-up for $\Delta=0.6$ showing the tricritical point at $\mu/U=J Z/U=0$. The black line is the perturbative result for MI-SF transition in the ordered system given by .](UGrenzeClu4.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"} b)![\[PhasenU\] Phase diagram for box distributed disordered two-particle interactions $U_i$ with the disorder strength and a blow-up for $\Delta=0.6$ showing the tricritical point at $\mu/U=J Z/U=0$. The black line is the perturbative result for MI-SF transition in the ordered system given by .](UGrenzeClu2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"} c)![\[PhasenU\] Phase diagram for box distributed disordered two-particle interactions $U_i$ with the disorder strength and a blow-up for $\Delta=0.6$ showing the tricritical point at $\mu/U=J Z/U=0$. The black line is the perturbative result for MI-SF transition in the ordered system given by .](UGrenzeClu3.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"} d)![\[PhasenU\] Phase diagram for box distributed disordered two-particle interactions $U_i$ with the disorder strength and a blow-up for $\Delta=0.6$ showing the tricritical point at $\mu/U=J Z/U=0$. The black line is the perturbative result for MI-SF transition in the ordered system given by .](UGrenzeClu2Blowup.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"}
A new feature occurs below the first Mott-lobe, which is shown as a blow-up in Figure \[PhasenU\] d): In this region the BG-SF transition widely follows the MI-SF transition of the ordered case. Between this transition line and the MI-BG transition line the BG phase forms a narrowing strip. Both transition lines approach each other tightly for small tunneling rates and form a tricritical point in the limit $\mu/U\rightarrow0$ and $J Z/U\rightarrow0$, which does not contradict the fact that a direct transition from MI to SF is impossible in the disordered case [@Gura09; @Poll09].\
This phenomenon can be understood recalling and studying the behavior of this equation under a variation of $U$: From its derivation, describes the transition line, at which the SF order parameter $\psi$ becomes non-zero in the ordered case. In the disordered case this takes place at the BG-SF transition. Therefore, the BG-SF transition line in the disordered case follows equation in regions, where it is stable against variation of $U$. This variation of $\mu_\pm\left(J,Z,U,n\right)$, which results from perturbation theory for small $J$ [@Oost01], under a change of $U$ is given by the derivative $\frac{\partial \mu_\pm}{\partial U}$. The expansion of the derivative for small $J$ is given by $$\frac{\partial \mu_\pm}{\partial U}\approx\begin{cases}x^2 n \left( n+1\right)+n&\text{upper branch,}\\
-x^2 n \left( n+1\right)+n-1&\text{lower branch,}\end{cases}$$ in powers of $x=\frac{J Z}{U}$. Notice that the linear term cancels and in general is different from zero. Only in case of the lower branch of the first Mott-lobe ($n=1$) it vanishes for zero tunneling rate. For increasing tunneling rates it grows less then linearly, since $x$ is smaller than one. This means that the lower branch of the first Mott-lobe is fairly stable against variation of $U$. For all other Mott-lobes $n>1$ the absolute value of the derivative is positive for small tunneling rates $J$. This feature of the lower branch of the first Mott-lobe is unique and does not occur for other branches of the disordered inter-particle interaction case. Therefore, the BG-SF transition of the inter particle interaction disordered system below the first Mott-lob widely follows the transition line of the ordered system, which is given by equation , leading to the tricritical point at the origin of the phase diagram.
Bichromatic potential {#quasi-periodic}
=====================
Experimentally disorder can be introduced either by a diffuser [@Whit09] or by a bichromatic potential [@Lye05; @Fall07; @Whit09]. The diffuser modifies the intensity of the laser, which leads to inhomogeneities in the resulting optical lattice. For a detailed comparison with theoretical predictions a thorough characterization of the diffuser is necessary. Especially the width of the disorder distribution is a crucial system parameter, which is fixed by the diffuser and cannot be tuned freely. Alternatively a quasi-periodic potential is formed by a main optical lattices with a high intensity, which is superposed by a second weaker one with slightly different wave length [@Lye05]. The resulting lattice is not periodic but quasi-periodic and displays local inhomogeneities. Such a quasi-periodic potential is the basis for our calculation, from which we will extract all BH parameters and finally discuss the resulting phase diagram in dependence of the laser intensities of both lattices for integer filling.\
The quasi-periodic potential in two dimensions is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Potential}
V \left( x,z \right) &=& V_1 \left( \cos^2\left(k_1 x\right)+\cos^2\left(k_1 z\right)\right)\nonumber \\
&\phantom{=}&+V_2 \left( \cos^2\left(k_2 x\right)+\cos^2\left(k_2 z\right)\right), \end{aligned}$$ where $k_i=\frac{2 \pi}{\lambda_i}$ ($i=1,2$), the lattice constant $a=\frac{\pi}{k_1}$ and the intensities $V_i=s_i E_{Ri}$ are given in units of the recoil energy $E_{Ri}=\frac{\hbar^2 k_i^2}{2m}$. The wavelengths are chosen to be $\lambda_1=830$ nm and $\lambda_1=1076$ nm with reference to the experimental setup of [@Fall07]. In experiments $\phantom{}^{87}\text{Rb}$, which has a mass of $m=1.443 10^{-25}$ kg, is widely used. The amplitude of the main lattice $s_1$ determines the depth of the lattice. The amplitude of the second lattice is by far smaller than the first one and increases the influence of the disorder strength.\
![\[Pot\] A quasi-periodic potential in one dimension according to $V \left( x \right) = V_1 \cos^2\left(k_1 x\right)+V_2 \cos^2\left(k_2 x\right)$ with $s_1=16$, $s_2=2.5$ and $V_2/V_1\approx 0.09$.](Pot3.pdf){width="3.9cm"}
Wannier-Functions
-----------------
In order to map the quasi-periodic potential to the BH Hamiltonian the Wannier functions for each site are computed individually. We first focus on a regular periodic $\left( V_2=0\right)$ lattice. According to the Bloch theorem the Bloch functions $$\psi_n^{\vec q}\left( \vec r \right)=u_{\vec q}\, e^{{{\rm i}}\, \vec q\, \vec r},\quad u_{\vec q}\left( \vec r \right)=\sum_{\vec G} c_n^{\vec q-\vec G}\, e^{-{{\rm i}}\, \vec G\, \vec r}$$ solve the stationary Schrödinger equation. For every wave-vector $\vec k$ there exists a unique decomposition , where $\vec q$ lives in the first Brillouin zone (1.BZ). The Bloch coefficients $u_{\vec q}\left( \vec r \right)$ are periodic functions with the same periodicity as the lattice. The Bloch functions, which spread over the hole lattice, form an orthonormal basis. Thus, the Wannier functions localized at site $\vec i=\left(i_x,i_z\right)$ can be construed as $$\label{WannierFunc}
W_n^i\left( \vec r \right)=\sqrt{\frac{2 \pi}{a}} \frac{1}{M} \sum_{\vec q \in 1.BZ} \psi_n^{\vec q}\left( \vec r \right)\, e^{{{\rm i}}\, \vec q\, \vec x_l},\quad \vec x_l=\vec l\, a.$$ They are real functions, which fulfill . Moreover, they are symmetric due to the underlying lattice symmetry. In Figure \[WanniePicture\] a) a Wannier function for a regular 1D lattice is shown exemplaryly. This wave function shows a dominant occupation probability at one single site and small probability at the neighboring sites.\
In the non-symmetric case $\left(0 \neq V_2\ll V_1\right)$ the functions $$\label{genWannierFunc}
\psi_n^{\vec q}\left( \vec r \right)=\sum_{\vec G} c_n^{\vec q-\vec G}\, e^{{{\rm i}}\, \left(\vec q-\vec G\right)\, \vec r}$$ still form an orthonormal basis, but their coefficients $u_{\vec q}\left( \vec r \right)$ are no longer periodic. But still, localized functions according to generalized Wannier functions can be constructed according to equation . As one can see in Figure \[WanniePicture\] on the right, these functions are still localized at a specific lattice site, but they are asymmetric, reflecting the asymmetry of the underlying lattice.\
a)![\[WanniePicture\] Wannier functions for an ordered symmetric lattice on the left ($s_1=2$, $s_2=0$) and a disordered asymmetric lattice on the right ($s_1=2$, $s_2=1$ with $V_2/V_1\approx 0.3$).](Wann1.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"} b)![\[WanniePicture\] Wannier functions for an ordered symmetric lattice on the left ($s_1=2$, $s_2=0$) and a disordered asymmetric lattice on the right ($s_1=2$, $s_2=1$ with $V_2/V_1\approx 0.3$).](Wann2.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"}
With this generalization of the Wannier function for asymmetric lattice systems we follow the common derivation introducing the BH model in literature [@Pita03; @Peth08] and thus fundamentally introduce disorder via quasi-periodic potentials. Other approaches avoid this step and describe this effect on the BH parameter effectively [@Guar07; @Rosc08; @Roux08; @Deng08; @Zhan14]. As we were able to show it is not sufficient to use the symmetric Wannier functions [@Schm09; @Schm10] as an approximation in the disordered case; this is only accurate for $s_2<0.1$. Thus, in the following we will use these generalized Wannier functions in order to determine the BH parameters.
Bose-Hubbard Parameter {#Bose-Hubbard Parameter}
----------------------
### Determination {#Determination}
$\;$\
Bosons in any potential $V\left(\vec{r}\right)$ in the quasi-ideal regime are described by the quantum field theory Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\hat H&=&\int {{\rm d}}\vec r\, \vec{\Psi}^\dagger\left(\vec{r}\right) \left(- \frac{\hbar^2 \nabla^2}{2 m}+V\left(\vec{r}\right)\right) \vec{\Psi}\left(\vec{r}\right) \nonumber \\
&\phantom{=}&+\frac{1}{2} \int {{\rm d}}\vec r\,{{\rm d}}\vec r'\, \vec{\Psi}^\dagger\left(\vec{r}\right)\vec{\Psi}^\dagger\left(\vec{r}'\right) U \vec{\Psi}\left(\vec{r}'\right)\vec{\Psi}\left(\vec{r}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $U\left(\vec{r},\vec{r}'\right)$ describes the two particle interaction [@Pita03]. The field operator in tight-binding approximation $$\vec{\Psi}\left(\vec{r}\right)=\sum_i W_i\left( \vec r \right) {\hat{a} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}$$ can be composed by the Wannier functions of the lowest band ($n=0$) and the creation operator ${\hat{a} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}}$ creating particle at site . In the tight-binding approximation the inter-particle interaction reduces to a point-like interaction $U\left(\vec{r},\vec{r}'\right)=U_0 \delta \left(\vec r - \vec r' \right)$ [@Peth08]. The effective inter-particle interaction in 2d is given by $$U_0=\frac{\hbar^2 a_s}{m} \sqrt{\frac{8 m \pi \omega_z}{\hbar}}=5.56\, 10^{-11}\,\hbar,$$ where $a_s=5.2$ nm is the scattering length, is the mass of the $\phantom{}^{87}\text{Rb}$ atoms and is the frequency of the vertical confinement [@Berg03; @Krue07; @Habi13]. The BH parameters may be calculated using the ground state Wannier function and the actual potential $V\left(\vec{r}\right)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BHPara}
\epsilon_i&=&\int {{\rm d}}\vec r\,\, W_i\left( \vec r \right) \left(-\frac{\hbar^2 \nabla^2}{2 m}+V\left(\vec{r}\right)\right) W_i\left( \vec r \right)\nonumber\\
U_i&=&U_0\int {{\rm d}}\vec r\,\, {W_i}^4\left( \vec r \right)\nonumber\\
J_{ij}&=&\int {{\rm d}}\vec r\,\, W_j\left( \vec r \right) \left(-\frac{\hbar^2 \nabla^2}{2 m}+V\left(\vec{r}\right)\right) W_i\left( \vec r \right)\end{aligned}$$ In contrast to the symmetric potential, all these integrals are not necessarily positive in the asymmetric case. Here the generalized Wannier functions as well as the potential are asymmetric and rarely configurations occur, in which especially the tunneling rate is negative. Finally, the chemical potential $\mu$ as a Lagrange multiplier for the condition of a fixed particle number $N=\sum_i \langle {\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}} \rangle=M$ of on average one particle per site is determined recursively within LMF theory.
### Distributions {#Distributions}
$\;$\
a)![\[Parameter\] BH Parameter for a quasi-periodic potential according to equation with $s_1=10$ and $s_2=0.5$. The tunneling rate at site $i=\left( i_x,i_z \right)$ gives the value for the tunneling rate to the neighbor $j=\left( i_x+1,i_z \right)$. Note that this contains all information, since the tunneling rate $J_{ij}$ is symmetric under a change of the indices and the Potential $V \left( x,z \right)$ under a change of the coordinates $x$ and $z$.](Es11s2100.pdf "fig:"){height="3.5cm"} b)![\[Parameter\] BH Parameter for a quasi-periodic potential according to equation with $s_1=10$ and $s_2=0.5$. The tunneling rate at site $i=\left( i_x,i_z \right)$ gives the value for the tunneling rate to the neighbor $j=\left( i_x+1,i_z \right)$. Note that this contains all information, since the tunneling rate $J_{ij}$ is symmetric under a change of the indices and the Potential $V \left( x,z \right)$ under a change of the coordinates $x$ and $z$.](Us11s2100.pdf "fig:"){height="3.5cm"} c)![\[Parameter\] BH Parameter for a quasi-periodic potential according to equation with $s_1=10$ and $s_2=0.5$. The tunneling rate at site $i=\left( i_x,i_z \right)$ gives the value for the tunneling rate to the neighbor $j=\left( i_x+1,i_z \right)$. Note that this contains all information, since the tunneling rate $J_{ij}$ is symmetric under a change of the indices and the Potential $V \left( x,z \right)$ under a change of the coordinates $x$ and $z$.](Ts11s2100.pdf "fig:"){height="3.5cm"}
------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------
a){width="3.9cm"} b){width="3.9cm"} c){width="3.9cm"}
d){width="3.9cm"} e){width="3.9cm"} f){width="3.9cm"}
------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------
a){width="3.9cm"} b){width="3.9cm"} c){width="3.9cm"}
$\Delta_{\epsilon}^c/U=1$ $\Delta_{J}^c/U=\frac{3-2\sqrt{2}}{2}\approx8.58\,10^{-2}$ $\Delta_{U}^c/U=2$
------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------
The result of this procedure is a set of individual BH parameters $\alpha=\epsilon,\,J,\,U$ for each fixed parameter set $\left(s_1,s_2 \right)$. Exemplary the BH parameters for $s_1=10$ and $s_2=0.5$ are shown in Figure \[Parameter\]. In the figures each pixel represents the value of $\epsilon_i,\,J_{ij},\,U_i$ at a specific site. The BH parameter follow the modulation of the lattice potential. Therefore, we now deal with distributions $P\left(\alpha\right)$, which depend on the parameter set $\left(s_1,s_2 \right)$ chosen for the amplitudes of the lasers. We will especially focus on their mean value $\overline{\alpha}=\int {{\rm d}}\alpha\,\alpha P\left(\alpha\right)$ and the variance $\sigma_{\alpha}^2=\int {{\rm d}}\alpha\,\alpha^2 P\left(\alpha\right)$. Since we want to compare results to the box distributed case from section \[scenarios\], where the variance is given by $\sigma_{\alpha}^2=\frac{\Delta_{\alpha}^2}{12}$, we define the width of the distribution $\Delta_{\alpha}$ according to this equation. With the help of both benchmarks we are able to compare the distributions with the scenarios of disorder in only one BH parameter, as introduced in section \[scenarios\]. The mean value of the distribution $P\left(\alpha\right)$ here matches the site independent BH parameters $\alpha=\epsilon,\,J,\,U$ from section \[scenarios\], while the width of the distribution $\Delta_{\alpha}=\sqrt{12 \sigma_{\alpha}^2}$ corresponds to the disorder strength given as free parameter in section \[scenarios\].\
The resulting mean value and width of the distribution are shown in Figure \[MeanValueWidth\]. The amplitude of the main lattice $s_1$ is one order of magnitude larger than the one of the second lattice $s_2$. In a shallow lattice ($s_1$ small) the mean value of the on-site energy $\epsilon$ and the inter-particle interaction $U$ are small and grow with increasing depth of the lattice ($s_1$ large). The mean value of the tunneling rate $J$ reaches its maximal value in a shallow lattice and decreases in a deep lattice. All mean values are independent of the strength $s_2$ of the second lattice. The width of the distribution of the on-site energy $\Delta_{\epsilon}$ is independent of the amplitude $s_1$ of the main lattice, but increases with the amplitude $s_2$ of the second one. As expected, the amplitude $s_2$ of the second lattice indeed increases the disorder strength in the system. The width of the distributions of the tunneling rate $\Delta_{J}$ and the inter-particle interaction $\Delta_{U}$ show similar behavior, depending on both parameters $s_1$ and $s_2$, however, their maximal values differ substantially. Both show increasing widths for increasing $s_2$ and adopt the maximal values for a shallow ($s_1$ small) and strongly disordered ($s_2$ large) lattice.\
The critical disorder strength at which the last Mott-lobe disappears, is $\Delta_{\epsilon}^c/U=1$ for pure on-site energy disorder and $\Delta_{J}^c/U=\frac{3-2\sqrt{2}}{2}\approx0.0858$ for pure tunneling disorder. Above these vales only the BG and SF phase remain. A comparison of the width of the distribution in units of $U$ (see Figure \[MeanValueWidthU\]) with the results on disorder in only one BH parameter in section \[scenarios\] shows that both, the width of the distribution of the on-site energy, as well as the tunneling rate, reaches the region where all three phases occur in the phase diagram. Even though the occurring width of the distribution of the tunneling rate $\Delta_{J}$ is small, it reaches the parameter range, where all three phases compete in the phase diagram. In contrast, the width of the inter-particle interaction $\Delta_U$ is indeed small in comparison to the range in which all three phases occur in the phase diagram and thus may be neglected.
Phase diagrams of the bichromatic potential {#Phase diagrams of the bichromatic potential}
===========================================
Intensity phase diagrams
------------------------
$\;$\
With the help of the determined BH parameters we have determined the phase diagram for fixed average number $N=\sum_i \langle {\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}} \rangle=M$ of one particle per site in dependence of the laser intensities $s_1$ and $s_1$ by adjusting the chemical potential $\mu$. The resulting phase diagram is shown in Figure \[Diagram\] a). Here the BH parameters are correlated according to the lattice potential , exemplarily displayed in Figure \[Parameter\]. According to the LMF cluster analysis described in section \[section:model\], the MI phase is characterized by the absence of any SF site, which means that every site in the MI region has an integer particle number. In the SF region sites with non-integer particle number percolate. In between, in the BG region, the system consists of both, sites with integer, and others with non-integer particle number, which do not percolate.\
Next we compare the obtained phase diagram for the bichromatic quasi-periodic potential with the one obtained for a BH model with uncorrelated disorder according to identical distributions of the BH parameters $P\left(\alpha\right)$ with $\alpha=\epsilon,\,J,\,U$. These distributions depend on both of the laser intensities $s_1$ and $s_2$. We start with one parameter set for $\epsilon$,$J$ and $U$ given by fixed $s_1$ and $s_2$, which we have determined and discussed in sections \[Determination\] and \[Distributions\]. We produce $200$ different samples, by randomly choosing new site indices. In other words, we study $200$ samples according to the same distribution by switching lattice sites thereby erasing local correlations in the parameter set. After performing the LMF cluster analysis we determine the BG-SF boundary with finite size scaling. The resulting phase diagram in Figure \[Diagram\] b) does not differ much from Figure \[Diagram\] a), only the BG-SF transition line for uncorrelated disorder is slightly distorted in comparison with the quasi-periodic case.\
In the resulting phase diagram, shown in Figure \[Diagram\] b), all three phases occur in dependence of the lattice parameters $s_1$ and $s_2$. Along the $s_1$-axis ($s_2=0$) the direct SF-MI transition of the ordered system occurs. For values below this point in a shallow lattice the SF phase covers the whole parameter region independent of $s_2$. This corresponds to the fact that in this region the tunneling rate is largest, as shown in Figure \[MeanValueWidth\]. Above this point the MI occurs, which is completely surrounded by the BG for intermediate $s_2$, which in turn is enclosed by the SF phase for even larger amplitudes of the second lattice $s_2$. Notice that the potential reduces to the ordered case for $s_2=0$ as well as for $s_1=0$. Therefore, along the $s_2$-axis the system also undergoes a direct MI-SF transition. In the region where $s_1\ll s_2$ the second lattice is dominant and a similar structure occurs.
a)![\[Diagram\] [**Left:**]{} Phase diagram for the bichromatic quasi-periodic potential for particle density $\langle {\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}} \rangle=1$ in dependence of the laser intensities $s_1$ and $s_2$ for a system with $32\times32$ sites. [**Right:**]{} The same phase diagram as on the left side but for a BH model with uncorrelated on-site, hopping strengths and interaction energy disorder with the distribution parameters determined for the bichromatic quasi-periodic potential in section \[Distributions\].](DiagramDm32.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"} b)![\[Diagram\] [**Left:**]{} Phase diagram for the bichromatic quasi-periodic potential for particle density $\langle {\hat{n} ^{\vphantom{\dagger}}_{i}} \rangle=1$ in dependence of the laser intensities $s_1$ and $s_2$ for a system with $32\times32$ sites. [**Right:**]{} The same phase diagram as on the left side but for a BH model with uncorrelated on-site, hopping strengths and interaction energy disorder with the distribution parameters determined for the bichromatic quasi-periodic potential in section \[Distributions\].](Diagram.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"}
BH parameter phase diagrams
---------------------------
$\;$\
Let us now have a look at the phase diagram in dependence of the BH parameters. In the case of only one disordered BH parameter two possible representations of the phase diagram are common: For the first one [@Soey11; @Nied13] the particle number is fixed to one particle per site, which fixes the chemical potential $\mu$. Then, the phase transitions are shown in dependence of the inter-particle interaction $U/J$ and the disorder strength $\Delta/2J$. The second representation [@Buon09; @Buon07; @Buon04b; @Nied13] shows the Mott-lobes in dependence of the tunneling rate $J Z/U$ and the chemical potential $\mu/U$ for fixed disorder strength $\Delta/U$. In this section we will discuss our results in both representations, keeping in mind that all BH parameters as well as all disorder strengths are functions of $s_1$ and $s_2$, and thus are not independent of each other.\
The data from the $\left(s_1,s_2\right)$-phase diagram shown in Figure \[Diagram\] can be translated into a diagram similar to the first representation: According to Figure \[MeanValueWidth\] the mean parameters $\epsilon$, $J$, $U$ as well as the widths $\Delta_{\epsilon}$, $\Delta_{J}$, $\Delta_{U}$ are functions of the two amplitudes $s_1$ and $s_2$. Since $\Delta_{U}$ is two orders of magnitude smaller than the other widths, the inter-particle interaction $U$ can be treated as a sharp value to a good approximation. As a result the phase diagram can be visualized as the surface $\left(U/J,\,\Delta_{\epsilon}/2J,\,\Delta_{J}/2J \right)$ in three dimensions. This is shown in Figure \[DiagramALL\], where each phase is colored differently. Notice that with a quasi-periodic potential , which depends on the two amplitudes $s_1$ and $s_2$, only this surface in the BH parameter space can be reached, since all BH parameters are functions of $s_1$ and $s_2$ and dependent on each other. As a consequence disorder, e.g, where only one parameter is disordered while the others are fixed, cannot be reached in the phase diagram. Either it is an ordered $\left( \Delta_{\epsilon}=\Delta_{J}=0 \right)$ or a completely disordered $\left( \Delta_{\epsilon}\neq0,\,\Delta_{J}\neq0\right)$ system. This has two important implications: With a quasi-periodic potential neither the whole parameter space nor a pure on-site disorder can be realized.\
a)![\[DiagramALL\] Phase diagram for a quasi-periodic potential in dependence of the BH Parameter.](DiagramALLSURF.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"} b)![\[DiagramALL\] Phase diagram for a quasi-periodic potential in dependence of the BH Parameter.](DiagramALLXYSURF.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"}
The phase diagram in Figure \[DiagramALL\] shows all three phases: The BG phase (blue) separates the MI (dark gray) phase at strong inter-particle interaction $U/J$ from the SF regime (light gray) at weak inter-particle interaction $U/J$. In Figure \[DiagramALL\] b) the same phase diagram is show as a projection on the $\left(U/J,\,\Delta_{\epsilon}/2J\right)$-plane.\
The phase boundaries differ substantially from those of the BH model with uncorrelated disorder exclusively in the on-site energies [@Soey11; @Nied13] due to the additional presence of disorder in the hopping strengths. More drastic is the difference between Figure \[DiagramALL\] and the $V_2/J$-$U/J$ phase diagram predicted for a one-dimensional BH-model with bichromatic quasi-periodicity only in the on-site potential [@Roux08]. Since according to Figure \[MeanValueWidth\] d) $\Delta_\epsilon$ is proportional to $V_2=s_2 E_{R2}$, the phase diagram in Figure \[DiagramALL\] is directly comparable to Figure 1 (left) of [@Roux08] and Figure 3 (bottom) of [@Deng08], both of which show that a direct MI-SF transition occurs. The latter is absent in Figure \[DiagramALL\], where an intervening BG phase occurs between the MI and SF phase. This might be explained by the fact that already a small amount of disorder in the hopping strengths strongly enlarges the BG regions in the phase diagram, as Figure \[PhasenJ\] demonstrates.\
For the second representation we fix the weaker amplitude $s_2$, which introduces disorder to the system, and study the system in dependence of $s_1$ and $\mu$. Since the tunneling rate $J$ is a unique function of $s_1$ and independent of $s_2$, as shown in Figure \[MeanValueWidthTest\] b), the $s_1$-axis can easily be converted into a $J$-axis. In theoretical works disorder is usually introduced by bounded distributions with zero mean values. In the quasi-random case the mean value of the distributions $P\left(\alpha\right)$ of the BH- parameters $\alpha=\epsilon,\,J,\,U$ are non-zero, as shown in Figure \[MeanValueWidth\]. In order to take this into account, we use $\mu-\epsilon$ instead of simply $\mu$. Thus, from the data in the $\left(s_1,\,\mu\right)$-plane, we can extract a phase diagram in dependence of $J Z/U$ and $\left(\mu-\epsilon\right)/U$, as shown in Figure \[PhasenTest\]. Notice that $J,\,U,\,\epsilon$ as well as $\Delta_{J},\,\Delta_{U},\,\Delta_{\epsilon}$ are all functions of $s_1$ and $s_2$ and not independent from each other, as they are asumed to be in most simulations of disordered systems.\
In Figure \[MeanValueWidthTest\] the behavior of the system parameters for different values of $s_2=0.0354,\,0.0758,\,0.1162$ is shown as a function of $J Z/U$. Figure b) shows the tunneling rate in dependence of $s_1$. While the tunneling rate $J Z/U$ is independent of $s_2$, the on-site energy $\epsilon/U$ varies for different values of $s_2$. In a shallow lattice ($s_1$ small) the tunneling rate $J Z/U$ is large, while for increasing $s_1$ it approaches zero and finally in a deep lattice ($s_1$ large) the tunneling rate $J Z/U$ becomes infinitesimally small. This means that in the phase diagram the $\mu/U$-axis at $J Z/U=0$ may be approached with arbitrary accuracy, but can never be reached. In a deep lattice ($J Z/U$ small, $s_1$ large) the on-site energy $\epsilon/U$ is small and increases with growing $J Z/U$. The disorder strengths $\Delta_{\epsilon}/U,\,\Delta_{J}/U,\,\Delta_{U}/U$ increase with $J Z/U$ and the amplitude $s_2$.\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a)![\[MeanValueWidthTest\] The on-site energy $\epsilon/U$ and the widths $\Delta_{\epsilon}/U,\,\Delta_{J}/U,\,\Delta_{U}/U$ of the BH parameter for different values of $s_2=0.0354\left(\textcolor{blue}{-}\right),\,0.0758\left(\textcolor{blue}{-\cdot}\right),\,0.1162\left(\textcolor{blue}{--}\right)$ as a function of $JZ/U$. In the middle on the top the tunneling rate $JZ/U$ is shown as a function of $s_1$. The tunneling rate is independent of $s_2$ and a unique function of $s_1$. The on-site energy $\epsilon/U$ as well as all widths increase with the tunneling rate $J Z/U$ and the amplitude $s_2$.](JUEMean.pdf "fig:"){width="2.45cm"} b)![\[MeanValueWidthTest\] The on-site energy $\epsilon/U$ and the widths $\Delta_{\epsilon}/U,\,\Delta_{J}/U,\,\Delta_{U}/U$ of the BH parameter for different values of $s_2=0.0354\left(\textcolor{blue}{-}\right),\,0.0758\left(\textcolor{blue}{-\cdot}\right),\,0.1162\left(\textcolor{blue}{--}\right)$ as a function of $JZ/U$. In the middle on the top the tunneling rate $JZ/U$ is shown as a function of $s_1$. The tunneling rate is independent of $s_2$ and a unique function of $s_1$. The on-site energy $\epsilon/U$ as well as all widths increase with the tunneling rate $J Z/U$ and the amplitude $s_2$.](UTMean.pdf "fig:"){width="2.45cm"}
c)![\[MeanValueWidthTest\] The on-site energy $\epsilon/U$ and the widths $\Delta_{\epsilon}/U,\,\Delta_{J}/U,\,\Delta_{U}/U$ of the BH parameter for different values of $s_2=0.0354\left(\textcolor{blue}{-}\right),\,0.0758\left(\textcolor{blue}{-\cdot}\right),\,0.1162\left(\textcolor{blue}{--}\right)$ as a function of $JZ/U$. In the middle on the top the tunneling rate $JZ/U$ is shown as a function of $s_1$. The tunneling rate is independent of $s_2$ and a unique function of $s_1$. The on-site energy $\epsilon/U$ as well as all widths increase with the tunneling rate $J Z/U$ and the amplitude $s_2$.](JUEVarDelta.pdf "fig:"){width="2.45cm"} d)![\[MeanValueWidthTest\] The on-site energy $\epsilon/U$ and the widths $\Delta_{\epsilon}/U,\,\Delta_{J}/U,\,\Delta_{U}/U$ of the BH parameter for different values of $s_2=0.0354\left(\textcolor{blue}{-}\right),\,0.0758\left(\textcolor{blue}{-\cdot}\right),\,0.1162\left(\textcolor{blue}{--}\right)$ as a function of $JZ/U$. In the middle on the top the tunneling rate $JZ/U$ is shown as a function of $s_1$. The tunneling rate is independent of $s_2$ and a unique function of $s_1$. The on-site energy $\epsilon/U$ as well as all widths increase with the tunneling rate $J Z/U$ and the amplitude $s_2$.](JUTVarDelta.pdf "fig:"){width="2.45cm"} e)![\[MeanValueWidthTest\] The on-site energy $\epsilon/U$ and the widths $\Delta_{\epsilon}/U,\,\Delta_{J}/U,\,\Delta_{U}/U$ of the BH parameter for different values of $s_2=0.0354\left(\textcolor{blue}{-}\right),\,0.0758\left(\textcolor{blue}{-\cdot}\right),\,0.1162\left(\textcolor{blue}{--}\right)$ as a function of $JZ/U$. In the middle on the top the tunneling rate $JZ/U$ is shown as a function of $s_1$. The tunneling rate is independent of $s_2$ and a unique function of $s_1$. The on-site energy $\epsilon/U$ as well as all widths increase with the tunneling rate $J Z/U$ and the amplitude $s_2$.](JUUVarDelta.pdf "fig:"){width="2.45cm"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phase diagram for different values of $s_2$ as a function of $J Z/U$ and $\left(\mu-\epsilon\right)/U$ is shown in Figure \[PhasenTest\]. Notice that the BH parameters and their widths vary along the $J Z/U$-axis corresponding to Figure \[MeanValueWidthTest\]. For all values of $s_2$ we find a regular structure of Mott-lobes, surrounded by individual BG regions. The number of Mott-lobes as well as the number of BG regions decreases with increasing disorder amplitude $s_2$, which is equal to the increase of the disorder strengths $\Delta_{\epsilon}/U,\,\Delta_{J}/U,\,\Delta_{U}/U$. The regular pattern of Mott-lobes and BG regions repeats itself in intervals of length one along the $\left(\mu-\epsilon\right)/U$-axis. The lower and the upper extent of the Mott-lobes have the same distance to the next integer number for fixed $s_2$. Thus, the Mott-lobes have the same width along the $\left(\mu-\epsilon\right)/U$-axis, while their extension in $J Z/U$-direction shrinks with their number $n$. Except of the first BG region all the others are separated from each other by SF regions, reaching down to very small tunneling rates $J Z/U$. This is a unique feature of disorder only in the tunneling rates, which was discussed in section \[section:DissJ\]. The fact that we see this special phenomenon here in the phase diagram of a quasi-random potential, once more promotes our finding from section \[Distributions\] that the influence of disorder in the tunneling rate cannot be neglected.
a)![\[PhasenTest\] Phase diagram for different as a function of the mean tunneling rate $J Z/U$ and the chemical potential $\left(\mu-\epsilon\right)/U$.](JDiagramTests28Test6.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"} b)![\[PhasenTest\] Phase diagram for different as a function of the mean tunneling rate $J Z/U$ and the chemical potential $\left(\mu-\epsilon\right)/U$.](JDiagramTests216Test6.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"} c)![\[PhasenTest\] Phase diagram for different as a function of the mean tunneling rate $J Z/U$ and the chemical potential $\left(\mu-\epsilon\right)/U$.](JDiagramTests224Test6.pdf "fig:"){width="3.9cm"}
Conclusion {#section:Conclusion}
==========
The main result of this paper is that disorder in the tunneling rate must be taken into account in setups using 2d bichromatic quasi-periodic potentials. It influences the phase diagram just as much as the on-site disorder. This claim is supported by several findings in this paper:\
Firstly, in section \[scenarios\] we showed that the disorder strength, where all three phases compete in the phase diagram, is one order of magnitude smaller for tunneling disorder than for on-site interaction. We found that each scenario, in which only one BH parameter is disordered, yields different features in the phase diagram. Especially, the characteristics of tunneling disorder are a finite number of Mott-lobes and the existence of SF regions even for $J Z/U=0$.\
Secondly, we discussed bichromatic quasi-periodic potentials in section \[quasi-periodic\] and showed (see Figure \[MeanValueWidth\]) that the width of the distribution of the tunneling rate as well as that of the on-site energy reach the physical interesting region, where all three phases compete. This is true even though the width of the distribution of the tunneling rate is one order of magnitude smaller than that of the on-site energy. The influence of disordered inter-particle interaction is negligible, since its width remains four orders of magnitude below the critical disorder strength. This is in agreement with the results for distributions of BH parameters produced by a random diffuser pattern overlapping the main lattice [@Whit09; @Zhou10]. Correspondingly to our work, in these papers the authors also showed, that the width of the tunneling rate and the inter-particle interaction are several orders of magnitude smaller than that of the on-site energy. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that in a bichromatic quasi-periodic potential it is not possible to study exclusively on-site disorder. For growing intensity of the second laser $s_2$, the widths of the disorder distributions of both, the on-site, and the tunneling rate, increase simultaneously.\
Thirdly, the influence of tunneling disorder is obvious in the phase diagram of the quasi-periodic potential in dependence of the BH parameters. The transition lines, shown in Figure \[DiagramALL\], deviate from pure box distributed on-site disorder, discussed for example in [@Nied13; @Soey11]. In the quasi-random case the SF region is smaller, while the BG and the MI regions cover a larger region. In the $\mu$-$J$-phase diagram of Figure \[PhasenTest\] we find individual BG regions, which are separated by SF regions, which is a unique feature exclusively occurring in systems with disordered tunneling rates (see Figure \[PhasenJ\]).\
While the field of box on-site disorder was studied widely [@Soey11; @Lin11; @Capo08; @Poll09; @Prok04; @Lee01; @Kisk97; @Kisk97a; @Krau91; @Roux08; @Deng08; @Deng09; @Carr10; @Raps99; @Free96; @Shes93; @Buon09; @Buon07; @Buon04b; @Nied13; @Biss09; @Biss10], the works on tunneling disorder are rare and mainly deal with bimodal distributions [@Prok04; @Bala05; @Seng07]. A phase diagram far above the critical disorder strength $\Delta_{J}^c/U\approx8.58\,10^{-2}$ for equally distributed tunneling disorder is shown in [@Biss10].\
The one-dimensional BH model with a bichromatic on-site potential with incommensurable wave lengths was studied in [@Roux08; @Deng08]. The motivation there was, as also in this paper, to qualitatively understand the phase diagram of bosons in a bichromatic quasi-periodic potential, but it was argued that the variations in the hopping strengths as well as in the in the interaction energies were only minor and could be neglected. Although, we have shown here by explicit calculation that the disorder strength in the tunneling strengths is indeed one order of magnitude smaller than the on-site disorder, it nevertheless has a strong effect on the 2d phase diagram. The most striking difference is that the phase diagrams of [@Roux08; @Deng08] show a direct MI-SF transition (which for quasi-period disorder is not in contradiction with general predictions for uncorrelated disorder [@Poll09]), whereas we find an intervening BG phase between the MI and the SF phase for all values of the laser intensities $s_1$ and $s_2$. A reason for this, in addition to potentially qualitative differences between one and two dimensions, could be that our results for uncorrelated disorder in section \[scenarios\] show that a modest amount of disorder in the hopping strength already generates relatively large BG regions in the phase diagram (see ). Consequently, disorder in the hopping strengths cannot be neglected studying bosons in a bichromatic quasi-periodic potential.\
Conversely, one should be aware that experimental realizations of the disordered potential by a bichromatic quasi-period potential, as in [@Lye05; @Fall07], produce a phase diagram that is qualitatively very different from the predictions of the disordered BH model with exclusively on-site disorder.
We thank G. Morigi for fruitful and stimulating discussions and acknowledge financial support from the German Research Foundation DFG under grant number GRK 1276.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{}
M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. H[ä]{}nsch, and I. Bloch. . , 415:39, 2002.
M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher. . , 40:546, 1989.
D. van Oosten, P. van der Straten, and H. T. C. Stoof. . , 63:053601, 2001.
L. Fallani, J. E. Ley, V. Guarrera, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio. . , 98:130404, 2007.
C. Meldgin, U. Ray, P. Russ, D. Ceperley, and B. DeMarco. . .
S. G. S[ö]{}yler, M. Kiselev, N. V. Prokof’ev, and B. V. Svistunov. . , 107:185301, 2011.
F. Lin, E. S. S[ø]{}rensen, and D. M. Ceperley. . , 84:094507, 2011.
B. Capogrosso-Sansone, S. G. S[ö]{}yler, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov. . , 77:015602, 2008.
L. Pollet, N. V. Prokof’ev, B. V. Svistunov, and M. Troyer. . , 103:140402, 2009.
N. Prokof’ev and B. Svistunov. . , 92:015703–1, 2004.
J.-W. Lee, M.-C. Cha, and D. Kim. . , 87:247006, 2001.
J. Kisker and H. Rieger. . , 55:R11981, 1997.
J. Kisker and H. Rieger. . , 246:348, 1997.
W. Krauth, N. Trivedi, and D. Ceperley. . , 67:2307, 1991.
G. Roux, T. Barthel, I. P. McCulloch, C. Kollath, U. Schollw[ö]{}ck, and T. Giamarchi. . , 78:023628, 2008.
X. Deng, R. Citro, A. Minguzzi, and E. Orignac. . , 78:013625, 2008.
X. Deng, R. Citro, E. Orignac, and A. Minguzzi. . , 68:435, 2009.
J. Carrasquilla, F. Becca, A. Trombettoni, and M. Fabrizio. . , 81:195129, 2010.
S. Rapsch, U. Schollw[ö]{}ck, and W. Zwerger. . , 46:559, 1999.
K. Sheshadri, H. R. Krishnamurthy, R. Pandit, and T. V. Ramakrishnan. . , 22:257, 1993.
P. Buonsante, F. Massel, V. Penna, and A. Vezzani. . , 79:013623, 2009.
P. Buonsante, V. Penna, A. Vezzani, and P. B. Blakie. . , 76:011602, 2007.
P. Buonsante and A. Vezzani. . , 70:033608, 2004.
U. Bissbort and W. [Hofstetter]{}. . , 86:50007, 2009.
U. Bissbort, R. Thomale, and W. [Hofstetter]{}. . , 81:063643, 2010.
A. E. Niederle and H. Rieger. . , 15:075029, 2013.
J. [Stasiska]{}, M. [Ł]{}cki, O. Dutta, J. Zakrzewski, and M. Lewenstein. . , 90:063634, 2014.
H. Gimperlein, S. Wessel, J. Schmiedmayer, and L. Santos. . , 95:170401, 2005.
S. Wildermuth, S. Hofferberth, I. Lesanovsky, E. Haller, L. M. Andersson, S. Groth, I. Bar-Joseph, P. Kr[ü]{}ger, and J. Schmiedmayer. . , 435:440, 2005.
H. Gimperlein, S. Wessel, J. Schmiedmayer, and L. Santos. . , 82:217, 2006.
M. White, M. Pasienski, D. McKay, S. Q. Zhou, D. Ceperley, and B. DeMarco. . , 102:055301, 2009.
J. E. Lye, L. Fallani, M. Modugno, D. S. Wiersma, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio. . , 95:070401, 2005.
S. Q. Zhou and D. M. Ceperley. . , 81:013402, 2010.
D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller. . , 81:3108, 1998.
J. K. Freericks and H. Monien. . , 53:2691, 1996.
P. Sengupta and S. Haas. . , 99:050403, 2007.
K. G. Balabanyan, N. Prokof’ev, and B. Svistunov. . , 95:055701, 2005.
V. Gurarie, L. Pollet, N. V. Prokof’ev, B. V. Svistunov, and M. Troyer. . , 80:214519, 2009.
L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari. . Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003.
C. J. Pethick and H. Smith. . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.
V. Guarrera, L. Fallani, J. E. Lye, C. Fort, and M. Inguscio. . , 9:107, 2007.
T Roscilde. . , 77:063605, 2008.
C. Zhang, A. Safavi-Naini, and B. Capogrosso-Sansone. . , 91:031604, 2015.
F. Schmitt, M. Hild, and R. Roth. . , 80:023621, 2009.
F. Schmitt, M. Hild, and R. Roth. . , 43:235301, 2010.
T. Bergman, M. G. Moore, and M. Olshanii. . , 91:163201, 2003.
P. Kr[ü]{}ger, Z. Hadzibabic, and J. Dalibard. . , 99:040402, 2007.
H. Habibian, A. Winter, S. Paganelli, H. Rieger, and G. Morigi. . , 88:043618, 2013.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Heavy-light mesons, heavy quarkonium and doubly heavy baryons are briefly discussed. Effective field theories (EFTs) of QCD based on the heavy quark mass expansion $1/m_Q$ provide a unified framework to describe all three systems. They produce a number of model-independent results and simplify non-perturbative (lattice) calculations. Nevertheless, models are still very useful to obtain inexpensive estimates of many observables. It is emphasized that certain models can be accommodated in the EFT framework, like non-relativistic potential models for heavy quarkonium. It is also outlined how to build a suitable EFT for doubly heavy baryons which might also accommodate existing models for these systems. Finally, a few lattice calculations which are badly needed as inputs for EFTs are pointed out.'
author:
- |
J. Soto\
\
\
\
, ,\
title: |
Heavy Quarks:\
Effective Theories, Lattice and Models [^1]
---
Introduction
============
Heavy quarks means charm, bottom and top in the Standard Model (SM). Their masses $m_c\sim 1.5$ GeV , $m_b\sim 5$ GeV and $m_t\sim 190$ GeV are considerably larger than those of the so called light quarks, namely up, down and strange, which lie in the few MeV range. Furthermore, the masses of the heavy quarks turn out to be larger than the masses of the first gapped excitations made out of light quarks only ($\rho$, $N$, ..), which set the scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$. Most of the theoretical progress on the heavy quark physics of QCD in the last 16 years emanates from exploiting the inequality $m_Q >> \Lambda_{QCD}$, a job which EFT techniques have proven to be extremely useful at. Indeed, suitable EFTs have been put forward for systems composed of a single heavy quark ( Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) [@hqet; @isgurwise]) and for systems composed of a heavy quark and a heavy antiquark (Non-relativistic QCD (NRQCD)[@nrqcd]), which nowadays are well established. EFTs however are limited by the fact that they do not address the dynamical properties related to the scale $\Lambda_{QCD}$, which require non-perturbative techniques, but only parameterize them in a way consistent with QCD and the relevant kinematical situation. Hence they have to be supplemented with additional non-perturbative QCD calculations, most of which are carried out by means of lattice simulations. Unfortunately, many times lattice results for real QCD (with three light fermions) are either not available or not accurate enough. Then detailed information about these systems can only be obtained through models.
Except for the contribution [@weber], where general properties of relativistic bound state equations are discussed, the remaining contributions in the Heavy Quarks session were related to the following types of hadrons: (i) mesons composed of a single heavy quark (heavy-light mesons $Q\bar q$ ) [@ebert; @green; @pham], (ii) mesons composed of a heavy quark and a heavy anti-quark (heavy quarkonium $Q\bar Q$) [@tseng; @eidemueller; @jain; @zhu; @graham; @kinoshita; @godfrey] and (iii) baryons composed of two heavy quarks (doubly heavy baryons $QQq$) [@ebert2].
$Q\bar q$ systems
==================
HQET has become the standard tool to analyze these systems [@uraltsev]. HQET renders the dependence on the heavy quark mass explicit, but it does not address the dynamics of the light quark and accompanying gluons. Hence statements beyond those which follow from the spin and flavor symmetries [@isgurwise] that HQET enjoys usually require external information. This information is mainly extracted from two sources.
The first source is modeling. Models are usually able to produce definite predictions on many observables and hence have the advantage that they can be tested against experimental results or serve experimentalists as a guidance on where to look at. We had a nice example of a relativistic quark model in the session [@ebert]. Unfortunately, since the relation of models for heavy-light systems to fundamental QCD is at the present unclear, their failures do not imply a failure of QCD and conversely their successes do not imply that QCD works either.
The second source is lattice QCD. This is a fundamental approach, which in the past had difficulties to properly account for chiral symmetry and to include light dynamical quarks. The first problem has been overcome in recent years (see [@latticechiral] and references therein) and progress is steadily been made in the latter. We had an interesting contribution [@green] where not only the spectrum of heavy-light mesons was studied in the static limit with light dynamical quarks but also the so called radial distributions, which might be used as QCD inputs for suitable kernels of relativistic bound state equation in certain models.
Weak decays of heavy-light mesons, in particular of $B$-mesons, are receiving a lot of both theoretical and experimental attention. They are crucial to fix some of the $CKM$ matrix elements and hence to give a definite answer to the long standing question whether the SM accounts for all $CP$ violation observed in nature. We had an interesting contribution [@pham] where $CP$ violation was studied through asymmetries in non-leptonic three body $B$ decays. Non-leptonic $B$ decays usually require factorization hypothesis for weak matrix elements between hadronic states which sometimes are not in a solid footing. Progress in this direction has also been made in the last years (see for instance [@nb]) and the introduction of EFTs techniques to address this issue [@scet] appears very promising (see [@scetnew] for recent work and references).
$Q\bar Q$ systems
==================
In the same way that HQET has become the standard theoretical tool to study heavy-light systems, NRQCD has done so for heavy quarkonium [@bodwin]. Although the lagrangian of NRQCD is nothing but the addition of the HQET lagrangians for a heavy quark and a heavy antiquark plus local four fermion quark-antiquark interaction terms, the heavy quark mass dependence of the spectrum cannot be easily extracted from it, in contrast to heavy-light systems. This is due to the fact that dynamically generated scales like the typical momentum transfer $k$ (inverse size of the system) or the binding energy $E$ depend now on the heavy quark mass.
Before the introduction of NRQCD much work had been done, and is still done, using potential models. Writing down a Schrödinger equation with a suitable potential appears to be a reasonable thing to do for two heavy quarks, and a considerable effort had been done in the past to obtain suitable potentials from QCD, both within [@potpert] and beyond [@potential] perturbation theory. Nevertheless, it has not become clear until recently what is the exact relation of such models with NRQCD, and hence with QCD.
A key observation to establish this link was that NRQCD contains degrees of freedom which are irrelevant for the kinematical situation of most of the heavy quarkonium states [@mont]. It is then convenient to introduce a new EFT, which was called potential NRQCD (pNRQCD) [@mont; @long], where the irrelevant degrees of freedom are integrated out [@vairo]. At leading order pNRQCD reduces to a Schödinger equation, although the aspect (explicit degrees of freedom) of the pNRQCD lagrangian beyond leading order depends on the interplay between $k$ , $E$ and $\Lambda_{QCD}$. We will use this interplay to classify heavy quarkonium states in nature and the various contributions to this session.
The situation $k >> \Lambda_{QCD}$, $E$ corresponds to the weak coupling regime. In nature the $\Upsilon (1s)$, $\eta_b (1s)$ and would-be toponium resonances are in this situation. These states are in a very good theoretical control since NNLL [@pineda] (see also [@iainandre] and references therein) and NNNLO [@hamburg] calculations have recently become available. It is important to keep in mind that the non-perturbative effects in this situation are conveniently parameterized by condensates (local [@voloshinleutwyler] or non-local [@dosch; @long] ) and not by introducing non-perturbative contributions to the potential (i.e. the typical linear term). In fact, it would be very important in order to reduce the systematic error of the above calculations to have up dated lattice estimates of these condensates. In any case, precision experimental data on $\eta_b (1s)$ would be very welcome to check these calculations against nature. It is then a good new the $\eta_b (1s)$ event found at CDF which was reported in this section [@tseng]. The sum rule techniques reported in [@eidemueller] are also related to the weak coupling regime. They allow the extraction of $\overline{\rm MS}$ charm and bottom masses from charmonium and bottomonium systems. We also had a report on a search for top-antitop resonances at D0 [@jain]. This search is, unfortunately, not sensible to the would-be toponium resonances [@top] which will have to wait for the Next Linear Collider being built [@supriya].
The situation $k \sim \Lambda_{QCD} >> E$ corresponds to the strong coupling regime. In nature this situation appears to be reasonable for all states below threshold which are not too close to it (except for the ones in the weak coupling regime mentioned above). Hence most of the experimental results are related to them, in particular three of the experimental contributions to this session: the BES results reported in [@zhu], which include a partial wave analysis of radiative two pion and two kaon decays relevant to light meson spectroscopy, the Fermilab E835 measurement of the two photon width of ${\chi_c}_0$ [@graham], and the results from BELLE [@kinoshita] which include a puzzling enhancement of double charmonium production (See [@blb] for a possible explanation). We also had an important theoretical contribution [@godfrey] with estimates on branching ratios of various production and decay channels for the missing quarkonium states below threshold ($\eta_b$, $h_b$ , $h_c$ and $D$-wave states). Let me make a few remarks concerning this contribution, which also apply to any potential model calculation. Potential models are indeed EFTs of QCD in this kinematical situation [@long] provided that: (i) the interaction with pseudo-Goldstone bosons, which is small, is neglected, (ii) the potentials in the model are the ones obtained from QCD [@pinedavairo], or a good approximation to them (see for instance [@gunar]), and (iii) the usual formulas for the decay widths are corrected in order to properly take into account the contributions of the NRQCD color octet operators [@pwave]. Similar modifications are expected in the production formulas but they have not been worked out yet. It would be very useful for eventual tests of QCD in heavy quarkonium physics that potential model practitioners take into account these facts in their calculations.
**$QQq$ systems**
=================
In contrast to $Q\bar q$ and $Q\bar Q$ systems, no specific EFT has been built for doubly heavy baryons (yet). Hence, almost all theoretical information available on them is based on models, from which we had a nice example in this session [@ebert2]. It is interesting to elucidate how the missing EFT for $QQq$ systems would look like [@kiselev]. Following the ideas of [@mont] we should first integrate out degrees of freedom with energies at the scale $m_Q$ or higher. We would get the HQET lagrangian plus four fermion quark-quark local interaction terms, which would be nothing but NRQCD in the heavy quark-quark sector. This lagrangian can either be used to produce lattice results, analogously to $Q\bar Q$ systems (see for instance [@latticeNRQCD]), or as a starting point of further EFTs which, hopefully, would be closer to available models, like pNRQCD for $Q\bar Q$ systems is to potential models. In the weak coupling regime the $Q$-$Q$ interaction has an attractive channel and a repulsive one (like the $Q$-$\bar Q$ interaction) . Hence for very large $m_Q$ the attractive channel would give rise to Coulomb-type bound states between the two quarks of energy $E\sim m_Q \alpha_s^2$ . If $m_Q \alpha_s^2 >> \Lambda_{QCD}$, one could built an EFT for the $Q$-$Q$ pair analogous to pNRQCD in the weak coupling regime [@long]. The interaction of each Coulomb-type bound state with the non-perturbative gluons would produce a HQET-like spectrum for the remaining interaction with the light quark [@sw]. In the strong coupling regime, namely when the typical momentum transfer between the heavy quarks $\sim \Lambda_{QCD}$, the light quark is expected to affect the leading interaction between the heavy quarks in a similar way as the so called hybrid potentials for $Q\bar Q$ states are affected by the gluonic quantum numbers [@hybrid], which is in turn reminiscent of the fact that valence electrons modify the interaction between ions in a non-trivial way in molecular physics. It would be important to have lattice estimates of $QQ$ potentials (static energies) for different quantum numbers of the light degrees of freedom. Finally, let me note that these interesting systems are expected to be produced experimentally soon. In fact, a few states have already been reported [@exdhb].
Discussion
===========
The main issue at this conference is the understanding of the quark confinement mechanism, which turns it into a prominently theoretical event. This is why I have put little emphasis on the experimental results. In order to partially compensate for it, let me just recall that most of the excitement in heavy quark physics is nowadays driven by experiment. Indeed experimental groups have had the larger representation ever in the heavy quark session of this conference. This is not accidental. Many years after the discovery of the first charmonium and bottomonium states, we see now close the time where the full spectrum below threshold will finally be uncovered, and precision data for many states is becoming available. Not to mention the wealth of results in $B$-physics among others.
Having said that, let me come back to the links between heavy quark physics and the confinement mechanism. In fact the goal of QCD based theory in heavy quark physics has been the parameterization of non-perturbative effects in a way as generic as possible so that any detail depending on the confinement mechanism is encoded in a number of parameters (for instance NRQCD matrix elements) or functions (for instance the Isgur-Wise function). Since these parameters and functions can be extracted from experimental data, heavy quark physics may help to discern between different confinement mechanism in nature (e.g. monopoles [@suzuki] versus vortex [@faber]) if these mechanism provide different numbers or different shapes for the above mentioned parameters or functions.
In any case, progress in QCD based theory for heavy quarks goes on basically (but not only) along two lines: EFTs and improved lattice simulations. Still the use of phenomenological models is unavoidable to obtain estimates for many observables. I would like to emphasize that the cooperation between these three approaches may provide important results in the near future. For this cooperation to be successful, it is required that potential model practitioners try to up-grade their models to make them compatible with the current EFTs results and lattice QCD practitioners provide the non-perturbative QCD inputs that are necessary to EFTs.
Let me put an example to illustrate that this is an efficient way to proceed. Suppose we want to calculate the charmonium and bottomonium spectrum from QCD. Let us restrict for simplicity to vector and pseudoscalar states. If we insist in doing the calculation directly from the QCD lagrangian, we would have to calculate non-perturbatively four different two point functions, two of them with five dynamical quarks and the remaining two with four. If we instead use NRQCD at leading order, the calculation reduces considerably. Since spin symmetry tells us that pseudoscalars and vectors are roughly degenerated, we only have to calculate two two point functions with three dynamical quarks [@latticeNRQCD]. If we go further and use pNRQCD we only have to calculate the static potential with three dynamical quarks [^2], which is a much simpler non-perturbative calculation than any two point function either in QCD or NRQCD. The advantage of using pNRQCD becomes even clearer if we wish next to do the same calculations for the $B_c$ system. For a QCD calculation we would have to calculate two extra two point functions, for NRQCD one extra two point function, and for pNRQCD nothing: the same static potential used for charmonium and bottomonium can be used for the $B_c$ system as well. Furthermore, since many potential models use potentials which are similar to the lattice QCD static potential (e.g. the Cornell potential [@godfrey]) and reproduce data quite well, we are now close to be actually testing QCD.
Elaborating further on the proposal above, let me finally mention a few lattice calculations which are needed to make the link between potential models and QCD quantitative. First of all, the evaluation of the $1/m$ potential discovered in [@m1]. This potential has been ignored so far in potential models, but on general grounds it could be as important as the static potential. The phenomenological success of potential models (based on the static potential only) suggests that this will not be the case, but it should be confirmed by lattice data. Second, an updated evaluation of the spin dependent potentials [@gunar] would also be helpful. Finally, it has been shown in [@pwave] that the inclusive decay widths require a few universal non-perturbative parameters, which should also be calculated on the lattice.
Conclusions
===========
Let me just conclude with a few sentences which are intended to flash what is going on in the field: (i) there is lot of excitement in experiment, (ii) progress from QCD persists, mainly through the use of EFT techniques and improved lattice simulations, and (iii) a great deal of modeling is still needed for many observables.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I am grateful to Geoffrey Bodwin and Dieter Gromes for suggestions on the preparation of the talk, and to Antonio Pineda for a careful reading of this written version of it. his work is partially supported by y and eder, 2001-3598, and by , 2001-00065.
[0]{} M. A. Shifman, M. B. Voloshin, [*Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**45**]{}, 292 (1987); [**47**]{}, 511 (1988); E. Eichten, B. Hill, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B234**]{}, 511 (1990); B. Grinstein, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B339**]{}, 253 (1990); H. Georgi, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B240**]{}, 447 (1990).
N. Isgur, M. B. Wise, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B232**]{}, 113 (1989); [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B237**]{}, 527 (1990).
W. E. Caswell, G. P. Lepage, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B167**]{}, 437 (1986); B. A. Thacker, G. P. Lepage, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D43**]{}, 196 (1991); G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, G. P. Lepage; [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D51**]{}, 1125 (1995), Erratum-[*ibid.*]{} [**D55**]{}, 5853 (1997).
A. Weber, these proceedings; [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D65**]{}, 025009 (2002).
D. Ebert, these proceedings; D. Ebert, V. O. Galkin, R. N. Faustov, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D57**]{}, 5663 (1998), Erratum-[*ibid.*]{} [**D59**]{}, 019902 (1999).
A. M. Green, J. Koponen, P. Pennanen, C. Michael, these proceedings, hep-lat/0212017; hep-lat/0206015.
T. N. Pham, these proceedings, hep-ph/0301160; S. Fajfer, R. J. Oakes, T. N. Pham, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B539**]{}, 67 (2002).
J. Tseng, these proceedings, FERMILAB-CONF-02-348-E.
M. Eidemüller, these proceedings; hep-ph/0207237.
S. Jain, these proceedings, hep-ex/0302037.
Y. Zhu, these proceedings.
M. Graham, these proceedings; FERMILAB-THESIS-2002-19.
K. Kinoshita, these proceedings.
S. Godfrey, these proceedings, hep-ph/0210399; S. Godfrey, J. L. Rosner, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D66**]{}, 014012 (2002); [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D64**]{}, 097501 (2001), Erratum-[*ibid.*]{} [**D66**]{}, 059902 (2002); [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D64**]{}, 074011 (2001), Erratum-[*ibid.*]{} [**D65**]{}, 039901 (2002).
D. Ebert, these proceedings; D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, A. P. Martynenko, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D66**]{}, 014008 (2002).
N. Uraltsev, these proceedings.
P. Hasenfratz, [*Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.*]{} [**106**]{} 159 (2002).
M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, C. T. Sachrajda, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{}, 1914 (1999); [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B591**]{}, 313 (2000).
C. W. Bauer, S. Fleming, M. E. Luke, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D63**]{}, 014006 (2001).
R. J. Hill, M. Neubert, hep-ph/0211018; C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol, I. W. Stewart, hep-ph/0211069; D. Pirjol, I. W. Stewart, hep-ph/0211251; M. Beneke, T. Feldmann, hep-ph/0211358.
W. Fischler, Nucl. Phys. [**B129**]{}, 157 (1977); S.N. Gupta, S.F. Radford and W.W. Repko, Phys. Rev. [**D26**]{} 3305 (1982); S. Titard and F.J. Yndur[á]{}in, Phys. Rev. [**D49**]{}, 6007 (1994); Y. Schröder, Phys. Lett. [**B447**]{}, 321 (1999); M. Peter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 602 (1997).
K. G. Wilson, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 10**]{}, 2445 (1974); L. Susskind, in [*Les Houches, Session XXIX*]{} ed. R. Balian and C. H. Llewellyn Smith (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, (1977); E. Eichten and F. L. Feinberg, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 23**]{}, 2724 (1981); M. E. Peskin, in Proceeding of the 11th SLAC Institute , SLAC Report No. 207, 151, edited by P. Mc Donough (1983); D. Gromes, [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**C 26**]{}, 401 (1984); A. Barchielli, E. Montaldi and G. M. Prosperi, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 296**]{}, 625 (1988); (E) [*ibid.*]{} [**303**]{}, 752 (1988); A. Barchielli, N. Brambilla and G. Prosperi, [*Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**103 A**]{}, 59 (1990); Y. Chen, Y. Kuang and R. J. Oakes, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 52**]{}, 264 (1995); A. P. Szczepaniak and E. S. Swanson, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 55**]{}, 3987 (1997).
A. Pineda, J. Soto, [*Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.*]{} [**64**]{}, 428 (1998).
N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, A. Vairo, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B566**]{}, 275 (2000).
A, Vairo, these proceedings, hep-ph/0212271.
G. T. Bodwin, these proceedings, hep-ph/0212203.
A. Pineda, J. Soto, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B495**]{}, 323 (2000); A. Pineda, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D65**]{}, 074007 (2002); [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D66**]{}, 054022 (2002); hep-ph/0204213.
A, H. Hoang, I. W. Stewart, hep-ph/0209340.
B. A. Kniehl, A. A. Penin, M. Steinhauser, V. A. Smirnov; [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D65**]{}, 091503 (2002); [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B635**]{}, 357 (2002); hep-ph/0210161; A. A. Penin, M. Steinhauser; [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B538**]{}, 335 (2002).
M. B. Voloshin, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B154**]{}, 365 (1979); H. Leutwyler, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B98**]{}, 447 (1981); A. Pineda, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B494**]{}, 213 (1997).
H.G. Dosch, Yu. A. Simonov, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B205**]{}, 339 (1988).
A. H. Hoang et al., [*Eur. Phys. J. direct*]{} [**C2**]{}, 3 (2000).
S. Jain, private communication.
G. T. Bodwin, J. Lee, E. Braaten, hep-ph/0212352.
G. S. Bali, K. Schilling, A. Wachter, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D56**]{}, 2566 (1997); G. S. Bali, [*Phys. Rept.*]{} [**343**]{}, 1 (2001).
N. Brambilla, D. Eiras, A. Pineda, J. Soto, A. Vairo, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{}, 012003 (2002); hep-ph/0208019.
A. Pineda, A. Vairo, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D63**]{}, 054007 (2001), Erratum-[*ibid.*]{} [**D64**]{}, 039902 (2001).
V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, O. N. Pakhomova, V. A. Saleev, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D66**]{}, 034030 (2002).
G. T. Bodwin, D. K. Sinclair, S. Kim, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D65**]{}, 054504 (2002); HPQCD collaboration and UKQCD collaboration (A. Gray et al.), hep-lat/0209022.
M. J. Savage, M. B. Wise, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B248**]{}, 177 (1990).
K. J. Juge, J. Kuti, C. J. Morningstar, [*Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.*]{} [**63**]{}, 326 (1998); hep-lat/0207004; hep-lat/0209109; MILC Collaboration (C. Bernard et al.), hep-lat/0209051.
SELEX Collaboration (M. Mattson et al.), [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**89**]{} 112001 (2002); SELEX Collaboration (M. A. Moinester et al.), hep-ex/0212029.
N. Brambilla, A. Vairo, hep-ph/9904330.
M. N. Chernodub, T. Suzuki, these proceedings, hep-lat/0211026.
R. Bertle, M. Faber, these proceedings, hep-lat/0212027.
N. Brambilla, A. Pineda, J. Soto, A. Vairo, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D63**]{}, 014023 (2001).
[^1]: Summary Talk of the Heavy Quark Session at the 5th International Conference on Quark Confinement and the Hadron Spectrum, Gargnano, Brescia, Italy, 10-14 Sep 2002.
[^2]: I am assuming here that the $1/m$ potential is subleading.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Introduction
============
Occultations of planets in the solar system by the moon receive particular attention in astronomical almanacs. They occur at semi-regular intervals of a few years’ time and, as such, they are quite common. In the 21st century there are a total of 59 cases for the classical naked-eye planets, 34 of which happen during daytime. Lunar eclipses are more frequent, and for a fixed location one can expect roughly 1 per year on average.
The impressive lunar eclipse of 27 July 2018 took place in the vicinity of Mars. This gave rise to the idea of a combination of both spectacles: a “hierarchical eclipse”. It will be characterised by four bodies placed in a straight line — Sun, Earth, Moon, and a planet. In this paper we put the “double overlaps”, as they would be seen from the sun, to a test. We try to gain insight into the following questions: Did this kind of consecutive covering of celestial objects happen in the historical past? In particular, are there reports about an eclipsed moon eclipsing another planet simultaneously? How often does such a line-up occur? When will the next opportunity be scheduled? Do exist cycles or, at least, accumulations for these hierarchical eclipses?
The analysis is based on an empirical list of events compiled for the years from 0 to +4,000 AD. We used the simulation software packages *Guide 9.1* (2017), *Cartes du Ciel 4.0* (2017), and *Occult 4.6.0* (2018). The next section presents some few accounts from history that match our configuration. In Section \[ch:parallax\] we check the tolerance for visibility, and in the subsequent section we discuss the frequency of the occurrences. Within the scope of our investigation, we achieved some instructive results.
For the sake of clarity, we use the following technical terms: The obscuration of a planet will be called “occultation” in order to distinguish it from the “eclipse” of the moon. The instant of disappearance of the planet behind the moon’s disk is labelled “immersion”, while its re-appearance is the “emersion”. The eclipse contacts with the earth’s umbra are assigned U1 to U4, as defined in the astronomical textbooks: begin of the umbral eclipse (U1), begin of totality (U2), end of totality (U3), and end of the declining phase (U4), respectively.
Records from History
====================
One historic account about a hierarchical eclipse was passed down by the medieval priest Roger of Hoveden. His lifetime can only be limited to the years between 1174 to 1201 AD. In the relevant paragraph of his chronicle he reports about a “bright star” being involved in a peculiar scene with the eclipsed moon. The record for the year 756 AD reads as follows [@rogerdehov]:
> On the eighth day before the calends of December (23rd November), the moon, on her fifteenth day, being about her full, appeared to be covered with the colour of blood, and then, the darkness decreasing, she turned to her usual brightness; but, in a wondrous manner, a bright star followed the moon, and passing across her, preceded her when shining, at the same distance at which it had followed her before she was darkened.
The procedure is not correctly described from the astronomical point of view. The direction of the course is inverted, and the lunar eclipse took place one year earlier, in 755 AD. The “star” was Jupiter who was overtaken by the moon while the latter was darkened in the earth’s shadow (Figure \[fig:jupitermofi\]). The event goes back more than four centuries prior to Roger’s time. It appears only natural that scribal errors slip in, especially, when one of the copists in the chain of transmission failed to understand the meaning of the line himself. The original record does not seem to be preserved.
![Jupiter was occulted by the lunar disk, which suffered an eclipse itself, on 23 November 755 AD. Simulated view from London.[]{data-label="fig:jupitermofi"}](mofi0755-cdc2g.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Another record, that would be contemporary with Roger’s life, closely missed a similar sight in Syria. The patriarch of the Orthodox Church in Aleppo, Michael Syrus (1126–1199), vividly depicts the nightmare of a solar eclipse on 11 April 1176. Thereafter he continues [@histeclipses]:
> Fifteen days after \[the solar eclipse\], in this month of Nissan (April) at the decline of Monday, at dusk, there was an eclipse of the Moon in the part of the sky where the eclipse of the Sun had taken place …
Of course, it took place in the opposite part of the sky. The eclipse was partial (mag = 0.673) with the Northern rim unobscured. Above the non-eclipsed edge, Jupiter was shining. The cleric must have regarded the bright spot as a usual star and did not mention it. Somewhat further to the South that spot was occulted, e.g. in Kenya and, even more, in South Africa.
Another great occasion to watch a hierarchical eclipse occurred shortly before the telescopic era. On 26 July 1580 the eclipsed moon met even two planets, Saturn and Uranus. An observer in Japan could have seen the disappearance of Saturn, while someone in Northern Australia the same of Uranus. Only on the small Indonesian island of Koror both planets were occulted, though not simultaneously. The partially eclipsed moon ran over Uranus first, and 10 minutes after its emersion, the occultation of Saturn began. The subsequent lunation provided an occultation of both planets at the same time, but without the eclipse then. However, in that year no-one knew about the existence of Uranus, and telescopes were not invented yet.
As regards modern times, the sole chance to have had a glimpse of Saturn being covered during an eclipse was on 14 December 1796. It was visible in East Asia, but any remark about an observation is not known to us.
The View from Earth {#ch:parallax}
===================
The occultation of any background object during a lunar eclipse implies its opposition with the sun. As a matter of fact, Mercury and Venus are excluded.
At first, let us imagine a fictitious observer in the center of the earth looking through a vitreous sphere. The shadow of the earth (umbra) has an apparent radius as large as 1.3$^{\circ}$ at the distance of the moon. The geocentric observer would see the maximum duration when the planet is placed exactly in the ecliptic and the moon traverses the shadow centrally. Then we have the longest totality, and the moon crosses over the planet alongside its diameter, also providing the longest occultation possible. Such a configuration almost never happens in practice. Usually, the moon passes through the shadow at some displacement from the center, and the planet will hide along a cord behind the moon’s face.
![Geocentric views of Jupiter and Moon during the lunar eclipse of 755 at four different times. The circle denotes the parallactic field of view for the occultation to be visible from an unspecified geographic location somewhere on Earth. Compare Figure \[fig:geokarte\].[]{data-label="fig:parafield"}](geozentr-abb2d.eps){width="\linewidth"}
For the other extreme, the moon just scratches both the planet and the umbra with its diametrically opposite fringes. On one edge it would cover the shining dot for a moment and, on the other, it touches the umbra on its antipode. This adds an angle of 0.45$^{\circ}$ to 0.52$^{\circ}$ to the extent of the terrestrial shadow, depending on the current distance of the moon, since the size of its disk varies between perigee and apogee. For the planet, it gives $\approx 1.8^{\circ}$ of tolerance to stay above or below the ecliptic (Figure \[fig:parafield\]).
{width="\linewidth"}
In contrast to that geocentric observer, the real viewer has the advantage to move on the surface of the earth. His topocentric position gains a parallax, as it would be seen from the moon (cosine of his geographical latitude). At the poles this accounts for another $\approx 15^{\prime}$. On the whole, we find the parallactic field of view to be 4 times larger than the diameter of the moon. To ensure the hierarchical eclipse to be seen from some spot on earth (topocentric), the planet must stay inside this parallactic circle (geocentric). If the planet is outside, there will be no point on the globe for the hierarchical eclipse.
Figure \[fig:parafield\] shows the field of tolerance for Roger’s occultation event. From the geocentric view, four instants are presented:
- At 18:40 UT, the circle reached Jupiter. On the surface of the earth, both the planet and the moon were rising in Dakar, West Africa. The planet was standing already in the umbra, and the occultation of the planet (its immersion) could be seen during totality there. However, from the location of London, Jupiter resided in the penumbra, while the moon was still running towards the planet.
- At 19:37 UT, the geocentric observer would have seen the planet closer to the darkened face, while in London its immersion occurred. But the totality has already ended at 19:25 UT, such that the occultation started during the decreasing partial phase. Jupiter entered the umbra, while covered, and returned for visibility (emersion) after the lunar eclipse had fully ended, i.e. beyond the U4-contact.
- Going even further eastward, the occultation of Jupiter would be observed from another angle, e.g. in Perm in the Ural: immersion as well as emersion took place with Jupiter standing in the penumbra. The terrestrial shadow crept up slowly towards the planet, while the moon was overtaking it. When the moon reached the planet, the eclipse was close to finish (penumbra neglected).
- For Beijing it was not until 22:40 UT as the moon caught up with the shining dot, and the whole procedure passed off sequentially instead of simultaneously.
Note that the fictitious observer at the center of the earth would not have seen any occultation at all. It is a pure effect of the extent of the spherical earth that the hierarchical eclipse happened. The region of visibility is shown as the grey-shaded area in Figure \[fig:geokarte\]. East of the yellow line the total eclipse ended (U3-contact), and the red line marks the border of the finish of the partial phase (U4-contact).
A useful insight is that there are no fixed times for immersion and emersion, but they depend on the location of the observer. The occultation occurs at different times in spite of having deployed the same time frame for reference (like the UT). With regard to Earth’s shadow, the planet seems to stay at different positions in the sky. While the eclipse is in progress, the umbra of the earth moves on, too, reducing the deviation for an eastward observer.
Ecl. U1 – U4 Magn. Planet Bri. I – E Best visibility
--------- -------------- --------------- -------- --------- ------- ----------------- -------------------
2 Nov 8 21:26 – 23:59 0.46 Mars -1.8 21:58 – 23:02 W-Brazil
195 Jul 10 23:41 – 03:36 1.71 Saturn 0.6 03:35 – 04:42 Central Pacific
354 Dec 16 12:28 – 15:50 1.33 Saturn -0.4 15:27 – 16:22 E-Africa
400 Dec 17 17:05 – 20:27 1.06 Jupiter -2.7 19:46 – 21:11 Seychelles
412 Nov 4 18:22 – 22:06 1.60 Mars -1.9 20:06 – 21:05 S-Africa
458 Nov 6 21:16 – 00:11 0.80 Jupiter -2.8 21:10 – 22:16 Caucasus
480 Sep 5 03:25 – 06:19 0.60 Jupiter -2.9 03:21 – 03:58 Hudson-Bay
\* 502 Dec 29 12:52 – 16:34 1.64 Saturn -0.3 13:24 – 14:29 Hawaii
513 Jun 4 08:02 – 11:50 1.34 Jupiter -2.7 07:23 – 08:39 Bolivia
524 May 3 16:25 – 20:02 1.65 Jupiter -2.6 19:59 – 20:37 S-Pole
755 Nov 23 16:49 – 20:37 1.40 Jupiter -2.8 19:37 – 20:53 Europe
771 Feb 4 08:29 – 11:32 0.93 Saturn 0.3 11:27 – 12:25 Tasmania
799 Jul 21 13:47 – 17:30 1.56 Jupiter -2.9 17:02 – 18:17 Kazakhstan
\* 810 Jun 20 18:04 – 21:36 1.84 Jupiter -2.8 20:11 – 21:34 Madagascar
821 May 20 18:30 – 22:14 1.41 Jupiter -2.6 21:42 – 22:52 E-Brazil
879 Apr 10 09:29 – 12:52 1.36 Jupiter -2.5 12:08 – 12:43 S-Pole
959 Jun 23 06:37 – 09:44 0.94 Saturn 0.1 09:42 – 10:30 Antarctica
1052 Dec 8 20:38 – 00:07 1.65 Jupiter -2.7 23:56 – 00:53 Caribbean
1176 Apr 25 17:43 – 20:46 0.67 Jupiter -2.5 19:20 – 20:29 Indian Ocean
1234 Mrc 17 02:06 – 04:51 0.65 Jupiter -2.5 02:55 – 03:47 Patagonia
1312 Jun 19 18:05 – 21:06 1.55 Saturn 0.1 20:05 – 21:11 Namibia
1407 Nov 15 11:05 – 14:25 1.19 Jupiter -2.8 11:16 – 11:44 N-Siberia
1418 Oct 14 20:15 – 23:53 1.12 Jupiter -2.9 22:40 – 22:48 N-Canada
1462 Jun 12 00:32 – 03:17 0.59 Jupiter -2.7 00:16 – 00:58 Antarctica
\* 1473 May 12 06:21 – 08:27 0.37 Jupiter -2.6 07:09 – 08:26 Polynesia
1531 Apr 1 18:05 – 19:24 0.11 Jupiter -2.5 19:01 – 20:03 S-Africa
1580 Jul 26 09:27 – 12:47 1.26 Saturn 0.3 10:52 – 11:58 Japan (+ Uranus!)
1591 Dec 30 02:12 – 05:45 1.57 Saturn -0.4 05:14 – 06:11 Alaska
1796 Dec 14 13:05 – 15:27 0.49 Saturn -0.3 14:52 – 15:55 Siberia
2344 Jul 26 10:40 – 14:21 1.34 Saturn 0.1 12:18 – 13:44 N-Pacific
2429 Jun 17 10:42 – 11:10 0.02 Saturn 0.1 10:58 – 11:58 New Zealand
2488 Apr 26 07:42 – 11:02 1.38 Mars -1.6 08:07 – 08:51 Antarctica
2829 Jan 11 01:41 – 05:33 1.81 Saturn -0.4 05:26 – 06:40 N-Pacific
2932 Jun 9 22:13 – 23:50 0.21 Jupiter -2.6 22:32 – 23:38 E-Brazil
\* 2977 Jan 26 07:03 – 10:49 1.65 Saturn -0.4 07:37 – 08:48 S-Mexico
2990 May 1 23:57 – 01:09 0.09 Jupiter -2.5 00:26 – 01:21 S-Chile
3108 Jun 15 06:26 – 08:57 0.44 Saturn 0.0 06:17 – 07:47 French Polynesia
3218 Jul 30 00:00 – 02:23 0.46 Jupiter -2.7 00:06 – 01:05 Madagascar
3229 Jun 28 16:30 – 19:20 0.55 Jupiter -2.6 18:03 – 18:48 Madagascar
3287 May 19 14:30 – 17:32 0.88 Jupiter -2.5 14:36 – 15:27 Fr. S-Antarctica
3376 Aug 21 18:58 – 20:39 0.20 Saturn 0.2 19:06 – 20:33 Maldives
3444 Dec 17 16:17 – 19:07 0.59 Saturn -0.4 17:13 – 17:30 Arctic
3461 Jul 14 22:35 – 02:12 1.62 Saturn 0.0 22:10 – 22:41 Antarctica
3584 Jun 6 12:52 – 16:32 1.16 Jupiter -2.5 14:26 – 14:58 Madagascar
3805 Jan 28 08:12 – 11:19 0.93 Jupiter -2.7 08:29 – 09:17 Central Chile
3815 Dec 29 12:28 – 15:37 0.89 Jupiter -2.9 13:19 – 13:58 Svalbard
3826 Nov 27 15:22 – 18:25 0.65 Jupiter -2.9 17:40 – 18:36 Svalbard
3870 Jul 26 00:20 – 03:57 1.48 Jupiter -2.7 00:33 – 01:34 Seychelles
3881 Jun 25 08:28 – 12:04 1.82 Jupiter -2.6 09:26 – 10:10 S-Australia
Frequency of Hierarchical Eclipses
==================================
{width="\linewidth"}
Table \[tab:luneclipseplanet\] lists all hierarchical eclipses we were able to find between 0 and 4,000 AD. We make no claim for completeness. Dates before 1582 are Julian, thereafter Gregorian. Considered are only cases with at least one planetary contact (immersion or emersion) inside the time interval for the eclipse, which is given in column 2: between U1 and U4. The magnitude in column 3 denotes the maximum eclipse. If below 1.0, the eclipse is partial. Columns 4, 5, and 6 give the name of the planet, its brightness, and the time of immersion (I) and emersion (E). These latter times correspond to a “good” site of visibility in the last column 7. It may not necessarily be an ideal spot, but it would be very close to it. The star (\*) in the first column indicates the hierarchical coverage for the fictitious position at the center of the earth.
It is informative to discover that only four (\*) of 49 incidents could be seen from the geocentric point. The others are attributed to the extended surface of the earth. That is to say, we observe them, *because* one is placed at a certain parallax somewhere on the globe. As the case would be, one could witness either the eclipsing hierarchy, or a simple occultation of the planet, or even nothing. The lunar eclipse, though, is visible in the same way for anyone having the moon above the horizon.
Figure \[fig:haeufigkeit\] shows a histogram of the data for each century. Hierarchical eclipses seem to be irregularly distributed. There are intervals of accumulation, but we live in an extraordinary long interval of shortage. Jupiter was prominent in the first millennium, while Mars is very rarely occulted, in general. A strict periodicity cannot be extracted for any planet, but some repetitions and gaps do catch attention. The reasons for it rest upon the characteristics of the planetary orbits, as Meeus *etal.* point out [@meeus-etal_1977]: inclination and eccentricity. The period of eclipses, which is governed by the draconitic period of the moon, is also essential.
For obtaining a cycle, three periods need to be considered. The synodic month of the moon has to be an integer, otherwise there is no full moon. The draconitic month has to be half its number, otherwise there will be no eclipse. And, thirdly, the synodic revolution of the planet must be an integer, too, in order to meet the opposition. All periods are incommensurable and carry a minute displacement against the other on the long run. Here we sketch the qualities briefly for each planet, but a more precise mathematical treatment is still pending.
#### Mars
has an orbital inclination of 1.85$^{\circ}$ to the ecliptic, but it exhibits the largest departure at the extremes, as seen from Earth. There are only two small windows, each of about 50$^{\circ}$ centered on the nodes with the ecliptic, in which the planet crosses this reference plane within a favourable latitude accessible for a lunar eclipse. So, the hierarchical eclipse can only happen in the days of April/May and from October to the beginning of December. For the other months the ecliptic latitude of Mars will be too high or too low, and, thus, out of reach for the parallactic field.
A secondary obstacle regards the ellipticity of its orbit. The velocity will not be uniform owing to the perihelion and aphelion. Therefore, this gives rise to an advance or retard as compared to a circular orbit. This means that the lunar node could fail to catch the planet at a convenient instant although the conditions are fulfilled. The “period” for a recurrence, if it exists, will possibly be valid for a small piece of its orbit only, unless extremely long time scales are envisioned.
#### Jupiter
displays the smallest deviation from the ecliptic and can be occulted by an eclipsed moon in any season. This planet is most often involved in hierarchical eclipses, as Figure \[fig:haeufigkeit\] confirms. However, there are episodes of abundances as well as paucities. Two slight periods of 10.9 and 57.9 years flash up, and they *would* be more prominent, if the orbit was circular. On the other side, these two quasi-periods have to be merged with the advancing difference with respect to the lunar node. The revolution of the lunar node is controlled by the precession of the moon’s plane, and should comply with half its number of the draconitic period which is 18.61 years.
Again, both series above only satisfy the conditions for a small arc of Jupiter’s orbit. If the incident comes about close to perihelion, then the 11-year period can hold for one or two more chances as in 799–810–821. When the minute differences on subsequent “hits” have accumulated, the series tears off and there are no hierarchical eclipses for several centuries. See [@meeus-etal_1977] for details.
#### Saturn
is an intermediate case. The inclination of its orbit is 2.49$^{\circ}$ but the planet’s outward distance makes the vertical elevation from the ecliptic appear $\pm2.3^{\circ}$ at maximum. For a few weeks in spring and autumn the planet is beyond the threshold for eclipses, and the hierarchy is suspended. An asset is that Saturn changes its position along the orbit quite slowly and stays inside the admissible belt for lunar eclipses for several years. The conditions seem to provide a larger stability, but we confess not having checked this in detail. We were not able to identify a period for Saturn, for all its hierarchical eclipses seem to proceed at random.
#### The Moon
itself is liable to the extent of the circular parallactic field. Its elliptical orbit around Earth brings the anomalistic month as another period into consideration. This type rules the exact size of the circle and determines whether or not the planet will be positioned inside or just slightly outside the ring. The circle “pulsates” in the rhythm of the anomalistic month.
For extremely long timescales, the eccentricity of each orbit varies as well. This holds even for the earth itself. Taken all these factors into account, there will hardly be a cycle of a stable nature. Anyway, all periods turn out incommensurable in the Solar System, while the purpose of any search for periods is usually to find an approximation as good as possible.
Anti-Transits
=============
In closing, let us change perspectives. If the moon is able to cover a background object, then the sun will do so as well. Taking planets as targets, they will hide behind the solar disk. One may call this an “anti-transit”. As a matter of principle, it is unobservable, and our examination becomes just an academic question.
In order to have this state of affairs hierarchically, the sun needs to be covered, too, i.e. the moon will be the obvious object to trigger a solar eclipse while the planet is anti-transiting. To achieve that, the planet has to be in the superior conjunction and stay close to one of its nodes. The maximum ecliptic latitude allowed is $\pm15^{\prime}$, since this is the apparent radius of the sun. Mercury and Venus can join our consideration again. The duration of the anti-transit depends on the relative speed between the sun and the planet. The sun traverses its own diameter in about 12 hours, however, Mercury and Venus move faster than the sun at their superior conjunction and may stay longer than a day behind it, if the passage is central.
If you think, it is too weird, you’re wrong. It happens from time to time, most recently at the total eclipse of 30 June 1954 [@ricci]. Jupiter stepped behind the sun at 10 UT that day and remained obscured for the next 17 hours. The moon entered the playground around midday (Southern Scandinavia) and caused an eclipse of the sun between 11 and 14 UT. Thus, two celestial objects were deprived from sight for the observer on Earth. The next opportunity is envisaged for 14 May 2105, when Mercury will perform its anti-transit and a partial solar eclipse will have its stage.
Conclusions
===========
We presented the rare phenomenon of an “eclipse-occultation” when a planet at opposition is eclipsed by the moon which, in turn, is eclipsed by the earth. The example of Roger de Hoveden showed that Jupiter’s disappearance occurs at different times for different places, though the same time frame is used. This effect is due to the parallax for the observers on the surface of the earth. In contrast to that, the lunar eclipse for all observers occurs at the same instant.
As known since Antiquity, lunar eclipses can be utilised to measure the time difference between two places on Earth, if they are widely spaced in geographical longitude. In fact, this method was employed in old times for localising time zones or synchronising clocks.
Occultations by the moon can be used to determine its position and speed in the sky. Hence, they reveal the secular acceleration that is based on the exchange of angular momentum between Earth and Moon. For an evaluation of those observations and results, the geographical position of the observer is relevant. The method fails to work when documents from various (unknown) cultural regions are compared, because the occultation takes place at different times, even if a common time scale like the “UT” is used. In case of known places of observation, still a correction procedure has to be applied.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Dr. Eckhard Fliege for critically reading the manuscript. The results of this paper were published in the popular German magazine for astronomy, *Sternzeit 45*, No. 2 / 2020. They are also included in the Habilitation (ch. 7.7) by EK submitted to the University of Heidelberg, Germany, in February 2020.
[9]{}
**Meeus J., Van Maanen J., Koennen G.P. (1977)**: “Occultations of planets by the eclipsed moon”, *Journal of the British Astron. Association 87*, 1977, p135–145
**Ricci, Pierpaolo (2013)**: “Eclissi Solari — Solar Eclipses”, lulu.com, 2013; ISBN: 978-1-291-32315-3
**Roger de Hoveden (1853)**: “The Annals of Roger de Hoveden”, vol. I, translated by Henry T. Riley, ed. by H.G. Bohn, London, 1853, p5 **Stephenson, F. Richard (1997)**: “Historical Eclipses And Earth’s Rotation”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/UK, 1997; ISBN: 0-521-46194-4
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\
[ ]{}
[*${}^a$ Physics Department, Theory Unit, CERN,\
CH -1211, Geneva 23, Switzerland;\
`[email protected]`\
`[email protected]`*]{}
[*${}^b$ INFN - Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati,\
Via Enrico Fermi 40, I-00044 Frascati, Italy*]{}
[*${}^c$ Department of Physics and Astronomy,\
University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1547,USA*]{}\
[ABSTRACT]{}
We find general relations between the on-shell gravitational trace anomaly $A_{\mathcal{N}}$, and the logarithmic correction $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}$ to the entropy of “large" BPS extremal black holes in $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 2$ supergravity theories in $D=4$ space-time dimensions (recently computed by Sen [@Sen-2]). For (generalized) self-mirror theories (all having $A_{\mathcal{N}}=0$), we obtain the result $\Delta
S_{\mathcal{N}}=-\Delta S_{8-\mathcal{N}}=2-\mathcal{N}/2$, whereas for generic theories the trace anomaly $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}$ of the fully dualized theory turns out to coincide with $2\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}$, up to a model-independent shift: $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}=2\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}-1$. We also speculate on $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories displaying “large" extremal black hole solutions.
\[Intro\]Introduction
=====================
Recently, a generalized notion of mirror symmetry was suggested [@DF-1], under which $$A_{\mathcal{N}}=-\frac{1}{24}\rho ,$$ occurring in the on-shell[^1] gravitational trace anomaly [@Duff-1; @Duff-2; @Duff-3] $$g_{\mu \nu }\left\langle T^{\mu \nu }\right\rangle =A_{\mathcal{N}}\frac{1}{32\pi ^{2}}R^{\ast \mu \nu \rho \sigma }R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\ast },
\label{def-A}$$ changes sign.
In $M$-theory compactified on a seven-manifold $X^{7}$ with Betti numbers $\left( b_{0},b_{1},b_{2},b_{3}\right) $, $\rho $ is defined as [@DF-1] $$\rho \equiv 7b_{0}-5b_{1}+3b_{2}-b_{3},$$ and $\rho \rightarrow -\rho $ under the generalized mirror symmetry [@DF-1] $$\left( b_{0},b_{1},b_{2},b_{3}\right) \rightarrow \left(
b_{0},b_{1},b_{2}-\rho /2,b_{3}+\rho /2\right) .$$
In Ref. [@DF-1] it was shown that $D=4$, $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 3$ extended supergravity theories are generalized self-mirror[^2]. On the other hand, for $\mathcal{N}=1$, $2$ theories the generalized self mirror condition imposes some constraints on the matter content.
As we will see below, results crucially depend on the dualization of $3$- and $2$- form fields, which naturally arise from $M$-theory compactifications; it is remarkable that the trace anomaly coefficient $A_{\mathcal{N}}$ of the undualized theory does vanish for $\mathcal{N}=8$, $6$ and $5$ “pure” supergravities, if the corresponding graviton multiplet is properly defined as containing also form fields of degree higher than one [@DVN] (see also [@DF-1]). This is still true in matter coupled $\mathcal{N}=3$ and $4$ theories, if at least $n_{V}=2$ resp. $3$ massless vector multiplets in the dualized theory (corresponding to $2$ resp. $3$ massless $2$-form multiplets in the undualized *avatar*) are taken into account. Self-mirror $\mathcal{N}=2$ theories and generalized self-mirror $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories all have $\rho =0$, which in the fully dualized framework respectively contrains the matter content as follows [@DF-1]: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N} &=&2:n_{H}=n_{V}+1; \\
\mathcal{N} &=&1:n_{c}=3n_{V}+7,\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{V}$, $n_{c}$ and $n_{H}$ respectively denote the number of vector, chiral and hyper massless multiplets.
On the other hand, Sen *et al.* [@Sen-0; @Sen-1; @Sen-2] recently computed the coefficient $\Delta S$ of the logarithmic correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking [@BH] entropy of “large” BPS extremal black holes (BHs), in particular achieving the following result for a generic $\mathcal{N}=2$ supergravity: $$\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=2}=\frac{1}{24}\left( 23+n_{H}-n_{V}\right) .
\label{Sen-N=2}$$ For self-mirror $\mathcal{N}=2$ theories ($n_{H}=n_{V}+1$), Eq. (\[Sen-N=2\]) yields $$\text{self-mirror}:\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=2}=1, \label{N=2-self-mirror}$$ as it holds for the self-mirror $stu$ model [@Sen-1], characterized by $n_{V}=3$ and $n_{H}=4$.
Up to some irrelevant $\mathcal{O}\left( 1\right) $ terms, the following structure is known to hold in general (see *e.g.* [@Sen-0; @Sen-1; @Sen-2], and Refs. therein): $$S=S_{0}+\Delta S\ln \left( A_{H}^{2}\right) , \label{gen-1}$$ where $S_{0}=A_{H}/4$ is the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the “large” BPS extremal BH under consideration, whose non-vanishing event horizon area is denoted by $A_{H}$. Due to the Attractor Mechanism [@AM-Refs; @FGK], $A_{H} $ is given by the BH effective potential $V_{BH}$ computed at its attractor points [@FGK]: $A_{H}=4\pi \left. V_{BH}\right| _{\partial
V_{BH}=0}$. Actually, in any theory with $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 3$ the scalar manifold is a symmetric coset $\frac{G_{4,\mathcal{N}}}{H_{4,\mathcal{N}}}$, and it holds that $A_{H}=\sqrt{I_{4}}$, where $I_{4}$ is the unique independent polynomial invariant (quartic in electric and magnetic charges) constructed with the BH charge irrepr. of $G_{4,\mathcal{N}}$. The symmetric coset structure of the scalar manifold also characterizes $\mathcal{N}=2$ minimally coupled and $\mathcal{N}=3$ matter coupled theories, but in such theories $\sqrt{I_{4}}=\left| I_{2}\right| $. In general, the scalar manifold of $\mathcal{N}=2$ and $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories, despite being characterized by Kähler geometry (of special type in $\mathcal{N}=2$), is not necessarily symmetric nor homogeneous, and $I_{4}$ may thus not exist at all.
Aim of the present note is to clarify the relation between $A_{\mathcal{N}}$ and $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}$ for $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 2$, and consider, within some consistency conditions, also $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories of gravity exhibiting “large” extremal BH solutions.
Two main general results are achieved in this investigation:
**I\]** (Generalized) self-mirror theories exhibit $\mathcal{N}$-dependent values of $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}$ related by a fermionic symmetry: $$\text{(gen.)~self-mirror}:\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}=-\Delta S_{8-\mathcal{N}}=2-\frac{\mathcal{N}}{2}. \label{main-1}$$ this result can be made explicit by the following symmetric pattern, centered at $\mathcal{N}=4$: $$\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
\mathcal{N}: & 8 & \left( 7\right) & 6 & 5 & 4 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 0 \\
\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}: & -2 & \left( -\frac{3}{2}\right) & -1 & -\frac{1}{2}
& 0 & \frac{1}{2} & 1 & \frac{3}{2} & 2?
\end{array}
, \label{DeltaS-N-scheme}$$ suggesting a possible “generalized self-mirror” $\mathcal{N}=0$, $D=4$ gravity theory with $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=0}=2$.
**II\]** In generic theories, the gravitational trace anomaly $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}$ of the fully dualized theory is nothing but $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}$ itself, up to a model-independent shift: $$\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}=2\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}-1. \label{main-2}$$ Note that $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}$ is the value of the on-shell gravitational trace anomaly coefficient as computed in “standard” $D=4$ supergravity theories, with only physical spin degrees of freedom (see App. A of [@DF-1] for a detailed treatment). In $M$-theory on $X^{7}$, the degrees of freedom $f$, the number $\#$ and the contribution to $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}$ of the various types of massless fields in the fully dualized $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 1$, $D=4$ supergravity theory are given in Table XX of [@DF-1], which we partially report in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ $ $ $
\begin{array}{ccc} \begin{array}{ccc} \begin{array}{ccc} \begin{array}{ccc}
& & & f & & 360\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}} & & \# &
\end{array} \end{array} \end{array} \end{array}
$ $ $ $
-------------------- -------------------- ------------------------------------ --------------------
$g_{\mu \nu }$ $2$ $848$ $b_{0}$
$A_{\mu }$ $2$ $-52$ $b_{1}+b_{2}$
$\phi $ $1$ $4$ $2b_{3}$
$\psi _{\mu }$ $2$ $-233$ $b_{0}+b_{1}$
$\chi $ $2$ $7$ $b_{2}+b_{3}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Degrees of freedom $f$, contribution to $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}} $ and number $\#$ of the various massless fields in a fully dualized $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 1$, $D=4$ supergravity theory obtained as compactification of $M$-theory on $X^{7}$ with Betti numbers $\left(
b_{0},b_{1},b_{2},b_{3}\right) $ [@DF-1].
By virtue of (\[main-1\]), for (generalized) self-mirror theories (\[main-2\]) can be recast as $$\text{(gen.)~self-mirror}:\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}=3-\mathcal{N},
\label{main-2-self-mirror}$$ thus curiously yielding $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}=3}=0$ (as noted long time ago in [@Duff-3]). It is worth observing that $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}=8}=-5$ matches the result of [@Christensen-1]; in particular, as given by the general formula (\[main-2\]), $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}=8}$ is not proportional to $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=8}$.
The plan of this note is as follows.
In Sec. \[N=2-Multiplet-Decomp\], starting from some results recently obtained in [@Sen-0; @Sen-1; @Sen-2], the massless multiplet content of fully dualized $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 3$, $D=4$ supergravity theories is decomposed in terms of the various types of $\mathcal{N}=2$ multiplets, whose contributions to $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=2}$ are then explicitly computed.
General relations, involving $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}$, the undualized trace anomaly $A_{\mathcal{N}}$ and the fully dualized trace anomaly $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}$, are obtained in Sec. \[General-Rels\].
Two classes of $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories are treated in Sec. \[N=1-Theories\]. Subsec. \[N=1-as-Trunc-N=2\] deals with consistent $\mathcal{N}=1$ truncations of $\mathcal{N}=2$ theories, and a general formula for $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}$ is obtained; this is the class of $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories for which the general results derived in Sec. \[General-Rels\], specified for $\mathcal{N}=1$, hold. Another class of $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories, which we dub “minimally coupled”, is then considered in Subsec. \[N=1-Theories-mc\], and the corresponding $\Delta
S_{\mathcal{N}=1}^{\text{mc}}$ is computed; by performing a proper $\mathcal{N}=0$ limit, the result $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=0}$, recently computed in [@Sen-2], is recovered.
\[N=2-Multiplet-Decomp\]$\mathcal{N}=2$ Multiplet Decomposition of $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 3$ Theories
====================================================================================================
A crucial step in the treatment given in [@Sen-2] is the fact that [@Sen-0; @Sen-1] $$\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=4}=0 \label{N=4-res}$$ *for any* number $n$ of coupled matter (vector) massless multiplets.
The various types of $\mathcal{N}=2$ massless multiplets will be referred to as $G_{\lambda _{\max }}$, where $\lambda _{\max }$ denotes the maximal helicity of the multiplet ($G\equiv G_{2}$, $G_{3/2}$, $G_{V}\equiv G_{1}$ and $G_{H}\equiv G_{1/2}$ respectively stand for the graviton, gravitino, vector and hyper multiplets), in Table 2 the multiplet content of any fully dualized $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 3$, $D=4$ supergravity theory in terms of these building blocks is given (see *e.g.* [@N=8-red; @ADFL-superHiggs-1], and Refs. therein).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
$ $\mathcal{N}=2~$decomposition$~~$
\begin{array}{c}
\end{array}
$
------------------ ------------------------------------------------
$ $G+6G_{3/2}+15G_{V}+10G_{H}$
\begin{array}{c}
\\
\mathcal{N}=8 \\
~
\end{array}
$
$ $G+4G_{3/2}+7G_{V}+4G_{H}$
\begin{array}{c}
\\
\mathcal{N}=6 \\
~
\end{array}
$
$ $G+3G_{3/2}+3G_{V}+G_{H}$
\begin{array}{c}
\\
\mathcal{N}=5 \\
~
\end{array}
$
$ $G+2G_{3/2}+G_{V}+n\left( G_{V}+G_{H}\right) $
\begin{array}{c}
\\
\mathcal{N}=4 \\
~
\end{array}
$
$ $G+G_{3/2}+n\left( G_{V}+G_{H}\right) $
\begin{array}{c}
\\
\mathcal{N}=3 \\
~
\end{array}
$
-------------------------------------------------------------------
: Decomposition of the massless multiplet content of $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 3$, $D=4$ supergravities in terms of $\mathcal{N}=2$ multiplets. $n $ denotes the number of matter (vector) multiplets in $\mathcal{N}=3,4$ matter coupled theories. (Massless) gravitino multiplets are not considered.
By denoting the contribution of $G$, $G_{3/2}$, $G_{V}$ and $G_{H}$ to the coefficient $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=2}$ (recall (\[gen-1\])) by $\Delta
S_{2}$, $\Delta S_{3/2}$, $\Delta S_{V}$ and $\Delta S_{H}$ respectively, the general $\mathcal{N}=4$ result (\[N=4-res\]) implies the following two relations: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta S_{V} &=&-\Delta S_{H}; \label{N=2-res-1} \\
2\Delta S_{3/2} &=&-\Delta S_{2}-\Delta S_{V}. \label{N=2-res-2}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by using the decompositions reported in Table 2 as well as the results (\[N=2-self-mirror\]) (for self-mirror $\mathcal{N}=2$ $stu$ model), (\[N=4-res\]) and [@Sen-1] $$\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=8}=-2,$$ one can compute the contribution of each type of massless $\mathcal{N}=2$ multiplet to the total $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=2}$ : $$\Delta S_{2}=\frac{23}{24};~~\Delta S_{3/2}=-\frac{11}{24};~~\Delta S_{V}=-\frac{1}{24};~~\Delta S_{H}=\frac{1}{24}, \label{DeltaS-N=2}$$ consistent with (\[Sen-N=2\]) and (\[N=2-res-1\])-(\[N=2-res-2\]). Thus, by exploiting results (\[DeltaS-N=2\]), Table 2 allows one to compute the total $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}$ for all $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 3$ theories; in particular, the curiously simple result (\[main-1\]) for $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 3$ is obtained.
\[General-Rels\]General Relations between $A_{\mathcal{N}}$, $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}$ and $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}$
=======================================================================================================================
In order to derive Eq. (\[main-2\]), one just needs to combine the results (\[main-1\]) (for $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 3$), (\[DeltaS-N=2\]) (for $\mathcal{N}=2$) with the explicit computation of the coefficient $A_{\mathcal{N}}$ of the on-shell gravitational trace anomaly of the fully undualized theories, whose field content is defined in the $M$-theoretical setting of [@DF-1] (see *e.g.* Table I therein). Nicely, the following simple and completely general formula is achieved: $$A_{\mathcal{N}}=2\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}+\mathcal{N}-4.
\label{rel-AN-DeltaSN}$$ Note that, for (generalized) self-mirror theories, Eq. (\[rel-AN-DeltaSN\]) consistently reduces to the result (\[main-1\]) (made explicit in (\[DeltaS-N-scheme\])). Therefore, (\[rel-AN-DeltaSN\]) is nothing but a generalization of (\[main-1\]) for completely generic theories. Note that (\[rel-AN-DeltaSN\]) can actually be extended to include $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories obtained as truncation of $\mathcal{N}=2$ theories, which are treated in Subsec. \[N=1-as-Trunc-N=2\], where the result (\[DeltaS-N=1\]) is derived.
Let us here recall that the coefficients $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}$ of the on-shell gravitational trace anomaly of the fully dualized theories, in which only physical spin degrees of freedom are present[^3], are computed in detail in App. A of [@DF-1]. By comparing $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}$ with its undualized counterpart $A_{\mathcal{N}}$, one obtains the simple and general relation $$\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}-A_{\mathcal{N}}=3-\mathcal{N},
\label{rel-AtildeN-AN}$$ which, by using (\[rel-AN-DeltaSN\]), finally yields the general result (\[main-2\]). Note that (\[rel-AtildeN-AN\]) is independent on the matter content of $\mathcal{N}\leqslant 4$ theories.
For all (generalized) $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 1$, $D=4$ self-mirror theories, which all have $A_{\mathcal{N}}=0$ [@DF-1], (\[main-2\]) reduces to (\[main-2-self-mirror\]). Furthermore, for such theories it also holds $$\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}=-\widetilde{A}_{8-\mathcal{N}}-2,
\label{further-rel-self-mirror}$$ which is a consequence of the fermion symmetry displayed by Eq. (\[main-2\]). Eq. (\[further-rel-self-mirror\]) can also be summarized by the following symmetric pattern, centered at $\mathcal{N}=3$: $$\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
\mathcal{N}: & 8 & \left( 7\right) & 6 & 5 & 4 & 3 & 2 & 1 & 0 \\
\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}: & -5 & \left( -4\right) & -3 & -2 & -1 & 0 & 1
& 2 & 3?
\end{array}
,$$ providing an hint for a possible “generalized self-mirror” $\mathcal{N}=0$, $D=4$ gravity theory with $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}=0}=3$.
\[N=1-Theories\]$\mathcal{N}=1$ Theories with Extremal Black Holes
==================================================================
\[N=1-as-Trunc-N=2\]$\mathcal{N}=1$ as Truncation of $\mathcal{N}=2$
--------------------------------------------------------------------
One can further decompose $\mathcal{N}=2$ massless multiplets $\left\{
G_{\lambda _{\max }}\right\} $ in terms of the $\mathcal{N}=1$ multiplets $\left\{ g_{\lambda _{\max }}\right\} $ ($\lambda _{\max }=2,3/2,1,1/2$), obtaining (see *e.g.* [@N=2-red; @ADFL-superHiggs-1], and Refs. therein) $$\begin{aligned}
G &=&g+g_{3/2}; \label{N=2-N=1-1} \\
G_{3/2} &=&g_{3/2}+g_{V}; \\
G_{V} &=&g_{V}+g_{c}; \\
G_{H} &=&2g_{c}, \label{N=2-N=1-4}\end{aligned}$$ where $g\equiv g_{2}$, $g_{3/2}$, $g_{V}\equiv g_{1}$ and $g_{H}\equiv
g_{1/2}$ stand for the graviton, gravitino, vector and chiral massless $\mathcal{N}=1$ multiplets, respectively.
It should be stressed that our treatment of $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories relies on at least four assumptions:
1. in order to display “large” extremal BH solutions, $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories should at least contain one vector field : $n_{V}\geqslant 1$ [@ADFT-N=1];
2. for $n_{c}\geqslant 1$, an attractor dynamics takes place in the near-horizon geometry [@ADFT-N=1];
3. the results for $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories can be derived from the $\mathcal{N}=2$ ones in a purely kinematical way (*i.e.* by multiplet decomposition). In particular, fermionic bilinear terms coupled to $2$-form field strengths (see *e.g.* [@N=1]) should generally appear for our analysis to make sense;
4. the results on $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}\geqslant 2}$ for “large” extremal BPS BHs can be used to derive results on $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}$ of “large” extremal BHs in $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories, in which there is no central extension of the local supersymmetry algebra, and thus no BPS notion, at all[^4].
Also as a consequence of assumptions 1-4, we are therefore assuming that the kinematical consistent truncation procedure $\mathcal{N}=2\rightarrow
\mathcal{N}=1$ properly takes into account the corresponding change in the species of bilinear fermionic interaction terms with $2$-form field strengths (as understood in Secs. \[N=2-Multiplet-Decomp\] and \[General-Rels\], this issues does not arise for $\mathcal{N}\geqslant 2$-extended supergravities, which all have the same Lagrangian structure).
As discussed in [@ADFT-N=1], at least those $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories obtained as consistent truncations of $\mathcal{N}=2$ ones do satisfy the conditions of points 1 and 2.
By using Eqs. (\[DeltaS-N=2\]) and (\[N=2-N=1-1\])-(\[N=2-N=1-4\]), the contribution of each $\mathcal{N}=1$ multiplet to the coefficient $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}$ (recall (\[gen-1\])) can be computed; denoting the contribution of $g$, $g_{3/2}$, $g_{V}$ and $g_{c}$ to $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}$ by $\Delta s_{2}$, $\Delta s_{3/2}$, $\Delta s_{V}$ and $\Delta s_{c}$ respectively, one obtains $$\Delta s_{2}=\frac{65}{48};~~\Delta s_{3/2}=-\frac{19}{48};~~\Delta s_{V}=-\frac{3}{48};~~\Delta s_{c}=\frac{1}{48}, \label{DeltaS-N=1}$$ thus yielding the general formula: $$\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}=\frac{1}{48}\left( 65+n_{c}-3n_{V}\right) .
\label{N=1-gen}$$ For generalized self-mirror $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories ($n_{c}=3n_{V}+7$) [@DF-1], Eq. (\[N=1-gen\]) yields $$\text{gen.~self-mirror}:\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}=\frac{3}{2},
\label{N=1-gen-self-mirror}$$ consistent with the $\mathcal{N}=1$ case of Eq. (\[main-1\]).
\[N=1-Theories-mc\]“Minimally Coupled” $\mathcal{N}=1$
------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, (at least) another class of $\mathcal{N}=1$, $D=4$ theories, complementary to the one discussed above, can be considered. Such a class, which we will dub “minimally coupled” (mc), cannot be obtained as consistent truncation of $\mathcal{N}=2$ theories, and its kinetic vector matrix is constant: $f_{IJ}\sim \delta _{IJ}$ ($I,J=1,...,n_{V}\geqslant 1$). This implies that the complex scalar fields from the $n_{c}$ chiral multiplets are not involved in an attractor dynamics in the near horizon geometry of the “large” extremal BH under consideration[^5], which at bosonic level can thus be regarded as a Reissner-Nördstrom (RN) extremal BH coupled to a set of spectator scalar fields and uncharged vectors.
For “minimally coupled” $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories, the contributions to $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=0}$ split into two parts:
1. The $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetrization $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}^{RN~\text{extr}}$ of the RN contribution $\Delta S_{RN~\text{extr}}$, which is composed by an $\mathcal{N}=1$ graviton multiplet and an $\mathcal{N}=1$ vector multiplet. By making use of Eq. (\[DeltaS-N=1\]), the resulting contribution to the logarithmic correction coefficient can be computed to be: $$\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}^{RN~\text{extr}}\equiv \Delta s_{2}+\Delta s_{V}=\frac{31}{24}.$$ This $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetrization of the RN contribution can also be justified by observing that $\mathcal{N}=3$ “pure” supergravity [@FSZ; @FSZ-2] displays a ($\frac{1}{3}$-)BPS extremal dyonic RN BH solution, with entropy [@ADF-U-duality-D=4] $$S_{0}=\frac{\pi }{2}\sum_{i=1}^{3}\left[ \left( p^{i}\right) ^{2}+q_{i}^{2}\right] .$$ Since there are no scalars, from this system one can derive two $\mathcal{N}<3$ Maxwell-Einstein systems, namely $\mathcal{N}=2$ “pure” supergravity [@N=2-pure] and $\mathcal{N}=1$ supergravity coupled to $1$ vector multiplet [@N=1-nV=1], the two theories being related by exchanging one gravitino with one gaugino (with related interactions; see also *e.g.* the discussion in [@ADFT-N=1]).
2. The $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetrization $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}^{GB} $ of the Gauss-Bonnet (GB) contribution $\Delta S^{GB}$, which is a well-defined, independent invariant in $\mathcal{N}=1$, $D=4$ superspace [@FZ-N=1]. We start from the non-supersymmetric expression (see *e.g.* [@Sen-2], and Refs. therein) $$\Delta S^{GB}=-\frac{1}{360}\left( n_{s}+62n_{V}+\frac{11}{2}n_{MF}\right) ,
\label{GB}$$ where $n_{s}$, $n_{V}$ and $n_{MF}$ respectively denote the number of real scalar, vector and $\lambda =1/2$ Majorana spinor massless fields. By recalling the helicity content of $\mathcal{N}=1$ massless multiplets, it is immediate to re-express the right-hand side of (\[GB\]) in terms of only $n_{c}$ and $n_{V}$, where the latter now stands for the number of $\mathcal{N}=1$ massless vector multiplets other than the one contained in the $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetrization of RN term. Thus, one obtains the consistent $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetrization of $\Delta S^{GB}$: $$\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}^{GB}=-\frac{1}{360}\left( 6n_{c}+\frac{135}{2}n_{V}\right) .$$
Summing all up, in the class of $\mathcal{N}=1$ theories under consideration, the total contribution to the logarithmic correction coefficient reads as follows ($n_{V}\geqslant 0$): $$\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}^{\text{mc }}=\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}^{RN~\text{extr}}+\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=1}^{GB}=-\frac{1}{360}\left( -465+6n_{c}+\frac{135}{2}n_{V}\right) , \label{DeltaS-N=1-mc}$$ which is completely different from Eq. (\[N=1-gen\]).
Note that in “minimally coupled” $\mathcal{N}=1$ supergravities the vector multiplets participating in the $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetrization of the RN term stands on a different footing with respect to the other $n_{V}$ vector multiplets[^6]. Furthermore, by construction, the $\mathcal{N}=0$ limit of the expression (\[DeltaS-N=1-mc\]) corresponds to the $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}=0} $ given by Eq. (1.3) of [@Sen-2]; indeed, when $f_{IJ}\sim \delta
_{IJ}$, by setting $\psi =0$ all bilinear fermionic terms coupled to the $2$-form vector field strengths vanish. In particular, the RN limit of (\[DeltaS-N=1-mc\]), which amounts to setting $n_{c}=n_{V}=0$ and to removing the gravitino and gaugino contained in the $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetric RN term, correctly yields the non-supersymmetric RN contribution [@Sen-2] $$\Delta S^{RN~\text{extr}}=-\frac{241}{90}.$$
Finally, let us shortly comment on the physical significance of our results.
For generic theories, the result (\[main-2\]) expresses the fact that the entropy correction is the same as the (on shell) gravitational anomaly, up to an universal shift. On the other hand, for (generalized) self-mirror theories, Eq. (\[main-1\]) implies that $\Delta S_{\mathcal{N}}$ is odd under the fermionic symmetry $\mathcal{N}\rightarrow 8-\mathcal{N}$, and that it is given by the lowest helicity component of the gravity multiplet, namely $\lambda _{\min }=2-\mathcal{N}/2$. Thus, Eqs. (\[gen-1\]) and (\[main-1\]) yield the following correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy-area formula of (generalized) self-mirror theories: $$S=\frac{A_{H}}{4}+\left( 2-\mathcal{N}/2\right) \ln \left( A_{H}^{2}\right) .$$ This is universal, because it only depends on $\mathcal{N}$, and it increases or decreases the classical Bekenstein-Hawking entropy depending on $\mathcal{N}<4$ or $\mathcal{N}>4$ (it is vanishing for $\mathcal{N}=4$).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Ashoke Sen for enlightening correspondence.
The work of S. F. is supported by the ERC Advanced Grant no. 226455, *“Supersymmetry, Quantum Gravity and Gauge Fields”* (*SUPERFIELDS*), and in part by DOE Grant DE-FG03-91ER40662.
[99]{} A. Sen, *Logarithmic Corrections to* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* Black Hole Entropy : an Infrared Window into the Microstates*, `arXiv:1108.3842 [hep-th]`.
M. J. Duff and S. Ferrara, *Generalized Mirror Symmetry and Trace Anomalies*, Class.Quant. Grav. **28**, 065005 (2011), `arXiv:1009.4439 [hep-th]`.
M. J. Duff, *Observations on Conformal Anomalies*, Nucl. Phys. **B125**, 334 (1977).
M. J. Duff, *Twenty Years of the Weyl Anomaly*, Class. Quant. Grav. **11**, 1387 (1994), `hep-th/9308075`.
S. M. Christensen and M. J. Duff, *Axial and Conformal Anomalies for Arbitrary Spin in Gravity and Supergravity*, Phys. Lett. **B76**, 571 (1978).
M. J. Duff and P. Van Nieuwenhuizen, *Quantum Inequivalence of Different Field Representations*, Phys. Lett. **B94**, 179 (1980).
S. Banerjee, R. K. Gupta and A. Sen, *Logarithmic Corrections to Extremal Black Hole Entropy from Quantum Entropy Function*, JHEP **1103**, 147 (2011), `arXiv:1005.3044 [hep-th]`.
S. Banerjee, R. K. Gupta, I. Mandal and A. Sen, *Logarithmic Corrections to* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=4}$* and* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=8}$* Black Hole Entropy : A One Loop Test of Quantum Gravity,* `arXiv:1106.0080 [hep-th]`.
S. W. Hawking: *Gravitational Radiation from Colliding Black Holes*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **26**, 1344 (1971). J. D. Bekenstein: *Black Holes and Entropy*, Phys. Rev. **D7**, 2333 (1973).
S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh, A. Strominger: $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* extremal black holes*, Phys. Rev. **D52**, 5412 (1995). A. Strominger: *Macroscopic entropy of* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=2}$* extremal black holes*, Phys. Lett. **B383**, 39 (1996). S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh: *Supersymmetry and attractors*, Phys. Rev. **D54**, 1514 (1996); S. Ferrara, R. Kallosh: *Universality of supersymmetric attractors*, Phys. Rev. **D54**, 1525 (1996).
S. Ferrara, G. W. Gibbons and R. Kallosh, *Black Holes and Critical Points in Moduli Space*, Nucl. Phys. **B500**, 75 (1997), `hep-th/9702103`.
S. M. Christensen, M. J. Duff, G. W. Gibbons and M. Rocek, *Vanishing One Loop Beta Function in Gauged* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{>4}$* Supergravity*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **45**, 161 (1980).
L. Andrianopoli, R. D’Auria and S. Ferrara, *Supersymmetry Reduction of* $\mathcal{N}$*-Extended Supergravities in Four Dimensions*, JHEP **0203**, 025 (2002), `hep-th/0110277`.
L. Andrianopoli, R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara and M. A. Lledó, *Super Higgs Effect in Extended Supergravity*, Nucl. Phys. **B640**, 46 (2002), `hep-th/0202116`.
L. Andrianopoli, R. D’Auria and S. Ferrara, *Consistent Reduction of* $\mathcal{N}=2\rightarrow \mathcal{N}=1$ *Four Dimensional Supergravities Coupled to Matter*, Nucl. Phys. **B628**, 387 (2002), `hep-th/0112192`.
E. Cremmer, S. Ferrara, L. Girardello and A. Van Proeyen, *Yang-Mills Theories with Local Supersymmetry : Lagrangian, Transformation Laws and SuperHiggs Effect*, Nucl. Phys. **B212**, 413 (1983).
L. Andrianopoli, R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara and M. Trigiante, *Black-Hole Attractors in* $\mathcal{N}\mathit{=1}$* Supergravity*, JHEP **0707**, 019 (2007), `hep-th/0703178`.
S. Ferrara, J. Scherk and B. Zumino, *Algebraic Properties of Extended Supergravity Theories*, Nucl. Phys. **B121**, 393 (1977).
S. Ferrara, J. Scherk and B. Zumino, *Supergravity and Local Extended Supersymmetry*, Phys. Lett. **B66**, 35 (1977).
L. Andrianopoli, R. D’Auria and S. Ferrara, $\mathit{U}$* Invariants, Black Hole Entropy and Fixed Scalars*, Phys. Lett. **B403**, 12 (1997), `hep-th/9703156`.
S. Ferrara and P. Van Nieuwenhuizen, *Consistent Supergravity with Complex Spin-*$\frac{3}{2}$* Gauge Fields*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **37**, 1669 (1976).
S. Ferrara, J. Scherk and P. Van Nieuwenhuizen, *Locally Supersymmetric Maxwell-Einstein Theory*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **37**, 1035 (1976).
S. Ferrara and B. Zumino, *Structure of Linearized Supergravity and Conformal Supergravity*, Nucl. Phys. **B134**, 301 (1978). * *
[^1]: As given by Eq. (\[def-A\]), we call “on-shell” anomaly the one concerning the square of $R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }$, following [@DF-1] (see also *e.g.* [@Duff-2] for an extensive list of Refs.).
It should be pointed out that this is not the same as the anomaly computed on the supergravity equations of motion. Indeed, while the coefficient of the Gauss-Bonnet term is always proportional to $n_{s}+62n_{V}+\frac{11}{2}n_{MF}$ ($n_{s}$, $n_{V}$ and $n_{MF}$ respectively standing for the number of scalar, vector and Majorana spinor massless fields), in a conformally flat background (as is the Bertotti-Robinson $AdS_{2}\times S^{2}$ near-horizon geometry of the extremal black hole), the term proportional to the square of the Weyl tensor does vanish (see *e.g.* [@Duff-2], and also [@Sen-2] for a recent discussion).
[^2]: For $\mathcal{N}=3$, $4$, this is true provided at least $n_{V}=2$, $3$ vector multiplets are present in the (fully) dualized theories.
[^3]: It should be pointed out that the quantity $K_{0}$ given by Eq. (7.3) of [@Sen-2] is nothing but $\widetilde{A}_{\mathcal{N}}$ itself.
[^4]: Short $\mathcal{N}=2$ BPS massive multiplets are the same as $\mathcal{N}=1$ massive multiplets; for example, a massive hypermultiplet is the same as a massive charged chiral multiplet [@ADFL-superHiggs-1]. Thus, the multiplet structure of $\mathcal{N}=2$ BPS BHs is the same as $\mathcal{N}=1$ (necessarily non-BPS) BHs [@ADFT-N=1].
[^5]: In fact, they behave as hypermultiplets’ scalars in $\mathcal{N}=2$ theories.
[^6]: The Noether supercurrent coupling to the gravitino [@N=1-nV=1] $J_{\alpha }^{\mu }\psi _{\mu }^{\alpha }$ introduces a fermionic bilinear term proportional to the flux of the RN vector field (see also [@N=1]). Note that only the gaugino of the $\mathcal{N}=1$ vector multiplet of the $\mathcal{N}=1$ RN term interacts with the gravitino; indeed, all other vector fields are minimally coupled, and they have vanishing fluxes of the corresponding $2$-form field strengths. This explains why the $J\psi \sim $Re$\left( \overline{\lambda }\psi F\right) $ interactions do not contribute to the $\mathcal{N}=1$ supersymmetrization of the GB term (discussed at point 2 above).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We have vastly increased the statistics at intermediate redshift by surveying the thousands of quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data-Release 7. We visually verified over 16,000 systems with $1.46 < z < 4.55$—a sample size that renders Poisson error negligible. Detailed Monte Carlo simulations show we are approximately 50% complete down to rest equivalent widths ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\approx
0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$. We analyzed the sample as a whole and in ten small redshift bins with approximately 1500 doublets each. The equivalent width frequency distributions were well modeled by an exponential, with little evolution in shape. In contrast with previous studies that modeled the frequency distribution as a single power law, the fitted exponential gives a finite mass density for the ions. The co-moving line density [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} evolved smoothly with redshift, increasing by a factor of $2.37\pm0.09$ from $z = 4.55$ to 1.96, then plateauing at ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}}\approx 0.34$ for $z = 1.96$ to 1.46. Comparing our SDSS sample with $z < 1$ (ultraviolet) and $z > 5$ (infrared) surveys, we see an approximately 10-fold increase in [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} over $z \approx 6
\rightarrow 0$, for ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$. This suggests a monotonic and significant increase in the enrichment of gas outside galaxies over the 12Gyr lifetime of the universe.
author:
- 'Kathy L. Cooksey, Melodie M. Kao, Robert A. Simcoe, John M. O’Meara, and J. Xavier Prochaska'
bibliography:
- '../../sdss.bib'
title: |
Precious Metals in SDSS Quasar Spectra I: Tracking the Evolution of\
Strong, $1.5 < z < 4.5$ Absorbers with Thousands of Systems
---
Introduction {#sec.intro}
============
The study of the large-scale structure of the universe provides top-level constraints on models of galaxy evolution. Heavy elements are produced in the stars of galaxies. A variety of feedback processes move these metals from the sites of production into the intergalactic medium (IGM), enriching the material for future generations of stars. The cosmic enrichment cycle generically refers to the movement of gas from inside galaxies to the IGM and, possibly, back again (perhaps many times). The amount of heavy elements, the number of ionizing photons from galaxies and quasars, and the spatial distribution of material are driven by hierarchical structure formation and galactic processes such as star formation and feedback. Spectroscopic surveys of quasars yield a random sample of intervening absorbing gas clouds that can be used to constrain the on-going and summative enrichment processes in the universe.
$\lambda\lambda1548,1550$ doublets are important tracers of the IGM and its evolution from $z \approx 6$ to today [@steidel90; @barlowandtytler98; @ellisonetal00; @songaila01; @boksenbergetal03ph; @schayeetal03; @scannapiecoetal06; @danforthandshull08; @ryanweberetal09; @beckeretal09; @cookseyetal10; @dodoricoetal10; @simcoeetal11]. This transition has been well-studied at $1.5 \lesssim z \lesssim 5.5$ for the following reasons. First, it is a strong transition of a common metal. Second, it is observable outside the Ly$\alpha$ forest, where it becomes easier to identify. Third, it redshifts into optical passbands at $z
= 1.5$. Lastly, it is a resonant doublet, which gives it distinctive characteristics that enable surveys to be largely automated.
Observations of doublets constrain the cumulative effect of the cosmic enrichment cycle. More specifically, the number and strength of absorbers are affected by: the amount of carbon produced by all previous generations of stars; the spatial distribution of the element, driven by feedback processes; and the total ionizing radiation available to maintain the triply-ionized transition.
The intermediate-redshift studies have traditionally found that the doublets follow a power law in the column density distribution function, with a slope of $\alpha \approx -1.8$, throughout the redshift range [@songaila01; @boksenbergetal03ph; @scannapiecoetal06; @dodoricoetal10]. The earlier studies also measured a roughly constant mass density for $2 < z < 4.5$ and $12 \lesssim {\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}\lesssim 15$ absorbers [@songaila01; @boksenbergetal03ph; @songaila05]. Improved observations, pushing to bluer wavelengths (and hence lower redshift), have shown that [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{}, the mass density relative to the critical density, actually increases smoothly from $z = 4 \rightarrow 1.5$ [@dodoricoetal10] and maps well onto the, $z < 1$ values, measured with [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} ([*HST*]{}) ultraviolet spectra [@cookseyetal10]. Thus, [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} increases by, approximately, a factor of four over $z \approx 3 \rightarrow 0$ while [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{}, the co-moving line density, increases by a factor of two, roughly.
Early infrared spectroscopy, which probes the $z \gtrsim 5$ universe, first resulted in a continuation of the roughly constant [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} out to $z \approx 6$ [@ryanweberetal06; @simcoe06]. However, with limited sightlines, these studies were highly susceptible to cosmic variance, as shown by later IR surveys, which reported that [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{}actually dropped at $z \approx 6$ [@ryanweberetal09; @beckeretal09]. The latest and largest IR survey showed that [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{}drops by, approximately, a factor of four over $z \approx 4 \rightarrow 6$ [@simcoeetal11], and high-redshift quasars are continuing to be observed with the new Folded-port InfraRed Echellete (FIRE) on the Magellan/Baade Telescope [@simcoeetal10]. In addition, @simcoeetal11 found that all previous high-redshift measurements overestimated [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} by $\approx30\%$, since their lower-resolution IR spectra led to the lower-redshift $\lambda\lambda2796,2803$ being mis-identified as a strong, high-redshift system.
The recent low (UV) and high (IR) redshift publications [@cookseyetal10; @simcoeetal11] have led us to assess the state of the intermediate (optical) redshift field [e.g., @songaila01; @boksenbergetal03ph; @scannapiecoetal06; @dodoricoetal10]. The various studies have disparities in their definition of an absorber, completeness corrections, sensitivity limits, and/or adopted cosmology. Ideally, there should be a large, uniformly constructed, $0 < z < 6$ sample in order to evaluate the evolution of the absorbers. We aim to produce an intermediate redshift catalog that is fairly comparable to the recent $z < 1$ and $z > 5$ catalogs.
For our $1.5 \lesssim z \lesssim 4.5$ survey, we use more than 26,000 quasar spectra in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey [SDSS; @yorketal00] Data-Release 7 (DR7) database [@abazajianetal09; @schneideretal10], thus making this study the largest survey—both in path length and in number of absorbers—to date. Others have mined SDSS quasar spectra for [e.g., @prochaskaetal05; @pierietal10lya], [e.g., @nestoretal05; @prochteretal06], $\lambda\lambda3934,3969$ [e.g., @wildetal06; @cherinkaetal11], and $\lambda,\lambda1031,1037$ [e.g., @franketal10; @pierietal10ovi]. However, this is the first time that anyone has systematically searched for , likely because it is more difficult and labor intensive, due to the increased amount of blending. This is the first in a series of papers on metals in SDSS quasar spectra, where we will assemble and analyze self-consistent catalogs of $\lambda\lambda1393,1402$, , and absorbers. These species are commonly studied in quasar absorption-line spectroscopy and typically trace the gas closest to galaxies.
We explain how we construct our sample in §\[sec.sample\] and our completeness corrections in §\[sec.complete\]. The main results are detailed in §\[sec.results\], and the discussion and summary are in §§\[sec.discuss\]–\[sec.summ\]. We adopt the WMAP5 cosmology: $H_{0}=71.9{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}\,{\rm Mpc}$, $\Omega_{\rm M} = 0.258$, and $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.742$ [@komatsuetal09].
[ll]{} 105783 & SDSS DR7 QSO catalog [@schneideretal10]\
99569 & Excluding 6214 objects in BAL QSO catalog [@shenetal11]\
48260 & Covering $\max[1310{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}(1+{\ensuremath{z_{\rm QSO}}}),\ 3820{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}] \le \lambda <
\min[1548{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}(1+{\ensuremath{z_{\rm QSO}}})(1+{\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}/c),\ 9200{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}]$\
26168 & With ${\ensuremath{z_{\rm QSO}}}\ge 1.7$ and $\langle {\rm S/N} \rangle \ge
4\,{\rm pixel}^{-1}$ in above wavelength range\
26030 & Excluding 138 visual BAL QSOs\
10861 & With confirmed doublets
![Redshift and $\langle {\rm S/N} \rangle$ distribution of sightlines. Using the left-hand axis, the 2D histogram shows the median signal-to-noise and [$z_{\rm QSO}$]{} space of the analyzed 26,030 spectra. The black and gray histograms give the redshift distribution for all spectra and for the 10,861 with confirmed absorbers, respectively (right-hand axis). \[fig.zqsosnr\] ](fig1.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
Constructing the Sample {#sec.sample}
=======================
SDSS Data-Release 7 Quasars {#subsec.dr7}
---------------------------
We began our survey with the 105,783 sightlines in the SDSS DR7 QSO catalog @schneideretal10 [also see @richardsetal02 for the SDSS quasar selection]. SDSS spectra have wavelength coverage $3820{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}\ \le \lambda \le 9200{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ and resolution varying from $R = 1850$ to 2200 (or 162[$\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}$]{} to 136[$\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}$]{}), and the reduced spectra are binned to a log-linear scale of $69{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}\,{\rm
pixel}^{-1}$. We immediately excluded the 6,214 broad-absorption line (BAL) QSOs detailed in @shenetal11.
We limited the sightlines to those with ${\ensuremath{z_{\rm QSO}}}\ge 1.7$ and median signal-to-noise $\langle {\rm S/N} \rangle \ge 4\,{\rm pixel}^{-1}$ in the wavelength range sensitive to absorbers (see Figure \[fig.zqsosnr\]). This range depended on the quasar redshift and the SDSS wavelength coverage.
Previous, smaller surveys for doublets have searched from the [$\mathrm{Ly}\alpha$]{} $\lambda1215$ to emission wavelengths. However, we removed a portion of this path length close to the [$\mathrm{Ly}\alpha$]{} emission to avoid possible confusion between the doublet and any $\lambda1302$, $\lambda1304$ pair. These latter two have a wavelength separation similar enough to the doublet that automated search algorithms naturally bring in a large fraction of false positives. Since we had so much available path length available, we simply excluded a comfortable region around the , “forest” in addition to the [$\mathrm{Ly}\alpha$]{} forest (i.e., $\lambda_{\rm r} \ge 1310{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ in the restframe of the quasar). To exclude absorbers intrinsic to the QSO or affected by local ionization, clustering, and/or enrichment, we set the upper wavelength bound to $1548{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}(1+{\ensuremath{z_{\rm QSO}}})(1+{\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}/c)$,[^1] where we initially used ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}= -3000{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$, but for the main analyses, the limit is ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}= -5000{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$.
After the redshift, $\langle {\rm S/N} \rangle$, and coverage cuts, we had 26,168 sightlines to search (see Table \[tab.obssum\]). Later, we excluded 138 sightlines as “visual BAL” QSOs for a final count of 26,030 spectra to analyze.
$
\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig2a.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig2b.pdf}
\end{array}
$
Automated Continuum Fitting {#subsec.conti}
---------------------------
We generated individual quasar continua for all $\approx26,000$ spectra in the sample using an algorithm which combined principle-component analysis (PCA) fits, low-frequency b-spline correction, and automated outlier pixel and absorption-line exclusion. Since we are interested in lines only, we limited the fit to $\lambda_{\rm r} \ge 1230{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$, redward of the [$\mathrm{Ly}\alpha$]{} forest. We discuss details of the method below so interested users may replicate it; the codes are also publicly available in the [xidl]{} software library.[^2] Figure \[fig.conti\] shows example fits for eight spectra of varying $\langle {\rm S/N}
\rangle$ level.
First, every spectrum was iteratively fit using a 50-vector basis set of PCA “eigenspectra” from the SDSS DR1 quasar sample [@yipetal04]. The fit coefficients and their errors were determined using the algorithms of @connollyandszalay99 [Equations 4–6], with spectral pixels weighted by their inverse variance when quantifying the goodness-of-fit. The formal per-pixel error of the PCA continuum fit was negligible compared to the spectral shot noise.
A pixel exclusion mask was then generated upon each successive fit iteration. The initial mask consisted of the lowest 30% of pixels in successive 50-pixel windows, to filter strong absorption features and avoid biasing the continuum low on the critical initial fit. Then, for each subsequent iteration, a fresh mask was constructed which excluded pixels falling either less than $-2\sigma$ or more than $3\sigma$ from the working continuum. This mask was further modified to include the neighboring pixels of each deviant pixel below the working continuum and exclude regions with three consecutive pixels above. The latter correspond to systematically errant regions of the fit that should actually be included, so they were unmasked automatically. This cycle was repeated with successive PCA fits until: (a) the mask converged so successive fits did not change; (b) the unmasked flux and continuum fit had median difference less than 0.001%; or (c) ten iterations passed.
For high-S/N spectra, low-frequency residuals in the PCA-normalized spectra become noticeable and affect our ability to search for weak lines in the best data. We therefore performed a secondary correction to spectra with $\langle {\rm S/N} \rangle \ge 8\,\mathrm{
pixel}^{ -1 }$, re-fitting the PCA-normalized spectrum with an additional third-order b-spline, with breakpoint spacing of 25pixels (or 1725[$\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}$]{}). As before, we used inverse-variance weighting and clipped outliers using the same thresholds. We refer below to this PCA plus b-spline fit as the “hybrid-continuum.”
The b-spline systematic error was estimated as the median difference between the b-spline and the PCA-normalized (masked) spectrum in bins matching the breakpoint spacing. This error was typically of order 1% of the shot noise in the data; it exceeded the formal PCA fit error, and we added the two in quadrature to produce a total continuum error.
The sigma clipping methods described above are effective at identifying narrow features, instrumental artifacts, or defects in the spectra. However, they are not always optimal for finding true absorption lines, which are always below the continuum; they can also be kinematically complex and bias the fit. Since we have prior information about the characteristic widths of cosmological absorption, we develop methods in §\[subsec.cand\] to machine-identify candidate absorption lines with these characteristics for the actual survey. We ran each PCA-normalized spectrum through a single pass of the absorption-line finder, using the resulting catalogs to generate a master absorption mask for final hybrid-continuum fitting.
The full procedure for automated feature finding is described in §\[subsec.cand\]; briefly, we convolve both the data and error arrays with the instrumental response profile, and search for absorption features with signal-to-noise ratio $\ge3.5$ per resolution element. For $\langle {\rm S/N} \rangle \le 16\,{\rm pixel}^{-1}$ spectra, we masked out all such features; in high-S/N cases, we also enforced that the unconvolved spectral pixels at the line center must deviate from the continuum by $>5\sigma$. Pixels falling within $\pm600{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$ of such features were added to the exclusion set. The mask consisting of automatically identified absorption lines was fed into the hybrid-continuum fit as a static mask.
This procedure produced excellent continuum fits for the vast majority of spectra. When it failed, the most common reasons were: poorly measured [$z_{\rm QSO}$]{}, strong intrinsic absorption, broad-absorption lines, and foreground emission-line galaxy spectra superimposed on the quasar spectra. Instead of fixing these cases interactively, which would compromise our objective methodology and continuum error estimates, we chose to leave them in the sample and let the effects be accounted in our automated completeness and contamination tests (see §\[sec.complete\]).
Automated Candidate Selection {#subsec.cand}
-----------------------------
We limited our candidate search to doublets where two automatically detected lines were within $\pm150{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$ of the characteristic velocity separation ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm C\,IV}}}= 498{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$. The large uncertainty cut allowed heavily blended lines into our candidate list, but it also made the doublet our largest contaminant since $\dv{\rm Mg\,II} = 767{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$.
Our automated feature-finding algorithm is based on @prochteretal06. The hybrid-normalized flux and error arrays were convolved with a Gaussian kernel with full-width at half-maximum equivalent to a resolution element of the SDSS spectrograph, i.e., $\sigma_{\rm G} = 1\,{\rm pixel}$. The error array included the continuum fit error. The regions where the convolved signal-to-noise $({\rm S/N)_{conv}}$ is greater than or equal to $3.5$ per resolution element were identified as absorption features and saved to the sightline’s line list. We masked out the few pixels ($\approx 5{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$) around the strong skylines at 5579[$\,\mbox{\AA}$]{} and 6302[$\,\mbox{\AA}$]{}.
Candidate doublets were compiled by pairing automatically detected lines with the characteristic velocity separation ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm C\,IV}}}\pm 150{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$ and by identifying isolated, automatically detected lines that were broad enough to be a candidate doublet by themselves. As discussed in §\[subsec.dr7\], the search region is set so that the candidate is redward of the , “forest” ($\lambda_{\rm r} \ge 1310{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$) and blueward of the QSO by $3000{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$. For any un-paired line, we re-ran the automated feature-finder with a $2.5\sigma_{\rm conv}$ cut-off and searched for a partner candidate 1550 line.
To identify isolated, broad lines that should be candidate doublets, we used the automated procedure for measuring wavelength bounds (described in §\[subsec.meas\]) to find lines with widths $\dv{\rm lin} \ge 1.5\,{\ensuremath{\dv{\rm C\,IV}}}$.
Ultimately, we identified 29,789 candidates, 6,346 of which were from the broad-line search.
Measuring Absorber Properties {#subsec.meas}
-----------------------------
The redshift, equivalent width, and column density of a line depend on the definition of its wavelength bounds. The bounds were automatically defined by where the convolved signal-to-noise array stopped decreasing from the perspective of the automatically detected centroid, and the bounds were not allowed to exceed the midpoint between themselves and neighboring lines. Thus, for lines, the inner wavelength bounds were not allowed to exceed the midpoint of the doublet.
The redshift, equivalent width, and column density errors included the estimated error due to the hybrid-continuum. Redshifts were measured from the flux-weighted centroids. Equivalent widths were measured by simply summing the absorbed flux within the bounds.
We used the apparent optical depth method [AODM; @savageandsembach91] to estimate column densities. Systems that are saturated (discussed below) formally have column densities that are lower limits (binary flag $f_{N} =
2$). Column density measurements that are less than $3\sigma_{N}$ are flagged as upper limits ($f_{N} = 4$).
With doublets, we have two measurements of the column density, and we use both to set [$\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{}, as done in @cookseyetal10. For doublets where both lines are measurements (not limits), [$\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} is the inverse-variance weighted mean of the two values. If one line is a measurement, [$\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} is set to its value. The column density [ *limit*]{} is set to the inverse-variance weighted mean when both doublet limits are the same kind. When the doublet limits bracket a range, [$\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} is set to the un-weighted average with an error that reflects the range ($f_{N} = 8$). In the remaining cases, [$\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} is set to the better measurement/limit and flagged $f_{N} = 16$.
The AODM systematically overestimates the true column densities in low-S/N spectra [@foxetal05]. On the other hand, most doublets that can be detected in the low-resolution SDSS spectra are saturated, as evidenced by the doublet ratios of near unity; therefore, the AOD column densities would formally be lower limits. We define the doublet to be unsaturated when the equivalent width ratio $\EWlin{1548}/\EWlin{1550} > 2-\sigma_{\rm R}$, where $\sigma_{\rm R}$ is the ratio error due to the uncertainties in the measured equivalent widths. All other doublets are flagged as saturated with column densities that are lower limits; by this criterion, approximately 84% of the final catalog are saturated (see Table \[tab.civ\]).
![Example of absorbers. One hundred doublet profiles are plotted from $-900{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$ to 900[$\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}$]{}with respect to the center of the doublet and from $-0.05$ to 1.4 in normalized flux units. The flux is show in black and the 1-$\sigma$ error in red. The horizontal dashed lines indicate the flux at unity (green) and zero (blue). \[fig.civexmpl\] ](fig3.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
Interactive Doublet Verification {#subsec.verify}
--------------------------------
The candidate selection relied solely on the characteristic wavelength separation of the doublet. However, true, unblended doublets have a well-defined doublet ratio $\EWlin{1548}/\EWlin{1550}$ in the range of one to two in the saturated and unsaturated regimes, respectively. The resolved profiles of the doublet lines are very similar in the absence of blending. Most absorbers are associated with [$\mathrm{Ly}\alpha$]{}absorption, though “naked” systems may exist [@schayeetal07]. There are frequently other metal lines associated with the absorption, such as the and/or doublets. In addition, outside of the [$\mathrm{Ly}\alpha$]{} (and ,) forest, line confusion and blending are less severe, and the doublet is one of the more common metal lines.
We developed a graphical user interface to present all this information for each system to assist us in rating the 29,789 candidates. We leveraged our experience with absorption systems and the varying amounts of information available, depending on redshift, to assign each candidate a rating:
- definitely false—either can definitively identify the lines as other metal lines or as spurious bad pixels masquerading as absorption;
- likely false—though cannot name alternate metal-line identification, better data would probably confirm this as not absorption;
- likely true—though sparse supporting evidence (e.g., associated lines), better data would probably confirm this as absorption; or
- definitely real—associated with other lines and/or shows clear correlations in line profiles.
A single author was trusted to accurately assign ratings of 0 or 3; these doublets were not viewed again. The more ambiguous cases (ratings 1 and 2) were reviewed by at least one additional author until consensus was achieved. We grouped the doublets into systems with ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm abs}}}< 250{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$.
Though we excluded the BAL QSOs from @shenetal11, we found several sightlines with strong, self-blended, highly blueshifted absorbers. Since we focused on the [*intergalactic*]{} absorption systems, we excluded these 138 sightlines from further analysis and labeled them “visual BAL” QSOs in Table \[tab.los\] (binary flag $f_{\rm BAL}=12$). In addition, the extremely strong absorption lines in these spectra corrupted the automated continuum fitting algorithm.
The final catalog includes all doublets with ${\rm rating} \ge 2$. From the initial 29,789 candidates, 743 were in sightlines excluded as visual BAL QSOs. In the remaining 29,046 candidates, we found 16,459 real doublets (see Table \[tab.civ\]). A sample of doublets are shown in Figure \[fig.civexmpl\]. Ultimately, we analyzed the 14,772 with ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}< -5000{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$ (see §\[subsec.freqdistr\]).
We assessed the effects of blending and bad continua by inspecting 4500 doublets chosen at random. We flagged doublets where the 1548, 1550, or both lines were blended or otherwise problematic (e.g., the bounds were unrealistic) and where the continua ought to be adjusted locally (e.g., due to strong absorption or neighboring emission lines). The majority of our analysis depended on , so it mattered most what fraction of the 1548 lines were troublesome.
Over 90% of the random sample had “perfect” treatment of the 1548 line, and over 95% had acceptable continuum fits. The problematic doublets showed some redshift dependence due to the confused nature in the sky line region $\lambda_{\rm obs } \gtrsim 7500{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ or ${\ensuremath{z_{1548}}}\gtrsim 3.8$, where the fraction of problematic 1548 lines jumped from $\approx10\%$ to $\approx20\%$. The stronger lines ($\EWlin{1548}
\gtrsim 2{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$) were more often blended. These systems tended to be self-blended and would generally be problematic to surveys using boxcar summation for equivalent widths, such as ours. To maintain the largely automated, and hence objective and repeatable, nature of the survey, we decided to accept the imperfections and assess the strength of our results in light of them.
Completeness Tests {#sec.complete}
==================
We test our survey completeness by generating a library of synthetic profiles, randomly distributing them in a subset of the sightlines, and tracking which simulated doublets were recovered. The goal was to populate a grid of doublet redshifts and rest equivalent widths with the fraction of recovered and accepted simulated doublets in each grid cell. We aimed to sample the full distribution of completeness limits so that we could leverage the large number of sightlines; for example, two spectra with 50% completeness in one $({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}},{\ensuremath{z_{1548}}})$ cell are equivalent to one sightline with 100% completeness for the same parameters [@matejekandsimcoe12]. In this section, we detail how we generated synthetic profiles, input and recover them, and measure the completeness, in addition to discussing biases.
Simulated Doublets\[subsec.civprof\]
------------------------------------
We parameterized the simulated doublets to produce absorption lines that look like the diversity of profiles observed in the SDSS spectra. We created a Voigt profile library with a uniform distribution of equivalent widths, since we aimed to generate uniform errors on detection completeness as a function of . Each component had a column density that was sampled linearly from $11 <
{\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}< 14$ and a Doppler parameter randomly selected in the range $5{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}< b < 40{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$. For each system, one primary component was generated, and a random draw from a Poisson distribution, with mean of $\mu^{\rm Poiss}_{\rm comp}$, determined the number of additional components for the system. The velocity offset for each component was drawn from a Gaussian distribution with standard deviation $\sigma^{\rm Gauss}_{\delta v}$, clipped to keep all components within the maximum offset $\delta v_{\rm max}$ relative to the system redshift.
The bulk of our profiles were generated with $\mu^{\rm Poiss}_{\rm
comp} = 4$ or 7, $\sigma^{\rm Gauss}_{\delta v} = 100{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$, and $\delta v_{\rm max} = 300{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$, which were roughly based on the component properties measured by @boksenbergetal03ph. However, to reproduce the diversity of profiles found in the SDSS data, we had to modify the parameters (e.g., larger $\mu^{\rm Poiss}_{\rm
comp}$ and $\delta v_{\rm max}$), and we limited the alternate parameters to the larger equivalent width regime (e.g., ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge
1.2{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$), where @boksenbergetal03ph did not have many systems.
We generated over $10^{5}$ Voigt profiles. Then we randomly selected or duplicated (in extreme equivalent width regimes) profiles to uniformly sample $0.05{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}< \EWlin{1548} < 3.25{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ in bins of $0.05{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$, resulting in a library of 32,000 profiles.
{width="94.00000%"}
Monte Carlo Procedures\[subsec.cmpltproc\]
------------------------------------------
We have two Monte Carlo completeness tests, referred to as basic and user. The basic test included all of the automated procedures, from continuum fitting to candidate selection. It was applied to the largest fraction of sightlines ($\approx 30\%$). We tested the user bias by visually inspecting the candidates in $\approx6\%$ of the sightlines. The subsamples were set by requiring at least one sightline in each bin of $\Delta {\ensuremath{z_{\rm QSO}}}= 0.25$ for ${\ensuremath{z_{\rm QSO}}}\ge 1.7$ and $\Delta \langle {\rm S/N} \rangle = 0.25\,{\rm pixel}^{-1}$ for $\langle
{\rm S/N} \rangle \ge 4\,{\rm pixel}^{-1}$. For the basic test, with more sampled sightlines, we kept sampling from the sightlines in these $\Delta {\ensuremath{z_{\rm QSO}}}$ and $\Delta \langle {\rm S/N} \rangle$ bins, so that the bins with more sightlines had more tested for completeness. Extra high-redshift sightlines were included in the user test in increase the statistics.
We chose to input the simulated doublets into the actual spectra in order to sample realistic data. We “cleaned” each spectrum by removing a random 30% of the automatically detected absorption features. The flux between the wavelength bounds (see §\[subsec.meas\]) was replaced by continuum with a scatter drawn from neighboring pixels, and the new error reflected those same pixels. By leaving the remaining absorption features in, we were able to measure the effects of blending and of absorption lines on the automated continuum fit and line-finding algorithm.
We set a fiducial absorber redshift density ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}z}}=5$ to determine how many simulated doublets to input into the cleaned spectrum. This translated to typically injecting one to three doublets per loop, and the test iterated until at least 1000 simulated doublets were input per sightline. We did not change the error array when injecting profiles, which slightly but systematically lowered the signal-to-noise ratio of the simulated doublets.
For every sightline in the basic test, a random sample of profiles were drawn from our library and assigned redshifts to fall within the limits of the current sightline. The spectrum was “cleaned” to start and every 50th loop thereafter. We injected one to three simulated doublets, fit the hybrid-continuum (see §\[subsec.conti\]), and ran the automated candidate identification algorithm (see §\[subsec.cand\]). Any injected profile was flagged as recovered if the automatically identified candidate bounds spanned the observed wavelength of the simulated system. For any profile that was [*not*]{} recovered, we measured the flux-weighted redshift, equivalent width, and AOD column density at the expected location. The input and recovered information was stored for later processing (see §\[subsec.cmpltcorr\]).
The user completeness test served a dual purpose. It tested the effects of human bias (e.g., we were less likely to accept real doublets at high redshift due to poor sky subtraction at $\gtrsim 7000{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$) and our accepted false-positive rate (i.e., how often we rated non- lines as absorption). The steps were largely the same for one sightline in the user test as in the basic, but we “cleaned” the profile every iteration and an author rated the automatically detected candidates. However, we modified the simulated doublets to have an unphysical characteristic wavelength separation of 4.8[$\,\mbox{\AA}$]{} or 924[$\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}$]{} so that any candidate was most likely either simulated or spurious. The fake $\lambda\lambda1547,1552$ profile library was truncated to $\EWlin{1547} \le 1{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$. We did not simulate other absorption lines because, fundamentally, we are conducting a blind survey.
$
\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig5a.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig5b.pdf}
\end{array}
$
Completeness Correction and Unblocked Co-Moving Path Length {#subsec.cmpltcorr}
-----------------------------------------------------------
We combined the completeness tests in bins of redshift and onto grids of equivalent width so that we correct any detected absorber based on its completeness fraction. The estimated completeness fraction for a given grid point $(z_{\rm g},W_{\rm g})$ is simply ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm
accept}/{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm input}$, the fraction of input doublets that are recovered automatically and accepted by the user, in the given grid cell. The two completeness tests separately measured the recovering and accepting effects so that the final completeness fraction is estimated by: $$C(z_{\rm g},W_{\rm g}) = \frac{ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm rec}(z_{\rm g},W_{\rm g})
} { {\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm input}(z_{\rm g},W_{\rm g}) }\frac{ {\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm accept}(z_{\rm g},W_{\rm g})
} { {\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm rec}(z_{\rm g},W_{\rm g}) } {\rm ,} \label{eqn.czw}$$ where the right-hand product can be thought of as $C_{\rm basic}C_{\rm
user}$. The completeness grid $C(z_{\rm g},W_{\rm g})$ collapses to a curve $C(W_{\rm g})$ in a fixed redshift bin. The basic completeness uncertainty $\sigma_{C_{\rm basic}}$ is estimated by the Wilson score interval for a binomial distribution [@wilson27]. This confidence interval estimator is well behaved for small ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm input}$ and/or for extreme completeness fractions.
The statistics on the user completeness were naturally smaller than for the basic, so we fit $C_{\rm user}({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}})$ with the following model: $$C_{\rm user}({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}) = C_{0} \big(1-e^{\beta({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}- W_{0})} \big) \label{eqn.czwuserfit}$$ in two redshift bins. The dividing $z = 2.97$ corresponded to the beginning of the sky line region at $\approx 7000{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$, with its resulting decrease in $C_{\rm user}$ due to confusion, and matched the start of the highest redshift bin. The fit uncertainties were estimated from Monte Carlo re-sampling of the equivalent-width errors, and the final error on $C({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}})$ was propagated from $\sigma_{C_{\rm
basic}}$ and $\sigma_{C_{\rm user}}$. We extrapolated the fits to larger equivalent widths when we calculated the full completeness fraction. The user completeness test is discussed in detail in §\[subsec.biases\] below.
We scaled $C(z_{\rm g},W_{\rm g})$ by the fraction of the total path length [*not*]{} obscured by doublets with greater equivalent widths, in the redshift bin. All lines blocked $<2\%$ of the total survey path length (see Table \[tab.los\]).
In actuality, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm input}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm rec}$ contain the information only for the profiles and sightlines actually sampled in the basic completeness test. Any sightline that did not have a measurement for one or more quantities was accounted for with the average of the sightlines actually tested in the requested $\Delta
{\ensuremath{z_{\rm QSO}}}$ and $\Delta \langle {\rm S/N} \rangle$ bin.
The unblocked co-moving path length[^3] for each grid cell is calculated by simply multiplying the completeness fraction by the total path length available in each redshift bin: $$\begin{aligned}
\DX{W_{\rm g}} & = & \DX{z_{\rm g}} C(z_{\rm g},W_{\rm
g}) \label{eqn.dxwgrid} \\
{\ensuremath{\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\Delta X}}}}}^2{}_{(W_{\rm g})} & = & \DX{z_{\rm g}}^2 \sigma_{C(z,W)}^2
{\rm .} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In Figure \[fig.cmplt\], the black curves are the grid values $\DX{W_{\rm g}}$ and errors.
The unblocked co-moving path length to which our survey is sensitive for any given detected equivalent width $W_{\rm i}$ is interpolated from the grid of $\DX{W_{\rm g}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\DX{W_{\rm i}} & = & {\rm interpol}( \DX{W_{\rm g}},\ W_{\rm g},\ W_{\rm
i}) \label{eqn.dxw} \\
{\ensuremath{\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\Delta X}}}}}^2 & = & {\rm interpol}( {\ensuremath{\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\Delta X}}}}}^2{}_{(W_{\rm g})},\ W_{\rm g},\ W_{\rm
i}) + \nonumber \\
& & \bigg( \DX{W_{\rm i}} - \DX{W_{\rm i} \pm \sigma_{W_{\rm i}}} \bigg)^2 \nonumber
{\rm .}
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The error on $\DX{W_{\rm i}}$ accounts for the error in our completeness correction ([$\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\Delta X}}}$]{}) and for the uncertainty in our equivalent width measurement ($\sigma_{W_{\rm i}}$). We plot each doublet’s in gray in Figure \[fig.cmplt\]. Clearly, the uncertainty in equivalent width dominates the error in the completeness correction.
In all redshift bins, the typical completeness fraction reached 50% by $\EWlin{1548} \approx 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$, a value we frequently use as the minimum in subsequent analyses.
{width="94.00000%"}
![Best-fit parameters and errors. We fit the frequency distribution with an exponential function (see Equation \[eqn.fexp\]). The best-fit normalization $k$ and scale $\alpha$ and the 1-$\sigma$ error ellipses are plotted for the ten small redshift bins (numbered points); the 1, 2, and 3-$\sigma$ contours are shown for the fit to the full sample (black ellipses). The best-fit parameters smoothly evolve with redshift, as seen by comparing the ellipses with the constant [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} curves (gray, dashed lines). \[fig.fwellipse\] ](fig7.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
Automated and Interactive Biases {#subsec.biases}
--------------------------------
The completeness curves do not monotonically increase to 100% at large equivalent width (see Figure \[fig.cmplt\]). Instead, they roll off at $\EWlin{1548} \approx 2{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$. This feature results from the incompleteness in the broad (self-blended) search and, to a much lesser extent ($< 5\%$), from broad profiles being over-fit by the continuum algorithm, which led them to being missed in the automated search. The user completeness test measured our ability to correctly rate real, automatically detected doublets (“true positives”) as well as the rate at which we include spurious pairs of lines as true doublets (“accepted false negatives”). We injected ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm input} = 5021$ fake doublets with ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}< 1{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}< -5000{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$, and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm rec} = 3070$ were automatically recovered. Of these, we correctly rated ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm accept} = 2489$. The left panels of Figure \[fig.userbias\] show the trends of the user completeness with redshift, spectrum $\langle {\rm S/N} \rangle$, and equivalent width.
Generally, $C_{\rm user}$ decreases with increasing redshift and decreasing $\langle {\rm S/N} \rangle$. Sky lines become numerous at $\lambda \gtrsim 7000{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$, and poor sky subtraction leaves features in the spectrum that mimic absorption lines (see Figure \[fig.conti\]). In the visual verification step, a larger fraction of real doublets are rejected due to the severe confusion. Lower signal-to-noise spectra induces the same effect.
There were an additional 966 spurious candidates brought forth by the automated search, of which we incorrectly accepted 121. The accepted false-positive fraction peaks at $\approx 20\%$ at $z \approx 3$ and $\langle {\rm S/N} \rangle \approx 10$. However, our acceptance fraction grows sharply at ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\lesssim 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ and plateaus to 18% and 12% for $z < 2.97$ and $\ge 2.97$, respectively. The estimated co-moving line densities of accepted false positives with ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge
0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ are ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{afp}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}}= 0.022$ and 0.020 for the low and high redshift bins, respectively.
We detail how we applied corrections for the accepted false-positive rate in the next section.
Results {#sec.results}
=======
The bulk of the analysis of the sample was performed either on the whole dataset or in bins in redshift space. The bins were determined empirically from the ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}< -5000{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$ sample to have about 1500 doublets per bin, and the [$\dv{\rm QSO}$]{} cut is explained below.
![Best-fit parameters for different [$\dv{\rm QSO}$]{} values. We tested the effects of the [$\dv{\rm QSO}$]{} cut on the fit to the full sample. The contours are 1 and $3\sigma$, and the gray, dashed lines are constant [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} curves. We adopt ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}=-5000{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$ for the main analyses. \[fig.fwdvqso\] ](fig8.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
Frequency Distribution {#subsec.freqdistr}
----------------------
The equivalent width frequency distribution is the number of detections ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs}({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}})$ per rest equivalent width bin $\Delta {\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}$ per the total co-moving path length available, in the given equivalent width bin, : $$\begin{aligned}
\ff{{\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}} & = & \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs}({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}})} {\Delta {\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\,\DX{{\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}}} \label{eqn.fewdef} \\
\sigma_{\ff{{\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}}}^2 & = & \ff{{\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}}^2 \Bigg( \bigg(
\frac{\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs}}}{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs}({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}})} \bigg)^2 +
\bigg( \frac{{\ensuremath{\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\Delta X}}}}}}{\DX{{\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}}} \bigg)^2
\Bigg) {\rm .} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The error on ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs}$ is estimated from a Poisson distribution if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs} < 120$ and from a Gaussian approximation if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs} \ge 120$. For and [$\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\Delta X}}}$]{}, we used Equation \[eqn.dxw\] with the center of the equivalent width bin being $W_{\rm i}$ and $\sigma_{W_{\rm i}} = 0.5\Delta {\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}$. We used the maximum likelihood analysis of @cookseyetal10 to fit with an exponential: $$\ff{{\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}} = k e^{\alpha {\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}} \label{eqn.fexp}$$ (see Figure \[fig.fw\]). The normalization $k$ and scale $\alpha$ were simultaneously fit, and the errors were estimated by the maximum extent of the 1-$\sigma$ error ellipse on the likelihood surface (see Figure \[fig.fwellipse\]). All frequency distributions were fit over the range $0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}\le \EWlin{1548} \le {\rm
max}[\EWlin{1548}+{\ensuremath{\sigma_{{\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}}}}]$. The results were not strongly dependent on the choice of the upper limit. The exponential model is a very good description of the data, and the best-fit parameters are given in Table \[tab.freqdistr\]. The best-fit parameters show smooth redshift evolution with respect to the constant [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} curves in Figure \[fig.fwellipse\]. The co-moving line density is simply the integral of the frequency distribution from some limiting equivalent width $W_{\lim}$ to infinity, and substituting in our exponential model, we see: $$\frac{\displaystyle {\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}{\displaystyle {\ensuremath{d}}X}\bigg |_{\rm fit} =
\frac{\displaystyle -k}{\displaystyle \alpha} e^{\alpha W_{\rm
lim}} \label{eqn.dndxfit} {\rm .}$$ By fixing [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{}, we can solve for the required normalization $k$ for any given $\alpha$. The 1-$\sigma$ ellipses are elongated in the direction of the constant [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} curves, and redshift evolution can be seen by tracking systematic change perpendicular to these curves. The lowest five redshift bins ($1.46 \le z < 1.96$) fall along roughly the same constant [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} curve. The next three highest redshift bins ($1.96 \le z < 2.51$) have slightly smaller line densities. Then there is almost a factor of two drop over the highest two redshift bins ($2.51 \le z < 4.55$).
Since the accepted false-positive rate is essentially constant at ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ (see §\[subsec.biases\]), the frequency distribution of accepted false positives is a scaled-down version of the measured frequency distribution. Therefore, we scale the original $f_{0}({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}})$ as follows: $$\ff{{\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}} = \bigg(1 - \frac{\displaystyle {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{afp}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}}}{\displaystyle
{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}}} \bigg) f_{0}({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}) \label{eqn.afpfw}$$ and propagate the errors. This results in a decrease of $\approx 6\%$ to 12%, depending on the redshift. For the exponential fits, we scale the best-fit normalization $k_{0}$ in a similar fashion: $$k = \bigg(1 - \frac{\displaystyle {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{afp}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}}}{\displaystyle
({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}})_{\rm fit}} \bigg) k_{0} {\rm ,} \label{eqn.afpfwfit}$$ but the denominator is the integrated line density from the exponential model (Equation \[eqn.dndxfit\]). We report the propagated errors in Table \[tab.freqdistr\] and in the text. However, since we cannot compute the change in the likelihood surface, we only shift the ellipses in Figures \[fig.fwellipse\] and \[fig.fwdvqso\].
### Effect of Blending and “Intrinsic” Absorbers
As mentioned in §\[subsec.verify\], blended profiles are an issue for this survey, which relies on automated procedures and boxcar summation to measure equivalent widths. We ran 1000 Monte Carlo simulations to estimate the net effect of blending. There were over $10^{6}$ (17%) simulated doublets recovered in the completeness tests that had measured equivalent widths more than $3\sigma$ larger than the input value, indicative of blending. We measured the median ($\langle W_{\rm blend} \rangle = 0.2{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$) and standard deviation ($\sigma_{W_{\rm blend}} = 0.5{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$) of the distribution, where $W_{\rm blend} = \EWlin{rec} - (\EWlin{input} +
3\sigma_{\EWlin{rec}})$. For each realization, we tested the worst-case scenario by decreasing the equivalent width of a random 20% of the absorbers, which was the largest blended fraction estimated in §\[subsec.verify\]. The magnitude of the decrease was drawn randomly from the half of a Gaussian distribution below its mean, set to $\langle W_{\rm blend} \rangle$, with standard deviation $\sigma_{W_{\rm blend}}$. Then, the new sample was fit with an exponential model. The median best-fit parameters from these Monte Carlo simulations were in very good agreement with those in Table \[tab.freqdistr\], and the standard deviation of the Monte Carlo results were ten-times smaller than the quoted uncertainties. These simulations assessed the worst-case scenario, by taking the largest estimated fraction of blended lines (see §\[subsec.verify\]) and only decreasing the equivalent widths (as opposed to also re-sampling the the other 80% of the doublets).
In addition, the completeness corrections account for blending since we compiled the curves in Figure \[fig.cmplt\] with respect to the [*measured*]{}—as opposed to input—equivalent widths. There were other absorption lines in the spectra, and the randomly placed simulated profiles were blended at a realistic rate, as seen by the agreement of the blended fraction from our visual estimate (§\[subsec.verify\]) and from the $10^{6}$ simulated doublets described above. Thus, our results are robust to the effects of blending.
We tested the effect of the [$\dv{\rm QSO}$]{} cut on our results by increasing [$\dv{\rm QSO}$]{} and re-fitting the full redshift sample (see Figure \[fig.fwdvqso\]). Systems close to the background QSO could potentially be high velocity, intrinsic absorbers and/or affected by quasar clustering, enrichment, and/or local ionization. The general trend for ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}< -4000{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$ is decreasing normalization (i.e., $k$) with nearly constant shape ($\alpha$). The decrease in $k$ is due to the number of absorbers decreasing faster than the path length up to at least ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}= -15000{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$. For example, with ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}=-10000{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$, we have 17.5% less path length but 25% fewer ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ doublets. This trend is partially explained by quasars residing in dense environments [e.g., @prochaskaetal11a], where the chance of intersecting a metal-enriched galaxy halo is increased.
However, this effect would not dominate out to ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}=
-10000{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$. The lack of “convergence” at very large [$\dv{\rm QSO}$]{} may be partially due to poorly measured quasar redshifts. @hewettandwild10 re-measured the majority of the redshifts for the @schneideretal10 DR7 QSOs, with better automated routines. Adopting the @hewettandwild10 redshifts affects over 80% of the total 16,459 systems. The majority of the quasar redshifts [*increased*]{}, with a median $\langle {\ensuremath{\dv{\rm em}}}\rangle =
381{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$, standard deviation $764{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$, and maximal extent $-4200{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}\lesssim {\ensuremath{\dv{\rm em}}}\lesssim +5700{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$. In addition, there are redshift-dependent fluctuations in [$\dv{\rm em}$]{}. Using the @hewettandwild10 redshifts would affect our analysis; however, the change in the total sample size, given a [$\dv{\rm QSO}$]{} cut, is less than 2%. Given this small fraction and the incompleteness of the new redshifts, we chose to continue with the @schneideretal10 redshifts, but we adopt ${\ensuremath{\dv{\rm QSO}}}=-5000{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}$ for the bulk of our analyses which reduces the sample to 14,772 doublets.
![Co-moving line density evolution. The number of absorbers per co-moving path length increases steadily and consistently from ${\ensuremath{z_{1548}}}= 4.5 \rightarrow\ \approx\!1.74$. As expected from the nearly unchanging nature in the shape of (see Figure \[fig.fw\]), there is little dependence on , noting that we are typically 50% at ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\approx 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$. \[fig.dndx\] ](fig9.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
$
\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig10a.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig10b.pdf}
\end{array}
$
Absorber Line Density {#subsec.dndx}
----------------------
We directly measured the absorber line density for doublets with ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge
W_{\rm lim}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ {\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}
{ {\ensuremath{d}}X} ({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge W_{\rm lim}) & = & \frac{\displaystyle
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm C}({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}) }{\displaystyle \DX{z}}
\label{eqn.dndx_sum} \\
\sigma_{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}^{2} & = & \bigg( \frac{ \sigma_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm C}{} } }
{ \DX{z}} \bigg)^2
{\rm .} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ The completeness-corrected number of absorbers in any given bin is the completeness-weighted sum of the observed absorbers in the bin: $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm C}({\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}) & = & \sum_{W_{\rm i} \ge {\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}- 0.5\Delta {\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}}^{W_{\rm i} < {\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}+
0.5\Delta {\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}} \frac{1} {C(W_{\rm i})} \label{eqn.numc} \\
\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm C}}^2 & = & \sigma_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs}}^{2} +
\sum_{W_{\rm i} \ge {\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}- 0.5\Delta {\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}}^{W_{\rm i} < {\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}+
0.5\Delta {\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}} \bigg( \frac{ \sigma_{C(W_{\rm i})} } { C(W_{\rm
i})^2 } \bigg)^2 {\rm .} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Again, ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs}$ is the contribution of the actual observed number of absorbers in the given [$W_{\rm r}$]{} bin, and the completeness-corrected number ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm C} \ge {\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm
obs}$. The error $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs}}$ is estimated from a Poisson distribution if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs} < 120$ and from a Gaussian approximation if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs} \ge 120$.
We subtract [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{afp}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} from all quoted [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} values, in the appropriate redshift bins (see §\[subsec.biases\]) and add the errors in quadrature. For ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$, ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{afp}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}}=
0.020^{+0.003}_{-0.002}$ ($1.4 < z < 4.6$); $0.022^{+0.005}_{-0.004}$ ($z < 2.97$); and $0.020^{+0.004}_{-0.003}$ ($z \ge 2.97$).
We present [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} for different equivalent width limits in Figure \[fig.dndx\]. The line density shows little differential evolution based on , as expected from the consistent shape of the frequency distributions over time (Figure \[fig.fw\]). For ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$, the inverse-variance weighted average $\bar{{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}}} =
0.350\pm0.005$ for $1.46 \le z < 1.96$ (or the lowest five redshift bins). This average is $2.37\pm0.09$ times larger than the highest redshift [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} at $z = 3.76$. Though the magnitude of the increase is modest, the detection is a $>20\sigma$ result. Thus, the line density grows consistently and smoothly from ${\ensuremath{z_{1548}}}= 4.5
\rightarrow\ \approx 1.74$, then plateaus at ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}}\approx 0.34$ until $z = 1.46$, as expected from the best-fit parameters (see Figure \[fig.fwellipse\]).
There is a known bias in the SDSS quasar color selection that leads to an excess of Lyman-limit systems at $3 \lesssim {\ensuremath{z_{\rm QSO}}}\lesssim 3.5$ [@prochaskaetal10; @worseckandprochaska11], which likely increases the incidence of strong metal-line absorption systems at these redshifts. Therefore, there is potential for the decrease in the highest SDSS bin to be even larger, but the effect of the color selection on the sample is beyond the scope of this paper.
$
\begin{array}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig11a.pdf} &
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig11b.pdf}
\end{array}
$
Comparison with Previous Results {#subsec.prevrslt}
--------------------------------
To fairly compare to other surveys, we applied various [$W_{\rm r}$]{} cuts to our complete sample, chosen to match the corresponding cuts of prior surveys.
To compare , we converted published column density frequency distributions [*fits*]{} from @songaila01 and @dodoricoetal10 to equivalent width frequency distributions by assuming the linear curve of growth and mapping directly to : $\ff{{\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}} = \ff{{\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}} {\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}/ {\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}$. We adjusted for cosmology as necessary. A single-component cloud becomes saturated and nonlinear at ${\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}\approx 14$, which translates to $\EWlin{1548} \approx 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$, where we typically are $\approx 50\%$ complete.
While we have good statistics on the rare, strong absorbers, we suffer from incompleteness at ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\lesssim 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$. @songaila01 and @dodoricoetal10 were smaller, higher-resolution, higher-S/N studies, and they were complete to very low [$W_{\rm r}$]{} but suffered from sample variance at larger equivalent widths. However, Figure \[fig.fwlit\] shows that our results are consistent with each other in the overlap region. Our best-fit parameters to the exponential in the @dodoricoetal10 and @songaila01 redshift bins were, respectively: $\alpha=-2.65^{+0.04}_{-0.04}{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}^{-1}$ and $k=3.72^{+0.37}_{-0.35}{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}^{-1}$ for $1.6 \le z \le 3.6$ with 7884 systems; and $\alpha=-2.58^{+0.13}_{-0.13}{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}^{-1}$ and $k=2.29^{+0.80}_{-0.69}{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}^{-1}$ for $2.9 \le z \le 3.54$ with 878 systems.
We compared the SDSS redshift and co-moving line densities with the literature [@steidel90; @barlowandtytler98; @cookseyetal10; @dodoricoetal10; @simcoeetal11]. For @dodoricoetal10, we used their best-fit values to calculate [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} and ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}z}}= ({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}})({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}X/{\ensuremath{d}}z}})$ for ${\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}\ge 14$. For @barlowandtytler98 and @steidel90, we estimated ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}}\ = ({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}z}})({\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}X/{\ensuremath{d}}z}})^{-1}$. The @steidel90 results match ours well for the range where the author was fairly complete but with $\approx20\%$ uncertainty, compared to our $\approx2\%$ errors (see Figure \[fig.dndzlit\]). Extending the redshift coverage by including the low-redshift measurements of @barlowandtytler98 and @cookseyetal10 and the high-redshift values from @simcoeetal11, we see that [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{}has steadily increased by, roughly, a factor of ten from ${\ensuremath{z_{1548}}}= 6
\rightarrow 0$.
Discussion {#sec.discuss}
==========
Evolution\[subsec.civevo\]
---------------------------
We show the best measurements of [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} for ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ and $0 < z < 6.5$ in the top panel of Figure \[fig.dndxbest\].[^4] The co-moving line density relates to the co-moving volume density of absorbing clouds [$n_{\rm com}$]{} and their physical cross-section [$\sigma_{\rm phys}$]{}: $$\frac{\displaystyle {\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}{\displaystyle {\ensuremath{d}}X} =
\frac{\displaystyle c}{\displaystyle H_{0}} {\ensuremath{n_{\rm com}}}{\ensuremath{\sigma_{\rm phys}}}{\rm .} \label{eqn.dndxphys}$$ Thus, the roughly order-of-magnitude increase in [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} from high-to-low redshift means the product [$n_{\rm com}$]{}[$\sigma_{\rm phys}$]{} has increased by a factor of $\approx10$. We know the metallicity of the universe has steadily increased over cosmic time, so the possible number of -absorbing clouds (i.e., [$n_{\rm com}$]{}) has likely increased. At least some absorption traces galaxy halos at low [@chenetal01] and high redshift [@adelbergeretal05; @martinetal10; @steideletal10]. Since galaxies (and their halos) have likely grown over cosmic time, increases in both [$\sigma_{\rm phys}$]{} and [$n_{\rm com}$]{}appear to contribute to the increase in [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{}.
@adelbergeretal05 reported that almost all ${\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}\ge 14$ absorbers arise within $\approx80{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{kpc}}}$ of Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs) at $2 \lesssim z \lesssim 3$. The evidence included: individual strong absorber-LBG pairs; strong absorption in stacked spectra of close background galaxies, shifted to the rest-frame of the foreground galaxies; and similar LBG- cross-correlation and LBG autocorrelation functions, suggesting they have the same spatial distribution.
@steideletal10 increased the LBG-LBG pairs for stacking analysis, and they measured average $\EWlin{1548} = 0.13\pm0.05{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ and $1.18\pm0.15{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ at distances $b = 63{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{kpc}}}$ and 103[$\,\mathrm{kpc}$]{}, respectively. Interpolating between these two measurements, an average $\EWlin{1548} = 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ system would reside at $b \approx
85{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{kpc}}}$. The @steideletal10 LBG sample went as faint as $\approx 0.3\,L^{\ast}$, assuming the luminosity function of @reddyandsteidel09, and since they used stacks of galaxy spectra, their analysis included the effects of partial covering fractions.
Since the ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ absorbers in our sample have ${\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}\gtrsim 14$, we used the co-moving number density of UV-selected galaxies, to estimate the typical galaxy- cross-section over time with Equation \[eqn.dndxphys\]. We measured [$n_{\rm com,UV}$]{} with the UV luminosity functions from @oeschetal10, @reddyandsteidel09 and @bouwensetal07, which covered several smaller redshift bins spanning $0.5 < z < 2$, $1.9 < z < 3.4$, and $3.8 \lesssim z \lesssim 5.9$, respectively. For each luminosity function, we integrated the best-fit Schechter function down to $0.5\,L^{\ast}$ or $\approx0.75\,$mag fainter than the published $M_{\rm UV}^{\ast}$, which ranged between $\approx-19$ and $-21\,$mag. We estimated the [$n_{\rm com,UV}$]{} errors with Monte Carlo simulations.
The UV-selected galaxy number density, [$n_{\rm com,UV}$]{}, may increase by a factor of two to three from $z \approx 6 \rightarrow 0$, but the uncertainties are large (see Figure \[fig.dndxbest\], middle panel). Applying [$n_{\rm com,UV}$]{} and [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} to Equation \[eqn.dndxphys\], we estimated [$\sigma_{\rm phys}$]{}, the physical galaxy- cross-section (Figure \[fig.dndxbest\], lower panel). For some redshift bins, multiple luminosity functions could be used in conjunction with our [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{}, and we show all resulting values but highlight the preferred values with filled symbols.
The galaxy- cross-section shows no evolution over the SDSS redshift range within the errors, which are dominated by the 20%–60% uncertainties in [$n_{\rm com,UV}$]{}. Assuming the cross-section is due to a spherical halo that projects with 100% covering fraction, the halo radius would be $R_{\rm phys} =
\sqrt{{\ensuremath{\sigma_{\rm phys}}}/\pi} \approx 50{\ensuremath{\,\mathrm{kpc}}}$ for $1.5 \lesssim z
\lesssim 4.5$. This distance agrees with @adelbergeretal05 and allows for e.g., a non-unity covering fraction or limiting to brighter UV-selected galaxies, both of which would increase $R_{\rm phys}$.
There is an approximately 10-fold increase in [$\sigma_{\rm phys}$]{} from $z
\approx 6 \rightarrow 0$ when we include the [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} measurements from @simcoeetal11 and @cookseyetal10, respectively. This increase in the galaxy- cross-section is comparable to that of [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} over the same redshift range. Thus, if the ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ absorbers were only tracing galaxy halos, the redshift evolution of [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} could be solely due to the halos filling up with triply-ionized carbon, through some combination of physical growth, increased metallicity, and/or evolution in the ionizing background.
However, the uncertainty in the $z < 1$ cross-section estimate is large and consistent with an increase of only two to three compared with the $z \approx 6$ value. In this case, the roughly order-of-magnitude increase in [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} could equally be due to modest increases in [$n_{\rm com,UV}$]{} and [$\sigma_{\rm phys}$]{}.
We emphasize that the preceding discussion assumes all ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge 0.6$ systems at $0 < z < 6$ are only found in the circum-galactic media of UV-selected galaxies. Any intergalactic contribution to [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} at any redshift would cause us to overestimate the galaxy- cross-section.
Evolution in the ultraviolet background (UVB) possibly explains the seeming spike in [$\sigma_{\rm phys}$]{} at $z \approx 5$. @simcoe11 showed that is a preferred, if not dominant, transition of carbon at $z = 4.3$ compared to lower redshift, assuming the UVB of @haardtandmadau01 or @fauchergiguereetal09. Though the redshift window of this effect is small ($\Delta z \approx 0.5$), the increase in -ionizing photons would increase the cross-section of UV-selected galaxies and may explain the spike in [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} and [$\sigma_{\rm phys}$]{}. In general, triply-ionized carbon increasingly becomes a disfavored transition of carbon with decreasing redshift, given a standard model of the UVB [@oppenheimeranddave08; @simcoe11]. The UVB likely dominates the ionization flux at the expected tens of kiloparsecs from the host galaxies. Thus, the increasing number of absorbers towards lower redshift indicates an increasing enrichment of the gas, to more-than-compensate for the decreasingly favored triply-ionized state.
absorption could also be a galactic wind signature [see @steideletal10]. However, the [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} redshift evolution does not mimic the evolution of [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{Mg\,II}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} for $\EWlin{2796}
\gtrsim 1{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ absorbers, and these strong doublets are often analyzed as wind tracers [@weineretal09; @rubinetal10; @bordoloietal11 but also see @gauthieretal10 and @kacprzaketal11]. Strong absorbers evolve strongly with redshift by increasing with increasing redshift [@nestoretal05; @prochteretal06], peaking at $z \approx 3$, and then decreasing at higher redshifts [@matejekandsimcoe12ph]. The latter study showed that the evolution in [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{Mg\,II}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} tracks the cosmic star-formation rate [@bouwensetal10], using the scaling relation of @menardetal11, reinforcing the idea that strong absorbers arise in galactic winds.
We see no decrease at lower redshifts for strong absorbers (see Figure \[fig.dndx\]). If strong and absorbers were both tracing winds, then, to account for their different redshift evolution, either: they must probe outflows in different ways; or strong absorption traces an additional medium, such as halo gas, that contributes significantly to its [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} evolution.
$
\begin{array}{ll}
\hspace{1.5mm}\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{fig12a.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth]{fig12b.pdf}
\end{array}$
Mass Density {#subsec.omciv}
-------------
The doublet redshifts into optical passbands for $1.5
\lesssim z \lesssim 5.5$ and has been observed extensively with large, ground-based telescopes [@songaila01; @boksenbergetal03ph; @schayeetal03; @scannapiecoetal06; @dodoricoetal10]. Surveys of ultraviolet quasar spectra taken with [*HST*]{} cover the $z < 1$ systems [@danforthandshull08; @cookseyetal10]. More recently, improved infrared spectrographs have pushed surveys to $z \approx 6$ [@ryanweberetal09; @beckeretal09; @simcoeetal11]. Typically these studies have focused on the evolution of [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{}, the mass density relative to the closure density. The first moment of the column density frequency distribution is related to [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} as follows: $${\ensuremath{\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}=
\frac{H_{0}\,m_{\rm C}} {c\,\rho_{c,0}}
\int_{\N{\rm min}}^{\N{\rm max}} \ff{{\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}} {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}{\rm
,} \label{eqn.omciv}$$ where $H_{0} = 71.9{\ensuremath{\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}}}\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$ is the Hubble constant today; $m_{\rm C} =2\times10^{-23}\,$g is the mass of the carbon atom; $c$ is the speed of light; and the critical density $\rho_{c,0}=3H_{0}^2(8\pi G)^{-1} =9.77\times10^{-30}\,{\rm g}\cm{-3}$ for our assumed Hubble constant.
The earliest (optical) studies found that [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} was relatively constant for $2 \lesssim z \lesssim 4.5$ [@songaila01; @boksenbergetal03ph; @schayeetal03; @songaila05; @scannapiecoetal06]. @cookseyetal10 showed that [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{}increased by at least a factor of four from $z \approx 3$ to $z <
1$. Using better optical spectra, @dodoricoetal10 found that [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} increased smoothly from $z = 3$ to $z = 1.5$ and mapped well onto the $z < 1$ values.
However, all these studies measured a power-law shape for the , which formally corresponds to an infinite mass density. These surveys were limited to small numbers of available sightlines, typically less than 50. The rarest systems are the strongest, and these dominate the mass density measurement when the distribution is a power law. Hence the small-number statistics on the strongest absorbers limited the quoted [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} to be for $12 \lesssim {\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}\lesssim 15$, with one survey pushing to ${\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}\approx 16$ [@scannapiecoetal06]. Indeed, scaling the @scannapiecoetal06 [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} to ${\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}\le 15$ reduces their value by 45% [@cookseyetal10].
Our analysis, however, provides good statistics on the rare, strong systems, which dominate the SDSS sample. The observed [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} can be approximated by the sum of the detected absorbers [@lanzettaetal91]. The total column density in a given redshift bin is simply: $$\begin{aligned}
\N{\rm tot} & = & \sum_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs}} {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}\label{eqn.ncolmtot} \\
\sigma_{\N{\rm tot}}^{2} & = & \sigma_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs}}^{2} +
\sum_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs}} {\ensuremath{\sigma_{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}^{2} {\rm ,} \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where, again, we factor in the counting uncertainty for the number of detections $\sigma_{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\rm obs}}$. Then, we estimated the mass density relative to the critical density as: $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}& = & \frac{H_{0}\,m_{\rm C}} {c\,\rho_{c,0}}
\frac{\displaystyle \N{\rm tot}}
{\displaystyle \langle \DX{{\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}} \rangle} \label{eqn.omciv_sum}
\\
{\ensuremath{\sigma_{\Omega}}}^{2} & = & {\ensuremath{\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}^{2} \Bigg( \bigg( \frac{\displaystyle
\sigma_{\N{\rm tot} }}{ \displaystyle \N{\rm tot} } \bigg)^{2} +
\bigg( \frac{\displaystyle \sigma_{\langle {\ensuremath{\Delta X}}\rangle} }{
\displaystyle \langle \DX{{\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}} \rangle } \bigg)^{2} \Bigg) {\rm .}
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Since the completeness corrections were compiled in equivalent width space, we used the median available to each of the absorbers in the given bin, and the error was the standard deviation of the detections. The small scaling to account for the accepted false-positive distribution follows that of the frequency distribution (Equation \[eqn.afpfw\]).
In Figure \[fig.omciv\], we plot [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} over redshift from several studies for ${\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}\ge 14$, adjusted for the new limits and cosmology [see @cookseyetal10 for details]. The direct SDSS measurements are [*lower*]{} limits since we have predominately saturated absorbers and use the AODM to estimate column densities. However, we can still exclude values below the limits, including the @songaila01 measurements at $z <
3$.[^5] This reinforces the @dodoricoetal10 result that [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} smoothly increases. In an upcoming paper, we will be combining the @dodoricoetal10 and current datasets to fit and measure [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} for ${\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}\gtrsim 12$ via Equation \[eqn.omciv\].
![Redshift evolution of [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} for ${\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}\ge 14$ absorbers. The SDSS apparent optical depth values are [*lower*]{} limits (blue), since most systems are saturated. However, these lower limits firmly exclude the $z < 3$ measurements from @songaila01, which have been grayed out with the other superseded measurements, and support the result that [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{} smoothly increases from $z
\approx 3$ to $z = 1.5$ from @dodoricoetal10. \[fig.omciv\] ](fig13.pdf){width="47.00000%"}
Summary {#sec.summ}
=======
We have completed the largest survey to date by leveraging the SDSS DR7 quasar catalog [@schneideretal10]. In 26,030 sightlines with ${\ensuremath{z_{\rm QSO}}}\ge 1.7$ and $\langle {\rm S/N} \rangle \ge
4\,{\rm pixel}^{-1}$, we identified 14,772 systems at least 5000[$\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}$]{} blueward of the quasar. The entire doublet catalog and other tools for analysis (e.g., completeness grids) are made available for the community.[^6]
The bulk of the survey was automated, from continuum fitting to candidate selection. We visually verified all doublets in the final catalog. Our Monte Carlo completeness tests included the effects of the automated algorithms, user bias, and accepted false positives. We analyzed the sample as a whole and in ten redshift bins of roughly 1500 doublets each. We also constructed and analyzed other subsamples as needed, for specific comparisons to published studies.
The equivalent width frequency distribution is described well by an exponential model. The best-fit parameters evolved smoothly with redshift, with the largest change arising in the normalization. The parameter evolution follows the trend of increasing [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} with increasing redshift—a $2.37\pm0.09$ increase over $z
= 4.55 \rightarrow\ \approx\!1.74$. For $1.46 \le z < 1.96$, ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}}\approx 0.34$.
In the region of overlap, the SDSS agree well with the published column density frequency distributions from smaller, high-resolution, high-S/N surveys [@songaila01; @dodoricoetal10]. We converted to assuming the linear curve-of-growth. The published distributions were best fit by a power-law formalism. Thus, combined with the exponential nature of the strong-end of , we at last see an exponential cut-off in the equivalent width distribution that has not been previously characterized because of small sample sizes. The location of this cut-off sets the high-end range for absorbers and formally leads to convergence in the cosmic mass density.
In this paper, we joined our large sample of strong absorbers to the fits of weak absorbers obtained at high resolution. In a forthcoming paper, we will perform a joint analysis of our SDSS sample with the high-resolution data of @dodoricoetal10 to fit clean forms to the full range of . This will allow us to improve our understanding of the mass density evolution, where currently our SDSS study only yields lower limits for ${\ensuremath{\log {\ensuremath{\N{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}}}}}\ge 14$ systems.
The co-moving line density [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} smoothly increases, approximately, ten-fold from $z = 6 \rightarrow 0$ for $\EWlin{1548}
\ge 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ absorbers. Physically, this means that the physical cross section ([$\sigma_{\rm phys}$]{}) and/or co-moving number density of absorbing clouds ([$n_{\rm com}$]{}) has increased steadily over time, since [${\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X$]{} is proportional to their product. We estimated the projected -absorbing cross-section of UV-selected galaxies to be $R_{\rm phys} \approx 50\,$kpc, by assuming all the SDSS ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge
0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ absorbers arise in $\ge 0.5\,L^{\ast}$ galaxy halos, which is in good agreement with @adelbergeretal05 and @steideletal10.
This is the first paper in a series on various metal lines in the SDSS DR7 quasar spectra, which will provide a comprehensive and uniform collection of catalogs for future analysis and detailed comparison with cosmological hydrodynamic simulations.
We thank J. Harker, D. Ogden, J. Pritchard, and P. Creasey for their programming help and P. Jonsson for productive discussions regarding statistics and programming. We gratefully acknowledge the vital role of the Adam J. Burgasser Endowed Chair. The current study was funded largely by the National Science Foundation Astronomy & Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowship (AST-1003139) and in part by the MIT Department of Physics and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Fellowship.
Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is <http://www.sdss.org/>.
The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
[*Facilities:*]{}
[^1]: Velocity offsets are defined as $\delta v = c(z - z_{\rm ref})/(1 + z_{\rm ref})$.
[^2]: See <http://ucolick.org/~xavier/IDL/>.
[^3]: The co-moving path length is related to redshift as follows: $X(z) = 2\sqrt{ \Omega_{\rm
M}(1+z)^{3} + \Omega_{\Lambda}}/(3 \Omega_{\rm M})$.
[^4]: For $z < 1$, we summed the eight ${\ensuremath{W_{\rm r}}}\ge 0.6{\ensuremath{\,\mbox{\AA}}}$ systems in the [*HST*]{} sample [@cookseyetal10] to get ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}}= 0.63^{+0.14}_{-0.11}$. For $z > 4$, we have ${\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{d}}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}_{\mathrm{C\,IV}}/{\ensuremath{d}}X}}= 0.212\pm0.092$ for $z = 4.94$ (2 systems) and $0.026\pm0.027$ for $z = 5.66$ (1) from the FIRE sample [@simcoeetal11].
[^5]: @schayeetal03 and @songaila05 used pixel optical depth methods to also measure [$\Omega_{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C\,IV}}}}$]{}, but it is unclear how best to compare their values to our traditional quasar absorption-line study. For this reason, we omit discussion of their results.
[^6]: See <http://igmabsorbers.info/>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that an ensemble of identical $d$-level atoms can be efficiently described by $d-1$ collective oscillator degrees of freedom in the vicinity of a product state with all atoms in the same, but otherwise arbitrary single-particle state. We apply our description to two different kinds of spin squeezing: (i) when each spin-$F$ atom is individually squeezed without creating interatomic entanglement and (ii) when a particular collective atomic oscillator mode is squeezed via quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement and feedback. When combined in sequence, the order of the two methods is relevant in the final degree of squeezing. We also discuss the role of the two kinds of squeezing when multi-sublevel atoms are used as quantum memories for light.'
author:
- 'Z. Kurucz'
- 'K. M[ø]{}lmer'
bibliography:
- 'qmem-refs.bib'
date: 'Dec. 20, 2009'
title: 'Multilevel Holstein-Primakoff approximation and its application to atomic spin squeezing and ensemble quantum memories'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Large ensembles of identical particles are excellent candidates for light-matter interfaces, quantum memories, repeaters for long distance quantum communication, and registers for quantum computing. This is not only due to the fact that in these systems certain collective quantum degrees of freedom efficiently couple to the electromagnetic radiation field, but also because the desired control is provided by simple, experimentally accessible interaction mechanisms. This is the case, e.g., for large collections of $N$ identical spin-$\frac12$ particles. Such an ensemble can be effectively described using a single collective spin, if the initial state is a pure product state with all particles prepared in the same single-particle state, and if the Hamiltonian describing the system is a sum of identical single-particle operators. Since, in this case, the quantum state of the entire collection remains invariant under permutations of particles, the corresponding restricted Hilbert subspace is equivalent to the states of a large spin-$\tfrac N2$ spin. If, in addition, the dynamics only weakly perturbs the initial state, the collective states explore only a limited range of states, and the pseudospin eigenbasis can be mapped onto an oscillator basis of states, and one may benefit from the simple and well studied properties of harmonic oscillator systems.
In this paper we wish to generalize the oscillator description of two-level systems to multilevel particles. A natural example is the one of atoms having a Zeeman degenerate ground state with total angular momentum $F$ or a hyperfine ground state manifold with a range of angular momentum quantum numbers $F'$ and associated $|M'| \leq F'$. In a large ensemble of such atoms, the collective spin picture is less useful, and we will proceed directly to an effective oscillator description of the symmetric collective states of the system and of the system dynamics. Various methods allow the control of single particle states, and the atoms in a large ensemble can be prepared in essentially any superposition of the hyperfine ground states [@PhysRevLett.99.163002]. Therefore, it is a particular purpose of our work to develop a theory of collective states in the vicinity of a product state of arbitrary single atom states, and to determine the interplay between the collective and single particle properties of such samples.
In Sec. \[sec:HP-gen\], we review the usual Holstein-Primakoff approximation, describing a collection of spin-$\frac12$ particles by a single harmonic oscillator degree of freedom, and we generalize this description to multilevel systems expanded around product states of arbitrary single particle state vectors. We discuss the representation of collective operators, which are a sum of single particle operators over the entire ensemble, and we demonstrate that in the vicinity of product states, such operators can be associated with oscillator quadrature operators in a generalized Holstein-Primakoff approximation. In Sec. \[sec:spsq\], we turn to a special discussion of spin squeezing, and we point out the formal distinction between the effect of spin squeezing within each $F > \tfrac12$ hyperfine angular momentum manifold and squeezing of collective spin degrees of freedom. We also show that, when applied sequentially, the order of the two kinds of squeezing is relevant. In Sec. \[sec:qmem\], we discuss the use of samples of multi-sublevel atoms as quantum memories for light and the role of internal spin squeezing in such atoms. Sec. \[sec:conclusions\] concludes the paper.
Multilevel Holstein-Primakoff approximation {#sec:HP-gen}
===========================================
A convenient way to describe an ensemble of spin-$\frac12$ particles or two-state atoms which are homogeneously coupled to external perturbations is in terms of the collective spin operator $\hat{\mathbf J} = \sum_{j=1}^N \hat{\mathbf s}^{(j)}$. If the initial state of the system is a product state with all members occupying the same pure state, the dynamically accessible Hilbert space is characterized by a single angular momentum ladder. It is then straightforward to introduce oscillator-like creation and annihilation operators in the Holstein-Primakoff representation, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:standard-HP}
\hat J_{x-} \equiv \hat a^\dag \sqrt{2J-\hat a^\dag \hat a},
\qquad
\hat J_x \equiv J- \hat a^\dag \hat a,\end{gathered}$$ where $J$ is the total angular momentum quantum number, which is a constant of motion in the cases considered, and the $x$ quantization axis is chosen to be the direction of polarization in the initial product state. For macroscopic polarization ($J\gg1$) and if the system stays in the vicinity of the spin coherent state ${|{J, m_J^x=J}\rangle}$, the atomic oscillator picture is especially efficient and it allows us to directly define the quasi-canonical atomic quadrature operators, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:standard-XP}
\hat X \equiv \frac1{\sqrt J} \hat J_y,
\qquad
\hat P \equiv \frac1{\sqrt J} \hat J_z,\end{gathered}$$ with $[\hat X, \hat P] = i\hat J_x / J \approx i$.
For an ensemble consisting of atoms with larger angular momenta $F > \frac12$, it is also possible to define the collective spin operator $\hat{\mathbf J} = \sum_{j=1}^N \hat{\mathbf F}^{(j)}$. If each atom is initially prepared in the same spin coherent state, and the Hamilton operator is an element of the operator algebra generated by the components of $\hat{\mathbf J}$, this collective spin again provides a general description of the system. In that case, it is possible to think of each atom as a collection of $2F$ fictitious spin-$\frac12$ particles, and to think of the initial state as a symmetric product state of the total of $2FN$ fictitious spin-$\frac12$ particles, which evolves in the manifold of states of the large collective spin with $J=NF$. The collective spin components constituting the Hamiltonian are invariant under the exchange of any two fictitious spin-$\frac12$ particles irrespective of whether they belong to the same atom or to different atoms. The collective spin description is, however, incomplete in general. For example, the atoms may be individually prepared in arbitrary internal superposition states $\sum_{m} c_m|F,m_F\rangle$ corresponding to correlations (entanglement) among their own fictitious spin-$\frac12$ constituents. Even if the atoms are thus all prepared in the same state, the $2FN$ fictitious spins are not equivalent: those pertaining to the same atom share correlations in the initial atomic product state, while the ones that pertain to different atoms do not.
We will now introduce a generalization of the Holstein-Primakoff representation that is capable of treating not only the total angular momentum operators but any permutation invariant sum of single-particle operators of an ensemble of $d$-level systems.
Generalized spin operators and collective atomic oscillators {#sec:spinops}
------------------------------------------------------------
Let us consider an ensemble of $N$ identical $d$-level systems, and let $\{{|{\phi_\alpha}\rangle}\}_{\alpha=0}^{d-1}$ denote an arbitrary orthonormal single-particle basis. Throughout the paper, we restrict ourselves to symmetric collective states, i.e., those invariant under permutation of the internal state of any two particles. For spin-$\frac12$ particles, this corresponds to the maximal total angular momentum manifold, and our representation coincides with the standard approach.
In the general case, the symmetric subspace is spanned by the occupation number states $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:N-body-basis}
{|{n_0,m_1,l_2,\ldots}\rangle} \equiv
\frac1{\sqrt{n!\, m!\, l! \ldots}}
\sum_{\text{perm}}
{|{\phi_0}\rangle}_1 \cdots {|{\phi_0}\rangle}_n
\\ \times
{|{\phi_1}\rangle}_{n+1} \cdots {|{\phi_1}\rangle}_{n+m}
\; {|{\phi_2}\rangle}_{n+m+1} \cdots,\end{gathered}$$ which means that $n$ atoms are in the internal state ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$, $m$ in ${|{\phi_1}\rangle}$, $l$ in ${|{\phi_2}\rangle}$, etc., and they sum up to $N = n + m + l + \ldots$ atoms. It is easy to see that the collective operators $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Sigma}
\hat \Sigma_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \sum_{j=1}^N
{|{\phi_\alpha}\rangle}_j {}_j{\langle{\phi_\beta}|},
\qquad
(\alpha,\beta = 0,1,\ldots,d-1)\end{gathered}$$ keep the symmetry of the sub-Hilbert space in consideration. Furthermore, we observe the following properties, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat \Sigma_{\alpha\beta} {|{n_\alpha, m_\beta, \ldots}\rangle}
&= \sqrt{(n+1)m}
\nonumber\\&\quad\times
{|{(n+1)_\alpha, (m-1)_\beta, \ldots}\rangle},
\label{eq:Sigma-step}
\\
\hat \Sigma_{\alpha\alpha} {|{n_\alpha, m_\beta, \ldots}\rangle}
&= n \; {|{n_\alpha, m_\beta, \ldots}\rangle},
\label{eq:Sigma-number}\end{aligned}$$ and the commutator identity, $$\begin{aligned}
\big[ \hat\Sigma_{\alpha\gamma}, \hat\Sigma_{\gamma\beta} \big]
&= \hat \Sigma_{\alpha\beta}
- \delta_{\alpha\beta} \hat \Sigma_{\gamma\gamma}.
\label{eq:Sigma-commute}\end{aligned}$$ All other commutators, which can not be brought on the form $\big[ \hat\Sigma_{\alpha\gamma}, \hat\Sigma_{\gamma\beta} \big]$, vanish.
Any pure state of a spin-$\frac12$ particle is a spin coherent state, i.e., a spin up state along a suitably chosen axis, say $x$. The corresponding ensemble state ${|{J, m_J^x=J}\rangle}$ serves as the natural reference state: it is the ground state of the effective atomic oscillator in the Holstein-Primakoff approximation. With a general single-atom basis vector ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$, we take the product state $\bigotimes^N {|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ as the reference state and introduce $d-1$ independent collective atomic oscillator modes with creation and annihilation operators that redistribute the atomic populations between ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ and the other basis states ${|{\phi_\alpha}\rangle}$, $$\begin{gathered}
\hat a_\alpha^\dag
{|{n_0, m_\alpha, \ldots}\rangle}
\equiv \sqrt{m+1} \;
{|{(n-1)_0, (m+1)_\alpha, \ldots}\rangle},
\label{eq:a-step}
\\
\hat a_\alpha^\dag \hat a_\alpha
{|{n_0, m_\alpha, \ldots}\rangle}
= m \; {|{n_0, m_\alpha, \ldots}\rangle},
\label{eq:a-number}\end{gathered}$$ with $\alpha = 1, \ldots, d-1$. The reference state itself corresponds to the multi-mode vacuum state of the oscillators, while the excitation number states coincide with the symmetric states . In analogy with the Holstein-Primakoff representation, directly comparing Eq. with and Eq. with , respectively, the generalized collective spin operators can be expressed as follows, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Sigma_a0}
\hat\Sigma_{\alpha\beta} = \hat a_\alpha^\dag \hat a_\beta,
\qquad
\hat\Sigma_{\alpha0} = \hat a_\alpha^\dag \sqrt{\textstyle N -
\sum_{\beta\ne0} \hat a_\beta^\dag \hat a_\beta},\end{gathered}$$ furthermore, using Eq. , $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Sigma_00}
\hat\Sigma_{00} =
N - \sum_{\alpha\ne0} \hat a_\alpha^\dag \hat a_\alpha.\end{gathered}$$
Linearization around the reference state: Holstein-Primakoff expansion of collective operators {#sec:linarization}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the vicinity of the reference state $\bigotimes^N {|{\phi_0}\rangle}$, i.e., for small number of excitations of the atomic oscillators, only the population $\hat\Sigma_{00}$ has macroscopic expectation value, and the spin operators can be approximated as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:HP-approx}
\hat\Sigma_{\alpha\beta} = \hat a_\alpha^\dag \hat a_\beta
\;\; \ll \;\;
\hat\Sigma_{\alpha0} \approx \sqrt N \hat a_\alpha^\dag
\;\; \ll \;\;
\hat\Sigma_{00} \approx N.\end{gathered}$$ This allows us to simplify collective operators that are permutation invariant sums of single-particle operators, or belong to the algebra generated by such operators.
Since $\{ {|{\phi_\alpha}\rangle} {\langle{\phi_\beta}|}\}_{\alpha\beta}$ forms an orthonormal single-particle operator basis, for any Hermitian single-particle operator $\hat{\mathcal O}^{(1)}$ the corresponding $N$-body operator can be expanded as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:O-expanded}
\hat{\mathcal O} \equiv \sum_{j=1}^N \hat{\mathcal O}^{(j)}
= \sum_{\alpha\beta}
\mathcal O_{\alpha\beta}
\hat \Sigma_{\alpha\beta},\end{gathered}$$ where we used the shorthand $\mathcal O_{\alpha\beta} =
{\langle{\phi_\alpha}|} \hat{\mathcal O}^{(1)} {|{\phi_\beta}\rangle}$. Now we distinguish between two cases. If ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ is an eigenstate of $\hat{\mathcal O}^{(1)}$, then $\mathcal O_{\alpha0} = 0$ for all $\alpha\ne0$ and the collective operator becomes a c-number plus a correction that is quadratic in the creation and annihilation operators, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:O-approx2}
\hat{\mathcal O} = N \mathcal O_{00} + \sum_{\alpha\beta\ne0}
(\mathcal O_{\alpha\beta} - \mathcal O_{00} \delta_{\alpha\beta})
\hat a_\alpha^\dag \hat a_\beta.\end{gathered}$$ For example, taking the spin projection eigenstates ${|{\phi_\alpha}\rangle} = {|{F, m_F^x = F-\alpha}\rangle}$, the longitudinal component of the total angular momentum is $\hat J_x = \sum_\alpha (F-\alpha) \hat{\Sigma}_{\alpha\alpha} = NF - \sum_{\alpha\ne0} \alpha \, \hat a_\alpha^\dag \hat a_\alpha$.
If ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ is not an eigenstate of $\hat{\mathcal O}^{(1)}$, we get cross terms between the $\alpha = 0$ and the $\alpha \neq 0$ components, and we obtain the dominant contribution $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:O-approx1}
\hat{\mathcal O} \approx N \mathcal O_{00} + \sqrt N \sum_{\alpha\ne0}
\big( \mathcal O_{\alpha0} \hat a_\alpha^\dag +
\mathcal O_{0\alpha} \hat a_\alpha \big).\end{gathered}$$ Apart from a constant, Eq. is a linear function of the creation and annihilation operators, hence, it is a linear function of the collective atomic quadrature variables $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:atom-XP}
\hat X_\alpha \equiv
(\hat a_\alpha + \hat a_\alpha^\dag) / \sqrt2
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
\hat P_\alpha \equiv
(\hat a_\alpha - \hat a_\alpha^\dag) / i\sqrt2.\end{gathered}$$ Namely, Eq. can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:O-approx1b}
\hat{\mathcal O} \approx N \mathcal O_{00}
+ \sqrt{2N} \sum_{\alpha\ne0} \big(
{\mathrm{Re}\,}\mathcal O_{\alpha0} \hat X_\alpha +
{\mathrm{Im}\,}\mathcal O_{\alpha0} \hat P_\alpha \big). \end{gathered}$$
Let us choose real numbers $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$, and the single-particle basis vector ${|{\phi_1}\rangle}$ such that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:phi1}
\hat{\mathcal O}^{(1)} {|{\phi_0}\rangle}
= \xi_0 {|{\phi_0}\rangle} + \xi_1 {|{\phi_1}\rangle}.\end{gathered}$$ Normalization implies that $\xi_0$ and $\xi_1$ are the mean and variance of the single-particle operator, respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:xi0}
\xi_0 &= {\langle{\phi_0}|} \hat{\mathcal O}^{(1)} {|{\phi_0}\rangle}
\equiv \langle {\mathcal O} ^{(1)} \rangle_0,
\\
\label{eq:xi1}
\xi_1^2 &= {\langle{\phi_0}|} \hat{\mathcal O} ^{(1)}
{}^2 {|{\phi_0}\rangle} - \xi_0^2
\equiv \big( \Delta {\mathcal O} ^{(1)} \big)^2_0 .\end{aligned}$$ Eq. now simplifies to $\hat{\mathcal{O}} \approx N \xi_0 + \sqrt {2N} \, \xi_1 \hat X_1$. We can assign to $\hat{\mathcal O}$ a single oscillator quadrature variable $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:X-from-O}
\hat X_1 = \frac{\hat{\mathcal O} - \langle \mathcal O \rangle _0}
{\sqrt{2 (\Delta \mathcal O)^2_0}},\end{gathered}$$ and in the reference product state of the system, by construction, this collective atomic oscillator is in the ground state and $(\Delta X_1)^2_0 = \tfrac12$.
As an example, we mention that the natural normalization factor for the quadrature operators , that are assigned to the transverse angular momentum components, is not the spin quantum number $J$ nor the macroscopic expectation value of $\hat J_x$. Rather, it is related to the variance of $\hat J_y$ and $\hat J_z$ in the reference state, respectively, $$\begin{gathered}
\hat X_y = \frac {\hat J_y} {\sqrt{2(\Delta J_y)_0^2}},
\quad
\hat P_z = \frac {\hat J_z} {\sqrt{2(\Delta J_z)_0^2}}.\end{gathered}$$ Here $(\Delta J_y)_0^2 = (\Delta J_z)_0^2 = J/2$ only for the coherent spin state, but not for a generic reference state. As long as the reference state is a product state and there is no entanglement among the particles, the corresponding collective atomic oscillators are in the ground state. Finally, we note that the Heisenberg uncertainty relation implies $[\hat X_y, \hat P_z]/i \le 1$. The reason why $\hat X_y$ and $\hat P_z$ may have a non-canonical commutation relation is discussed in the next subsection.
Operators acting on different oscillators {#sec:overlap}
-----------------------------------------
Let us now consider two collective operators, $\hat A$ and $\hat B$, that can be linearized in the above manner. As we have shown, we can assign to them the oscillator quadrature operators $\hat X_A$ and $\hat P_B$, respectively, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:X_A-implicit-def}
\hat A &= \langle A \rangle_0 +
\sqrt{2 (\Delta A)^2_0} \hat X_A,
\\
\label{eq:X_B-implicit-def}
\hat B &= \langle B \rangle_0 +
\sqrt{2 (\Delta B)^2_0} \hat P_B.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the position or momentum quadratures of the oscillator modes are fully equivalent and the distinction depends on the choice of the single-particle basis and, in particular, the phase of the basis vectors. For the two operators, it remains a question, however, whether we can choose the basis in such a way that $\hat X_A$ and $\hat P_B$ are quadratures conjugate to each other acting on the same oscillator, or whether they belong to two independent atomic oscillators. To answer this question in general, we introduce the unnormalized vectors $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:a-vector}
{|{a}\rangle} &\equiv
\big( \hat A^{(1)} - \langle A^{(1)} \rangle_0 \big) {|{\phi_0}\rangle},
\\
\label{eq:b-vector}
{|{b}\rangle} &\equiv
\big( \hat B^{(1)} - \langle B^{(1)} \rangle_0 \big) {|{\phi_0}\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ and analyze the following three cases.
#### Parallel case.
If ${|{a}\rangle}$ and ${|{b}\rangle}$ are parallel to each other (${|{b}\rangle} = \lambda e^{i\varphi} {|{a}\rangle}$), then $\hat X_A$ and $\hat P_B$ belong to the same atomic oscillator. Indeed, we can set ${|{\phi_1}\rangle} = {|{a}\rangle} /
\|a\|$, so that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Xab-parallel}
\hat X_A = \hat X_1,
\qquad
\hat P_B = \hat X_1 \cos\varphi + \hat P_1 \sin\varphi,\end{gathered}$$ where $\varphi = \arg {\langle{a}|{b}\rangle}$.
For example, in the vicinity of the fully polarized spin coherent state (${|{\phi_0}\rangle} = {|{F, m_F^x=F}\rangle}$), the transverse components of the total angular momentum operator, $\hat{\mathbf J} = \sum_{j=1}^N \hat{\mathbf F}^{(j)}$, define the quadratures of the same atomic oscillator. The two vectors in Eqs and , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:y-CSS}
{|{y}\rangle} &\equiv
\hat F_y^{(1)} {|{\phi_0}\rangle}
= \sqrt{F/2} \; {|{F, m_F^x=F-1}\rangle},
\\
\label{eq:z-CSS}
{|{z}\rangle} &\equiv
F_z^{(1)} {|{\phi_0}\rangle}
= i {|{y}\rangle}\end{aligned}$$ are parallel to each other with $\varphi = \pi/2$, so $\hat X_y = \hat X_1$ and $\hat P_z = \hat P_1$, and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Jy-Jz-CSS}
\hat J_y \approx \sqrt{NF} \hat X_1,
\qquad
\hat J_z \approx \sqrt{NF} \hat P_1.\end{gathered}$$
In Appendix \[app:two-oscillators\], we show in general that $\hat X_A$ and $\hat P_B$ defined in Eqs and are conjugate quadratures of the same atomic oscillator if and only if ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ is a minimum uncertainty state with respect to $\hat A^{(1)}$ and $\hat B^{(1)}$.
#### Orthogonal case.
If ${|{a}\rangle}$ and ${|{b}\rangle}$ are orthogonal to each other (${\langle{a}|{b}\rangle}=0$), then $\hat X_A$ and $\hat P_B$ belong to completely different atomic oscillators. Choosing ${|{\phi_1}\rangle} = {|{a}\rangle} / \|a\|$ and ${|{\phi_2}\rangle} = -i {|{b}\rangle} / \|b\|$ yields $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Xab-orthogonal}
\hat X_A = \hat X_1,
\qquad
\hat P_B = \hat P_2.\end{gathered}$$
In recent experiments [@PhysRevLett.101.073601; @PhysRevLett.99.163002], the uncertainty in $\hat J_z$ was significantly reduced by coherently squeezing the spin of each individual spin-4 cesium atom via two-axis counter-twisting [@PhysRevA.47.5138] described by the Hamiltonian, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:twist}
\hat T \equiv \sum_{j=1}^N \frac1{2i}
\big( \hat F_{x+}^{(j)2} - \hat F_{x-}^{(j)2} \big)
= \sum_{j=1}^N \big\{ \hat F_y^{(j)}, \hat F_z^{(j)} \big\}.\end{gathered}$$ Thus each atom is prepared in the same state $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:twisted-state}
{|{\phi_0^{\text{sq}}}\rangle}
= \sum_{k=0}^F c_k {|{F, m_F^x = F - 2k}\rangle},\end{gathered}$$ with only even number of spin excitations. In such a reference state, the quadrature operators assigned to the twisting operator $\hat T$ and to the transverse angular momentum $\hat J_z$ belong to different atomic oscillators. Following the prescription above, we introduce the corresponding vectors $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:t-vector}
{|{t}\rangle} &\equiv
\big(\hat T^{(1)} - \langle T^{(1)} \rangle_0 \big)
{|{\phi_0^{\text{sq}}}\rangle}
= \hat T^{(1)} {|{\phi_0^{\text{sq}}}\rangle},\\
\label{eq:z-vector}
{|{z}\rangle} &\equiv
\big(\hat F_z^{(1)} - \langle F_z^{(1)} \rangle_0 \big)
{|{\phi_0^{\text{sq}}}\rangle}
= \hat F_z^{(1)} {|{\phi_0^{\text{sq}}}\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ The expectation value $\langle T^{(1)} \rangle_0$ is zero, since it is zero in the initial $x$-polarized spin state, and $\hat T^{(1)}$ is a constant of motion in the process of internal squeezing. It is easy to see that $\langle F_z^{(1)} \rangle_0$ is also zero. Noting that $\hat T^{(1)}$ changes the azimuthal quantum number of the hyperfine sublevel by two, whereas $\hat F_z^{(1)}$ changes the same quantum number by only one, we immediately see that ${|{t}\rangle}$ is orthogonal to ${|{z}\rangle}$. Therefore, completely different atomic oscillators are accessed by the transverse components of the total angular momentum and the twisting operator.
When the reference state is the $x$-polarized coherent spin state and we take the standard spin projection eigenbasis ${|{\phi_\alpha}\rangle}={|{F,m_F^x=F-\alpha}\rangle}$, the oscillators associated with $\hat J_z$ and $\hat T$ are the first and second ones, respectively. The idea of using both these oscillators in a quantum memory and a proposal on how to experimentally access the latter by means of stimulated four-photon processes is presented in Ref. [@PhysRevLett.95.053602].
We remark here that any process that acts coherently on each atom (e.g., coupling to a classical field) changes the reference state itself but does not influence the atomic oscillators around the reference state. In this sense, internal spin squeezing as a coherent process does not squeeze any of the collective atomic oscillators. In particular, it does not squeeze the quadrature operator $\hat P_z$ that is assigned to the $z$ component of the angular momentum. It does reduce the noise in $\hat J_z$, but only because $\hat J_z \approx [2N (\Delta F_z^{(1)})_0^2]^{1/2} \hat P_z$ and the normalization factor in the brackets is reduced in the new reference state. In Sec. \[sec:spsq\], we will investigate spin squeezing in more details.
#### General case.
If ${|{a}\rangle}$ and ${|{b}\rangle}$ are linearly independent but not orthogonal to each other, then $\hat A$ and $\hat B$ act on different but not independent oscillators. We can define an orthogonal basis via Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization and we can thus define $\hat X_A = \hat X_1$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Xb-general}
\hat P_B =
\big( \hat X_1 \cos\varphi + \hat P_1 \sin\varphi \big)
\cos\vartheta + \hat P_2 \sin\vartheta,\end{gathered}$$ where $\varphi = \arg {\langle{a}|{b}\rangle}$ as previously and $\cos\vartheta = |{\langle{a}|{b}\rangle}| / ( \|a\| \|b\|)$ describes how parallel the two vectors are. The quadrature operators in this case have a non-canonical commutation relation, $[\hat X_A, \hat P_B] /i < 1$. See Appendix \[app:two-oscillators\] for a derivation of the formulae.
Motion in rotating frame {#sec:rot-frame}
------------------------
In a typical experiment, the atomic spins are placed in a homogeneous magnetic field where they precess coherently and independently of each other. The reference state then also precesses, and we will describe the collective excitations as deviations from this time dependent state.
In general, we can split the Hamiltonian into two parts, $\hat H =
\hat H_0 + \hat H_1$, one that acts coherently on each particle and another that describes, e.g., interaction with an external quantum field. Using the interaction free single-particle evolution operator, $\hat
U_0^{(1)} (t) = \mathcal T \exp -i \int_0^t \hat H_0^{(1)}$, we can introduce the time dependent single-particle basis ${|{\phi_\alpha(t)}\rangle} = \hat U_0^{(1)} (t) {|{\phi_\alpha}\rangle}$ that defines a set of rotating atomic oscillators. Then we can define time dependent occupation number states analogously to Eq. , and the creation and annihilation operators are all rotating accordingly in the Schrödinger picture, for example, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:a_Sch(t)}
\hat a_\alpha (t) =
\hat U_0 (t) \, \hat a_\alpha \, \hat U_0^\dag(t).\end{gathered}$$ The rotating occupation number states satisfy the interaction free Schrödinger equation. In the absence of $\hat H_1$, the state of the rotating atomic oscillators and the number of excitations remain unchanged.
In the Heisenberg picture, the free Hamiltonian disappears from the equation of motion of the rotating atomic oscillator operators. For example, $\hat a_{\alpha H} (t) = \hat U^\dag (t) \hat a_\alpha (t)
\hat U(t)$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:a-eq-motion}
\frac d{dt} \hat a_{\alpha H} (t) =
i \big[ \hat H_{1H}(t), \hat a_{\alpha H} (t) \big].\end{gathered}$$ To solve Eq. , we need to express $\hat H_1$ in terms of the rotating oscillator variables. We assume that the interaction does not bring the system far from the rotating reference state $\bigotimes^N {|{\phi_0(t)}\rangle}$. Then Eqs and can be used to express the symmetric collective atomic operators in $\hat H_1$. Consider, for example, that $\hat H_1$ is an arbitrary function of the collective operator $\hat{\mathcal O}$. Then we write $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:O-approx-rot}
\hat{\mathcal O} \approx N \mathcal O_{00}(t)
+ \sqrt N \sum_{\alpha\ne0}
\bigl[ \mathcal O_{\alpha0}(t) \hat a_\alpha^\dag (t)
+ \mbox{H.c.} \bigr] \\
+ \sum_{\alpha\beta\ne0}
\big[\mathcal O_{\alpha\beta}(t)
- \mathcal O_{00}(t) \delta_{\alpha\beta}\big]
\hat a_\alpha^\dag(t) \hat a_\beta(t)\end{gathered}$$ in place of $\hat{\mathcal O}$, where the matrix elements are $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:O-ab-rot}
\mathcal O_{\alpha\beta} (t)
= {\langle{\phi_\alpha}|} \hat U_0^{(1)\dag}(t)
\hat{\mathcal O}^{(1)} \hat U_0^{(1)}(t) {|{\phi_\beta}\rangle}.\end{gathered}$$ Depending on whether ${|{\phi_0(t)}\rangle}$ is an eigenstate of $\hat{\mathcal
O}^{(1)}$ or not, we may neglect the quadratic terms in Eq. . Often $\hat H_1$ is at most quadratic in the oscillator operators, and the equation of motion reduces to a set of ordinary linear differential equations that can be solved.
Spin squeezing {#sec:spsq}
==============
For ensembles of spin-$\frac12$ particles, spin squeezing necessarily involves correlation among the spins [@Nature.409.63]. When these particles are actually the fictitious spins constituting the real spin-$F$ atoms (e.g., the valence electron and the nucleons), correlations may be both intra- and interatomic. In the former case, the atoms are internally squeezed independently of each other, while in the latter case, there is genuine multi-atomic correlation. In this section, we investigate how the two ways of squeezing are related to each other.
Internal spin squeezing {#sec:internal-squeezing}
-----------------------
We start our analysis with the situation in which the quantum uncertainty in the transverse component of each atomic spin, $\hat F_z^{(j)}$, is reduced independently. No entanglement is created among the atoms in this way. To exemplify our analysis, we will consider an ensemble of cesium atoms in the hyperfine level $F=4$ of the atomic ground state $6S_{1/2}$ that is illuminated by an intense laser field. The light-atom interaction is off-resonantly tuned to the $6S_{1/2}$–$6P_{3/2}$ transition, hence photons are not absorbed, and transitions among the hyperfine sublevels as well as the ground-state energy shifts are mediated only by transfer of photons between different polarization components. Namely, for the $j$th atom interacting with a light field propagating in the $x$ direction, the tensor light shift reads [@PhysRevA.71.032348] $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:AL-tensorial}
\hat H^{(j)}_{AL} = g_0 \hat \phi(0) + g_1 \hat s_z(0) \hat F_x^{(j)}
\\
+ g_2 \Bigl(
- \hat \phi(0) \hat F_x^{(j)2}
+ \hat s_-(0) \hat F_{x+}^{(j)2}
+ \hat s_+(0) \hat F_{x-}^{(j)2}
\Bigr),\end{gathered}$$ where the effective coupling constants $g_i$ sum up all the possible contributions from the different hyperfine levels of the relevant excited states and depend on the detuning as well. The quantum mechanical Stokes vector components describing the polarization state of light are $$\begin{gathered}
\nonumber
\hat s_+ = \hat s_x + i \hat s_y = \hat a_R^\dag \hat a_L,\\
\nonumber
\hat s_z = (\hat a_R^\dag \hat a_R - \hat a_L^\dag \hat a_L)/2,\\
\hat \phi = \hat a_R^\dag \hat a_R + \hat a_L^\dag \hat a_L,
\label{eq:Stokes}\end{gathered}$$ where $\hat{a}_R$ and $\hat{a}_L$ are annihilation operators for right and left circular polarized, spatially localized photons, and they obey the standard commutation relation $[\hat a_i(z), \hat a_{j}(z')] = c \delta_{ij} \delta (z-z')$.
The photon flux $\hat \phi$ commutes with any other operator in Eq. and is usually treated as a c-number. The quadratic $\hat F_x^{(j)2}$ component can be compensated with the second order Zeeman shift, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:2nd-Zeeman}
\hat H_Z^{(j)} = \omega_L \hat F_x^{(j)} + \beta \hat F_x^{(j)2},\end{gathered}$$ by tuning the magnetic field such that $\beta = g_2 \phi$ [@PhysRevLett.99.163002; @PhysRevLett.101.073601]. To meet the two-photon resonance condition, the right and left polarized light components have to oscillate on the two Larmor sidebands. After summing over all atoms and performing the rotating wave transformation, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:H-int-sq}
\hat H = g_1 \hat s_z(0) \hat J_x
+ 2g_2 \bigl[\hat s_x(0) \hat V
+ \hat s_y(0) \hat T \bigr],\end{gathered}$$ with the Hermitian collective operators and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:twist-tilted}
\hat V \equiv \sum_{j=1}^N \frac1{2}
\big( \hat F_{x+}^{(j)2} + \hat F_{x-}^{(j)2} \big)
= \sum_{j=1}^N \big( \hat F_y^{(j)2} - \hat F_z^{(j)2} \big).\end{gathered}$$
We start from the $x$-polarized spin coherent state and take the single-particle angular momentum eigenbasis ${|{\phi_\alpha}\rangle} = {|{F, m_F^x = F-\alpha}\rangle}$. The operator $\hat T$ in Eq. is responsible for squeezing $\hat F_z^{(j)}$ (and anti-squeezing $\hat F_y^{(j)}$) of each atom, and we can select it by setting $\hat s_y = \phi/2$ to have macroscopic expectation value, while the other two light operators, $\hat s_x$ and $\hat s_z$, can be completely neglected. This corresponds to equally strong right and left circularly polarized light components, i.e., a strong linearly polarized field (rotating at twice the Larmor frequency in the laboratory frame).
Under the action of $\hat H_0 = g_2 \phi \hat T$, the initial spin coherent state evolves into the product state $\bigotimes^N [\hat U_0^{(1)} (t) {|{\phi_0}\rangle}]$ in which every atom is internally squeezed, while the atomic oscillators expanded around this rotating reference state are in their vacuum states. Therefore, the statistical properties of collective observables are completely determined by the single-particle expectation values. In particular, the noise in the transverse component of the total angular momentum is $\Delta J_z = \sqrt N \Delta F_z^{(1)}$, where $\Delta F_z^{(1)}$ is the uncertainty in the transverse spin component of a single atom, and squeezing has the same limit as for a single spin-$F$ particle. The final degree of squeezing depends only on the dimensionless time integrated interaction strength $K \equiv g_2 \int \phi(t) \, dt$, that is proportional to the total number of photons in the squeezer pulse. Fig. \[fig:internal-squeezing\] shows the degree of squeezing as function of this parameter.
![ Internal spin squeezing, equivalent to squeezing of a single $F=4$ spin. The squeezing parameters $\chi_0$, $\zeta_0$, and $\xi_0$ are shown as function of the integrated interaction strength, $K=g_2 \int \phi(t)\,dt$. The squeezing parameters are, in general, defined as follows: $\chi^2 = 2(\Delta J_z)^2 / (NF)$ is the uncertainty of the transverse spin component with respect to that in the original CSS [@PhysRevA.47.5138], $\zeta^2 = 2(\Delta J_z)^2 / \langle J_x \rangle$ is the uncertainty compared to that of a CSS with the same longitudinal mean spin [@Nature.409.63], $\xi^2 = 2NF (\Delta
J_z)^2 / \langle J_x \rangle^2$ is the noise in spin angle [@PhysRevA.46.R6797]. []{data-label="fig:internal-squeezing"}](squeezing){width=".9\hsize"}
Projection based spin squeezing {#sec:qnd-squeezing}
-------------------------------
In the next step, we consider a collective process in which the noise in $\hat J_z$ is reduced via quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement and feedback [@EurophysLett.42.481; @PhysRevLett.85.1594; @Science.304.270; @PhysRevLett.93.163602; @PhysRevLett.93.173002; @PhysRevA.65.053819; @PhysRevA.65.061801; @PhysRevA.70.052324; @PhysRevA.72.052313]. This kind of squeezing creates interatomic entanglement. To measure $\hat J_z$ in a non-destructive way, we shall couple it to a “meter” system, e.g., a light field propagating along the $z$-axis. This probe field is far detuned, so that we can neglect the second order light shift. We also neglect spontaneous emission, absorption of the probe beam, and other sources of imperfections that may actually limit spin squeezing [@PhysRevA.65.061801; @PhysRevA.65.053819; @PhysRevA.70.052324; @PhysRevLett.93.173002]. The interaction Hamiltonian in this configuration is $\hat H_1 = g_1 \hat s_z(0) \hat J_z$.
The Stokes vector component $\hat s_z$ is a QND variable in this interaction: it is not modified by the interaction itself while the light passes different segments of the sample. It is therefore conventional to treat the accumulated interaction as if the ensemble of atoms as a whole were interacting with a single light mode integrated along the pulse, $\hat S_i (t) \equiv \int_0^{cT} \hat s_i (ct-\xi,t) \,d\xi$. For a strong classical amplitude populating the $x$-polarized light component, the meter system is the $y$-polarized quantum field and its quadrature operators can be defined as $\hat X_L \equiv \hat S_y / (c\sqrt{N_p/2})$ and $\hat P_L \equiv \hat S_z / (c\sqrt{N_p/2})$, where $N_p$ is the total photon number in the probe pulse. Initially, the meter is in the vacuum state and $(\Delta X_L^{\text{in}})^2 = (\Delta P_L^{\text{in}})^2 = \tfrac12$.
Regarding the atomic ensemble, we start from the generic reference product state $\bigotimes^N {|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ and assume that the system stays in the vicinity of this state. We further assume that the polarization in this reference state points in the $x$ direction ($\langle J_y \rangle_0 = \langle J_z \rangle_0 = 0$) and that ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ is not an eigenstate of $\hat J_z$. According to our results in Sec. \[sec:linarization\], we assign to $\hat J_z$ a collective atomic oscillator with quadrature variable $\hat P_1 = \hat J_z / {\sqrt{2(\Delta J_z)_0^2}}$. This is the atomic oscillator the light is coupled to and, for the moment, it is enough to consider only this mode. It is initially in the vacuum state with $(\Delta X_1^{\text{in}})^2 = (\Delta P_1^{\text{in}})^2 = \tfrac12$. In this generalized Holstein-Primakoff approximation, $\hat P_1$ is also a QND variable. The effective interaction Hamiltonian is $\hat H_1 = g_1 \sqrt{N_p (\Delta J_z)^2_0}\, \hat P_1 \hat P_L /T$, where $T$ is the duration of the probe pulse, and the following input-output relation holds for the quadrature operators in the Heisenberg picture, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:QND-input-output-1}
\hat X_1^{\text{out}} &= \hat X_1^{\text{in}} + \kappa \hat P_L^{\text{in}}, &
\hat P_1^{\text{out}} &= \hat P_1^{\text{in}},\\
\label{eq:QND-input-output-L}
\hat X_L^{\text{out}} &= \hat X_L^{\text{in}} + \kappa \hat P_1^{\text{in}}, &
\hat P_L^{\text{out}} &= \hat P_L^{\text{in}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa \equiv g_1 \sqrt{N_p (\Delta J_z)_0^2}$ is the time integrated coupling that quantifies the strength of the measurement. The meter system is then read out by measuring $ \hat X_L^{\text{out}}$. Conditioned on the measurement outcome $x$, the atomic oscillator becomes squeezed. The new means and variances are [@PhysRevA.70.052324] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle X_1^{\text{out}} \rangle &= 0, &
(\Delta X_1^{\text{out}})^2 &= (1 + \kappa^2)/2, \\
\langle P_1^{\text{out}} \rangle &=
\frac {x\kappa} {1 + \kappa^2}, &
(\Delta P_1^{\text{out}})^2 &=
\frac12 \frac1{1 + \kappa^2}.
\label{eq:varP1-qnd}\end{aligned}$$ The uncertainty in $\hat J_z$ thus becomes $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:varJz-qnd}
(\Delta J_z^{\text{out}})^2 = \frac{(\Delta J_z)_0^2}{1 + \kappa^2}.\end{gathered}$$
To ensure that the ensemble is still polarized in the $x$ direction, the measurement result is fed back. Ideally, the feedback consists of a momentum displacement generated by the position quadrature $\hat X_1$. In the $x$-polarized coherent spin state or whenever ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ is a minimum uncertainty state with respect to $\hat F_y^{(1)}$ and $\hat F_z^{(1)}$ (such as the internally squeezed states in Sec. \[sec:internal-squeezing\]), the transverse components of the total angular momentum are orthogonal quadratures of the same atomic oscillator, irrespective of the degeneracy of the atomic ground state. Namely, $\hat J_y$ is proportional to $\hat X_1$, so any Hamiltonian proportional to $\hat J_y$ (e.g., a magnetic field applied in the $y$-axis or a circularly polarized light beam propagating in the $y$ direction) suffices to accommodate the ideal feedback.
For a generic ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$, however, a different feedback operation is required. The quadrature operator assigned to $\hat J_y$ is now a combination of $\hat X_1$ and $\hat P_1$, and there is also a contribution from an independent second atomic oscillator, as described by Eq. . Both $\langle J_y^{\text{out}} \rangle$ and $\langle J_z^{\text{out}} \rangle$ are proportional to the measurement outcome, that is, the transverse component of the total angular momentum is slightly tilted in the $yz$ plane. The feedback apparatus should be appropriately reoriented to correctly cancel this transverse angular momentum component. We also note that the mean spin $\langle J_x \rangle$ may get further reduced if the feedback procedure excites a second atomic oscillator.
Combining the two ways of spin squeezing {#sec:mixed-squeezing}
----------------------------------------
We have seen that spin squeezing can be achieved either by squeezing the corresponding atomic oscillator or by coherently acting on the reference product state of the system. Here we discuss how the two methods can be combined. Let us imagine the following oversimplified scenario (Fig. \[fig:combi-setup\]).
![ (color online) a) Imaginary setup for combining internal squeezing with measurement and feedback. The pulse propagating in the $x$ direction is responsible for internal squeezing, the other one is the probe that measures $\hat J_z$. b) Pulse diagram of the two kinds of squeezing applied in sequence (1,2) and simultaneously (3). []{data-label="fig:combi-setup"}](setup)
The atomic ensemble, that is initially prepared in the $x$-polarized coherent spin state, is illuminated (sequentially or simultaneously) by two light pulses: (i) The squeezer pulse, propagating in the $x$ direction (i.e., in the direction of the atomic polarization), realizes the interaction Hamiltonian $\hat H_0 = g_2 \phi \hat T$ and gives rise to internal squeezing as detailed in Sec. \[sec:internal-squeezing\]. The relevant parameter of this pulse is the time integrated interaction strength $K \equiv g_2 \int \phi(t) \, dt$. (ii) The probe pulse, propagating in the $z$ direction, has a photon flux $\phi_p(t)$. The QND interaction with the atomic sample is given by $\hat H_1 = g_1 \hat s_z(0) \hat J_z$. The Stokes vector component $s_y(z)$ of the outgoing field is continuously measured as in Sec. \[sec:qnd-squeezing\]. The relevant parameter of the probe pulse will be the effective integrated coupling $\tilde \kappa^2 \equiv \frac12 g_1^2 NF \int \phi_p(t) \, dt$. Given the two pulses, we analyze the following three combinations: (1) internal squeezing is followed by measurement based squeezing, (2) the same sequential squeezing but in reverse order, and (3) when the two methods are applied simultaneously.
### Internal squeezing followed by measurement {#sec:internal+proj}
Let us first address the case in which an internally squeezed ensemble is further squeezed by QND measurement. In Eq. , that already applies for a generic reference state, $(\Delta J_z)_0^2 = \tfrac12 FN$ for the $x$-polarized coherent spin state, but $(\Delta J_z)_0^2 < \tfrac12 FN$ for internally squeezed states. Therefore, better squeezing can be achieved if the measurement is preceded by internal squeezing. However, the strength of the measurement also depends on the reference state. In the same measurement setup (i.e., same probe pulse length and intensity), the time integrated coupling is reduced if the ensemble is internally squeezed: $\kappa = \tilde\kappa \chi_0$, where $\tilde\kappa \equiv g_1 \sqrt{N_p FN/2}$ denotes the coupling for the $x$-polarized coherent spin state, and $\chi_0 = \sqrt{2(\Delta J_z)_0^2 / (NF)}$ is the squeezing parameter of the internally squeezed reference state. The effective integrated coupling $\tilde\kappa$ does not depend on the actual state of the atomic ensemble, it characterizes only the probe pulse. The final degree of squeezing, parametrized by $\chi^2 = 2(\Delta J_z)^2/(NF)$, then reads $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:chi_1}
\chi_1^2 (K, \tilde \kappa)
= \big[{\chi_0^{-2}(K) + \tilde\kappa^2}\big]^{-1},\end{gathered}$$ as function of the integrated interaction strength of the initial internal squeezing process, $K$, and the effective integrated coupling of the measurement, $\tilde \kappa$. As a comparison, the curve $\chi_0$ in Fig. \[fig:combined-squeezing\]
![ Combination of the two ways of spin squeezing, as function of the integrated interaction strength of internal squeezing. Curve $\chi_1$ shows the final degree of squeezing when internal squeezing is followed by measurement and feedback, while curve $\chi_2$ corresponds to the reverse order. Applying the two processes simultaneously results in curve $\chi_3$. The effective time integrated coupling of the measurement is $\tilde\kappa = 2$ for all the three cases. As a reference, the dashed line ($\chi_0$) shows internal squeezing only. In the inset: evolution of the non-vanishing matrix elements ${\mathrm{Im}\,}J^z_{\alpha0}$ for $\alpha=1$, $3$, $5$, and $7$ (with decreasing line thickness). []{data-label="fig:combined-squeezing"}](squeezing2){width=".9\hsize"}
shows internal squeezing only. The difference between $\chi_1$ and $\chi_0$ is due to the second phase of squeezing, namely, to the QND measurement. The contribution of the measurement to the overall degree of squeezing decreases with internal squeezing, since the coupling $\kappa = \tilde \kappa \chi_0$ also decreases.
### Measurement and feedback followed by internal squeezing {#sec:proj+internal}
Let us now consider the two squeezing processes in the reverse order. We start from the $x$-polarized coherent spin state, and consider the single-particle angular momentum eigenbasis ${|{\phi_\alpha}\rangle} = {|{F, m_F^x = F-\alpha}\rangle}$ as the initial basis for the atomic oscillators. In this basis, Eq. holds and $\hat P_1$ is the quadrature assigned to $\hat J_z$. This quadrature is first squeezed by measurement and feedback, so $(\Delta P_1)^2$ becomes as given by Eq. , with $\kappa = \tilde \kappa$. Then we switch off the probe pulse and switch on the squeezer pulse. Since the Hamiltonian $\hat H_0 = g_2 \phi \hat T$ realizes a coherent action on each atom, the state of the collective atomic oscillators are not changed, only the underlying basis is rotated, ${|{\phi_\alpha(t)}\rangle} = \hat U_0(t) {|{\phi_\alpha}\rangle}$. In this new basis, however, $\hat J_z$ no longer corresponds to the squeezed quadrature $\hat P_1$. Instead, we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Jz-general}
\hat J_z \approx \sqrt{2N} \sum_{\alpha\ne0} {\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{\alpha0}^z(t) \hat P_\alpha.\end{gathered}$$ The coefficients $J^z_{\alpha0}(t) = {\langle{\phi_\alpha(t)}|} \hat F_z^{(1)} {|{\phi_0(t)}\rangle}$ depend on time only through the integrated interaction strength $K$. In what follows, we will write $K$ instead of $t$ in the argument. The functions $J_{\alpha0}^z(K)$ are shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig:combined-squeezing\]. Since the atomic oscillators are independent of each other in this basis, the variance of $\hat J_z$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:DeltaJz-proj+internal}
\big(\Delta J_z\big)^2 = 2N \sum_{\alpha\ne0}
\big[ {\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{\alpha0}^z(K) \big]^2 (\Delta P_\alpha^{\text{in}})^2.\end{gathered}$$ Taking $(\Delta P_1^{\text{in}})^2 = \tfrac12 (1+\tilde\kappa^2)^{-1}$ according to Eq. , and $(\Delta P_\alpha^{\text{in}})^2 = \tfrac12$ for $\alpha>1$, the final squeezing parameter is $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:chi_2}
\chi_2^2 (K,\tilde\kappa)
= \chi_0^2(K) - \frac{[ {\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{10}^z(K)]^2 /2}
{1+\tilde\kappa^{-2}}.\end{gathered}$$ We can see in Fig. \[fig:combined-squeezing\] that the effect of the first, projection based squeezing decreases with the duration of the second, internal squeezing, and the minimum of the overall squeezing is reached before the minimum of $\chi_0$.
### Measuring while squeezing internally {#sec:simultaneous}
Finally we analyze the case when the two kinds of interaction are applied simultaneously. We assume that the two pulses are switched on at the same time and, for simplicity, we will consider a constant intensity profile for both pulses. The integrated interaction strength of internal squeezing, $K$, as well as the effective integrated coupling of the measurement, $\tilde\kappa$, can then be controlled via the intensities of the respective pulses.
Since the atomic oscillator basis rotates due to internal squeezing, the probe pulse couples at different time instants to different combinations of the collective atomic oscillators, as specified in Eq. . Therefore, it is not enough to consider a single atomic oscillator and a single light mode integrated along the pulse. In Appendix \[app:simultaneous\], we formulate the proper Maxwell-Bloch equations of motion and derive a differential equation for the covariance matrix of the collective atomic quadratures. Given the time evolution of the reference frame, we can numerically evaluate the squeezing parameter (see $\chi_3$ in Fig. \[fig:combined-squeezing\]).
Finally, we note that the presence of an external magnetic field, that is essential for realizing the internal squeezing Hamiltonian, actually prohibits the QND measurement of $\hat J_z$. This is due to the fact that the transverse angular momentum precesses in the $yz$ plane. This problem can be circumvented by using two oppositely oriented cells of atoms as in [@Nature.432.482].
To conclude this section, we have shown that the two kinds of squeezing reduce each others efficiency, and their effect do not simply add up. If internal squeezing is applied first, the coupling strength of the QND readout is decreased with respect to that in a coherent spin state. If, on the other hand, the measurement based squeezing is applied first, internal squeezing will mix the collective atomic oscillators, and it is no longer the originally squeezed oscillator that corresponds to the angular momentum component.
Application to QND memories {#sec:qmem}
===========================
In atomic quantum memories based on off-resonant QND interaction [@Nature.432.482; @PhysRevA.70.044304; @PhysRevA.73.022331; @PhysRevA.73.062329; @PhysRevA.74.011802], the ensemble is usually prepared in a coherent spin state, and the atoms are effectively treated as spin-$\frac12$ particles, for which the conventional Holstein-Primakoff approximation leads to a straightforward oscillator description. We now generalize this approach to arbitrary atomic level structures, and we investigate the interplay between the choice of reference internal state and the collective variables.
Let us now briefly recall the functioning of the quantum memory based on QND measurement and feedback [@Nature.432.482], but with emphasis on more general reference states. We consider the same QND setup as in Sec. \[sec:qnd-squeezing\]: the atomic ensemble, that has a mean spin pointing to the $x$ direction but is otherwise prepared in a generic reference state, is illuminated by a strong $x$-polarized light field propagating in the $z$ direction. The photonic quantum oscillator, whose state we wish to map on the ensemble, is the copropagating $y$-polarized quantum field integrated along the pulse. Irrespective of what the reference state actually is, the information is stored as a disturbance around the arbitrary reference state, and this disturbance can be described as excitation of the collective atomic oscillator which is assigned to $\hat J_z$ in the given reference state.
After the light has first passed the sample, the input-output relation among the quadrature variables of this collective atomic oscillator and those of the photonic oscillator is readily given by Eqs and . The $\hat X_L^{\text{out}}$ quadrature of the outgoing light field is then measured, and the measurement outcome is fed back. The atomic variables after the feedback become [@PhysRevA.72.052313; @Hammerer08] $$\begin{gathered}
\hat X_1'' = \hat X_1^{\text{in}} + \kappa \hat P_L^{\text{in}},
\quad
\hat P_1'' = -\frac 1\kappa \hat X_L^{\text{in}},\end{gathered}$$ and both $\hat X_L^{\text{in}}$ and $\hat P_L^{\text{in}}$ have now been transferred to the collective atomic oscillator variables $\hat P_1$ and $\hat X_1$, respectively. The transfer of information is, however, not perfect: $\eta^2 \equiv 2(\Delta X_1^{\text{in}})^2/\kappa^2$ units of vacuum noise is added to the original $\hat P_L^{\text{in}}$ quadrature due to the initial uncertainty in the collective atomic quadrature $\hat X_1^{\text{in}}$. It has been proposed to mitigate this imperfection by squeezing the atomic spin state before the memory operation. Such squeezing operation could be performed, for example, by an additional QND measurement of $\hat J_y$. Indeed, this would create interatomic correlations and squeeze the collective atomic oscillator. It has also been suggested [@PhysRevLett.101.073601] that internal squeezing can enhance the fidelity of the quantum memory as well. We have shown, however, that internal squeezing does not reduce $\Delta X_1$, so it is not clear whether it really enhances the performance of the memory.
We have seen in Sec. \[sec:internal+proj\] that the integrated coupling $\kappa = \tilde \kappa \chi_{z0}$ decreases when $\hat J_z$ is squeezed internally, while it increases if $\hat J_z$ is anti-squeezed, for example, due to internal squeezing of $\hat J_y$ instead of $\hat J_z$. Assuming for a moment that ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ is a minimum uncertainty state and $(\Delta J_y)_0 (\Delta J_z)_0 = NF/4$, we obtain for the amount of additional noise $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:memory-noise}
\eta^2 = \frac {2(\Delta X_1^{\text{in}})^2}{\kappa^2}
= \frac {\chi_y^2}{\tilde \kappa^2},\end{gathered}$$ where $\chi_y$ is the squeezing parameter for $\hat J_y$ and $\tilde \kappa$ is the effective coupling of the QND mapping. We thus observe that the fidelity of the quantum memory may improve if $\hat J_y$ is internally squeezed. This does not happen because the collective atomic oscillator is squeezed, but rather because the reference state ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ is a minimum uncertainty state, and the adjoint, anti-squeezed, $\hat J_z$ implies an increased coupling $\kappa$.
We remark here that $(\Delta J_z)_0^2$ and, thus, the coupling $\kappa$ can be increased even without squeezing $\hat J_y$. The reference state is, however, not a minimum uncertainty state in such a case, so the transverse angular momentum components no longer correspond to the same collective atomic oscillator. This fact has two consequences. The first regards the feedback and has already been addressed at the end of Sec. \[sec:qnd-squeezing\]: by reorienting the feedback apparatus, the measurement outcome can be eliminated from the state of the first collective atomic oscillator, but at the cost of exciting a second one. The second consequence concerns the read-out of the memory.
The memory can be read out by a similar procedure, interchanging the role of the atomic and photonic oscillators. When a read-out light pulse passes the atomic ensemble, the quadrature operators are transformed into $$\begin{aligned}
\hat X_1''' &= \hat X_1'' + \kappa' \hat P_R^{\text{in}},&
\hat P_1''' &= \hat P_1'',\\
\hat X_R''' &= \hat X_R^{\text{in}} + \kappa' \hat P_1'',&
\hat P_R''' &= \hat P_R^{\text{in}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then a measurement of the atomic $\hat X_1$ quadrature and a subsequent feedback onto the light pulse should follow. In Ref. [@PhysRevA.73.022331], an additional light beam was suggested to couple a “meter” system to the angular momentum component $\hat J_y$. If the reference state is not a minimum uncertainty state, however, we may not have access to the $\hat X_1$ quadrature through $\hat J_y$. In a generic reference state, $$\begin{gathered}
\hat J_y \propto
\big( \hat X_1 \cos\varphi + \hat P_1 \sin\varphi \big)
\cos\vartheta + \hat X_2 \sin\vartheta,\end{gathered}$$ with $\tan \varphi = - \langle F_x^{(1)} \rangle_0 / \langle T^{(1)} \rangle_0$ and $\cos^2 \vartheta = \big(\langle F_x^{(1)} \rangle_0^2 + \langle T^{(1)} \rangle_0^2 \big) \big/ \big[ 4 (\Delta F_y^{(1)})_0^2 (\Delta F_z^{(1)})_0^2 \big]$. The $\hat P_1$ component can be ruled out by reorienting the measurement device in the same way as for the feedback. The contribution from the second atomic oscillator $\hat X_2$, however, cannot be eliminated. Instead of measuring $\hat X_1$, the best we can actually measure is $x' = \hat X_1''' + \frac {\tan \vartheta}{\cos \varphi} \hat X_2'''$. The outgoing light quadrature then turns into $\hat P_R''' = \frac 1{\kappa'}(x' - \hat X_1'' - \frac {\tan \vartheta} {\cos \varphi} \hat X_2'')$, and the quadratures of the read-out pulse after the feedback on the light read $$\begin{gathered}
\hat X_R^{\text{out}} = -\frac{\kappa'}\kappa
\hat X_L^{\text{in}} + \hat X_R^{\text{in}},
\\
\hat P_R^{\text{out}} = -\frac{\kappa}{\kappa'} \left(
\hat P_L^{\text{in}} + \frac 1{\kappa} \hat X_1^{\text{in}}
+ \frac {\tan\vartheta}{\kappa\cos\varphi} \hat X_2^{\text{in}}
\right).\end{gathered}$$ Besides the noise term in Eq. and the noise introduced by the $\hat X_R$ quadrature of the readout pulse, an additional noise term appears if ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ is not a minimum uncertainty state. Assuming that both the atomic oscillators are initially in their vacuum states, the amount of noise in the $\hat P_R^{\text{out}}$ quadrature (in vacuum noise units) reads $$\begin{gathered}
\eta^2
= \frac{4 (\Delta F_y^{(1)})_0^2 (\Delta F_z^{(1)})_0^2
- \langle F_x^{(1)} \rangle_0^2}{\kappa^2 \langle T^{(1)} \rangle_0^2}
\ge \frac1{\tilde\kappa^2 \chi_{z0}^2},\end{gathered}$$ where the lower bound is obtained using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality .
To summarize this section, we have analyzed the operation of the quantum memory based on QND interaction and feedback in a generic reference state. We have shown that, although internal squeezing does not squeeze the collective atomic oscillators, it may enhance the performance of the memory by enhancing the coupling strength of the QND interaction. We have also pointed out the difficulties arising when the reference state is not a minimum uncertainty state with respect to the transverse angular momentum components.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
If each spin-$\tfrac12$ particle in an ensemble is prepared in the same single-particle state, it is always a spin coherent state, and small perturbations to the product state can be well described by a single collective oscillator degree of freedom in the Holstein-Primakoff approximation. In this paper, we have introduced a generalization of this method to describe an ensemble of $d$-level atoms in the vicinity of an arbitrary product state (not necessarily spin coherent state). We have defined $d-1$ independent collective atomic oscillator modes, and we have specified how to express collective operators (namely, permutation invariant sums of single-particle operators) in terms of the oscillator creation and annihilation operators.
We have applied our formalism in particular to spin squeezing of atoms. We have analyzed two different methods: internal squeezing and QND measurement based squeezing, and identified the collective oscillators that have become squeezed. We have shown that the two kinds of squeezing reduce the effect of each other. When the atoms are first internally squeezed, the coupling strength of the QND measurement is reduced and, therefore, the measurement based squeezing is not so efficient. If we first project the ensemble’s state and then continue with internal squeezing, then the latter process will mix the collective atomic oscillators and, at the end of the process, it is no longer the originally squeezed oscillator that corresponds to the transverse angular momentum component. We have also considered the case when the two kinds of squeezing is applied simultaneously.
Finally, we have analyzed a quantum memory scheme for storing quantum states of light in atomic ensembles based on QND interaction and feedback using an arbitrary initial product state. We have shown that internal squeezing can reduce the noise of the memory as an indirect effect because of an enhanced coupling strength, caused in fact by the anti-squeezing of the adjoint atomic spin component.
{#app:two-oscillators}
In this appendix, we derive the formulae in Sec. \[sec:overlap\]. We define the single-particle basis ${|{\phi_1}\rangle}$ and ${|{\phi_2}\rangle}$ from the vectors ${|{a}\rangle}$ and ${|{b}\rangle}$ using Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization, ${|{\phi_1}\rangle} = {|{a}\rangle} / \|a\|$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:gram-schmidt}
{|{\phi_2}\rangle} = -i \frac{ {|{b}\rangle} - ({\langle{a}|{b}\rangle} /\|a\|^2) {|{a}\rangle}}
{\sqrt{\|b\|^2 - |{\langle{a}|{b}\rangle}|^2 / \|a\|^2 }}.\end{gathered}$$ The matrix elements in Eq. are $$\begin{aligned}
A_{10} &= \|a\|, &
B_{10} &= {\langle{a}|{b}\rangle} / \|a\|,
\nonumber
\\
A_{20} &= 0,
&
B_{20} &= i \sqrt{\|b\|^2 - |{\langle{a}|{b}\rangle}|^2 / \|a\|^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Introducing the mixing angles $\varphi = \arg {\langle{a}|{b}\rangle}$ and $\cos\vartheta = |{\langle{a}|{b}\rangle}| / ( \|a\| \|b\|)$, we can write $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:B_210}
B_{10} = \|b\| e^{i\varphi} \cos\vartheta,
\qquad
B_{20} = i \|b\| \sin\vartheta.\end{gathered}$$ Given that $\sqrt{2(\Delta B)_0^2} = \sqrt{2N} \|b\|$, after substituting Eq. into and comparing it to Eq. , we arrive at Eq. , which we wanted to prove.
Now we show that it is sufficient and necessary for the quadrature operators $\hat X_A$ and $\hat P_B$ to belong to the same atomic oscillator and to be conjugate to each other that ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ is a minimum uncertainty state with respect to the single-particle operators $\hat A^{(1)}$ and $\hat B^{(1)}$. From Eq. and from the definition of the mixing angles, we have the commutation relation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{XP-commute-non-canon}
[\hat X_A, \hat P_B] /i = \frac{{\mathrm{Im}\,}{\langle{a}|{b}\rangle}}{\|a\| \|b\|}
= \frac{\tfrac1{2i} \langle [ \hat A^{(1)}, \hat B^{(1)} ] \rangle_0}
{(\Delta A^{(1)})_0 (\Delta B^{(1)})_0}.\end{gathered}$$ From the Heisenberg uncertainty relation we know that the absolute value of the real number at the right-hand side of Eq. is less than or equal to 1, and the inequality is saturated, by definition, for minimum uncertainty states. Exactly for such states $[\hat X_A, \hat P_B] = \pm i$, and the two quadratures are canonically conjugate to each other. The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:cauchy-schwarz}
\|a\| \|b\|
\ge \sqrt{ ({\mathrm{Re}\,}{\langle{a}|{b}\rangle})^2 + ({\mathrm{Im}\,}{\langle{a}|{b}\rangle})^2 }
,\end{gathered}$$ then implies that ${|{a}\rangle}$ and ${|{b}\rangle}$ are parallel to each other ($\cos\vartheta=0$) and ${\langle{a}|{b}\rangle}$ is pure imaginary ($\varphi=\pm\tfrac\pi2$) if and only if ${|{\phi_0}\rangle}$ is a minimum uncertainty state.
{#app:simultaneous}
Here we derive the degree of squeezing when measurement based and internal squeezing is simultaneously applied. See Fig. \[fig:combi-setup\] and Sec. \[sec:mixed-squeezing\] for a description the setup.
Internal squeezing, governed by the Hamiltonian $\hat H_0 = g_2 \phi \hat T$, acts coherently on each atom. The corresponding time dependent single-particle basis ${|{\phi_\alpha(t)}\rangle} = \hat U_0^{(1)} (t) {|{\phi_\alpha}\rangle}$ defines the rotating atomic oscillators. The coupling to the meter system is described by the interaction Hamiltonian $\hat H_1 = g_1 \hat s_z(0) \hat J_z$, where $\hat s_z$ now refers to the probe pulse, whose photon flux is $\hat\phi_p(z,t) = \phi_p (t-z/c)$. With the coordinate change $\xi \equiv ct-z$, it is convenient to consider the propagating slices of the $y$-polarized quantum field of the meter system. The quadrature operators of the slice, that enters the sample at the time instance $\xi/c$, are $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:xL-pL-stokes}
\hat x_L(\xi,t) \equiv
\frac{\hat s_y(ct-\xi,t)}{\sqrt{\phi_p(\xi/c)/2}},
\;\;\;
\hat p_L(\xi,t) \equiv
\frac{\hat s_z(ct-\xi,t)}{\sqrt{\phi_p(\xi/c)/2}},\end{gathered}$$ in the Heisenberg picture. The equation of motion for the Heisenberg operators of the rotating atomic oscillators is given by Eq. . First we express the interaction Hamiltonian with the quadrature operators using Eqs and , $$\begin{gathered}
\hat H_1(t) \approx g_1 \sqrt{N\phi_p(t)} \sum_{\alpha\ne0}
{\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{\alpha0}^z (t) \, \hat P_\alpha (t) \, \hat p_L (ct,t).\end{gathered}$$ Then we arrive at the following Maxwell-Bloch equations: $$\begin{gathered}
\nonumber
\frac d{dt} \hat P_\alpha (t) = 0,\qquad
\frac \partial{\partial t} \hat p_L (\xi,t) = 0,\\
\nonumber
\frac d{dt} \hat X_\alpha (t) = g_1 \sqrt{N\phi_p(t)} \,
{\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{\alpha0}^z (t) \, \hat p_L (ct,t),\\
\nonumber \frac \partial{\partial t} \hat x_L (\xi,t)
= g_1 \sqrt{N\phi_p(t)}
\sum_{\alpha\ne0} {\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{\alpha0}^z (t) \,
\hat P_\alpha (t)\, c \delta(ct-\xi).\end{gathered}$$
To analyze the effect of the continuous light measurement on the atomic oscillators, let us divide the probe pulse into short segments of duration $\tau$. The quadrature operators of the segment, that enters the sample at the time instance $\xi/c$, are $\hat X_\xi(t) \equiv \int_\xi^{\xi+c\tau} \hat x_L(\xi',t) \, d\xi' /(c\sqrt\tau)$, and similarly for $\hat P_\xi(t)$. We assume that the change in the reference state due to internal squeezing, as well as the change in the probe photon flux $\phi_p(t)$ can be neglected during the passage of a single light segment, and that the evolution of the atomic system can be obtained by sequential interaction with the segments. Right after the segment has passed the sample, the following input-output relation holds, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:IO1}
\hat P_\alpha^{\text{out}} = \hat P_\alpha^{\text{in}},\quad
\hat P_\xi^{\text{out}} = \hat P_\xi^{\text{in}},\\
\label{eq:IO2}
\hat X_\alpha^{\text{out}} = \hat X_\alpha^{\text{in}}
+ \kappa_\xi\, {\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{\alpha0}^z(\xi/c) \, \hat P_\xi^{\text{in}},\\
\label{eq:IO3}
\hat X_\xi^{\text{out}} = \hat X_\xi^{\text{in}}
+ \kappa_\xi \sum_{\alpha\ne0} {\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{\alpha0}^z(\xi/c) \,
\hat P_\alpha^{\text{in}},\end{gathered}$$ where the labels “in” and “out” respectively mean before and after the passage of the light segment in consideration, and $\kappa_\xi \equiv g_1 \sqrt{\phi_p(\xi/c)\tau N}$ is an effective coupling constant. Introducing the vector $\hat{\mathbf y} \equiv (\hat X_1, \hat P_1, \ldots, \hat X_{2F}, \hat P_{2F}, \hat X_\xi, \hat P_\xi)^T$, we can write Eqs – as a matrix equation $\hat{\mathbf y}^{\text{out}} = \mathbf S \hat{\mathbf y}^{\text{in}}$. For Gaussian states, as in the case considered here, the system is fully characterized by the vector of expectation values $\langle \mathbf y \rangle$ and the covariance matrix $\Gamma_{ij} \equiv \big\langle (y_i-\langle y_i\rangle) (y_j-\langle y_j\rangle) \big\rangle$, that transform as $\langle \mathbf y^{\text{out}} \rangle = \mathbf S \langle \mathbf y^{\text{in}} \rangle$ and $\mathbf \Gamma^{\text{out}} = \mathbf S \mathbf \Gamma^{\text{in}} \mathbf S^T$, respectively.
When the light segment enters the sample, it is completely uncorrelated with the atomic ensemble: the incoming covariance matrix is block diagonal, $\mathbf \Gamma^{\text{in}} = \operatorname{diag}(\mathbf \Gamma_{\text{at}}^{\text{in}}, \openone)$, where $\mathbf \Gamma_{\text{at}}$ is the covariance matrix of the collective atomic oscillators and $\openone$ is the $2\times2$ identity matrix describing the initial vacuum state of the light segment. We denote the outgoing covariance matrix by $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbf \Gamma^{\text{out}} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf \Gamma_{\text{at}}^{\text{out}}& \mathbf C\\
\mathbf C^T& \mathbf \Gamma_\xi^{\text{out}}
\end{pmatrix},\end{gathered}$$ where $\mathbf C$ is a $2\times2F$ matrix describing the light-atom correlations. After the interaction, the meter system is measured. Conditioned on the measurement outcome, the effect of the light measurement on the atomic covariance matrix is given by the relation [@IntJQuantInf.1.479] $$\begin{gathered}
\mathbf \Gamma_{\text{at}}' =
\mathbf \Gamma_{\text{at}}^{\text{in}}
- \frac1{[\Gamma_\xi^{\text{out}}]_{11}} \mathbf C
\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\0&0 \end{pmatrix} \mathbf C^T.\end{gathered}$$
Combining the formulas above, we can write a difference equation that describes the change in the atomic covariance matrix due to the weak QND measurement [@PhysRevA.70.052324]. If the segment is short enough, it is sufficient to keep only the leading order in $\kappa_\xi^2$, and in the limit of infinitesimal $\tau$, we arrive at a set of ordinary differential equations for the atomic covariance matrix $\mathbf \Gamma$. In our case, we have a closed subset of equations for the matrix elements describing momentum-momentum correlations, $\gamma_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \big \langle (P_\alpha - \langle P_\alpha \rangle) (P_\beta - \langle P_\beta \rangle) \big \rangle$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:gamma-diffeq}
\frac d{dt} \gamma_{\alpha\beta} = -\frac{\kappa_\xi^2}\tau
\sum_{\alpha' \beta'} \gamma_{\alpha\alpha'} \, {\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{\alpha'0}^z
\, {\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{\beta'0}^z \, \gamma_{\beta'\beta},\end{gathered}$$ where $\kappa_\xi^2 / \tau = g_1^2 N \phi_p$. If the time dependent coefficients ${\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{\alpha0}^z (t)$ are known, Eq. can be solved. Then we can calculate the uncertainty in the transverse angular momentum component and the squeezing parameter $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:chi3}
\chi_3^2 = \frac12 \sum_{\alpha\beta} {\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{\alpha0}^z
\, {\mathrm{Im}\,}J_{\beta0}^z \, \gamma_{\alpha\beta}.\end{gathered}$$ Fig. \[fig:combined-squeezing\] shows the final degree of squeezing obtained by numerically integrating Eq. for constant intensity profiles for both the squeezer pulse and the probe pulse.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The phenomenon of quantum nucleation is studied in a ferromagnet in the presence of a magnetic field at an arbitrary angle. We consider the magnetocrystalline anisotropy with tetragonal symmetry and that with hexagonal symmetry, respectively. By applying the instanton method in the spin-coherent-state path-integral representation, we calculate the dependence of the rate of quantum nucleation and the crossover temperature on the orientation and strength of the field for a thin film and for a bulk solid. Our results show that the rate of quantum nucleation and the crossover temperature depend on the orientation of the external magnetic field distinctly, which provides a possible experimental test for quantum nucleation in nanometer-scale ferromagnets.
[**PACS number(s)**]{}: 75.45.+j, 73.40.Gk, 75.30.Gw, 75.50.Gg
address: 'Center for Advanced Study, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, P. R. China'
author:
- 'Yi Zhou, Rong Lü, Jia-Lin Zhu, and Lee Chang'
title: Quantum nucleation in ferromagnets with tetragonal and hexagonal symmetries
---
I. Introduction {#i.-introduction .unnumbered}
===============
The tunneling of macroscopic object, known as Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling (MQT), is one of the most fascinating phenomena in condensed matter physics. In the last decade, the problem of quantum tunneling of magnetization in nanometer-scale magnets has attracted a great deal of theoretical and experimental interest.[@1] MQT in magnetic systems are interesting from a fundamental point of view as they can extend our understanding of the transition from quantum to classical behavior. On the other hand, these phenomena are important to the reliability of small magnetic units in memory devices and the designing of quantum computers in the future. And the measurement of magnetic MQT quantities such as the tunneling rates could provide independent information about microscopic parameters such as the magnetocrystalline anisotropies and the exchange constants. All this makes magnetic quantum tunneling an exciting area for theoretical research and a challenging experimental problem.
The problem of quantum nucleation of a stable phase from a metastable one in ferromagnetic films is an interesting fundamental problem which allows direct comparison between theory and experiment.[@2] Consider a ferromagnetic film with its plane perpendicular to the easy axis determined by the magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy depending on the crystal symmetry. A magnetic field [**H**]{} is applied in a direction between perpendicular and opposite to the initial easy direction of the magnetization [**M**]{}, which favors the reversal of the magnetization. The reversal occurs via the nucleation of a critical bubble, which then the nucleus does not collapse, but grows unrestrictedly in volume. If the temperature is sufficiently high, the nucleation of a bubble is a thermal overbarrier process, and the rate of thermal nucleation follows the Arrhenius law $\Gamma _T\varpropto \exp \left( -U/k_BT\right) $, with $k_B$ being the Boltzmann constant and $U$ being the height of energy barrier. In the limit of $T\rightarrow 0$, the nucleation is purely quantum-mechanical and the rate goes as $\Gamma _Q\varpropto \exp \left( -{\cal S}_{cl}/\hbar
\right) $, with ${\cal S}_{cl}$ being the classical action or the WKBexponent which is independent of temperature. Because of the exponential dependence of the thermal rate on $T$, the temperature $T_c$ characterizing the crossover from quantum to thermal regime can be estimated as $%
k_BT_c=\hbar U/{\cal S}_{cl}$.
The problem of quantum nucleation was studied by Privorotskii[@3] who estimated the exponent in the rate of quantum nucleation based on the dimensional analysis. Chudnovsky and Gunther[@4] studied the quantum nucleation of a thin ferromagnetic film in the presence of an external magnetic field along the opposite direction to the easy axis at zero temperature by applying the instanton method in the spin-coherent-state path-integral representation. Ferrera and Chudnovsky extended the quantum nucleation to a finite temperature.[@5] Kim studied the quantum nucleation in a thin ferromagnetic film placed in a magnetic field at an arbitrary angle.[@6]
It is noted that the previous results[@4; @5; @6] of quantum nucleation were obtained for ferromagnetic sample with the simplest form of the magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy such as the biaxial symmetry, and the model considered in Refs. 4 and 5 was confined to the condition that the magnetic field be applied along the opposite direction to the easy axis. The purpose of this paper is to extend the previous results of quantum nucleation in ferromagnetic system with simple biaxial symmetry to that of system with a more general symmetry, such as tetragonal and hexagonal symmetry. The generic quantum nucleation problem, however, and the easiest to implement in practice, is that of ferromagnets with a general structure of magnetocrystalline anisotropy in a magnetic field applied at a some angle $\theta _H$ to the anisotropy axis. This problem does not possess any symmetry and for that reason is more difficult mathematically. It is worth pursuing, however, because of its significance for experiments.[@1] In this paper the magnetic field is applied in an arbitrary direction between perpendicular and opposite to the initial easy axis ($\widehat{z}$ axis). Our interest in studying quantum nucleation of magnetic bubbles with a more general structure of magnetocrystalline anisotropy in an arbitrarily directed magnetic field is stimulated by the fact that the corresponding experiment would be most easy to perform and to interpret. Within the instanton approach, we present the numerical results for the WKB exponent in quantum nucleation of a thin ferromagnetic film with the magnetic field applied in a range of angles $\pi /2<\theta _H<\pi $, where $\theta _H$ is the angle between the initial easy axis ($\widehat{z}$ axis) and the field. We also discuss the $\theta _H$ dependence of the crossover temperature $T_c$ from purely quantum nucleation to thermally assisted processes. Our results show that the distinct angular dependence, together with the dependence of the WKB exponent on the strength of the external magnetic field, may provide an independent experimental test for quantum nucleation in a ferromagnetic film. Quantum nucleation (the description involves space-time instantons), being a field theory problem, is more difficult than tunneling of magnetization in single-domain particles, both at the conceptual and at the technical level. Therefore, this paper provides [*a nontrivial generalization of uniform rotation of magnetization vector (homogeneous spin tunneling) in single-domain magnets[@13; @15] to a nonuniform rotation of magnetization in bulk magnets with a more general structure of magnetocrystalline anisotropy in the presence of a magnetic field at an arbitrary angle*]{}. Compared with the tunneling in single-domain particles, a local tunneling event in a bulk magnet can trigger instability on a much greater scale, which leads to really macroscopic consequences.[@1] In experiments, it may be easier to monitor single nucleation events in a thin film than to detect the magnetization reversal in a nanometer-scale particle. Therefore, our theoretical results for a general structure of magnetocrystalline anisotropy in an arbitrarily directed field will be more applicable for experimental tests of quantum nucleation. Besides the importance from the fundamental point of view, processes of quantum nucleation and collapse of magnetic bubbles are potentially important for quantum limitations on the density and long-term reliability of the data storage in magnetic memory devices and designing of quantum computer.
This paper is structured in the following way. In Sec. II, we review briefly some basic ideas of quantum nucleation of magnetization in ferromagnets. In Secs. III and IV, we study quantum nucleation of magnetization in ferromagnets with tetragonal and hexagonal symmetry in an external magnetic field applied in the $ZX$ plane with a range of angles $\pi /2\leq \theta
_H<\pi $. The conclusions and discussions are presented in Sec. V.
II. The physical model {#ii.-the-physical-model .unnumbered}
======================
For a spin tunneling problem, the rate of magnetization reversal by quantum tunneling is determined by the imaginary-time transition amplitude from an initial state $\left| i\right\rangle $ to a final state $\left|
f\right\rangle $ as $$U_{fi}=\left\langle f\right| e^{-HT}\left| i\right\rangle =\int {\cal D}%
\left\{ {\bf M}\left( {\bf r},\tau \right) \right\} \exp \left( -{\cal S}%
_E/\hbar \right) , \eqnum{1}$$ where ${\cal S}_E$ is the Euclidean action which includes the Euclidean Lagrangian density ${\cal L}_E$ as $${\cal S}_E=\int d\tau d^3{\bf r}{\cal L}_E. \eqnum{2}$$ For ferromagnets at sufficiently low temperature, all the spins are locked together by the strong exchange interaction, and therefore only the orientation of magnetization ${\bf M}\left( {\bf r},\tau \right) $ can change but not its absolute value. For that reason the field ${\bf M}\left(
{\bf r},\tau \right) $ is equivalent to the fields $\theta \left( {\bf r}%
,\tau \right) $ and $\phi \left( {\bf r},\tau \right) $, which are spherical coordinates of ${\bf M}$. In this case the measure of the path integral $%
{\cal D}\left\{ {\bf M}\left( {\bf r},\tau \right) \right\} $ in Eq. (1) is equivalent to $$\int {\cal D}\left\{ \theta \left( {\bf r},\tau \right) \right\} {\cal D}%
\left\{ \phi \left( {\bf r},\tau \right) \right\} =\lim_{\varepsilon
\rightarrow 0}\prod_{k=1}^N\left( \frac{2S+1}{4\pi }\right) \sin \theta
_kd\theta _kd\phi _k, \eqnum{3}$$ where $\varepsilon =\max \left( \tau _{k+1}-\tau _k\right) $ and $%
S=M_0/\hbar \gamma $ is the total spin of ferromagnet. Here $\gamma $ is the gyromagnetic ratio and $M_0$ is the magnitude of magnetization.
In the spin-coherent-state representation, the magnetic Lagrangian is given by $${\cal L}_E=i\frac{M_0}\gamma \left( \frac{d\phi \left( {\bf r},\tau \right)
}{d\tau }\right) \left[ 1-\cos \theta \left( {\bf r},\tau \right) \right]
+E\left( \theta ,\phi \right) . \eqnum{4}$$ The first term in Eq. (4) is a total imaginary-time derivative, which has no effect on the classical equations of motion, but it is crucial for the spin-parity effects.[@1; @7; @8; @9; @10; @11] However, for the closed instanton trajectory described in this paper (as shown in the following), this time derivative gives a zero contribution to the path integral, and therefore can be omitted.
The energy density in Eq. (4) is $$E\left( \theta ,\phi \right) =E_a\left( \theta ,\phi \right) +E_{ex}\left(
\theta ,\phi \right) , \eqnum{5}$$ where $E_a$ includes the magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy and the energy due to the external magnetic field, and $E_{ex}$ is the exchange energy $$E_{ex}=\frac \alpha 2\left( \partial _iM_j\right) ^2=\frac \alpha 2%
M_0^2\left[ \left( \nabla \theta \right) ^2+\sin ^2\theta \left( \nabla \phi
\right) ^2\right] , \eqnum{6}$$ where $\alpha $ is the exchange stiffness..[@12] The magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy for tetragonal and hexagonal symmetry is shown in Sec. III and IV, respectively. In the semiclassical limit, the rate of quantum nucleation, with an exponential accuracy, is given by $$\Gamma _Q\varpropto \exp \left[ -{\cal S}_E^{\min }/\hbar \right] ,
\eqnum{7}$$ where ${\cal S}_E^{\min }$ is obtained along the trajectory that minimizes the Euclidean action ${\cal S}_E$.
III. Ferromagnets with tetragonal symmetry {#iii.-ferromagnets-with-tetragonal-symmetry .unnumbered}
==========================================
In this section, we study the quantum nucleation of magnetization in ferromagnets with tetragonal symmetry in the presence of a magnetic field at arbitrary angles in the $ZX$ plane, which has the following magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy $$E_a\left( \theta ,\phi \right) =K_1\sin ^2\theta +K_2\sin ^4\theta
-K_2^{\prime }\sin ^4\theta \cos \left( 4\phi \right) -M_0H_x\sin \theta
\cos \phi -M_0H_z\cos \theta , \eqnum{8}$$ where $K_1$, $K_2$ and $K_2^{\prime }$ are the magnetic anisotropy coefficients, and $K_1>0$. In the absence of the magnetic field, the easy axes of this system are $\pm \widehat{z}$ for $K_1>0$. And the field is applied in the $ZX$ plane at $\pi /2<\theta _H<\pi $. Then the total energy is given by $$\begin{aligned}
E\left[ \theta \left( {\bf r},\tau \right) ,\phi \left( {\bf r},\tau \right)
\right] &=&K_1\sin ^2\theta +K_2\sin ^4\theta -K_2^{\prime }\sin ^4\theta
\cos \left( 4\phi \right) +\frac \alpha 2M_0^2\left[ \left( \nabla \theta
\right) ^2+\sin ^2\theta \left( \nabla \phi \right) ^2\right] \nonumber \\
&&-M_0H_x\sin \theta \cos \phi -M_0H_z\cos \theta +E_0, \eqnum{9}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_0$ is a constant which makes $E\left( \theta ,\phi \right) $ zero at the initial state. By applying the similar method in Ref. 15, we can perform a Gaussian integration over the variable $\phi $ in the path integral and reduce the system to that with only one variable $\delta $ (as shown in the following). Then it is possible to perform the rest of the calculation by using the instanton method. This method simplifies the problem tremendously, compared to the problem where the action depended on $%
\theta \left( \tau \right) $ and $\phi \left( \tau \right) $, though a complete mathematical equivalence to the initial problem is preserved.
By introducing the dimensionless parameters as $$\overline{K}_2=K_2/2K_1,\overline{K}_2^{\prime }=K_2^{\prime }/2K_1,%
\overline{H}_x=H_x/H_0,\overline{H}_z=H_z/H_0, \eqnum{10}$$ Eq. (9) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{E}\left( \theta ,\phi \right) &=&\frac 12\sin ^2\theta +\overline{K%
}_2\sin ^4\theta -\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\sin ^4\theta \cos \left( 4\phi
\right) +\frac{\alpha M_0^2}{4K_1}\left[ \left( \nabla \theta \right)
^2+\sin ^2\theta \left( \nabla \phi \right) ^2\right] \nonumber \\
&&-\overline{H}_x\sin \theta \cos \phi -\overline{H}_z\cos \theta +\overline{%
E}_0, \eqnum{11}\end{aligned}$$ where $E\left( \theta ,\phi \right) =2K_1\overline{E}\left( \theta ,\phi
\right) $, and $H_0=2K_1/M_0$. At finite magnetic field, the plane given by $%
\phi =0$ is the easy plane, on which $\overline{E}_a\left( \theta ,\phi
\right) $ reduces to $$\overline{E}_a\left( \theta ,\phi =0\right) =\frac 12\sin ^2\theta +\left(
\overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) \sin ^4\theta -\overline{H}%
\cos \left( \theta -\theta _H\right) +\overline{E}_0. \eqnum{12}$$ The initial angle $\theta _0$ is determined by $\left[ d\overline{E}_a\left(
\theta ,0\right) /d\theta \right] _{\theta =\theta _0}=0$, and the critical angle $\theta _c$ and the dimensionless critical field $\overline{H}_c$ are determined by both $\left[ d\overline{E}_a\left( \theta ,0\right) /d\theta
\right] _{\theta =\theta _c,\overline{H}=\overline{H}_c}=0$ and $\left[ d^2%
\overline{E}_a\left( \theta ,0\right) /d\theta ^2\right] _{\theta =\theta _c,%
\overline{H}=\overline{H}_c}=0$, which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac 12\sin \left( 2\theta _0\right) +\overline{H}\sin \left( \theta
_0-\theta _H\right) +4\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right)
\sin ^3\theta _0\cos \theta _0 &=&0, \eqnum{13a} \\
\frac 12\sin \left( 2\theta _c\right) +\overline{H}_c\sin \left( \theta
_c-\theta _H\right) +4\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right)
\sin ^3\theta _c\cos \theta _c &=&0, \eqnum{13b} \\
\cos \left( 2\theta _c\right) +\overline{H}_c\cos \left( \theta _c-\theta
_H\right) +4\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) \left(
3\sin ^2\theta _c\cos ^2\theta _c-\sin ^4\theta _c\right) &=&0. \eqnum{13c}\end{aligned}$$ Assuming that $\left| \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right| \ll 1$, we obtain the critical magnetic field and the critical angle as $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{H}_c &=&\frac 1{\left[ \left( \sin \theta _H\right) ^{2/3}+\left|
\cos \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}\right] ^{3/2}}\left[ 1+\frac{4\left( \overline{K%
}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) }{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}%
\right] , \eqnum{14a} \\
\sin \theta _c &=&\frac 1{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}\right) ^{1/2}}\left[ 1+\frac 83\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}%
_2^{\prime }\right) \frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot
\theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right] . \eqnum{14b}\end{aligned}$$ In the low barrier limit, i.e., $\epsilon =1-\overline{H}/\overline{H}%
_c\rightarrow 0$, by using Eqs. (13b) and (13c) we obtain the approximate equation for $\eta \left( \equiv \theta _c-\theta _0\right) $ in the order of $\epsilon ^{3/2}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&-\epsilon \overline{H}_c\sin \left( \theta _c-\theta _H\right) +\eta
^2\left[ \frac 32\overline{H}_c\sin \left( \theta _c-\theta _H\right)
+3\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) \sin \left( 4\theta
_c\right) \right] \nonumber \\
&&+\eta \left\{ \epsilon \overline{H}_c\cos \left( \theta _c-\theta
_H\right) -\eta ^2\left[ \frac 12\overline{H}_c\cos \left( \theta _c-\theta
_H\right) +4\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) \cos
\left( 4\theta _c\right) \right] \right\} =0. \eqnum{15}\end{aligned}$$ Introducing $\delta \equiv \theta -\theta _0$ ($\left| \delta \right| \ll 1$ in the small $\epsilon $ limit), we derive the energy $\overline{E}\left(
\theta ,\phi \right) $ as $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{E}\left( \delta ,\phi \right) &=&\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\left[
1-\cos \left( 4\phi \right) \right] \sin ^4\left( \theta _0+\delta \right) +%
\overline{H}_x\left( 1-\cos \phi \right) \sin \left( \theta _0+\delta \right)
\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\alpha M_0^2}{4K_1}\left[ \left( \nabla \theta \right) ^2+\sin
^2\theta \left( \nabla \phi \right) ^2\right] +\overline{E}_1\left( \delta
\right) , \eqnum{16}\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{E}_1\left( \delta \right) $ is a function of only $\delta $ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{E}_1\left( \delta \right) &=&\left[ \frac 12\overline{H}_c\sin
\left( \theta _c-\theta _H\right) +\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}%
_2^{\prime }\right) \sin \left( 4\theta _c\right) \right] \left( \delta
^3-3\delta ^2\eta \right) \nonumber \\
&&+\left[ \frac 18\overline{H}_c\cos \left( \theta _c-\theta _H\right)
+\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) \cos \left( 4\theta
_c\right) \right] \left( \delta ^4-4\delta ^3\eta +6\delta ^2\eta ^2-4\delta
^2\epsilon \right) \nonumber \\
&&+4\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) \epsilon \delta
^2\cos \left( 4\theta _c\right) . \eqnum{17}\end{aligned}$$
It can be shown that in the region of $\pi /2<\theta _H<\pi $, $0<\theta
_c<\pi /2$, $\eta $ and $\delta $ are of the order of $\sqrt{\epsilon }$, the second or third term in Eq. (17) is smaller than the first term in the small $\epsilon $ limit. It is convenient to use dimensionless variables $${\bf r}^{\prime }=\epsilon ^{1/4}{\bf r}/r_0,\tau ^{\prime }=\epsilon
^{1/4}\omega _0\tau ,\overline{\delta }=\delta /\sqrt{\epsilon }, \eqnum{18}$$ where $r_0=\sqrt{\frac{\alpha M_0^2}{2K_1}}$, and $\omega _0=2\gamma K_1/M_0$. Then the Euclidean action Eq. (2) for $\pi /2<\theta _H<\pi $ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}_E\left[ \overline{\delta }\left( {\bf r}^{\prime },\tau ^{\prime
}\right) ,\phi \left( {\bf r}^{\prime },\tau ^{\prime }\right) \right] &=&%
\frac{\hbar Sr_0^3}\epsilon \int d\tau ^{\prime }d^3{\bf r}^{\prime }\left\{
-i\epsilon ^{1/4}\sin \left( \theta _0+\sqrt{\epsilon }\overline{\delta }%
\right) \phi \left( \frac{\partial \overline{\delta }}{\partial \tau
^{\prime }}\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&+2\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\sin ^2\left( 2\phi \right) \sin ^4\left( \theta
_0+\sqrt{\epsilon }\overline{\delta }\right) +2\overline{H}_x\sin ^2\left(
\frac \phi 2\right) \sin \left( \theta _0+\sqrt{\epsilon }\overline{\delta }%
\right) \nonumber \\
&&+\frac 12\epsilon ^{3/2}\left( \nabla ^{\prime }\overline{\delta }\right)
^2+\frac 12\epsilon ^{1/2}\sin ^2\left( \theta _0+\sqrt{\epsilon }\overline{%
\delta }\right) \left( \nabla ^{\prime }\phi \right) ^2 \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\frac A4\epsilon ^{3/2}\left( \sqrt{6}\overline{\delta }^2-%
\overline{\delta }^3\right) \right\} , \eqnum{19}\end{aligned}$$ where $$A=2\frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{1/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}}\left[ 1+\frac 43\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime
}\right) \frac{7-4\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}}\right] . \eqnum{20}$$ In Eq. (19) we have performed the integration by part for the first term and have neglected the total imaginary-time derivative. In can be showed that for $\pi /2<\theta _H<\pi $, only small values of $\phi $ contribute to the path integral, so that one can replace $\sin ^2\phi $ in Eq. (19) by $\phi
^2 $ and neglect the term including $\left( \nabla ^{\prime }\phi \right) ^2$ which is of the order $\epsilon ^2$ while the other terms are of the order $%
\epsilon ^{3/2}$. Then the Gaussian integration over $\phi $ leads to $$\int {\cal D}\left\{ \delta \left( {\bf r}^{\prime },\tau ^{\prime }\right)
\right\} \exp \left( -\frac 1\hbar {\cal S}_E^{eff}\right) , \eqnum{21}$$ where the effective action is $${\cal S}_E^{eff}\left[ \overline{\delta }\left( {\bf r}^{\prime },\tau
^{\prime }\right) \right] =\hbar S\epsilon ^{1/2}r_0^3\int d\tau ^{\prime
}d^3{\bf r}^{\prime }\left[ \frac 12M\left( \frac{\partial \overline{\delta }%
}{\partial \tau ^{\prime }}\right) ^2+\frac 12\left( \nabla ^{\prime }%
\overline{\delta }\right) ^2+\frac A4\left( \sqrt{6}\overline{\delta }^2-%
\overline{\delta }^3\right) \right] . \eqnum{22}$$ The effect mass in Eq. (22) is found to be $$M=\frac{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}\right) \left[ 1+\frac 83%
\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) \frac{\left| \cot
\theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right] }{%
1-\epsilon +16\overline{K}_2^{\prime }+4\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}%
_2^{\prime }\right) \frac 1{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}+128%
\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime
}\right) \frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}}}. \eqnum{23}$$ Introducing the variables $\overline{\tau }=\tau ^{\prime }\sqrt{A/M}$ and $%
\overline{{\bf r}}={\bf r}^{\prime }\sqrt{A}$, the effective action Eq. (22) is simplified as $${\cal S}_E^{eff}\left[ \overline{\delta }\left( \overline{{\bf r}},\overline{%
\tau }\right) \right] =\hbar S\epsilon ^{1/2}r_0^3\frac{\sqrt{M}}A\int d%
\overline{\tau }d^3\overline{{\bf r}}\left[ \frac 12\left( \frac{\partial
\overline{\delta }}{\partial \overline{\tau }}\right) ^2+\frac 12\left(
\overline{\nabla }\overline{\delta }\right) ^2+\frac 14\left( \sqrt{6}%
\overline{\delta }^2-\overline{\delta }^3\right) \right] . \eqnum{24}$$
For the quantum reversal of magnetization ${\bf M}$ in a small particle of volume $V\ll r_0^3$, ${\bf M}$ is uniform within the particle and $\overline{%
\delta }$ does not depend on the space $\overline{{\bf r}}$, Eq. (24) reduces to $${\cal S}_E^{eff}\left[ \overline{\delta }\left( \overline{{\bf r}},\overline{%
\tau }\right) \right] =\hbar S\epsilon ^{5/4}\sqrt{MA}V\int d\overline{\tau }%
\left[ \frac 12\left( \frac{d\overline{\delta }}{d\overline{\tau }}\right)
^2+\frac 14\left( \sqrt{6}\overline{\delta }^2-\overline{\delta }^3\right)
\right] . \eqnum{25}$$ The corresponding classical trajectory satisfies the equation of motion $$\frac{d^2\overline{\delta }}{d\overline{\tau }^2}=\frac 12\sqrt{6}\overline{%
\delta }-\frac 34\overline{\delta }^2. \eqnum{26}$$ Eq. (26) has the instanton solution $$\overline{\delta }\left( \overline{\tau }\right) =\frac{\sqrt{6}}{\cosh
^2\left( 3^{1/4}\times 2^{-5/4}\overline{\tau }\right) }, \eqnum{27}$$ corresponding to the variation of $\overline{\delta }$ from $\overline{%
\delta }=0$ at $\overline{\tau }=-\infty $, to $\overline{\delta }=\sqrt{6}$ at $\overline{\tau }=0$, and then back to $\overline{\delta }=0$ at $%
\overline{\tau }=\infty $. Eq. (27) agrees well with the result in Refs. 13 and 15. The associated classical action is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}_{cl} &=&\frac{2^{17/4}\times 3^{1/4}}5\hbar S\epsilon ^{5/4}
\nonumber \\
&&\times \frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{1/6}\left[ 1+\frac 23\left(
\overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) \frac{7-2\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right] }{\sqrt{%
1-\epsilon +16\overline{K}_2^{\prime }+4\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}%
_2^{\prime }\right) \frac 1{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}+128%
\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime
}\right) \frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}}}}. \eqnum{28}\end{aligned}$$
Now we turn to the nonuniform problem. In case of a thin film of thickness $%
h $ less than the size $r_0/\epsilon ^{1/4}$ of the critical nucleus and its plane is perpendicular to the initial easy axis, we obtain the action Eq. (24) after performing the integration over the $\overline{z}$ variable, $${\cal S}_E^{eff}\left[ \overline{\delta }\left( \overline{{\bf r}},\overline{%
\tau }\right) \right] =\hbar S\epsilon ^{3/4}r_0^2h\sqrt{\frac MA}\int d%
\overline{\tau }d^2\overline{{\bf r}}\left[ \frac 12\left( \frac{\partial
\overline{\delta }}{\partial \overline{\tau }}\right) ^2+\frac 12\left(
\overline{\nabla }\overline{\delta }\right) ^2+\frac 14\left( \sqrt{6}%
\overline{\delta }^2-\overline{\delta }^3\right) \right] . \eqnum{29}$$ At zero temperature the classical solution of the effective action Eq. (29) has $O\left( 3\right) $ symmetry in two spatial plus one imaginary time dimensions. Therefore, the solution $\overline{\delta }$ is a function of $u$, where $u=\left( \overline{\rho }^2+\overline{\tau }^2\right) ^{1/2}$, and $%
\overline{\rho }=\left( \overline{x}^2+\overline{y}^2\right) ^{1/2}$ is the normalized distance from the ${\bf z}$ axis. Now the effective action Eq. (29) becomes $${\cal S}_E^{eff}\left[ \overline{\delta }\left( \overline{{\bf r}},\overline{%
\tau }\right) \right] =4\pi \hbar S\epsilon ^{3/4}r_0^2h\sqrt{\frac MA}\int
duu^2\left[ \frac 12\left( \frac{d\overline{\delta }}{du}\right) ^2+\frac 14%
\left( \sqrt{6}\overline{\delta }^2-\overline{\delta }^3\right) \right] .
\eqnum{30}$$ The corresponding classical trajectory satisfies the following equation of motion $$\frac{d^2\overline{\delta }}{du^2}+\frac 2u\frac{d\overline{\delta }}{du}=%
\frac{\sqrt{6}}2\overline{\delta }-\frac 34\overline{\delta }^2. \eqnum{31}$$ By applying the similar method,[@4; @6] the instanton solution of Eq. (31) can be found numerically and is illustrated in Fig. 1. The maximal rotation of ${\bf M}$ is $\overline{\delta }_{\max }\approx 6.8499$ at $\overline{%
\tau }=0$ and $\overline{\rho }=0$. Numerical integration in Eq. (30), using this solution, gives the rate of quantum nucleation for a thin ferromagnetic film as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma _Q &\varpropto &\exp \left( -{\cal S}_E/\hbar \right) \nonumber \\
&=&\exp \left\{ -74.39S\epsilon ^{3/4}r_0^2h\frac{1+\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}}{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{1/6}}\left[ 1-\frac 23%
\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) \frac{7-6\left| \cot
\theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right]
\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. \times \frac 1{\sqrt{1-\epsilon +16\overline{K}_2^{\prime }+4\left(
\overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) \frac 1{1+\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}}+128\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{%
K}_2^{\prime }\right) \frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left|
\cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}}}\right\} . \eqnum{32}\end{aligned}$$
At high temperature, the nucleation of ${\bf M}$ is due to thermal activation, and the rate of nucleation follows $\Gamma _T\varpropto \exp
\left( -W_{\min }/k_BT\right) $, where $W_{\min }$ is the minimal work necessary to produce a nucleus capable of growing. In this case the instanton solution becomes independent of the imaginary-time variable $%
\overline{\tau }$. In order to obtain $W_{\min }$, we consider the effective potential of the system $$U_{eff}=\int d^3{\bf r}E=\int d^3{\bf r}\left[ \frac \alpha 2M_0^2\left(
\left( \nabla \theta \right) ^2+\sin ^2\theta \left( \nabla \phi \right)
^2\right) +E_a\left( \theta ,\phi \right) \right] . \eqnum{33}$$ For a cylindrical bubble Eq. (33) reduces to $$U_{eff}=4\pi K_1h\epsilon r_0^2\int_0^\infty d\overline{\rho }\overline{\rho
}\left[ \frac 12\left( \frac{d\overline{\delta }}{d\overline{\rho }}\right)
^2+\frac 14\left( \sqrt{6}\overline{\delta }^2-\overline{\delta }^3\right)
\right] . \eqnum{34}$$ From the saddle point of the functional the shape of the critical nucleus satisfies $$\frac{d^2\overline{\delta }}{d\overline{\rho }^2}+\frac 1{\overline{\rho }}%
\frac{d\overline{\delta }}{d\overline{\rho }}=\frac{\sqrt{6}}2\overline{%
\delta }-\frac 34\overline{\delta }^2. \eqnum{35}$$ The solution can be found by numerical method similar to the one in Refs. 4 and 6. Fig. 2 shows the shape of the critical bubble in thermal nucleation, and the maximal size is $3.906$ at $\overline{\rho }=0$. Using this result, the minimal work corresponding the thermal nucleation is $$W_{\min }=41.3376K_1h\epsilon r_0^2. \eqnum{36}$$ Comparing this with Eq. (32), we obtain the approximate formula for the temperature characterizing the crossover from thermal to quantum nucleation as $$\begin{aligned}
k_BT_c &\approx &0.55\frac{K_1\epsilon ^{1/4}}S\frac{\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{1/6}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\left[ 1+\frac 23%
\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) \frac{7-6\left| \cot
\theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right]
\nonumber \\
&&\times \left[ 1-\epsilon +16\overline{K}_2^{\prime }+4\left( \overline{K}%
_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\right) \frac 1{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}}\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +128\overline{K}_2^{\prime }\left( \overline{K}_2-\overline{K}%
_2^{\prime }\right) \frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot
\theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right] ^{1/2}. \eqnum{37}\end{aligned}$$ To observe the quantum nucleation one needs a large crossover temperature and not too small a nucleation rate. Eq. (37) shows that ferromagnets with large anisotropy, i.e., small ration of $K_2^{\prime }$ to $K_1$, and small saturated magnetization are preferable for experimental study. In Fig. 3, we plot the $\theta _H$ dependence of the crossover temperature $T_c$ for typical values of parameters for nanometer-scale ferromagnets: $K_1=10^7$ erg/cm$^3$, $\overline{K}_2^{\prime }=0.1$, $\overline{K}_2-\overline{K}%
_2^{\prime }=0.01$, $M_0=500$ emu/cm$^3$, $\epsilon =0.01$ in a wide range of angles $\pi /2<\theta _H<\pi $. Fig. 3 shows that the maximal value of $%
T_c$ is about 225 mK at $\theta _H=1.743$. The maximal value of $T_c$ as well as $\Gamma _Q$ is expected to be observed in experiment. The similar $%
\theta _H$ dependence of the crossover temperature $T_c$ was first observed in Ref. 15, while the problem considered in Ref. 15 was homogeneous spin tunneling in single-domain particles with uniaxial symmetry.
IV. Ferromagnets with hexagonal symmetry {#iv.-ferromagnets-with-hexagonal-symmetry .unnumbered}
========================================
In this section, we study the quantum nucleation of magnetization in nanometer-scale ferromagnets with hexagonal symmetry in an external magnetic field at an arbitrary angle in the $ZX$ plane. Now the magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy $E_a\left( \theta ,\phi \right) $ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
E_a\left( \theta ,\phi \right) &=&K_1\sin ^2\theta +K_2\sin ^4\theta
+K_3\sin ^6\theta -K_3^{\prime }\sin ^6\theta \cos \left( 6\phi \right)
\nonumber \\
&&-M_0H_x\sin \theta \cos \phi -M_0H_z\cos \theta , \eqnum{38}\end{aligned}$$ where $K_1$, $K_2$, $K_3$, and $K_3^{\prime }$ are the magnetic anisotropic coefficients. The easy axes are $\pm \widehat{z}$ for $K_1>0$. By choosing $%
K_3^{\prime }>0$, we take $\phi =0$ to be the easy plane, at which the anisotropy energy can be written in terms of the dimensionless parameters as $$\overline{E}_a\left( \theta ,\phi =0\right) =\frac 12\sin ^2\theta +%
\overline{K}_2\sin ^4\theta +\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime
}\right) \sin ^6\theta -\overline{H}\cos \left( \theta -\theta _H\right) +%
\overline{E}_0, \eqnum{39}$$ where $\overline{K}_3=K_3/2K_1$ and $\overline{K}_3^{\prime }=K_3^{\prime
}/2K_1$.
Then the initial angle $\theta _0$ is determined by $\left[ d\overline{E}%
_a\left( \theta ,0\right) /d\theta \right] _{\theta =\theta _0}=0$, and the critical angle $\theta _c$ and the dimensionless critical field $\overline{H}%
_c$ by both $\left[ d\overline{E}_a\left( \theta ,0\right) /d\theta \right]
_{\theta =\theta _c,\overline{H}=\overline{H}_c}=0$ and $\left[ d^2\overline{%
E}_a\left( \theta ,0\right) /d\theta ^2\right] _{\theta =\theta _c,\overline{%
H}=\overline{H}_c}=0$, which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left. \frac 12\sin \left( 2\theta _0\right) +\overline{H}\sin \left(
\theta _0-\theta _H\right) +4\overline{K}_2\sin ^3\theta _0\cos \theta
_0+6\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \sin ^5\theta
_0\cos \theta _0=0,\right. \eqnum{40a} \\
&&\left. \frac 12\sin \left( 2\theta _c\right) +\overline{H}_c\sin \left(
\theta _c-\theta _H\right) +4\overline{K}_2\sin ^3\theta _c\cos \theta
_c+6\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \sin ^5\theta
_c\cos \theta _c=0,\right. \eqnum{40b} \\
&&\left. \cos \left( 2\theta _c\right) +\overline{H}_c\cos \left( \theta
_c-\theta _H\right) +4\overline{K}_2\left( 3\sin ^2\theta _c\cos ^2\theta
_c-\sin ^4\theta _c\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +6\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \left(
5\sin ^4\theta _c\cos ^2\theta _c-\sin ^6\theta _c\right) =0,\right.
\eqnum{40c}\end{aligned}$$ Under the assumption that $\left| \overline{K}_2\right| $, $\left| \overline{%
K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right| \ll 1$, we obtain the dimensionless critical field $\overline{H}_c$ and the critical angle as $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{H}_c &=&\frac 1{\left[ \left( \sin \theta _H\right) ^{2/3}+\left|
\cos \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}\right] ^{3/2}}\left[ 1+\frac{4\overline{K}_2}{%
1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}+\frac{6\left( \overline{K}_3-%
\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) }{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}\right) ^2}\right] , \eqnum{41a} \\
\sin \theta _c &=&\frac 1{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}\right) ^{1/2}}\left[ 1+\frac 83\overline{K}_2\frac{\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +8\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \frac{%
\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}\right) ^2}\right] . \eqnum{41b}\end{aligned}$$ In the limit of small $\epsilon =1-\overline{H}/\overline{H}_c$, Eq. (40a) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&&-\epsilon \overline{H}_c\sin \left( \theta _c-\theta _H\right) +\eta
^2\left[ \left( 3/2\right) \overline{H}_c\sin \left( \theta _c-\theta
_H\right) +3\overline{K}_2\sin \left( 4\theta _c\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +12\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \sin
^3\theta _c\cos \theta _c\left( 5-8\sin ^2\theta _c\right) \right] +\eta
\left\{ \epsilon \overline{H}_c\cos \left( \theta _c-\theta _H\right) \right.
\nonumber \\
&&-\eta ^2\left. \left[ \left( 1/2\right) \overline{H}_c\cos \left( \theta
_c-\theta _H\right) +4\overline{K}_2\cos \left( 4\theta _c\right) \right.
\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. \left. \left. +12\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime
}\right) \sin ^2\theta _c\left( 5-20\sin ^2\theta _c+16\sin ^4\theta
_c\right) \right] \right\} =0,\right. \eqnum{42}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta \equiv \theta _c-\theta _0$ which is small for $\epsilon \ll 1$. By introducing a small variable $\delta \equiv \theta -\theta _0$ $\left(
\left| \delta \right| \ll 1\text{ in the limit of }\epsilon \ll 1\right) $, the anisotropy energy becomes $$\overline{E}_a\left( \delta ,\phi \right) =\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\left[
1-\cos \left( 6\phi \right) \right] \sin ^6\left( \theta _0+\delta \right) +%
\overline{H}_x\left( 1-\cos \phi \right) \sin \left( \theta _0+\delta
\right) +\overline{E}_1\left( \delta \right) , \eqnum{43}$$ where $\overline{E}_1\left( \delta \right) $ is a function of only $\delta $ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{E}_1\left( \delta \right) &=&\left[ \frac 12\overline{H}_c\sin
\left( \theta _c-\theta _H\right) +\overline{K}_2\sin \left( 4\theta
_c\right) +4\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \left(
5\sin ^3\theta _c\cos ^3\theta _c-3\sin ^5\theta _c\cos \theta _c\right)
\right] \nonumber \\
&&\times \left( \delta ^3-3\delta ^2\eta \right) +\left[ \frac 18\overline{H}%
_c\cos \left( \theta _c-\theta _H\right) +\overline{K}_2\cos \left( 4\theta
_c\right) +3\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \sin
^2\theta _c\left( \sin ^4\theta _c\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. \left. -10\sin ^2\theta _c\cos ^2\theta _c+5\cos ^4\theta _c\right)
\right] \left( \delta ^4-4\delta ^3\eta +6\delta ^2\eta ^2-4\delta
^2\epsilon \right) +\epsilon \delta ^2\left[ 4\overline{K}_2\cos \left(
4\theta _c\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +12\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \sin
^2\theta _c\left( \sin ^4\theta _c-10\sin ^2\theta _c\cos ^2\theta _c+5\cos
^4\theta _c\right) \right] . \eqnum{44}\end{aligned}$$
By applying the similar procedure in Sec. III, we obtain the transition amplitude Eqs. (21) and (22) by integrating out $\phi $. For this case the effective mass is $$\begin{aligned}
M &=&\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}\right) \left[ 1+\frac 83%
\overline{K}_2\frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot
\theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}+8\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime
}\right) \frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{\left( 1+\left| \cot
\theta _H\right| ^{2/3}\right) ^2}\right] \nonumber \\
&&\times \left[ 1-\epsilon +36\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\frac 1{1+\left| \cot
\theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}+4\overline{K}_2\left( 1+120\overline{K}_3^{\prime }%
\frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}}\right) \frac 1{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right.
\nonumber \\
&&\left. +6\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \left( 1+240%
\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left|
\cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right) \frac 1{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}\right) ^2}\right] ^{-1}, \eqnum{45}\end{aligned}$$ and the prefactor $A$ is $$A=2\frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{1/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}}\left[ 1+\frac 43\overline{K}_2\frac{7-4\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}+2\left( \overline{K}_3-%
\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \frac{11-16\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}}{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}\right) ^2}\right] .
\eqnum{46}$$ In case of a small ferromagnet of volume $V\ll r_0^3$, the result of quantum nucleation is $\Gamma _Q\varpropto \exp \left( -{\cal S}_{cl}/\hbar \right) $, where the classical action for hexagonal symmetry is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}_{cl} &=&\frac{2^{17/4}\times 3^{1/4}}5\hbar S\epsilon ^{5/4}\left|
\cot \theta _H\right| ^{1/6} \nonumber \\
&&\times \left[ 1+\frac 23\overline{K}_2\frac{7-2\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}+\left( \overline{K}%
_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \frac{11-12\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}}{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}\right) ^2}\right]
\nonumber \\
&&\times \left[ 1-\epsilon +36\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\frac 1{1+\left| \cot
\theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}+4\overline{K}_2\left( 1+120\overline{K}_3^{\prime }%
\frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}}\right) \frac 1{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right.
\nonumber \\
&&\left. +6\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \left( 1+240%
\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left|
\cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right) \frac 1{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}\right) ^2}\right] ^{-1/2}, \eqnum{47}\end{aligned}$$ In case of a thin film of thickness $h$ less than the size $r_0/\epsilon
^{1/4}$ of the critical nucleus, we obtain the quantum nucleation as $\Gamma
_Q\varpropto \exp \left( -{\cal S}_E/\hbar \right) $, with the classical action $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal S}_E &=&74.39S\epsilon ^{3/4}r_0^2h\frac{1+\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}}{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{1/6}} \nonumber \\
&&\times \left[ 1-\frac 23\overline{K}_2\frac{7-2\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}-\left( \overline{K}%
_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \frac{11-12\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}}{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}\right) ^2}\right]
\nonumber \\
&&\times \left[ 1-\epsilon +36\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\frac 1{1+\left| \cot
\theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}+4\overline{K}_2\left( 1+120\overline{K}_3^{\prime }%
\frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}}\right) \frac 1{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right.
\nonumber \\
&&\left. +6\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \left( 1+240%
\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left|
\cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right) \frac 1{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}\right) ^2}\right] ^{-1/2}. \eqnum{48}\end{aligned}$$ And the crossover temperature for hexagonal symmetry is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
k_BT_c &\approx &0.55\frac{K_1\epsilon ^{1/4}}S\frac{\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{1/6}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}} \nonumber \\
&&\times \left[ 1+\frac 23\overline{K}_2\frac{7-2\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}+\left( \overline{K}%
_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \frac{11-12\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}}{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}\right) ^2}\right]
\nonumber \\
&&\times \left[ 1-\epsilon +36\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\frac 1{1+\left| \cot
\theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}+4\overline{K}_2\left( 1+120\overline{K}_3^{\prime }%
\frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right|
^{2/3}}\right) \frac 1{1+\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right.
\nonumber \\
&&\left. +6\left( \overline{K}_3-\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\right) \left( 1+240%
\overline{K}_3^{\prime }\frac{\left| \cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}{1+\left|
\cot \theta _H\right| ^{2/3}}\right) \frac 1{\left( 1+\left| \cot \theta
_H\right| ^{2/3}\right) ^2}\right] ^{1/2}. \eqnum{49}\end{aligned}$$
V. Conclusions and discussions {#v.-conclusions-and-discussions .unnumbered}
==============================
In summary we have investigated the quantum nucleation of magnetization in nanometer-scale ferromagnets in the presence of an external magnetic field at arbitrary angle. We consider the magnetocrystalline anisotropy with tetragonal symmetry and that with hexagonal symmetry, respectively. By applying the instanton method in the spin-coherent-state path-integral representation, we obtain the analytical formulas for quantum reversal of magnetization in small magnets and the numerical formulas for quantum nucleation in thin ferromagnetic film in a wide range of angles $\pi
/2<\theta _H<\pi $. The temperature characterizing the crossover from the quantum to thermal nucleation is clearly shown for each case. Our results show that the rate of quantum nucleation and the crossover temperature depend on the orientation of the external magnetic field distinctly. Therefore, both the orientation and the strength of the external magnetic field are the controllable parameters for the experimental test of quantum nucleation of magnetization in nanometer-scale ferromagnets. If the experiment is to be performed, there are three control parameters for comparison with theory: the angle of the external magnetic field $\theta _H$, the strength of the field in terms of $\epsilon $, and the temperature $T$. Our results show that ferromagnetic samples with large anisotropy and small saturated magnetization are suitable for experimental study the phenomenon of quantum nucleation.
Recently, Wernsdorfer and co-workers have performed the switching field measurements on individual ferrimagnetic and insulating BaFeCoTiO nanoparticles containing about $10^5$-$10^6$ spins at very low temperatures (0.1-6K).[@14] They found that above 0.4K, the magnetization reversal of these particles is unambiguously described by the Néel-Brown theory of thermal activated rotation of the particle’s moment over a well defined anisotropy energy barrier. Below 0.4K, strong deviations from this model are evidenced which are quantitatively in agreement with the predictions of the MQT theory without dissipation.[@13; @15] It is noted that the observation of quantum nucleation in ferromagnets would be extremely interesting as the next example, after single-domain nanoparticles, of macroscopic quantum tunneling. The theoretical results presented here may be useful for checking the general theory in a wide range of systems, with more general symmetries. The experimental procedures on single-domain ferromagnetic nanoparticles of Barium ferrite with uniaxial symmetry[@14] may be applied to the systems with more general symmetries. Note that the inverse of the WKB exponent $%
B^{-1}$ is the magnetic viscosity $S$ at the quantum-tunneling-dominated regime $T\ll T_c$ studied by magnetic relaxation measurements.[@1] Therefore, the quantum nucleation of magnetization should be checked at any $%
\theta _H$ by magnetic relaxation measurements. Over the past years a lot of experimental and theoretical works were performed on the spin tunneling in molecular Mn$_{12}$-Ac[@16] and Fe$_8$[@17] clusters having a collective spin state $S=10$ (in this paper $S=10^6$). Further experiments should focus on the level quantization of collective spin states of $S=10^2$-$10^4$.
The ferromagnet is typically an insulating particle with as many as $%
10^3\sim 10^6$ magnetic moments. For the dynamical process, it is important to include the effect of the environment on quantum tunneling caused by phonons, [@18; @19] nucleation spins,[@20] and Stoner excitations and eddy currents in metallic magnets.[@21] However, many studies showed that even though these couplings might be crucial in macroscopic quantum coherence, they are not strong enough to make the quantum tunneling unobservable.[@1; @18; @19; @20; @21] The theoretical calculations performed in this paper can be extended to the AFM bubbles, where the relevant quantity is the excess spin due to the small noncompensation of two sublattices. Work along this line is still in progress. We hope that the theoretical results presented in this paper may stimulate more experiments whose aim is observing quantum nucleation in nanometer-scale ferromagnets.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Y. Zhou and R.L. would like to acknowledge Dr. Su-Peng Kou, Professor Zhan Xu, Professor Mo-Lin Ge, Professor Jiu-Qing Liang and Professor Fu-Cho Pu for stimulating discussions. R. L. would like to thank Professor W. Wernsdorfer and Professor R. Sessoli for providing their paper (Ref. 11), and Professor Kim for providing his paper (Ref. 13).
For a review, see [*Quantum Tunneling of Magnetization*]{}, edited by L. Gunther and B. Barbara (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995); and E. M. Chudnovsky and J. Tejada, [*Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling of the Magnetic Moment*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 1997).
A. P. Malozemoff and J. C. Slonczewski, [*Magnetic Domain Walls in Bubble Materials*]{} (Academic, New York, 1979).
I. A. Privorotskii, Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk. [**108**]{}, 43 (1972) \[Sov. Phys. -Usp. [**15**]{}, 555 (1973)\].
E. M. Chudnovsky and L. Gunther, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 9455 (1988).
A. Ferrera and E. M. Chudnovsky, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 354 (1996).
G. -H. Kim, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 15053 (1998).
D. Loss, D. P. DiVicenzo, and G. Grinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 3232 (1992).
J. V. Delft and G. L. Henley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 3236 (1992).
A. Garg, Europhys. Lett. [**22**]{}, 205 (1993).
H. B. Braun and D. Loss, Europhys. Lett. [**31**]{}, 555 (1995).
W. Wernsdorfer and R. Sessoli, Science [**284**]{}, 133 (1999).
C. Kittle, Revs. Modern Phys. [**21**]{}, 552 (1949); E. P. Wohlfarth, Proc. Phys. Soc. (London) A [**65**]{}, 1053 (1952); C. Herring, Phys. Rev. [**85**]{}, 1003 (1952).
G. -H. Kim and D. S. Hwang, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 8918 (1997); J. Appl. Phys., [**84**]{}, 391 (1998).
W. Wernsdorfer, E. B. Orozco, K. Hasselbach, A. Benoit, D. Mailly, O. Kubo, H. Nakano, and B. Barbara, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 4014 (1997); W. Wernsdorfer, E. B. Orozco, B. Barbara, A. Benoit, and D. Mailly, Physica B [**280**]{}, 264 (2000).
M. -G. Miguel and E. M. Chudnovsky, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 388 (1996).
R. Sessoli, D. Gatteschi, A. Caneschi, M. A. Novak, Nature [**365**]{}, 141 (1993); C. Paulsen and J. -G. Park, in [*Quantum Tunneling of Magnetization*]{}, edited by L. Gunther and B. Barbara (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995); M. A. Novak and R. Sessoli, in [*Quantum Tunneling of Magnetization*]{}, edited by L. Gunther and B. Barbara (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995); J. M. Hernández, X. X. Zhang, F. Luis, J. Bartolomé, J. Tejada, and R. Ziolo, Europhys. Lett. [**35**]{}, 301 (1996); L. Thomas, F. Lionti, R. Ballou, D. Gatteschi, R. Sessoli, and B. Barbara, Nature (London) [**383**]{}, 145 (1996); J. R. Friedman, M. P. Sarachik, J. Tejada, and R. Ziolo, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3820 (1996); J. M. Hernández, X. X. Zhang, F. Luis, J. Tejada, J. R. Friedman, M. P. Sarachik, and R. Ziolo, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 5858 (1997); F. Lionti, L. Thomas, R. Ballou, B. Barbara, A. Sulpice, R. Sessoli, and D. Gatteschi, J. Appl. Phys. [**81**]{}, 4608 (1997); D. A. Garanin and E. M. Chudnovsky, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 11102 (1997).
A.-L. Barra, P. Debrunner, D. Gatteschi, C. E. Schulz, R. Sessoli, Europhys. Lett. [**35**]{}, 133 (1996); C. Sangregorio, T. Ohm, C. Paulsen, R. Sessoli, and D. Gatteschi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4645 (1997); W. Wernsdorfer and R. Sessoli, Science [**284**]{}, 133 (1999).
E. M. Chudnovsky and L. Gunther, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 661 (1988).
A. Garg and G. -H. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 2512 (1989); Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 712 (1991); H. Simanjuntak, J. Low temp. Phys. [**90**]{}, 405 (1992).
A. Garg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1541 (1993).
G. Tatara and H. Fukuyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**72**]{}, 772 (1994).
Figure Captions:
Fig. 1 The instanton, corresponding to subbrrier bubble formation in a thin film by quantum tunneling, for $\overline{\tau }=0$, $\overline{\tau }=\pm
0.5$, $\overline{\tau }=\pm 1$, $\overline{\tau }=\pm 1.5$, and $\overline{%
\tau }=\pm 2$.
Fig. 2 The shape of the critical bubble in a thermal nucleation of magnetization.
Fig. 3 The $\theta _H$ dependence of the crossover temperature $T_c$ for $%
\pi /2<\theta _H<\pi $. Here, $K_1=10^7$ erg/cm$^3$, $\overline{K}_2^{\prime
}=0.1$, $\overline{K}_2-\overline{K}_2^{\prime }=0.01$, $M_0=500$ emu/cm$^3$, and $\epsilon =0.01$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.